2171:
change to the software. I'm not a developer by any means, but based on the work I've observed regarding partial blocks my guess is that this would not be a simple thing to implement. The developers would also need to see a strong consensus that it was desired before considering the change, and I'm not aware that it has ever been proposed. It's an idea that is worth exploring further though, to see just how difficult it would be and whether there would be any community support for it. This is not the right venue for that though, I'm not sure where would be best but maybe one of the village pumps? If anyone does start such a discussion please ping me about it.
494:
respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
1053:(Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) to whom those remarks were addressed, exactly a newcomer to Parliament (where he has served for 15 years) easily crushed. The situation is not comparable to that where a newcomer to Knowledge (XXG), who does not know the rules and customs, is addressed by an admin, and a particularly well-known admin at that, who has the power to delete or restore the page the newcomer has worked on and is interested in, even if improperly. Use of sarcasm or harsh language
160:
1924:
RHaworth treated IP editors as less entitled to participation, in spite of policy to the contrary. We should not commit the same error in discussing this matter. The above comments seem to assume that most IPs were in fact registered editors editing without logging in, but I see no reason to assume that to be the case. Some long-term editors never create an account, and current policy says this is fine.
526:
when you see an inadequate request/response/whatever for the 1000th time, it can be frustrating. But if it's the 1000th person, you can't expect them to learn the lesson of the previous 999 - for them, they're the first person. But what I'm seeing is seriously unacceptable bite and snark. If a relative newcomer, for example, makes a request but omits any needed diffs, the way to respond is
916:
1081:. We do need to remember in all these cases/requests ongoing at present that we are discussing people who have worked hard for the encyclopedia for many years, with little thanks and no remuneration. In this case, I wish that we could brainstorm something short of removal of tools or prohibition from speedy deletion that might be workable.
1441:
Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment or multiple violations of policy may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.
1025:", why can't he say "Kindly wait until somebody with no COI thinks you are notable". I tried to explain how text-based communication is difficult and how people have different cultures and ideas, but I don't think I was successful. I did recommend he write a defence of his actions ASAP, so it can be used in the workshop.
1495:
proceed slowly and deliberately; act only when informed by any existing discussion, history, or logs; and should be prepared to explain the reasoning for their actions. If ensuing discussion shows an absence of community support, practitioners of Ignore All Rules should have the grace to revert their own actions.
518:'s) and it's clear that there have been far too many speedy deletions that were not only wrong, but badly wrong, and that it's an ongoing problem. That has to stop. The CSD criteria (as several people have pointed out) are very specific and tightly restricted (for good reason), and I want to see adherence
1858:
Personally: I see no policy against it, but I'm troubled by allowing anonymous contributions to an Arbcom case. In my opinion, if an editor has good-faith input to an arbitration proceeding which they do not want to attach to their identity, they should email those comments to the committee directly,
1638:
1) RHaworth is admonished for failing to exhibit the respectful, civil conduct expected by the administrator conduct portion of policy, and is placed on probation for a period of twelve months from the closure of this case. Any future inappropriate conduct may result in their administrator privileges
1190:
and RHaworth isn't dealing with members of
Parliament. You're dealing with laypeople; in many cases, uneducated laypeople unfamiliar with WP procedures, rules, and policies. You cannot treat naive volunteers like professional, elected officials. They don't know the rules. As an admin, you're expected
1169:
Lastly, I don't think people here "have it in for him", per se. They simply want such behavior to stop. Apologies + "I've learned" + "I won't let it happen again" + repeat for 4 years = we don't view this as sincere reflection nor a sincere change. Given all the AN/ANI threads, this is VERY clearly a
722:
I don't buy the "CSD rate is so high we are always going to see more issues" thing, because he's been persistently ignoring the CSD criteria for years. Some of the examples we've heard of (and
Thryduulf's examples seem quite damning) are things that an admin should never get wrong, even if they do a
625:
Indeed, which is why in my proposal I made it a requirement that the committee be informed at ARCA of repeated or egregious breaches of the sanction. Whether my specific idea is workable (and I haven't read the latest comments on it yet) this is something that might be incorporated into a remedy that
530:
to bite them for their incompetence or bark an order at them. No, explain what's needed, politely ask them to provide a diff, give a link to the relevant guideline/policy/help page if relevant. Part of the purpose of interacting with inexperienced editors is to help teach them, not to dismiss them as
525:
Biteyness. There was a case a few years ago of an admin who became increasing bitey over the years (due to frustration and a degree of burnout, it seems) and they were desysopped. I don't know if frustration and burnout is part of RHaworth's problem, but the symptoms appear similar. I understand that
1232:
he will change his behavior (like the word choice alternatives listed above and actions he won't take), and throw yourself on the mercy of the ArbCom panel. Mere apologies at this point seem insincere. This has been going on for 4+ years. People have tried to talk to him about this ad nauseum all to
777:
The discussion on the evidence talk page actually concluded that the number of articles/pages restored as a percentage of pages deleted is not a good or useful indicator of error rates (because pages can be and are restored for many reasons, with many or even most not indicating an error on the part
691:
Boing is right as to the three issues at hand. While I've participated in the ANI discussions about the CSD issues, I'd go so far as to say that if the civility/biteyness issue wasn't in play, we'd probably only have had the 1 ANI discussion. RHaworth's CSD rate is so high we are always going to see
2190:
endorsing the unblock, meaning I won't unblock the user myself. If the proposed restriction were implemented, either the user could not be unblocked (not ideal) or a CU would be "forced" (one cannot force an admin to take any action) to do the unblock. One possible way around this problem is that a
2170:
There are currently only two levels of restriction in MediaWiki: Blocks (which can be placed and removed by administrators) and global locks (which can only be placed and removed by stewards. Any technical measure to restrict CU and/or OS blocks to those with the relevant permissions will require a
1213:
says. Just because you have a COI doesn't mean you can't contribute. It doesn't mean you cannot contribute on the subject which you have a COI about. It means that you need to be open about your COI and allow others to assess your choices with that COI in mind. His advice and feelings about COI are
1195:
unworthy of an encyclopedia article and unnotable. When you couple that with the fact that he just deleted an article someone expended at least some effort on and is probably just starting, it's a pretty bad start to their experience on WP: Work on an article about something important to you -: -->
809:
RHaworth should be warned sternly about all the things being discussed in this case. None of them are sever enough to go for a desysop. Also, he should be told to be cautious with A7, and G11. I am not sure about his "not talking with IPs" policy. But all the complains presented in the case can be
804:
Hi. I never followed any arb case before, and posting on the mainpage of this talkpage seemed a lot to me, so here I am: Somebody somewhere in this case stated that RHaworth has deleted more than a half million pages so far. With keeping this in mind, the number of mistaken deletions are obviously
1738:
This very much depends on what's considered an "admin-action". There's been no evidence presented about problems with (in increasing distance from the actual act of deletion) untagging, or tagging, or undeleting, or salting, or blocking as a result of speedied pages, or inspecting deleted pages;
1194:
Second, I'd argue that he's actively driving away users with such rhetoric. I find 'Kindly wait until somebody with no COI thinks are notable' to be quite insulting/rude. It says that the subject of the article, something about which a user is at least interested in, if not, passionate about, is
493:
Arbitration case pages exist to assist the
Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to
1494:
4) Knowledge (XXG) has many policies and processes that affect deletion and undeletion of pages. Where there is strong community support (or minimally, a lack of objections), it is sometimes permissible to sidestep or otherwise take liberties with these process. Those who ignore all rules should
707:
I was considering some intermediate methods on the CSDs - such as stopping RHaworth from handling A7s etc, but from the above, I don't think that's needed or, potentially, warranted. The only civility-specific ideas I've seen so far are distinctly "one mistake and you're out", which don't really
1899:
Understood, but my protection is related to the proxy-hopping anon that's been disrupting the case to air their personal grievances against checkusers (which means the probability is roughly 102% that they're someone with a checkuser-blocked account). I don't see any reason to think the IP that
1854:
Given the protection of the main page and the ongoing disruption here I've also semiprotected the talk page. However, I hadn't realized that an IP contributor had already provided some constructive comments (see the section directly above this one), nor that I was mentioned by name in the LTA's
577:
problems have been going on for years. And multiple discussions at ANI have made precisely zero progress. Perhaps I'm naive, but maybe this one finally being before ArbCom might make a difference? You might be right that we need at least a remedy such that "Any repeats will result in desysop by
1923:
I don't see any reason why IP editors should not participate fully if they are being constructive, and i am very dubious about semi-protecting this talk page as well as the main workshop page. I'm not undoing it, but i urge you to reconsider. Part of the point was that it has been alleged that
1440:
3) Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow
Knowledge (XXG) policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities.
1338:
1) Editors are expected to make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy.
1197:
you're told you/your subject are unnotable; in many cases, it's about the person themselves. That's an inherently personal remark that's unnecessary. Simply explain, "For an article to be created, it must meet certain criteria. Among these is notability. Since the article fails to meet that
2185:
Putting aside the technical issues, there would be a problem with such a restriction. For example, I make a CU block. Six months later, the sock requests to be unblocked per the SO. An administrator asks me if I object to them unblocking the user. I consent to the admin unblocking the user
1947:
the disruption to this case is coming from a community banned disruptive sockpuppeteer hopping IPs (entirely unrelated to
Rhaworth). The inability for other IP editors to contribute on a level playing field is an unfortunate side effect of the necessary protection against that disruption.
1264:
Whilst I have had my own concerns about RHaworth on occasion (he has once or twice speedy deleted articles after I have declined the deletion; the same user put the tag back and RHaworth just deleted it while on a deletion spree), I am going to have to defend him on this particular point.
1158:
I'd be upset too if my work was brought before ArbCom and my entire work on WP was publicly questioned in front of my peers. That's bound to be upsetting. Likewise, the very real prospect of losing
Adminship (I know Jimbo says it's "no big deal"...that's hogwash) would also be
744:
As I've said somewhere else recently (I can't remember where) with something like CSD the absolute number of errors is significantly more important than the rate of errors (although the latter is not irrelevant). With RHaworth we see both a very high absolute number of errors
1016:
I had an extended chat with RHaworth at the London meetup today. He seemed quite upset by this Arbcom case, didn't understand why people had it in for him and why he didn't seem to be able to do anything right. In particular, he was confused and distraught over why, if
2205:
Another option would be for you (or another CU) to downgrade it to a normal block without unblocking (I guess similar to how you can downgrade page protection from full to semi). Whether that would still be "forcing" an action would be something that needs discussion.
1217:
Lastly, this whole ARBCOM case is WP procedure. One could argue that this proceeding is nothing different from the
Parliamentary procedures/language he's espousing, the only difference is that he's the subject...kind of a turnabout on how COI users may feel about
596:
I'm not sure about whether an absolute bright-line (as in, 1 mistake, full de-sysop) is the way to go, but more relevantly AE isn't the location for it. ARBCOM can just say that they'd be free to make a decision by summary motion (if we went down this road)
1048:
I am sorry to hear that he is upset and confused. Perhaps he should consider that In addition to the difference between spoken and written communication, there is a significant difference of culture between
Knowledge (XXG) and the UK Parliament, nor is
1191:
to guide people, not just admonish them. Imagine you're a police officer and you start berating a 12-year-old for playing ball in the street. While the officer is 100% correct that the child shouldn't be playing in the street, berating isn't necessary.
1243:
wanted from RHaworth (and I think most of us are in this boat, but I won't presume) is "Ah. Ok, yeah, I see your point." + a substantive change in behavior. To date, all I'm seeing is perpetual digging in of his heels and an unwillingness to change.
2030:, I think it's reasonable to close it now. I don't believe any new information that will be posted. Should RHaworth want more time to craft a response, I'm not opposed to waiting on it. But if he's radio silence, I think it's time to end this.
1776:
I agree "any admin actions" and "broadly construed" are too wide in this case. I think "banned from (i) speedy deleting any page or (ii) salting any page unless there is an explicit consensus for that action." would cover it sufficiently.
1739:
just with the actual deletions and with responding to the unending torrent of complaints that are inevitable if you speedy delete pages in any kind of volume. If RHaworth was willing to step away from deletion entirely and go help out at
1692:
2) RHaworth banned from making any speedy deletions, or otherwise conducting any admin-actions in the speedy-deletion area, broadly construed. This restriction may appealed no sooner than 12 months after the closure of this case.
502:
I'm not one for bureaucratese so I'm not going to offer formal proposals on the
Workshop page itself, but I want to offer some thoughts on the situation and on what I think needs to happen. I don't want to see a desysop (because
550:
Unfortunately we've had promises of improved behaviour every time RHaworth's actions have been discussed at ANI, and yet the same actions are brought up a few weeks/months later. Unless there is some sort of "if you fail you
76:
1170:
last resort. If he can't see that we've tried to work with him and it appears to us that he's personally unwilling to make any changes, then we're left with few options. IMHO, he's pushed himself into this corner.
1987:
As "target" dates, I didn't think they were set in stone. Personally I'd rather get the right result late, than the wrong result on time. I will advise the two other drafters though, and see what they think.
71:
381:
1283:- "If your life and achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later" - with the addition of the word "Kindly". The relevant
1097:
It would be really good to see a defence - RHaworth's figures speak for themselves when it comes to showing both service and dedication to
Knowledge (XXG). In particular it would be great to see if
1101:
had any thoughts on preventing re-occurences of the problems (Speedy and civility with newer editors - I don't really think the CU issue will reoccur, that particular medicine seems already taken)
418:
250:
54:
1900:
posted the section above is the same person, but we don't know who they are at all, and my issue with that is accountability. None of that is related to RHaworth's interactions with IPs at all.
183:
1261:(I note that the Workshop is closed, but am unclear on whether this Talk page is also closed. It appears not, hence my posting, but please accept my apologies in advance if I have erred).
1228:
I, for one, will accept ArbCom's ruling on the matter. I would strongly advise RHaworth to admit fault, explain that he understands that Parliamentary language isn't appropriate, explain
964:
946:
412:
60:
49:
654:. If he simply doesn't understand his problems, even though they seem clear enough to everyone else commenting, then that really does make trying to find minimal remedies very hard.
1115:
The bigger problem is that issues like this continue to occur despite consensus of the community that what he's doing isn't "right". IMHO, this is a symptom of the bigger problem.
668:
Sadly, I concur. As stated below, I only want behavior to change. He seems to be unwilling or unable to do so. If that's fixed, I don't see an issue with him remaining an admin.
376:
43:
29:
408:
204:
196:
507:
shoulders a significant part of the admin burden and does a lot of good stuff), but I think things need to change in order to avoid that. I see three essential issues...
1309:
I would not disagree that the sentence could have been written in a more friendly way, but I suggest that it does not qualify as incivility for the reasons stated. --
350:
535:
If we see RHaworth genuinely understanding these problems, and get a convincing explanation of how they will be solved, then I see no need for any drastic sanction.
1628:
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
38:
370:
215:
193:
403:
341:
260:
188:
346:
25:
356:
336:
219:
1859:
rather than posting here logged out. But I have no justification for enforcing that opinion and was not intending to do so when I protected this page.
763:
The discussion on the evidence/evidence TP just indicated that judging error rates and working to compare them was not working in any objective sense
361:
274:
255:
1370:
The idea is that while half-a-million deletions certainly represents a lot of time dedicated to Knowledge (XXG), it does not excuse other failures.
477:
395:
286:
319:
245:
174:
21:
650:
Just one last comment, on what we've heard of RHaworth's reactions. He doesn't seem to understand the issues, for example as I responded
1821:
2220:
In this scenario, I don't see downgrading the block to be any different from unblocking in both concept and the use of admin tools.--
1222:
remarks. I would advise him that the way he feels right now may be the same way others are feeling about their interactions with him.
778:
of the deleting admin). It concluded nothing about whether error rates in general and/or comparisons of them are or are not useful.
311:
151:
1725:
1671:
1473:
1371:
297:
240:
1906:
1865:
1040:
708:
solve the problem and just knock it slightly into the future. We need an intermediate solution on (newcomer) editor interaction.
1397:
232:
2191:
non-CU unblocking a CU-blocked user would receive a warning (do you really want to do this?) before the unblock was executed.--
282:
180:
1930:
1793:
You're right, of course. I should've known better to make such a statement without doublechecking the evidence page first. —
1063:
887:
Putting it evidence certainly wouldn't harm if it isn't there already. I'll take a look later (I don't have time right now).
857:
853:
1057:
a power gradient is always stronger than such use to apparent equals or superiors -- other things being even roughly equal.
692:
more issues (even more "completely obvious" cases). And so it's how editor discussion is handled that concerns me the most.
292:
210:
2265:
2243:
2229:
2215:
2200:
2180:
2135:
2121:
2105:
2071:
2057:
2039:
2010:
1996:
1981:
1957:
1935:
1911:
1894:
1870:
1843:
1797:
1786:
1771:
1755:
1733:
1679:
1541:
1) RHaworth has demonstrated a marked lack of civility towards other editors that as a whole constitutes a failure to meet
1481:
1379:
1318:
1256:
1124:
1110:
1092:
1068:
1042:
993:
984:
added that after I added it. Whether that is related to this discussion and/or my evidence or not you'll have to ask them.
975:
958:
929:
896:
882:
869:
836:
819:
787:
772:
758:
732:
717:
677:
663:
635:
620:
606:
591:
564:
544:
728:
659:
616:
587:
540:
17:
470:
1834:
Yes, but the workshop page is semi-protected. An arbitrator or clerk can move it across if they feel it appropriate.
1032:
that any sanctions, including a desysop, are genuinely for the benefit of the encyclopedia, before we enact on them.
2156:
If this were a serious recurring issue, CU blocks should be technically protected from non-CU unblocking. Is it? —
1472:
The idea is that it is less the mistakes than the failure to learn from them and correct course that is a problem.
331:
140:
1889:
1766:
1087:
514:
Speedy deletions. I can't see deleted articles these days, but I trust the judgment of those who can (certainly
511:
Checkuser block. I'm not bothered by that. I see it as one-off error that I really don't think will be repeated.
435:
810:
worked upon if RHaworth is willing to. (I carefully went through all the pages regarding this case.) Regards, —
724:
655:
612:
583:
536:
1751:
for a year, I don't think anybody would have a problem with that, but it'd plainly violate this restriction. —
170:
1198:
threshold, it should be removed. If you wish to appeal that, here's how. Likewise, it appears you may have a
1162:
The fact that he doesn't understand why is part of the problem. People have been trying to work with him for
912:
are correct. I said "I am not sure" because I am actually not sure how firm he is about "not talking to IPs"
1180:
1022:
923:
813:
463:
1729:
1675:
1477:
1375:
531:
unlearned - and they should come away thinking "That was friendly and helpful" rather than feeling scolded.
104:
2234:
I should add that we probably shouldn't continue this discussion here. It's really not the right place.--
1542:
1106:
768:
713:
697:
602:
135:
1393:
1280:
1181:
You are a very over-excitable individual, you need to write out a thousand times 'I will behave myself'
1023:
You are a very over-excitable individual, you need to write out a thousand times 'I will behave myself'
2166:. I feel that's a question which deserves a reply that people other than SmokeyJoe are likely to see:
1306:(American) so this may be an issue of variation in English around the world and cultural differences.
1233:
no avail/no changes in behavior. We are here because there is no alternative left. After all of this,
1884:
1761:
1284:
1151:, to more directly answer your question/remarks and expand my remarks (and probably that of others):
1082:
1038:
1268:
To me "Kindly wait until somebody with no COI thinks you are notable" is neither rude ("offensively
2261:
2211:
2176:
2161:
2131:
1953:
1855:
outburst. If a clerk disagrees with my action then of course feel free to unprotect the talk page.
1839:
1782:
989:
954:
892:
865:
828:: Thank you for your suggestions. Could you elaborate on what you mean by “not talking with IPs”? –
783:
754:
631:
560:
93:
1740:
947:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence#RHaworth "does not talk to" IP editors
723:
million deletions. He's simply not allowed to willfully ignore the criteria as he has been doing.
2256:
On the question asked, how often has it happened that a CU Block was reversed inappropriately? —
2006:
1977:
1928:
1314:
1235:
if RHaworth cannot see that there is a problem with his actions, that itself IS the root problem.
1061:
940:
849:
825:
555:(not might) get desysopped without needing a full case I don't see this working, unfortunately.
1155:"He seemed quite upset by this Arbcom case, didn't understand why people had it in for him..."
874:
Thank you. Would this need to be introduced at /Evidence, or could it be referenced in place? –
2113:, Looks like they have been reverted. If the issue persists, I'll raise the protection level.
2085:
2053:
1817:
99:
1288:
1883:
One of the alleged problem areas with RHaworth's conduct lies in his interactions with IPs.
1670:
This is of course assuming the revocation of admin tools as already proposed does not pass.
1102:
764:
739:
709:
693:
598:
437:
1748:
1744:
1210:
1203:
1199:
2239:
2225:
2196:
2101:
2067:
2035:
1918:
1901:
1878:
1860:
1303:
1252:
1138:
1120:
1078:
1033:
981:
673:
129:
1812:
Doesn't the IP's above proposals belong on the Workshop page? not the Workshop talkpage.
579:
1291:
is "used when asking someone to do something, especially when you are annoyed with them
440:
2257:
2207:
2172:
2157:
2151:
2127:
2093:
2089:
2081:
1994:
1949:
1835:
1778:
985:
973:
950:
909:
888:
880:
861:
834:
779:
750:
627:
556:
515:
118:
88:
2027:
1183:', why can't he say 'Kindly wait until somebody with no COI thinks you are notable'."
2119:
2002:
1973:
1942:
1925:
1310:
1146:
1058:
504:
1299:
856:("I don't talk to IP addresses but fortunately #54129 is willing to do so.") and at
2049:
1829:
1813:
1794:
1752:
1050:
439:
159:
1187:
1176:
1018:
2235:
2221:
2192:
2110:
2097:
2063:
2031:
2001:
I suppose that makes sense. (I am not very familiar with this whole process.)
1248:
1116:
669:
124:
2017:
1989:
968:
936:
903:
875:
860:("I have very little time for IP addresses. Feel free to take it to DRV.").
843:
829:
570:
113:
1972:
21 January was yesterday in UTC. Shouldn't the workshop be closed by now?
1585:
2) RHaworth has frequently and repeatedly made out-of-process deletions.
611:
Well, wherever, but Arbcom won't know if nobody tells them in some place.
2114:
2088:, have been absent recently. The recent contributions to the Workshop by
1436:
Administrators are expected to lead by example and learn from experiences
569:
Hmm, yes, I've only just finished going through the evidence provided by
1202:
on this subject. If so, please ensure your actions are in line with our
1634:
RHaworth is admonished for failing to exhibit respectful, civil conduct
1206:
procedures." There are better ways to achieve the same desired results.
920:
Because I vaguely remember him talking with IPs on a few occasions. —
1581:
RHaworth has frequently and repeatedly made out-of-process deletions
1392:
2) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other, see
1490:
Those who ignore all rules should proceed slowly and deliberately
1334:
Strong contributions do not excuse repeated violations of policy
441:
1279:
Essentially, his statement is a rewording of a sentence from
963:
I’ve just noticed there is some material about IP editors in
1166:
to get him to change his demeanor/processes to no avail.
2126:
Sorry. I misread the dates while browsing the cases. —
651:
451:
366:
324:
200:
945:
I've added this (and a little more) to my evidence at
1028:
Anyway, can we just take a long deep breath and make
1214:
in conflict with the actual policies on the subject.
1537:
RHaworth has demonstrated a marked lack of civility
1209:Third, I'd question whether he actually knows what
2028:RHaworth appears have been offline for 10 days now
1688:RHaworth banned from making any speedy deletions
1175:"...he was confused and distraught over why, if
1760:I presented some evidence relating to salting.
1272:or bad-mannered") nor uncivil ("discourteous;
2023:
1388:Users are expected to be reasonably courteous
471:
8:
854:User talk:RHaworth/2019 Mar 30#Leah Maines
478:
464:
147:
2150:In a now revered comment on the workshop
2146:Technical protection for CU and OS blocks
150:
2155:
686:Some related thoughts from Nosebagbear
913:
858:User talk:RHaworth/2017 Aug 15#Kayako
7:
1186:First, and foremost, RHaworth isn't
251:Clarification and Amendment requests
2024:we've asked questions with no reply
1398:Knowledge (XXG):No personal attacks
36:
1639:being revoked by simple motion.
914:
158:
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Arbitration
2164:) 11:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
1247:I look forward to your reply.
1:
2048:It should be closed, by now.
1808:Wrong place for IP's proposal
2266:22:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
2244:18:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
2230:18:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
2216:16:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
2201:16:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
2181:16:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
2136:22:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
2122:16:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
2106:13:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
2072:21:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
2058:13:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
2040:21:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
2011:18:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
1997:17:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
1982:17:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
1958:18:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
1936:17:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
1912:20:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
1895:18:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
1871:16:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
1844:15:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
1822:05:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
1798:02:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
1787:20:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
1772:18:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
1756:16:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
1734:02:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
1680:02:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
1482:02:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
1380:02:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
1319:04:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
1257:17:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
1125:21:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
1111:20:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
1093:14:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
1069:08:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
1043:19:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
994:15:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
976:14:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
852:means comments like that at
678:21:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
664:13:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
382:Conflict of interest reports
1293:but still want to be polite
959:20:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
930:19:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
908:Yes. The links provided by
897:15:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
883:15:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
870:15:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
837:12:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
820:07:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
788:15:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
773:14:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
759:12:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
733:18:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
718:18:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
636:21:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
621:18:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
607:18:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
592:16:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
565:12:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
545:06:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
211:Search archived proceedings
152:Knowledge (XXG) Arbitration
2282:
2080:Both clerks in this case,
805:going to be high as well.
256:Arbitrator motion requests
1532:Proposed findings of fact
1298:I don't see a comparable
1196:article is deleted -: -->
498:Some thoughts from Boing!
1807:
1394:Knowledge (XXG):Civility
1324:Proposals by 65.41.81.89
1012:Thoughts from Ritchie333
749:a very high error rate.
1698:Comment by Arbitrators:
1644:Comment by Arbitrators:
1590:Comment by Arbitrators:
1549:Comment by Arbitrators:
1500:Comment by Arbitrators:
1446:Comment by Arbitrators:
1404:Comment by Arbitrators:
1344:Comment by Arbitrators:
578:motion" (reportable at
491:Behaviour on this page:
1289:definition of "kindly"
2096:should be reverted.--
452:Track related changes
312:Arbitration Committee
1285:Cambridge Dictionary
1204:conflict of interest
1200:conflict of interest
965:Ritchie333’s section
522:of the CSD criteria.
261:Enforcement requests
189:Guide to arbitration
110:Drafting arbitrators
1850:Semi-protection (2)
1709:Comment by parties:
1655:Comment by parties:
1601:Comment by parties:
1560:Comment by parties:
1511:Comment by parties:
1457:Comment by parties:
1415:Comment by parties:
1355:Comment by parties:
1329:Proposed principles
1295:" (emphasis mine).
725:Boing! said Zebedee
656:Boing! said Zebedee
613:Boing! said Zebedee
584:Boing! said Zebedee
537:Boing! said Zebedee
1720:Comment by others:
1666:Comment by others:
1612:Comment by others:
1571:Comment by others:
1522:Comment by others:
1468:Comment by others:
1426:Comment by others:
1366:Comment by others:
283:Contentious topics
181:Arbitration policy
1932:DESiegel Contribs
1893:
1770:
1630:
1622:Proposed remedies
1091:
1065:DESiegel Contribs
488:
487:
455:
423:
293:General sanctions
241:All open requests
171:About arbitration
144:
133:
122:
108:
97:
80:
72:Proposed decision
69:
58:
47:
2273:
2117:
2021:
1946:
1922:
1887:
1882:
1833:
1764:
1626:
1150:
1142:
1085:
944:
928:
919:
918:
917:
907:
847:
818:
807:Proposed remedy:
743:
575:exactly the same
480:
473:
466:
454:
449:
442:
421:
377:Clerk procedures
369:
327:
298:Editor sanctions
275:Active sanctions
233:Open proceedings
203:
162:
148:
138:
136:Worm That Turned
127:
116:
102:
91:
74:
63:
52:
41:
2281:
2280:
2276:
2275:
2274:
2272:
2271:
2270:
2148:
2115:
2015:
1970:
1940:
1933:
1916:
1909:
1885:Espresso Addict
1876:
1868:
1852:
1827:
1810:
1762:Espresso Addict
1690:
1636:
1624:
1583:
1539:
1534:
1492:
1438:
1390:
1336:
1331:
1326:
1304:Merriam-Webster
1144:
1136:
1083:Espresso Addict
1066:
1030:absolutely sure
1014:
934:
921:
915:
901:
841:
811:
802:
800:proposed remedy
737:
688:
500:
484:
450:
444:
443:
438:
428:
427:
426:
415:
398:
388:
387:
386:
373:
365:
353:
328:
323:
314:
304:
303:
302:
277:
267:
266:
265:
235:
225:
222:
207:
199:
177:
146:
34:
33:
32:
12:
11:
5:
2279:
2277:
2269:
2268:
2254:
2253:
2252:
2251:
2250:
2249:
2248:
2247:
2246:
2147:
2144:
2143:
2142:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2138:
2077:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2042:
1969:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1931:
1914:
1905:
1864:
1851:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1809:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1736:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1689:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1635:
1632:
1623:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1582:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1538:
1535:
1533:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1491:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1437:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1389:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1335:
1332:
1330:
1327:
1325:
1322:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1215:
1207:
1192:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1167:
1160:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1072:
1071:
1064:
1013:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
932:
801:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
735:
705:
702:
701:
687:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
533:
532:
523:
512:
499:
496:
486:
485:
483:
482:
475:
468:
460:
457:
456:
446:
445:
436:
434:
433:
430:
429:
425:
424:
416:
411:
406:
400:
399:
394:
393:
390:
389:
385:
384:
379:
374:
364:
359:
354:
349:
344:
339:
334:
329:
322:
316:
315:
310:
309:
306:
305:
301:
300:
295:
290:
279:
278:
273:
272:
269:
268:
264:
263:
258:
253:
248:
243:
237:
236:
231:
230:
227:
226:
224:
223:
218:
213:
208:
198:
191:
186:
178:
173:
167:
164:
163:
155:
154:
39:Main case page
37:
35:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2278:
2267:
2263:
2259:
2255:
2245:
2241:
2237:
2233:
2232:
2231:
2227:
2223:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2213:
2209:
2204:
2203:
2202:
2198:
2194:
2189:
2184:
2183:
2182:
2178:
2174:
2169:
2168:
2167:
2165:
2163:
2159:
2153:
2145:
2137:
2133:
2129:
2125:
2124:
2123:
2120:
2118:
2112:
2109:
2108:
2107:
2103:
2099:
2095:
2091:
2087:
2083:
2079:
2078:
2073:
2069:
2065:
2061:
2060:
2059:
2055:
2051:
2047:
2041:
2037:
2033:
2029:
2025:
2019:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2008:
2004:
2000:
1999:
1998:
1995:
1993:
1992:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1979:
1975:
1967:
1959:
1955:
1951:
1944:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1934:
1929:
1927:
1920:
1915:
1913:
1908:
1903:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1891:
1886:
1880:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1867:
1862:
1856:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1831:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1819:
1815:
1799:
1796:
1792:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1768:
1763:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1754:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1737:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1718:
1717:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1707:
1706:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1687:
1681:
1677:
1673:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1664:
1663:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1653:
1652:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1633:
1631:
1629:
1621:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1610:
1609:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1599:
1598:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1580:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1569:
1568:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1558:
1557:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1536:
1531:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1520:
1519:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1509:
1508:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1489:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1466:
1465:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1455:
1454:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1435:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1424:
1423:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1413:
1412:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1395:
1387:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1364:
1363:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1353:
1352:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1333:
1328:
1323:
1321:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1307:
1305:
1301:
1296:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1277:
1275:
1271:
1266:
1262:
1259:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1245:
1242:
1237:
1236:
1231:
1221:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1205:
1201:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1184:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1168:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1156:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1148:
1140:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1089:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1070:
1067:
1062:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1041:
1039:
1037:
1036:
1031:
1026:
1024:
1020:
1011:
995:
991:
987:
983:
979:
978:
977:
974:
972:
971:
966:
962:
961:
960:
956:
952:
948:
942:
941:Usernamekiran
938:
933:
931:
927:
926:
922:usernamekiran
911:
905:
900:
899:
898:
894:
890:
886:
885:
884:
881:
879:
878:
873:
872:
871:
867:
863:
859:
855:
851:
850:Usernamekiran
845:
840:
839:
838:
835:
833:
832:
827:
826:Usernamekiran
824:
823:
822:
821:
817:
816:
812:usernamekiran
808:
799:
789:
785:
781:
776:
775:
774:
770:
766:
762:
761:
760:
756:
752:
748:
741:
736:
734:
730:
726:
721:
720:
719:
715:
711:
706:
704:
703:
699:
695:
690:
689:
685:
679:
675:
671:
667:
666:
665:
661:
657:
653:
649:
648:
637:
633:
629:
624:
623:
622:
618:
614:
610:
609:
608:
604:
600:
595:
594:
593:
589:
585:
581:
576:
572:
568:
567:
566:
562:
558:
554:
549:
548:
547:
546:
542:
538:
529:
524:
521:
520:to the letter
517:
513:
510:
509:
508:
506:
497:
495:
492:
481:
476:
474:
469:
467:
462:
461:
459:
458:
453:
448:
447:
432:
431:
420:
417:
414:
410:
407:
405:
402:
401:
397:
392:
391:
383:
380:
378:
375:
372:
368:
363:
360:
358:
355:
352:
348:
345:
343:
340:
338:
335:
333:
330:
326:
321:
318:
317:
313:
308:
307:
299:
296:
294:
291:
288:
284:
281:
280:
276:
271:
270:
262:
259:
257:
254:
252:
249:
247:
246:Case requests
244:
242:
239:
238:
234:
229:
228:
221:
217:
214:
212:
209:
206:
202:
197:
195:
192:
190:
187:
185:
182:
179:
176:
172:
169:
168:
166:
165:
161:
157:
156:
153:
149:
145:
142:
137:
131:
126:
120:
115:
111:
106:
101:
95:
90:
86:
82:
78:
73:
67:
62:
56:
51:
45:
40:
31:
27:
23:
19:
2187:
2149:
2086:Cameron11598
1990:
1971:
1857:
1853:
1811:
1719:
1708:
1697:
1691:
1665:
1654:
1643:
1637:
1627:
1625:
1611:
1600:
1589:
1584:
1570:
1559:
1548:
1543:WP:ADMINCOND
1540:
1521:
1510:
1499:
1493:
1467:
1456:
1445:
1439:
1425:
1414:
1403:
1391:
1365:
1354:
1343:
1337:
1308:
1297:
1292:
1278:
1273:
1269:
1267:
1263:
1260:
1246:
1240:
1238:
1234:
1229:
1227:
1219:
1163:
1135:
1098:
1054:
1051:Michael Gove
1034:
1029:
1027:
1015:
969:
924:
876:
830:
814:
806:
803:
746:
574:
573:, and I see
552:
534:
527:
519:
501:
490:
489:
109:
100:Cameron11598
84:
83:
81:
65:
2062:It is now.
2022:Given that
1726:65.41.81.89
1672:65.41.81.89
1474:65.41.81.89
1372:65.41.81.89
1281:WP:YOURSELF
1188:John Bercow
1177:John Bercow
1103:Nosebagbear
1019:John Bercow
765:Nosebagbear
740:Nosebagbear
710:Nosebagbear
694:Nosebagbear
599:Nosebagbear
216:Ban appeals
194:Noticeboard
85:Case clerks
1919:Ivanvector
1902:Ivanvector
1879:Ivanvector
1861:Ivanvector
1300:definition
1287:(British)
1159:upsetting.
1139:Ritchie333
1079:Ritchie333
1035:Ritchie333
982:Ritchie333
422:(pre-2016)
409:Statistics
342:Procedures
2258:SmokeyJoe
2208:Thryduulf
2173:Thryduulf
2158:SmokeyJoe
2152:SmokeyJoe
2128:SmokeyJoe
2094:Thryduulf
2090:SmokeyJoe
2082:CodeLyoko
1950:Thryduulf
1836:Thryduulf
1779:Thryduulf
1741:WP:REFUND
1239:All I've
1179:can say '
1021:can say "
986:Thryduulf
951:Thryduulf
910:Thryduulf
889:Thryduulf
862:Thryduulf
780:Thryduulf
751:Thryduulf
628:Thryduulf
557:Thryduulf
516:Thryduulf
347:Elections
89:CodeLyoko
2003:Glades12
1974:Glades12
1943:DESiegel
1311:kingboyk
1274:impolite
1270:impolite
1147:RHaworth
1077:Thanks,
848:I think
505:RHaworth
61:Workshop
50:Evidence
30:RHaworth
28: |
24: |
22:Requests
20: |
2188:without
2154:wrote:
2050:GoodDay
1968:Closure
1830:GoodDay
1814:GoodDay
1795:Cryptic
1753:Cryptic
419:Reports
357:History
337:Members
332:Contact
320:Discuss
184:(CU/OS)
1749:WP:AIV
1745:WP:DRV
1724:Ditto
1211:WP:COI
925:(talk)
815:(talk)
362:Clerks
220:Report
134:&
123:&
98:&
2236:Bbb23
2222:Bbb23
2193:Bbb23
2111:Bbb23
2098:Bbb23
2064:Buffs
2032:Buffs
1907:Edits
1866:Edits
1249:Buffs
1164:years
1117:Buffs
980:Yes,
670:Buffs
580:WP:AE
396:Audit
125:Maxim
16:<
2262:talk
2240:talk
2226:talk
2212:talk
2197:talk
2177:talk
2162:talk
2132:talk
2102:talk
2092:and
2084:and
2068:talk
2054:talk
2036:talk
2026:and
2018:Xeno
2007:talk
1991:xeno
1978:talk
1954:talk
1890:talk
1840:talk
1818:talk
1783:talk
1767:talk
1730:talk
1676:talk
1478:talk
1396:and
1376:talk
1315:talk
1276:").
1253:talk
1241:ever
1121:talk
1107:talk
1088:talk
1055:down
990:talk
970:xeno
955:talk
939:and
937:Xeno
904:Xeno
893:talk
877:xeno
866:talk
844:Xeno
831:xeno
784:talk
769:talk
755:talk
729:talk
714:talk
698:talk
674:talk
660:talk
652:here
632:talk
626:is.
617:talk
603:talk
588:talk
571:MSGJ
561:talk
553:will
541:talk
413:Talk
404:Talk
371:Talk
351:Talk
205:Talk
175:Talk
141:Talk
130:Talk
119:Talk
114:Xeno
105:Talk
94:Talk
77:Talk
66:Talk
55:Talk
44:Talk
26:Case
2116:SQL
1926:DES
1747:or
1743:or
1302:in
1230:how
1220:his
1059:DES
967:. –
747:and
582:?)
528:not
287:Log
2264:)
2242:)
2228:)
2214:)
2199:)
2179:)
2134:)
2104:)
2070:)
2056:)
2038:)
2009:)
1980:)
1956:)
1910:)
1904:(/
1869:)
1863:(/
1842:)
1820:)
1785:)
1732:)
1678:)
1480:)
1378:)
1317:)
1255:)
1123:)
1109:)
1099:he
992:)
957:)
949:.
895:)
868:)
786:)
771:)
757:)
731:)
716:)
676:)
662:)
634:)
619:)
605:)
590:)
563:)
543:)
112::
87::
70:—
59:—
48:—
2260:(
2238:(
2224:(
2210:(
2195:(
2175:(
2160:(
2130:(
2100:(
2066:(
2052:(
2034:(
2020::
2016:@
2005:(
1988:–
1976:(
1952:(
1945::
1941:@
1921::
1917:@
1892:)
1888:(
1881::
1877:@
1838:(
1832::
1828:@
1816:(
1781:(
1769:)
1765:(
1728:(
1674:(
1476:(
1374:(
1313:(
1251:(
1149::
1145:@
1143:/
1141::
1137:@
1119:(
1105:(
1090:)
1086:(
988:(
953:(
943::
935:@
906::
902:@
891:(
864:(
846::
842:@
782:(
767:(
753:(
742::
738:@
727:(
712:(
700:)
696:(
672:(
658:(
630:(
615:(
601:(
586:(
559:(
539:(
479:e
472:t
465:v
367:+
325:+
289:)
285:(
201:+
143:)
139:(
132:)
128:(
121:)
117:(
107:)
103:(
96:)
92:(
79:)
75:(
68:)
64:(
57:)
53:(
46:)
42:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
