In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 08:49, 17 December 2005) the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Please note: This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:

For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

Wikipedia administrator User:SlimVirgin has imposed page protection on articles where she has been involved extensively as an editor and/or participant in a dispute. Doing so is explicitly prohibited by WP:PPol and constitutes an abuse of administrative privileges.

Description

1. SlimVirgin imposed page protection on Daniel Brandt [1]. SlimVirgin originally created this article, has made at least 10 major edits to it, and has been involved in an extremely bitter dispute over this article with its subject, Mr. Brandt himself, both on and off wikipedia since she created the article a few months ago.

Later in the day admin User:Linuxbeak undid her protection of this page to try and resolve the dispute there, and SlimVirgin responded by calling his unprotection a violation of the very same rule she broke by imposing page protection in the first place - "I'm sorry, Linuxbeak, but you can't protect or unprotect a page you're currently editing" [2]. The next day SlimVirgin also accused admin User:Splash of violating the Page Protection policy over involvement in the Brandt article.[3]

The problem is accordingly both a case of SlimVirgin breaking WP:PPol's rule and exercising a double standard when it comes to other admins accused of breaking the same rule in undoing her own use of page protection.

2. SlimVirgin previously imposed page protection on Islamophobia [4] while in a dispute with User:OceanSplash. This was done only a week after she rewrote virtually the entire article with 18 major edits.[5]

Evidence of disputed behavior

Daniel Brandt

  1. Page Protects Daniel Brandt
  2. Creates Daniel Brandt
  3. Major edits to Daniel Brandt
  4. Edit warring with Daniel Brandt himself
  5. chides Linuxbeak for unprotecting Daniel Brandt since he's also involved in the dispute - accuses him of breaking the same rule she broke to begin with.
  6. chides Splash for unprotecting Daniel Brandt in alleged violation of the same rule she broke to begin with.

Islamophobia Page Protects Islamophobia Edits to Islamophobia before protecting it:

  1. [6]
  2. [7]
  3. [8]
  4. [9]
  5. [10]
  6. [11]
  7. [12]
  8. [13]
  9. [14]
  10. [15]
  11. [16]
  12. [17]
  13. [18]
  14. [19]
  15. [20]
  16. [21]
  17. [22]
  18. [23]

Physical Economics Page Protects Physical Economics, was a repeat participant in a revert war on Physical Economics prior to page protecting it Note: The edit where she imposed page protection also contained an unmarked revert in violation 3RR, as she had reverted this article 3 times prior already on the same day:

  1. [24]
  2. [25]
  3. [26]

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:PPol - "Admins must not protect pages they are engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism." (emphasis original)
  2. WP:PPol - "Admins should not protect pages which they have been involved with (involvement includes making substantive edits to the page or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page)." (emphasis original)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [27] - Rangerdude posts note indicating SlimVirgin has violated the Page Protection policy on Daniel Brandt
  2. [28] - SlimVirgin denies breaking the policy
  3. [29] - SlimVirgin denies impropriety, asks Rangerdude to retract the complaint on the Daniel Brandt page protection
  4. [30] - Nymph posts message to SlimVirgin's talk page asking her to find another more impartial admin to protect the Brandt article.
  5. [31] - SlimVirgin denies involvement in the Brandt article on Nymph's talk page, refuses request.
  6. [32] - Cognition objects to SlimVirgin's participation in revert war on Physical Economics.

(Note: Rangedude's attribution of the timing of SlimVirgin's edits in the last week was an error caused by complex talk page redirects between the Brandt article and a related page. It has since been retracted and corrected to accurately reflect SlimVirgin's role in the Brandt dispute, which is still extensive and traces back to the origins of the dispute itself)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Rangerdude 08:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fast-track this RfC to the ArbCom. SlimVirgin is an out-of-control rogue admin. Cognition 01:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. I have observed a similar pattern of events at Physical economics (diff:reverted by SlimVirgin, last in a series during revert war--diff:protected by SlimVirgin, 11 minutes later). HK 16:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 24.224.153.40 19:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It seems like this was clear violation of Wikipedia policy. I'd like to see someone explain why it isn't. Vivaldi 21:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jbamb 05:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 83.135.73.72 09:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC) {users first edit)[reply]
  6. Have observed a similar pattern of behavior. Blackcats 08:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Amibidhrohi 05:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view by Tony Sidaway[edit]

I know little or nothing of the current case, but it does seem to be true that SlimVirgin uses page protection in a perplexing and, perhaps, inappropriate manner.

One example of this is 7 December, when User:Marsden reproduced on his user talk page a conversation between himself and Slim Virgin. She reverted the edit, protected the user talk page, and extended the block. If either of those last two actions should have been taken, they were best taken by some other administrator.

I am also worried by her protection of the user talk pages of blocked editors, for instance Absent (talk · contribs) and Chaosfeary (talk · contribs). SlimVirgin seems to have been performing such protections regularly in cases of blocks. This should not be done without very, very good reason, and then only for a brief period to halt edit warring, because the user talk page is a means of communication between the blocked editor and others. These actions suggest a certain heavy-handedness that is inappropriate in an administrator working in cases like this. In another case, Thawa (talk · contribs), SlimVirgin gave as a reason for protecting the page the fact that she wished the blocked editor to contact her in email. She could have asked him to do so without preventing his continued editing of his user talk page.

To her credit, in the Marsden case she did subject her actions to review on WP:AN/I, a practise of which I heartily approve. added Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the stated violation here, SlimVirgin also violated an ethical rule. In a dispute that I had with Anonymous editor, on two pages, [Islamophobia] and [Ali Sina] AE called SlimVirgin to mediate. SV blocked the page and took the side of AE unreservedly. The unfair treatment, only after a couple of days in Wikipedia, made me suspicious of her and upon further investigation I found out both SV and AE are Muslims. This is not all! At the same time SV was supposedly “mediating” between AE and me, she had nominated AE to become an administrator. Under the circumstance, SV could not have been an impartial mediator. Being a Muslim, she could not have been an impartial mediator on an argument concerning Islam and if she was nominating AE for administration, she should not have assumed the role of mediator between me and AE. This was conflict of interest and in any civilized society it is considered to be unethical. I have noticed SV also has banned indefinitely a Absent who became a victim of SV’s excessive religious fervor. In Wikipedia any legitimate criticism of Islam is branded as “hate speech” and the critic is chided and booted out. Criticism of all other faiths is allowed. Only Muslims have zero tolerance for criticism. In outside world they riot and kill [the critics] and in Wikipedia they form “gangs” and apply heavy censorship. IMHO, SV is a religious zealot who puts the interest of her faith above ethics and above Wikipedia and is not fit to be the administrator of this encyclopaedia. OceanSplash|Talk 18 Dec, 2005 04:30


Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I had a similar experience a couple months ago with SlimVirgin page protecting my talk page allegedly to control a "vandal" who she could've easily blocked if he was guilty of what she said. Rangerdude 18:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 24.224.153.40 19:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. OceanSplash|Talk 18 Dec, 2005 04:30
  5. -- Karl Meier 17:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 83.135.73.72 09:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC) {users first edit)[reply]
  7. HK 21:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Guettarda[edit]

Latest chapter of Rangerdude stalking SlimVirgin. Rangerdude should lay off his vendetta.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Guettarda 17:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -Willmcw 18:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Carbonite | Talk 19:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. AnnH (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FeloniousMonk 23:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jaranda wat's sup 23:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Not to mention the other users who endorsed this.--Sean|Black 04:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 06:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. karmafist 07:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Calton | Talk 12:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. This Rfc is a move by some who have clearly violated wiki policy in the past. Looking at some of the users who have signed against her makes me sure that this Rfa is only due to a personal vendetta against her. a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. A fraudulent RfC against a dedicated and competent editor. Nothing makes this more clear than the co-signer recruited by Rangerdude: Lyndon LaRouche cult vandal User:Cognition. [33] 172 17:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. The usual vexatious litigation from Rangerdude. Bishonen | talk 19:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Cberlet 19:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Disgraceful persecution of a hard-working NPOV editor and admin. User:SlimVirgin should be commended for her untiring and remarkable job of containing vandals and trolls and for not "turning the other cheek" to her dectractors. IZAK 20:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Ding ding ding. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 20:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 20:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Antandrus (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  19. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Yuber(talk) 23:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Sebastian Kessel Talk 23:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Ambi 23:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 00:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Viriditas 00:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. My meowoutside view was better. El_C 03:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Grutness...wha? 06:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Dan100 (Talk) 10:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. SqueakBox 15:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. jucifer 19:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Homey 19:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Bletch 20:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Lucky 6.9 00:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Mark1 10:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Katefan0[edit]

This RFC smells of sour grapes. There was no content dispute over Daniel Brandt, there was a revert and protection war among administrators (mostly) over where the article's content should be housed. SlimVirgin had no part in it, except to protect the article and admonish all the administrators involved to try to stop a rather unbecoming wheel war. It was the right thing to do. This RFC is nothing more than a shameful witch hunt.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 06:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. karmafist 07:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-18 09:32:07Z
  5. AnnH (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes definitely a witch hunt. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. 172 17:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FeloniousMonk 19:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Natalinasmpf 19:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cberlet 19:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Sean|Black 19:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Svest 19:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC) --  Wiki me up™[reply]
  13. David | Talk 19:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. jucifer 19:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Guettarda 19:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. This is nothing short than a disgraceful attempt to discredit a fine admin. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 20:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Antandrus (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. -Willmcw 22:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Yuber(talk) 23:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. IZAK 23:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. --Leifern 23:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC) - with a couple of editorial asides: a cause that brings Yuber and IZAK together must be compelling indeed; I find no basis for the allegations against SlimVirgin; and what does her religious convictions have anything to do with anything?[reply]
  24. Sebastian Kessel Talk 23:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Ambi 23:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 00:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Viriditas 00:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Jaranda wat's sup 00:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. SlimVirgin protected a redirect and admonished hot-headed admins (like myself) to stop wheel-warring. I call that upholding policy, not violating it. FCYTravis 00:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Bishonen | talk 00:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. El_C 03:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oh the irony here is lovely. Anyone else just positively enthralled that the guy about to be banned for a month and put on indefinite NPA parole by arbcom signs with "SlimVirgin is an out-of-control rogue admin"? A promising start... Dmcdevit·t 04:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Uh-huh. The fish you can smell may well be red herring. Grutness...wha? 06:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Dan100 (Talk) 10:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Calton | Talk 13:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Carbonite | Talk 13:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. SqueakBox 15:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Bletch 20:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  42. I think it's relevant that the two articles cited in the evidence are not exactly cupcake articles. They're highly contentious and require regular admin intervention. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Irishpunktom\talk 15:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC) (I agree with three statements here.. can i endorse all of them?)[reply]
  44. Lucky 6.9 00:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:Zordrac[edit]

I disagree with this. Whilst Slim Virgin may have done the wrong thing with her role in creating or exacerbating problems in relation to User:Daniel Brandt/Daniel Brandt, her latest actions were clearly intended to try to resolve that. Whilst the methods employed were inappropriate, in unilaterally protecting a page without consensus, the intention was correct. Also note what Linuxbeak wrote here: [34]. This was, in effect, an effort by both User:Linuxbeak and User:SlimVirgin to resolve an ongoing dispute for the benefit of Wikipedia as a whole. You can perhaps suggest that their methods were wrong, but their intentions were right. Slim Virgin should not be punished for trying to do the right thing, regardless of whether the rules as they stand suggest that its wrong. See Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Whilst Slim Virgin's earlier actions, especially with regards to Daniel Brandt are questionable, her recent actions have redeemed her. Note that Daniel Brandt himself, who was the subject of these attacks (in one way or another) has forgiven her, and her name no longer appears on his page http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html and indeed thanks to these actions (at least, until reverted by other editors) he actually took the page down completely. This is evidence of good work by an administrator, and Slim Virgin should be commended.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Endorse; I disagree with the move and protect in the Brandt case, but agree it was done in good faith as an attempt to resolve a sticky dispute. Nobody should be punished because of it. *Dan T.* 00:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (author) Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Endorse, also wish to say that Slim has worked on some of the most contentious articles and whenever you do that, someone's bound to accuse you of bias. Perhaps a few things might be learned by Slim on this one, but overall she's done a fantastic job up to now! I do notice that Wikipedia watch has taken down supposed names of admins/users from that Hivemind article. If that has something to do with Slim, good on her! I do think that page protection is always a controversial mechanism to employ though. Can be tough to make a call. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by karmafist[edit]

Anybody wanting to know why this rfc actually happened should go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude. This looks like little more than an attempt to muddy the waters by Rangerdude so his rfar can't be properly enforced when it's closed in a few days. This rfc should be removed from the WP:RFC "current rfcs" since the comment is fairly clear -- this page is a spurious endeavor.


Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. karmafist 19:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Guettarda 19:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. IZAK 21:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -Willmcw 22:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. AnnH (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 23:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sebastian Kessel Talk 23:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FeloniousMonk 00:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --Sean|Black 00:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Jaranda wat's sup 00:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Viriditas 00:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. jucifer 19:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Zora 00:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. El_C 03:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Rangerdude's own RfA does seem to clarify things a bit... Grutness...wha? 06:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. 172 08:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. don't use rfc for retaliation. dab (ᛏ) 10:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Calton | Talk 13:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC). Smacks of desperation.[reply]
  22. Bletch 20:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Lucky 6.9 01:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by gren[edit]

I suppose it's almost silly for me to create another view but I can't fully agree with the others. I believe that SlimVirgin did what she did with the best intentions. I agree with Guettarda but I don't know if it's stalking but it does seem to be a vendetta. I also agree mostly with Katefan0 and karmafist on the issue. The main thing I want to add is some caution for SlimVirgin. Just be a little more careful. I trust your neutrality and your intentions on these issues but going it alone (in a sense) can lead to silly pages like this. So, next time bring along a friend or someone outside. There are enough users here that greatly appreciate your work here and are committed to the project and will help you when you ask. Also, I hope you find this page to be less of a stressful endeavor than a nice birthday card with lots of signatures for you on it. Keep up the good work.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. gren グレン 13:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by The Literate Engineer[edit]

In light of his contributions (particularly [35]) to Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights and Wikipedia talk:User Bill of Rights (a proposal I must admit I object to in full, and have so said on the talk page), I believe the suspicions karmafist and Katefan0 raise regarding Rangerdude's motives are credible, and that there is indeed grounds to doubt the legitimacy of this RfC.

That said, recusal is a wonderful thing. As a general rule, I think all admins should "recuse" themselves from any dispute in which they are a participant, including disputes over articles to which they have made substantial edits or in whose topic they have a personal interest, this "recusal" taking the form of an abstention (with statement thereof) from the use of the sysop tools (protect, delete, block, and their un-'s) on the article and the dispute's other participants. I think that preventing such things as this RfC would provide reason enough; however, I agree with the concerns raised by Tony Sidaway. Both the substance and appearance of impartiality (which are separate things) should be maintained by admins when using their "toolbox"; Grenavitar's stated the best way to do that: let someone else do the sysop work in the dispute. Thus, even if Slim Virgin's actions were totally appropriate and acceptable, there was enough reason for them to seem inappropriate and unacceptable to enough people that in the future I think it would be advisable for her to refrain from using the administrator tools in disputes in which she's participated in a non-administrative capacity, and for all admins to follow that lead.

Cognition's "fast track this to ArbCom" statement is, I feel, totally inappropriate. Only in the event that an RfC, having been left open for some time, generates no useful commentary or a party to it refuses to cooperate with the process should an RfAr be filed immediately thereafter; otherwise, the affected parties ought, I feel, to be given a chance to incorporate the comments into their behavior before the ArbCom is involved.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. The Literate Engineer 18:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

More