You just wouldn't believe how much these idiots talk about nothing or their conversations look like this:

Subject: [arbcom-l] Climate change case
------------------------

From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 12:11
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I've been reviewing the PD talkpage, re-reviewing evidence as appropriate, commenting, voting. Others are more than welcome to be doing the same, to the extent they aren't already.

Thanks,
Newyorkbrad

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 12:20
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Brad, there is an argument going on at the moment on the PD talk page.
I asked on the clerks mailing list if anyone could deal with it, but
no response. I can't deal with it myself. Are you able to take a look
and calm them down?

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l

----------
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 13:22
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Picking this random thread to point out that Lar has namechecked
Kirill on the talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=382897362

Wanted to point that out in case Kirill was still around. Oh, and in
an earlier edit, Lar has used the phrase "For shame" to try and, well,
shame arbitrators into agreeing with him. Brad, what do judges do when
plaintiffs act like that before them?

----------
From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 13:44
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Presumably Lar doesn't realize that, had I drafted the decision, most of the people involved would have been looking at year-long bans... ;-)

Kirill

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 13:45
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Ditto here.

Can I quote you on that by the way?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Roger

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list


_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 15:18
To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Please bear in mind that anyone can add any proposals as additions or alternatives to ours (although it probably would be better to do so sooner rather than later...).

Newyorkbrad

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 09:17
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Is there any traction for findings on Minor4th?

Not only was their yet another edit war as marknutely tries to quickly
move his userspace into mainspace in the expectation of being banned
<https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User:Marknutley/Climate_change_exaggeration&action=history>,
but then Minor4th started this gem on the Proposed decision talk page
<https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#ScienceApologist_and_William_M._Connolley-Malicious_redirect_of_new_CC_article>.

This seems to be yet another editor who doesn't get it, but I don't
recall from the evidence if there was an actual history of these
issues or just insinuation not backed up by real evidence. (I'll try
to take a look again - this case has gone on a bit (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) )

Shell Kinney

----------
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:31
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Yes, actually, Minor4th has been raising alarm bells amongst the three drafters for a while, very much a [[WP:BATTLE]] style editor, and some indications of tag-teaming with GregJackP. That whole episode is fairly disturbing, and the overreaction on M4th's part shows evidence of bluster without sufficient familiarity of the background of the article involved. (Much of it is related to one of the links in the finding agaianst Marknutley.)



Risker/Anne


_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 09:42
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Pointing out here a talk page section that might be of interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...s_think_instead

I'm not entirely comfortable with WMC telling people what he meant in
the paper he wrote that is being published (he removed the reference
because he thinks others have misrepresented what he said. I would
have two questions here:

(1) How should WMC be handling this discussion, given that he is one
of the authors of the paper?

(2) Are people misrepresenting what is said in the paper?

This seems to strike to the heart of some of the issues here. Do we
want published authors to cite themselves and others, and argue on
Wikipedia for what they've published here and elsewhere, or do we want
Wikipedia articles to be handled by keeping published authors at a
distance (i.e. on the talk page) and have Wikipedia editors handle the
editing, remembering that because many Wikipedia editors are
pseudonymous, you may end up with those who are arguing and advocating
in other places outside of Wikipedia, coming here to continue
advocating and arguing, both with other editors and with published
authors.

Again, what is needed is people who are primarily here to write
encyclopedia articles, and happen to take an interest in climate
change, not people who are primarily here to agitate about climate
change (either way) and see writing encyclopedia articles as an outlet
for their feelings on climate change. Those who have useful and calm
contributions to make can be restricted to the talk pages. Those who
can't control themselves even on talk pages get topic banned. And the
field is left clear for those who want to focus on the articles,
rather than push an agenda here, there and elsewhere.

So that leads to a third question:

3) Is this desirable and/or possible to achieve?

Carcharoth

----------
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 09:45
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


That makes no sense. I meant:
the paper he wrote in 2008. (He removed the reference because he
thinks others have misrepresented what he said)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=383700292

That should make more sense now.

----------
From: Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org>
Date: Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 09:56
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


OTOH, few people would be more qualified to make that assertion. I'm
not in the Sanger camp of expert worship, but I'm also not going to
dispute someone with expertise because he's making a pronouncement about
his own paper -- if we start trying to tell the author of a paper what
the paper means[1], we're taking the idea of content by consensus on the
la-la-land express to Batshit Crazytown.

-- Coren / Marc

[1] Deconstructivism as applied to scientific papers? Heh.

----------
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:39
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


My objection is more that he edited the article to remove a reference
to a work he co-authored. He should, in my view, have raised the
matter on the talk page. Imagine if every living author of every
reference used on Wikipedia started edit warring over how their works
were cited. That (more than the point Brad made in one of the climate
change case principles) would *really* be a test of whether the
wiki-editing model is viable. The whole point about authoring a work
is that the work is what *you* say and not what others say. Extending
from that to allowing authors to have control over how others cite
what they have said is putting things on another type of express
altogether. Having said that, editorialising is a problem here as
well. If people want to comment on and criticise sources, they should
publish outside of Wikipedia, or raise the point politely on the
relevant talk page, or use a blog. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a
vehicle to soapbox about how bad (or good) a source is, and those
taking part in sourcing discussions need to show restraint.

Carcharoth

----------
From: Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org>
Date: Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 12:27
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I'm not sure I get your point.

Citations that do not, in fact, support the statement to which they are
attached are a Bad Thing™. We've banned people for this.

*Removing* those bad citations seems perfectly okay to me; and I would
argue that the cited document's author is arguably the single most
qualified person to make that determination. IMO, doing so isn't a
conflict of interest unless the *article* is about the author (or at
least the statement holding the citation).

I mean, I could understand that /adding/ citations to your own work is
iffy from a COI point of view because it's potentially self promotional,
or could be a sneaky way of slipping POV in; but removing them with the
stated rationale of "this citation does not support the assertion"? I
really don't see anything wrong with it.

-- Coren / Marc

----------
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 15:18
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


GregJackP read some quotations in a source, decided that these quotes
amounted to alarmism over global cooling and proceeded to insert his
interpretation into the article. The article does not back up his
interpretation nor do any secondary sources. This is textbook
original research.

Not that edit warring is ever an appropriate way to handle things but
frankly, the furor over the reverts is more because of who it is than
the actual substance. GregJackP and Cla68 were clearly in the wrong
here and yet this subject area is so out of control that people are
actually defending them with the claim that WMC didn't really know
what the paper was about or that he's trying to rewrite history.

I think we should strongly consider a topic ban for anyone involved in
edit wars during the case for extreme disruption and topic bans for
anyone who supported GregJackP for lacking enough clue to edit in the
topic area.

Shell

----------
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 15:35
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>



I have been talking to Anne about putting up a series of "battleground editiing" findings with a view to removing a dozen or so editors from the topic area, any associated BLPs, all associated talk pages, and any related process discussions. The list could include:

ATren
ChrisO
Cla68
GregJackP
Jehochman
JohnWBarber
Lar
Marknutley
Minor4th
Polargeo
Scjessey
Stephan Schulz
Thegoodlocust
William M. Connolley
Thoughts?
Roger

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 16:20
To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Ooops. I was already working on findings toward the idea of a topic
ban for Minor4th, GregJackP and Cla68 - just put up the finding for
Minor4th...

I'll keep working on diffs for GregJackP and Cla68 but hold off
posting anything else for the time being.

There are a couple of names on that list that I don't recall offhand
as being disruptive, but frankly it's all starting to blur a bit
because of the sheer number of people and articles involved. I think
a bit of a cleaner sleep is a great idea, especially given the
continued disruption during the case.

Shell

----------
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 16:32
To: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Cc: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>



Don't let me stop you (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Just keep disruptive or battleground in the headings (for the benefit of hard of thinking onlookers).

I'll recuse on Cla68 anyway (including FoF drafting) as he and I go back a long way on Milhist.

Roger

----------
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 19:27
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


My point is that blurring the lines between writing something that
gets cited on Wikipedia, and then participating as a Wikipedian to
determine how that same source gets used, is also a Bad Thing™.
It's just less intuitively obvious. It degrades the whole question of
independence of sources (kind of like one person being judge, jury and
executioner). Or to put it another way, when someone reads a Wikipedia
article, they expect the editor(s) to have read different sources and
have written the article based on those sources, rather than expecting
the editor to have been the author of one of those sources. Also, if
you've written something that gets published, it is very difficult to
be objective about how other people use that source, hence why the
talk page should be used.
Agreed.
It would be better to *correct* the citation (using the talk page)
rather than remove it. Or at least to recognise the COI involved and
to place the citation and the relevant text on the talk page for
review.

More generally, we don't expect people to object from beyond the grave
to the use of the sources they wrote. So why do we act differently
when it is living authors involved? This was an issue in the race and
intelligence case, IIRC (the alleged misrepresentation of Jensen's
work).
Because it allows the author of the said source too much direct
control over how their work is cited. Suppose someone subtly mis-cited
or misrepresented Connolley's work in a paper they wrote that was
accepted by a journal. Would Connolley be able to edit war it out of
that journal? No, he would have to go through the proper channels to
deal with the situation. I understand that Wikipedia is not paper, but
misrepresentation of a source is serious enough that it should be
dealt with properly, and by edit warring over it himself, rather than
explaining the problem and letting others deal with it, Connolley
makes the matter harder to deal with, not easier.

Carcharoth

----------
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 19:51
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


<snip>

From what I've read of the description of the paper (the link I
clicked on looked like it was behind a paywall), GregJackP is saying
that WMC was wrong to say what he said in the paper, and GregJackP is
using the same quotes WMC used in the paper, but using them to try and
demonstrate what WMC should have said. So, yeah, that *is* textbook
original research, and an example of using Wikipedia to argue about
the conclusions drawn in a published source. i.e. Rather then
discussing how or whether to use the source, he is arguing about
whether the source is correct or not and what the source should (in
his opinion) have said.

But I still think WMC should have raised it on the talk page (there
was discussion there and he did take part, IIRC), rather than take
action himself by editing the article.

Carcharoth

----------
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 01:36
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


No argument there or at the *very* least not edit warred over it. I
think this is another good indication that a break from the topic area
will do WMC some good.

Shell

----------
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 01:54
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Yes, please continue on your work there, focusing on [[WP:BATTLE]] diffs (though today's misuse of sources incident might also be useful). Because of something that was at least initially unrelated to this case and started long before either Minor4th or GregJackP started editing in this topic area, I do not think that I am the right person to be writing on either of them.

Risker/Anne

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 02:20
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I can't do Jehochman, but I will happily go contrib surfing for the
rest. If anyone is working on findings for anyone on that list,
please let me know so I don't duplicate your effort (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Shell

----------
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 05:02
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Yes. And I found a link to the article in question:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

And the summaries by MastCell and Guettarda seem to hit the nail on the head:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=383957002

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=383961813

This is not surprising, as they are two of the most competent editors
in the topic area. If we are going for a much wider set of findings,
please leave some competent editors in the area that will be able to
keep an eye on things.

----------
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 05:09
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Carcharoth
<carcharothwp@googlemail.com> wrote:

[Guettarda and MastCell]
Also, Sphilbrick impressed me early on in the case with his approach.
And some others as well (I've worked with Awickert on geology articles
and watched his work on other articles as well). What I'm saying here
is that there are *plenty* of other editors waiting in the wings, so I
wouldn't be too worried about wide-ranging findings, but I would
modify the length of any topic bans according to how much competence
an editor demonstrates.

----------
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 05:10
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Were there any concerns about the list Roger came up with? I'm also
seriously considering including Hipocrite. I don't see any reason to
have a finding about MastCell and Guettarda is always prickly but
doesn't seem to have been over the top.

I'm also floating the idea of a more specific finding about harassment
of WMC; there have been intentional taunts (very clear), threats to
harm his biography because someone didn't like his editing elsewhere,
a large number of frivolous requests for sanctions. I don't want to
use this as a basis to excuse his behavior (which I think has gone too
far) but I think it needs to be said - some of the diffs are rather
outrageous.

Shell

----------
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 05:14
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


No objections to such findings being posted (though I may end up
opposing the findings depending on whether I think they are supported
by evidence or not). I think WMC should be pinned down to answering
some specific questions about his conduct, as any finding of
harassment will encourage him to think he has done nothing wrong here.

Carcharoth

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Michelle Kinney

----------
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 05:47
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>



Slightly revised list of FoF candidates:

{{userlinks|ATren}}
{{userlinks|ChrisO}}
{{userlinks|Cla68}}
{{userlinks|GoRight}}
{{userlinks|GregJackP}}
{{userlinks|Hipocrite}}
{{userlinks|Jehochman}}
{{userlinks|JohnWBarber}}
{{userlinks|Lar}}
{{userlinks|Marknutley}}
{{userlinks|Minor4th}}
{{userlinks|Polargeo}}
{{userlinks|Scjessey}}
{{userlinks|Stephan Schulz}}
{{userlinks|Thegoodlocust}}
{{userlinks|William M. Connolley}}

As mentioned previously, it'd be good if Shell could do the Minor4th and Cla68 FoFs, and perhaps Lars too.

It'll probably need a couple of more specific principles.

If there are no objections, I'll start putting this together this afternoon (UTC).

Roger

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 06:47
To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Roger, I've posted Minor4th and ATren (but of course feel free to add
additional diffs, or fix the ones I have) and I'm working on most of
the others at:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbc...hange_new_stuff

It's a wiki - anyone is welcome to join in (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I'm also going to set
up IRC, so I'll be on there (and a bunch of IMs) if anyone wants to
chat directly about stuff or collaborate to help get this stuff
finished.

Shell

----------
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 09:48
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Don't forget to notify (or ask the clerks to notify) people about
these new findings. Hipocrite is one that springs to mind,
particularly as he went off over a month ago (not edited since 3
August) in not the best of moods:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=377003901

Carcharoth

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Michelle Kinney

----------
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 09:50
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


FWIW, I had no idea Hipocrite was dyslexic (he stated in that diff
that it was "widely known").

"Addendum - Kicking Cripples

It is widely known that I am dyslexic. GregJackP "kicked the cripple"
in this piece of tripe. WMC redacted part of that (not nearly enough,
and Lar, who is well aware I am dyslexic, took a shot at WMC here. I
took hours away from the keyboard to try to get over this, but failed
miserably - I'm still outrageously offended that Wikipedia, and it's
senior administrators support people antagonizing people who have
actual diagnosed disabilities over some stupid rules. I'm going to
take a month or so off, but I leave with these parting words - fix
this."

Not quite sure what to make of all that, or how it affects things (if at all).

Carcharoth

----------
From: Fayssal F. <szvest@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 18:46
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org


That makes it a very interesting ArbCom case principle. It is a behavioral issue after all.

Fayssal F.

Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 00:27:05 +0100
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Climate change case
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list Message-ID:
<AANLkTimch56j_vRTd6xiv=iZ1aosdfgFBm8sLCquQvsJ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1


(snip)


_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 13:41
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I noticed this recently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=384323635

It led to this ANI thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI...cienceApologist

I tend to agree with what Crossmr said:

"A GA nominated article, currently under peer review isn't the place
to run around being bold with a redirect. that's pure disruption and
nothing else.--Crossmr (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)"

----------
From: dyellope.wiki@GMAIL.COM <dyellope.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 15:27
To: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Honestly... is there anyone in this topic area that DOESN'T deserve a topic ban?

Sent from my HTC on the Now Network from Sprint!

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Randy Everette <rlevse@cox.net>
Date: Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 16:11
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>


Pretty much all of them.

R

From: arbcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:arbcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of dyellope.wiki@GMAIL.COM
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 3:28 PM
To: Carcharoth; English Arbitration Committee mailing list
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Climate change case

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 16:28
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I assume you mean that they all do, not that they all don't? ;-)

Kirill

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l