text:
Ringelmann effect

The Ringelmann effect is the tendency for individual members of a group to become increasingly less productive as the size of their group increases. This effect, discovered by French agricultural engineer Maximilien Ringelmann (1861–1931), illustrates the inverse relationship that exists between the size of a group and the magnitude of group members’ individual contribution to the completion of a task. While studying the relationship between process loss (i.e., reductions in performance effectiveness or efficiency) and group productivity, Ringelmann (1913) found that having group members work together on a task (e.g., pulling a rope) actually results in significantly less effort than when individual members are acting alone. Ringelmann discovered that as more and more people are added to a group, the group often becomes increasingly inefficient, ultimately violating the notion that group effort and team participation reliably leads to increased effort on behalf of the members.

Causes
According to Ringelmann (1913), groups fail to reach their full potential because various interpersonal processes detract from the group’s overall proficiency. Namely, two distinct processes have been identified as potential sources for the reduced productivity of groups: loss of motivation, and coordination problems.

Loss of motivation
Motivation loss, or social loafing as it is otherwise known, is the reduction of exerted individual effort observed when people work in groups compared to when they work alone (Williams, Harkin, & Latané, 1981). According to Ringelmann (1913), group members tend to rely on their co-workers or co-members to furnish the desired effort required for a communal task. Although group members generally believe that they are contributing at maximum potential when asked, evidence has indicated that members exhibit loafing even when they are unaware that they are doing so (Karau & Williams, 1993). In order to reduce the level of social loafing in a group, several “solutions” have appeared in the literature on social facilitation. A selection of these solutions is as follows:

 * Increase identifiability: When people feel as though their individual ideas or outputs are identifiable (e.g., subject to evaluation), they are motivated to exert greater effort towards a group task (Harkins & Jackson, 1985). This is because people become concerned about being evaluated by others (evaluation apprehension) when a task is simple and individualistic, in turn increasing productivity through social facilitation. By the same token, should a task allow group members to be anonymous (that is, stay in the background of group interactions and contribute in non-salient ways), they feel less pressure about being evaluated by others, leading to social loafing and reduced productivity on the group task (Forsyth, 2006).
 * Minimize free-riding: Individuals who exhibit social loafing typically fail to contribute to standard because they believe others will make up for their slack. Therefore, individual members should be made to feel like they are an indispensable asset of the group. By increasing the perceived importance of their personal roles within the group, members tend to work harder towards achieving group goals (Kerr & Bruun, 1983). A similar effect can also be achieved by reducing the size of the group, because as group size shrinks, the role of each member in that group becomes increasingly integral, so there is less opportunity to loaf (Forsyth, 2006).
 * Set goals: According to Harkins & Szymanski (1989), groups that establish clear, explicit goals tend to outperform groups that have lost sight of their objectives. Setting unambiguous goals is believed to stimulate an array of production-enhancing processes, including increased commitment to the group, thorough planning and quality-monitoring of group work, and improved effort exertion (Weldon, Jehn, & Pradhan, 1991). A similar effect can also be achieved by reducing the size of the group, because as group size shrinks, the role of each members in that group becomes increasingly integral, so there is less opportunity to loaf (Forsyth, 2006). Aside from clarity, it is important that group goals be challenging. This is because easy tasks do not necessitate a  group to complete them and thus provide an opportunity for members to loaf, whereas reaching challenging goals requires full collaboration from all groups members (Forsyth, 2006). For example, a group is unnecessary to answer the question “what is 2+2”, and if a group were created to do this, only one member would have to work. In contrast, a group might be necessary to complete integral mathematics assignments, because this goal is obviously more challenging and requires input from all members (Forsyth, 2006).
 * Increase involvement: Another option to reduce social loafing is to simply increase how involved group members are with the task or goal at hand. This can be achieved by turning the task into a friendly competition between group members, or attach rewards or punishment to the task, contingent on the performance of the group as a whole (Forsyth, 2006). In a similar vein, loafing can also be prevented by convincing individual group members that the goal at hand is important, but that their colleagues are unmotivated to reach this goal, in a process called social compensation (Forsyth, 2006).

Loss of coordination
When individuals come together in groups to perform a task, their performance depends on their individual resources (e.g., talents, skills, effort) and the various interpersonal processes at work within the group. Even if group members possess the abilities and expertise required to complete an assigned task, they may fail to coordinate their efforts in a productive way. For example, hockey fans may feel that a particular team has the best chances of winning simply because the team is composed of all-star players. However, in reality, if the members of the team are not able to effectively synchronize their actions during game play, the team’s overall performance will likely suffer. According to Steiner (1972), coordination problems between group members are a function of the demands of the tasks to be performed. If a task is unitary (i.e., cannot be broken into subtasks for individual members), requires output maximization to be successful (i.e., a high rate of production quantity), and requires interdependence among members to yield a group product, the potential performance of a group relies on members’ abilities to coordinate with one another.

Empirical support
Subsequent research has aided the further development of the Ringelmann effect theory. Most notably, Ingham, Levinger, Graves, and Peckham (1974) discovered that group members continue to exhibit reductions in rope-pulling force even after being placed in pseudo-groups (i.e., groups composed of confederates and one, true participant). In their study, Ingham et al. (1974) directed confederates to pretend to pull on a rope by faking exertion, suggesting to the real participant that all members were working together. What proves of interest here is that because there was virtually no coordination between the participant and the confederates (they were not physically taking part in the actions), poor communication cannot account for the decrease in effort. Therefore, Ingham et al. (1974) support the assertion that motivational losses largely determine an individual’s decline in performance when acting as a member of a group.

In addition, research has shown that participants who have previous experience in a team sport may not show the Ringelmann effect.

title: Ringelmann effect


text: Category:Togolese people

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Category:Togolese people


text:
Ogrish.com

Ogrish.com was a shock site that presented uncensored news coverage and multimedia material based for the most part on war, accidents and executions.

Much of the material depicted was graphic, uncensored, gory videos and images. The content was depicted as a means to challenge the viewer, with its catch line being "can you handle life?", but later changed to "uncover reality" after the site received a major design overhaul with aims of becoming more open to the general public and become a respected "alternative news service".

From November 2006 to May 2021, Ogrish.com redirected to LiveLeak, which was registered in October 2006. LiveLeak featured mostly user submitted videos and allowed the embedding of media on other sites. LiveLeak became ItemFix in May 2021, which Ogrish.com now redirects to.

History
The site hosted many graphic videos of violent events, without the permission of the families of the people shown. This has led to heated arguments concerning the rights of the people pictured and the nature of the pictures and videos on the site. For example, in 2002, graphic pictures and videos of the jumpers of the September 11, 2001 attacks were displayed on the site. The site was targeted for hacking attacks from Koreans after Ogrish uploaded the execution video of Kim Sun-il during the summer of 2004.

In August 2005, German official internet watchdog group Jugendschutz.net contacted the local branch of telecommunications company Level 3 about Ogrish, whose IP address was then blocked in Germany. Since several ISPs connect through the blocked Level 3 connection in Frankfurt, many other countries outside of Germany were also affected by this block, including the Netherlands, France, Poland, Italy and Switzerland. The Youth Protection group had found that the provider violated German legislation that requires websites to verify the age of its visitors before granting access to adult content.

In early 2006, Ogrish.com changed its design to a much faster-loading, cleaner layout. Its previous layout was very "dark" and graphic-intensive. On January 27, 2006 the "Flame/Lame/Hate" section was replaced with The Ogrish Zoo, a more politically correct version that forbade racial slurs. This change lasted barely a day, and after some consideration was finally replaced with "The Underground", a private and hidden member group accessible only at the request of an established member to an administrator. On April 21 Ogrish closed this section, finally making the transition from a "gore" website to an "uncensored news" website. In April 2006, Ogrish.com introduced a podcast service (DJed by Shawn Wasson) and added a new forum section called Underground Media—members have the choice to join this section to see more images and videos.

The website's name derives from the archaic word "ogrish" according to the site's FAQ, "ogrish" or "ogreish", i.e. "like an ogre", as defined in older dictionaries in a figurative sense; that is being like a person who is felt to be particularly cruel, brutish or hideous.

title: Ogrish.com


text: Category:878 deaths

title: Category:878 deaths


text: Category:Togolese politicians

title: Category:Togolese politicians


text:
Aromatase inhibitor

Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are a class of drugs used in the treatment of breast cancer in postmenopausal women and in men, and gynecomastia in men. They may also be used off-label to reduce estrogen conversion when supplementing testosterone exogenously. They may also be used for chemoprevention in women at high risk for breast cancer.

Aromatase is the enzyme that catalyzes a key aromatization step in the synthesis of estrogen. It converts the enone ring of androgen precursors such as testosterone, to a phenol, completing the synthesis of estrogen. As such, AIs are estrogen synthesis inhibitors. Because hormone-positive breast and ovarian cancers are dependent on estrogen for growth, AIs are taken to either block the production of estrogen or block the action of estrogen on receptors.

Cancer
In contrast to premenopausal women, in whom most of the estrogen is produced in the ovaries, in postmenopausal women estrogen is mainly produced in peripheral tissues of the body. Because some breast cancers respond to estrogen, lowering estrogen production at the site of the cancer (i.e. the adipose tissue of the breast) with aromatase inhibitors has been proven to be an effective treatment for hormone-sensitive breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Aromatase inhibitors are generally not used to treat breast cancer in premenopausal women because, prior to menopause, the decrease in estrogen activates the hypothalamus and pituitary axis to increase gonadotropin secretion, which in turn stimulates the ovary to increase androgen production. The heightened gonadotropin levels also upregulate the aromatase promoter, increasing aromatase production in the setting of increased androgen substrate. This would counteract the effect of the aromatase inhibitor in premenopausal women, as total estrogen would increase.

Ongoing areas of clinical research include optimizing adjuvant hormonal therapy in postmenopausal women with breast cancer. Tamoxifen (a SERM) traditionally was the drug treatment of choice, but the ATAC trial (Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination) showed that in women with localized estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer, women receiving the AI anastrozole had better results than the tamoxifen group. Trials of AIs used as adjuvant therapy, when given to prevent relapse after surgery for breast cancer, show that they are associated with a better disease-free survival than tamoxifen, but few conventionally-analyzed clinicals trials have shown that AIs have an overall survival advantage compared with tamoxifen, and there is no good evidence they are better tolerated.

Gynecomastia
Aromatase inhibitors have been approved for the treatment of gynecomastia in children and adolescents.

Ovulation induction
Ovarian stimulation with the aromatase inhibitor letrozole has been proposed for ovulation induction in order to treat unexplained female infertility. In a multi-center study funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Development, ovarian stimulation with letrozole resulted in a significantly lower frequency of multiple gestation (i.e., twins or triplets) but also a lower frequency of live birth, as compared with gonadotropin but not with clomiphene.

Side effects
In women, side effects include an increased risk for developing osteoporosis and joint disorders such as arthritis, arthrosis, and joint pain. Men do not appear to exhibit the same adverse effects on bone health. Bisphosphonates are sometimes prescribed to prevent the osteoporosis induced by aromatase inhibitors, but also have another serious side effect, osteonecrosis of the jaw. As statins have a bone strengthening effect, combining a statin with an aromatase inhibitor could help prevent fractures and suspected cardiovascular risks, without potential of causing osteonecrosis of the jaw. The more common adverse events associated with the use of aromatase inhibitors include decreased rate of bone maturation and growth, infertility, aggressive behavior, adrenal insufficiency, kidney failure, hair loss, and liver dysfunction. Patients with liver, kidney or adrenal abnormalities are at a higher risk of developing adverse events.

Mechanism of action

Aromatase inhibitors work by inhibiting the action of the enzyme aromatase, which converts androgens into estrogens by a process called aromatization. As breast tissue is stimulated by estrogens, decreasing their production is a way of suppressing recurrence of the breast tumor tissue. The main source of estrogen is the ovaries in premenopausal women, while in post-menopausal women most of the body's estrogen is produced in peripheral tissues (outside the CNS), and also a few CNS sites in various regions within the brain. Estrogen is produced and acts locally in these tissues, but any circulating estrogen, which exerts systemic estrogenic effects in men and women, is the result of estrogen escaping local metabolism and spreading to the circulatory system.

Types
There are two types of aromatase inhibitors approved to treat breast cancer:

 * Irreversible steroidal inhibitors, such as exemestane (Aromasin), forms a permanent and deactivating bond with the aromatase enzyme.
 * Nonsteroidal inhibitors, such as the triazoles anastrozole (Arimidex) and letrozole (Femara), inhibit the synthesis of estrogen via reversible competition.

Members

Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) include:

Non-selective

 * Aminoglutethimide (Elipten, Cytadren, Orimeten)
 * Testolactone (Teslac)

Selective

 * Anastrozole (Arimidex)
 * Letrozole (Femara)
 * Exemestane (Aromasin)
 * Vorozole (R-76713; Rivizor)
 * Formestane (Lentaron)
 * Fadrozole (Afema)

Unknown

 * 1,4,6-Androstatrien-3,17-dione (ATD)
 * 4-Androstene-3,6,17-trione ("6-OXO")

In addition to pharmaceutical AIs, some natural elements have aromatase inhibiting effects, such as damiana leaves.

History
The development of aromatase inhibitors was first pioneered by the work of British pharmacologist Angela Brodie at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, first demonstrating efficacy of Formestane in clinical trials in 1982. The drug was first marketed in 1994.

Investigations and research has been undertaken to study the use of aromatase inhibitors to stimulate ovulation, and also to suppress estrogen production. Aromatase inhibitors have been shown to reverse age-related declines in testosterone, including primary hypogonadism. Extracts of certain mushrooms have been shown to inhibit aromatase when evaluated by enzyme assays, with white mushroom having shown the greatest ability to inhibit the enzyme. AIs have also been used experimentally in the treatment of adolescents with delayed puberty.

Research
Research suggests the common table mushroom has anti-aromatase properties and therefore possible anti-estrogen activity. In 2009, a case-control study of the eating habits of 2,018 women in southeast China revealed that women who consumed greater than 10 grams of fresh mushrooms or greater than 4 grams of dried mushrooms per day had an approximately 50% lower incidence of breast cancer. Chinese women who consumed mushrooms and green tea had a 90% lower incidence of breast cancer. However the study was relatively small (2,018 patients participating) and limited to Chinese women of southeast China.

The extract from the herb damiana (Turnera diffusa) has been found to suppress aromatase activity, including the isolated compounds pinocembrin and acacetin.

title: Aromatase inhibitor


text: File:Eagle cover 1989.jpg

title: File:Eagle cover 1989.jpg


text:
Shanti Sena

The Shanti Sena or "Peace army" was made up of Gandhi's non-violent followers in India.

Other movements have developed, inspired by this one, sometimes also using the name used by Gandhi's group. These may include World Peace Brigade, Nonviolent Peaceforce, Swaraj Peeth, the organisation Peace Brigades International and participants in the Rainbow Gathering, and have served as a basis for the practice of Third Party Non-violent Intervention.

"Shanti Sena" is a term first coined by Gandhi when he conceptualized a nonviolent volunteer peacekeeping program dedicated to minimizing communal violence within the Indian populace. The words "Shanti" and "Sena" both come from Sanskrit. "Shanti" means peace and "sena" means army, or a drilled band of men. The word "sena" has been criticized for its connection to militarism, but for Gandhi, it had strong metaphorical and spiritual qualities connected to its use in the Hindu vedas.

In the aftermath of the Gandhian era, Shanti Sena has appeared in various incarnations. Two Gandhian followers developed separate groups based on their interpretations of it: Vinoba Bhave established a Shanti Sena that prioritized Gandhi's spiritual approach towards the program, while Jayaprakash Narayan established a program that focused more on the political motivations of the program. The Shanti Sena program also became institutionalized into India's Gandhigram Rural University, where it was incorporated into the university's constitution. Currently Shanti Sena is also very active in Sri Lanka as a part of the organization Sarvodaya.

title: Shanti Sena


text:
Abbe

Abbe may refer to:

People

 * Abbe (name)

Places

 * Abbe (crater), a lunar impact crater that is located in the southern hemisphere on the far side of the Moon
 * Lake Abbe, African lake
 * Abbe Falls, waterfalls in India

Other uses

 * Abbé, the French word for abbot
 * Abbe condenser, a component of a microscope
 * Abbe lip switch, a method of lip reconstruction
 * Abbe number, a measure of the material's optical dispersion
 * Abbe prism, a type of constant deviation dispersive prism similar to a Pellin–Broca prism
 * Abbe refractometer, a bench-top refractometer that offers the highest precision of the different types of refractometers
 * Abbe sine condition, a condition that must be fulfilled by a lens or other optical system in order for it to produce sharp images of off-axis as well as on-axis objects
 * Abbe Creek School, historical school house in Iowa

title: Abbe


text: Category:836 births

title: Category:836 births


text:
USS Erie

USS Erie may refer to the following ships of the United States Navy:

 * USS Erie (1813), a sloop-of-war, launched in 1813 and served until 1850
 * USS Erie was the initial name of a collier launched in 1908 and converted to the repair ship USS Vestal (AR-4) in 1913
 * USS Erie (PG-50), a gunboat launched in 1936 and sunk in 1942

title: USS Erie


text: Category:Sultans of Brunei

title: Category:Sultans of Brunei


text:
Pronuntiatio

Pronuntiatio was the discipline of delivering speeches in Western classical rhetoric. It is one of the five canons of classical rhetoric (the others being inventio, dispositio, elocutio, and memoria) that concern the crafting and delivery of speeches. In literature the equivalent of ancient pronuntiatio is the recitation of epics (Aris. Po. 26.2.).

As with memoria, the canon that dealt with the memorization of speeches, pronuntiatio was not extensively written about in Classical texts on rhetoric. Its importance declined even more, once the written word became the focus of rhetoric, although after the eighteenth century it again saw more interest in the works of men such as Gilbert Austin.

Rhetoricians laid down guidelines on the use of the voice and gestures (actio) in the delivery of oratory. There were instructions on the proper modulation of the voice (volume and pitch), as well as the phrasing, pace, and emphasis of speech. Also covered were the physical aspects of oration: stance, gestures, posture, and facial expressions. There was also the concept of exercitatio (or practice exercises) that enabled speakers to both memorize their speeches and practice their delivery.

This excerpt from Quintilian's Institutio oratoria provides an example of the types of advice provided by rhetoricians:
 * "The head, being the chief member of the body, has a corresponding importance in delivery, serving not merely to produce graceful effect, but to illustrate our meaning as well. To secure grace it is essential that the head should be carried naturally and erect. For a droop suggests humility, while if it be thrown back it seems to express arrogance, if inclined to one side it gives an impression of languor, while if it is held too stiffly and rigidly it appears to indicate a rude and savage temper." (Institutio oratoria, XI iii 68-69, translated by H. E. Butler, Loeb Classical Library, 1922)

While the content, structure, and style of oration were (and continue to be) the most important elements of oratory, effective delivery enhances its persuasive power, and poor delivery detracts greatly from its intended effect.

Delivery is based on the technology of the times. During Cicero's time, delivery was predominantly speaking. Written delivery developed because of the written language, and now delivery is both spoken and written. Technology has removed some of the distinctions between written and oral delivery. Written discourse did not become important until reading became more common. Because the ancients did not use punctuation, their writing consisted of one long stream of words called scriptio continua. During the editing process, modern rhetors must go through three stages: correctness rule, formatting, and presentation. Writers face more problems than speakers because they must be conscious of spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Punctuation is useful in written discourse because it marks the end of a thought and allows the reader to pause and process the information. Visual rhetoric focuses on images and how words function as images. The delivery of ocular demonstration is the use of words to produce mental images in the audience. Textual presentation allows the writer to grab the reader's attention before actually reading the text based on the appearance of the text. The invention of word processors has allowed writers to enhance the appearance of their text and use effects to put emphasis on certain words or thoughts. Delivery refers not only to written or spoken language, but also to photographs, paintings, or movies.

Other forms

 * Elocution, modern form
 * Shiksha, Hindu Vedic form
 * Tajwid, Muslim form

title: Pronuntiatio


text:
User talk:Sena

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages, but please don't create pages that consist only of external links. Wikipedia is not a barn of external links.

Here are some links that you might find useful:

 * Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try How to edit a page.
 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, Articles for deletion page etc.) use 	 ~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type (3 tildes).
 * You can experiment in the test area.
 * You can get help at the Help Desk
 * Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines, Neutral point of view, Civility, What Wikipedia is not
 * If you made IP edits before creating a user account, you can attribute your IP edits to your account at Changing attribution for an edit.

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop a note at New user log.

-- Utcursch | Talk to me

title: User talk:Sena


text: Category:863 deaths

title: Category:863 deaths


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 2

Case Opened on February 26, 2005

Case Closed on 26 March 2005

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

 * Anthony DiPierro
 * Snowspinner
 * Raul654

Statement by Snowspinner
Please limit your statement to 500 words, material below from original request may be modified.

Anthony is already subject to a standing order by the arbcom at. However, this order does not seem to be effectively restraining Anthony's conduct, and I believe his recent actions to cross the line into requiring further and more direct sanction. Specifically, I would like his recreation of Shawn Mikula at User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula investigated. Shawn Mikula was an article deleted on VfD. Following its deletion, its creator would periodically recreate the article, leading the article to be protected blank in order to prevent further vandalism. Anthony, not liking this solution, asked for a history only undeletion on VfU. When people objected, he claimed no vote was necessary as it was history only. Though it was technically a history undeletion, it was clearly the case that the article was fully deleted, and that the existence of any article at Shawn Mikula was a fluke to prevent vandalism. Pointing this out, I asked Anthony to relist in the appropriate location. He refused, relisting several times as a history only undeletion until an admin, unaware of the background, gave him the requested information.

He proceeded to recreate the article in his userspace. I marked it as a speedy deletion candidate, and after the tag was removed by Anthony several times, it was deleted. He then listed it on VfU again, this time making the untrue claim that the article was not a recreation of Shawn Mikula. This claim is a lie. He further accused the protection of the blank page of being "vandalism."

This is not the first time in the past few months that Anthony has had some problems with VfU. Nor is it the only article recreation he has made in his userspace, despite having his own website (McFly) dedicated in part to hosting deleted content. Note also that, despite his requests, the consensus is overwhelming that users should not get access to deleted content, meaning that his obtaining of the content of Shawn Mikula was underhanded and based on a non-good faith description of events to admins. Currently, there are many requests on VfU to undelete the article until there is some clarification on whether or not it is appropriate to house deleted content in your userspace. (I obviously contend that it is not, due to prohibitions on recreating deleted content, which have long been interpreted to apply to creating it under a different page name, and also due to the claim that userspace is not personal webspace).

I request that some sort of additional sanction be made that will help deter Anthony from this continual trolling. It is clear that 24 hour bans are not sufficient. Snowspinner 18:04, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Addendum: It should be noted that both David, who deleted the page, and Neutrality, who is the admin Anthony accused of vandalism for protecting Shawn Mikula probably should recuse themselves on this case as well. Snowspinner 05:09, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Raul654
I'm making this request as more of a formality than anything else. Anthony has recently withdrawn from his standing order. The standing order was put in place as an alternative to arbitration over his long-standing trolling. Anthony's trolling includes (but is not limited to) the Votes for Deletion (which led to his first arbcom case), the featured article candidates, and the votes for undeletion. Facing a second go-round with the committee in July, Anthony agreed to the standing order, which stipulates any admin could ban him for 24 hours for provactive editing or edit warring. The order also stipulates that if he withdrew from it, it would go immediately into arbitration, and was in-fact signed by 4 arbitrators.

Unfortunately, he has not reformed himself; he has been banned repeatedly, by numerous admins for trolling and edit warring. (RickK quit wikipedia over it). His promise not to edit war was a lie - I banned him several times in January for edit warring on Clitoris. On the other hand, his total number of useful contributions in the time he has been here is actually quite low. In short, Anthony is far more trouble than he is worth, and it's about time he was sanctioned for his misbehavior. →Raul654 17:20, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Anthony DiPierro
Please limit your statement to 500 words. Material below, from response to original request, may be modified.

I have requested assistance from the AMA in dealing with this matter and User:KeithTyler has agreed to help me. As always, I am open to mediation with Snowspinner or anyone else who wishes to resolve any issues with me, and I believe that that is more appropriate than arbitration in this case. anthony 警告

Statement by User:KeithTyler (advocate)
I intend to advocate for User:Anthony DiPierro in this matter. Keith D. Tyler ¶ [ AMA ] 21:00, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Initial comments
I would like to point out that despite the merging of the two cases, each complaint speaks to different disputes with Anthony, and have only marginal or circumstantial connection to each other. I ask that the Arbitration Committee keep this in mind when assessing the combined case.

I also request, due to the high number of recusals, that the Arbitration committee confirm which of its members are not recused from this case, as The Epopt has done.

Regarding the Snowspinner complaint
Our understanding of this issue is that it is primarily based on the actions surrounding Anthony's creation of a page in user space, User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula, based partially on the content of an article at Shawn Mikula which was deleted 19 May 2004 (and/or 15 October 2004 apparently in an identical condition).

Anthony requested on 31 January for a history only undeletion, indicating that he did not intend to recreate the article. He received partial content from Dpbsmith. This content was added to and copyedited and made into a user space article at User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula.

On 13 February, Snowspinner added a CSD tag to this user space article.

We contend the following:

 * Each separate namespace in Wikipedia serves a different purpose, and therefore is subject to different standards of content. There is the encyclopedia namespace (Main), the administrative namespace (Wikipedia:), and the personal namespace (User:), among others (the support namespace Help:, the customization namespace MediaWiki:, etc.)
 * The standards of one namespace does not dictate or leach into the standards of another unless specifically stated in that namespaces' guidelines. The suitability of particular content for one namespace is not automatically suitable for another namespace -- and the inverse holds as well.
 * The User: namespace guidelines, at User page, state that: Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit.
 * The Wikipedia consensus for deletion of content in User space, based on recent VfD's on user space content, is that CSD is inappropriate in user space; the user should be notified and requested to remove the article first, even prior to a VfD submission. As example, I refer to the discussion at Votes for deletion/Beta m/Deletionaholics. This principle is backed by Deletion_policy.

We feel that, given the above, the "wide latitude" provision in the User: namespace guidelines, as well as the consensus on deletions in user space evidenced in VfD discussions, trumps the CSD guideline regarding recreated articles, which is primarily intended for the Main: namespace, and to a lesser extent the Wikipedia: namespace.

Furthermore, we feel that the statement regarding CSD for reposting of deleted content at WP:CSD is only intended to mean recreation within the same namespace. Recreation of articles means recreation of articles with the same or similar names to that of deleted articles within the same namespace.

Also, it is consensual convention that, when a question is made as to whether or not to delete a page, the benefit of the doubt should be given to not deleting the page. 'when in doubt, don't delete' (Deletion guidelines for administrators and Deletion policy).

Given the above, we argue that the CSD for Anthony's user space article was inappropriate. If any, the proper channel for deletion in this case would have been via VfD -- and only after consulting the user first.

We contend that Anthony's removal of the CSD notice was intended to prevent an inappropriate CSD from being accepted. Anthony was not familiar with the guidelines on contesting a CSD.

Due to its expediency, and the "uphill climb" to restore a CSD'd article, we argue that Speedy should only be used for clear-cut cases, not cases where there is clearly expressed uncertainty. The recent votes on Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD seem to agree with this sentiment. We disagree with Snowspinner's "negative-assumption" argument (appearing in the edit war which ensued) that a CSD nomination should persist even if there is dispute over the article's suitability for CSD.

Regarding the Raul654 complaint
User:Anthony DiPierro entered into a standing order on 24 July 2004 that opened with the words:

 * "In order to avoid Arbitration on the matter of Anthony DiPierro's actions, Raul654 and Anthony DiPierro have come to the following agreement."

Anthony undertook this standing order -- which, it should be stressed, was not a remedy imposed by arbitration, but an expliclit agreement between himself, Raul654, and 4 members of the Arbitration Committee (User:Jdforrester, User:The Epopt, User:MyRedDice, and User:Fred Bauder) who were specifically representing that capacity.

Anthony initially proposed the terms of this order. As it was an agreement involving himself and 5 arbitrators, he understood that, by doing so, he was submitting himself to a form of parole/probation "in order to avoid Arbitration", as it stated.

On 20 February 2005, User:Snowspinner opened an RfAr complaint against Anthony. On 26 February 2005, the Arbitration Committee accepted this complaint.

As Anthony understood that the standing order was an agreement "in order to avoid Arbitration", the introduction of Arbitration against him was against the terms of the agreement, and therefore the act of opening Arbitration against him nullified the agreement and therefore the remainder of terms of the standing order. Based on that logical conclusion, and as a formality, he declared that the standing order no longer applied to him by indicating his withdrawal from it (with comments to that effect on the agreement's Talk page).

Furthermore:

The standing order in question also stipulated:

 * "At six month intervals, three members of the Mediation Committee (enumerated below) should vote on whether or not Anthony has reformed. If two or more of those members should agree that Anthony has reformed, this agreement is considered fullfilled and over. Otherwise, the agreement should be renewed for another six months."

(The three mediators referred to are User:Angela, User:Bcorr, and User:Cimon avaro.)

This standing order, to stress again, was not a remedy imposed by arbitration, but an expliclit agreement between Anthony, Raul654, and 4 members of the Arbitration Committee. Each signatory entered into the agreement under the terms as written. Without that agreement, the order would have had no force and no grounds for enforcement. As an agreement among parties, the only way the agreement could be altered would be with the consent of all signing parties. This is a different animal from an arbitration decree or remedy which is not something the affected party must agree to (either to enact or to amend).

On 28 Jan 2005, the standing order was brought up for reconsideration as provided in the above terms. However, the mediators did not find what they felt to be sufficient evidence to extend the order for 6 months. Two of the mediators (Angela and BCorr) then proceeded to vote to renew the order for 3 months.

We argue that this vote was not valid as such an extention was not proscribed in the agreement. The terms of the agreement (as reprinted above) specified either 6 months, or nothing.

In fact, the third mediator (Cimon), expressed this concern to the validity of the other two mediator's votes. Forced under the terms of the agreement only to vote between a 6 month extension, and fulfillment of the agreement, he chose fulfillment. This is significant; as it shows that all three mediators did not think a 6 month extension was necessary, and that Anthony's involvement in WP had, in fact, improved, and more to the point, would likely continue to improve such that either an expedited or immediate end to the order was the most appropriate.

Note also that much of the early events in the series leading to the current Snowspinner complaint against Anthony were provided to the mediators for their assessment and consideration in their decision. The revert war between Snowspinner and Anthony began (by Snowspinner's account) on the same day as the first mediator to vote on extension did so (on 15 Feb). It did not appear to significantly sway their decision.

The parties to the agreement at no time agreed to amended the order (a possibility which was in fact suggested by Cimon) which would allow for a 3 month extension.

As this problem was never resolved, we insist that reconsideration of the agreement never completed, and more importantly, that since no valid vote for extension ever occured, it should not have been assumed to be extended until a valid vote confirming extension occurs. We don't feel that it is logical to presumed that the order is still be in effect if this would have depended on a particular vote which was not held (that is, a vote between 6 months and nothing).

Now, since it has been expressed to me that the ArbCom does not like what they term "technicalities" and what I call "accountability and following stated proscriptions", I will repeat for clarification here: that, as the standing order was not something created by the ArbCom as a remedy, it is not an order which they, or any other party, can unilaterally amend. It was an agreement between parties on specific stated terms, and I argue it should be treated and honored as such, including questions of applicability, conditions leading to nullification, and validity under its own terms of practices or actions used in its maintenance.

Added on 25 March
As of March 23, Anthony DiPierro has indicated to me that my advocacy for him is no longer necessary. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ [ AMA ] 20:31, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing the Snowspinner matter (5/0/5/0)

 * Recuse, although I believe this should be looked at. →Raul654 19:11, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept mainly to determine policy on deleted content in userspace. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:40, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
 * Recuse, and second Raul's comments. Ambi 04:28, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Recuse. David Gerard 11:49, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Recuse. Neutralitytalk 16:12, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept. I'm concerned so many arbitrators find it necessary to recuse; not necessarily that there is anything wrong with their reasons, just that it leaves so few arbitrators to arbitrate. Nohat 00:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept Fred Bauder 13:04, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Recuse. I've had discussions on this incident that I feel mean I should not be involved in hearing it  -- sannse (talk) 01:31, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 16:12, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept — the case has already been accepted; I'm voting now only to establish that I'm not recused. ➥the Epopt 21:56, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing the Raul654 matter (0/0/1/5)

 * Recuse. →Raul654 17:20, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Anthony DiPierro 2, and add evidence there. Neutralitytalk 17:23, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Is this vote valid? You're recused on that case. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 18:04, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
 * Merge with Anthony DiPierro 2. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:39, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
 * Merge ➥the Epopt 20:12, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge Fred Bauder 17:57, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision (none yet) = All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Userpages
1) A user may say whatever he/she wants on his/her user page within reason (e.g. No personal attacks). However, Wikipedia is not a hosting service, and you should generally avoid any substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. (See Userpage.)

 * Passed 6-0.

Deletion of content from userspace
1.5) Deleting content from the user namespace or adding deletion tags to content in the User namespace without the affected user's permission is discouraged.

 * Passed 6-0.

Speedy deletion of recreations of deleted articles
2) If content is recreated in the main Wikipedia namespaces after having been deleted (via votes for deletion or speedy deletion, it may be speedily deleted. (See Criteria for speedy deletion.)

 * Passed 6-0.

Civility
3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave civilly and calmly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to utilise dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other.

 * Passed 6-0.

Assume good faith
4) Assume good faith. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points-of-view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment.

 * Passed 6-0.

Recreation of deleted material I
1) Anthony DiPierro has attempted to recreate material at User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula which had previously been deleted at Shawn Mikula.

 * Passed 6-0.

Recreation of deleted material II
2.1) The recreation of the deleted content at User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula does not constitute recreation of the article Shawn Mikula.

 * Passed 6-0.

Protection of Shawn Mikula
3) The intent of the protection of Shawn Mikula as a blank page was to prevent vandalism in the form of recreation of an article deleted according to the proper process. Such actions do not constitute abuse of administrator powers.

 * Passed 6-0.

Revert warring
4) Anthony DiPierro has engaged in an unhelpful amount of revert warring in order to promote his recreation of the content of Shawn Mikula in his userspace, among other disputes.

 * Passed 6-0.

Incivility
5.1) Anthony DiPierro has at times been incivil during the course of the above dispute. ,

 * Passed 6-0.

Previous arbitration
6) There was a previous arbitration concerning Anthony DiPierro, see Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro. Evidence concerning Votes for deletion are at Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro/Evidence. Other evidence is at Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro/Old evidence. The decision, at Requests_for_arbitration/Anthony_DiPierro provided:

1. The arbitration committee instructs Anthony to refrain from playing around and making provocative edits on VfD and associated pages. The arbitration committee does not object to which way Anthony voted, only the manner in which he voted.

2. The issues of Anthony's reverts and alleged trolling are referred to the mediation committee.

 * Passed 6-0.

Settlement of previous arbitration by agreement
7) As the result of mediation Raul654 and Anthony DiPierro made an agreement on July 24, 2004, see the standing order.

 * Passed 6-0.

Six month review
9) The six month review provided for in the agreement was held and resulted in the extension of the agreement for three months due to evidence of isolated instances of disruptive behavior, see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Standing_orders/Anthony.

 * Passed 6-0.

Withdrawal from the agreement
10) The settlement agreement provided an option for Anthony to withdraw from the agreement and go directly to arbitration, thus activating the original arbitration. Anthony did so on 26 Feb 2005.

 * Passed 6-0.

Disruptive behavior by Anthony I
11) The evidence in the original arbitration includes numerous instances of disruptive behavior by Anthony which occured in the first part of 2004.

 * Passed 6-0.

Remedies
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.

Revert limitation
1) Anthony DiPierro is limited to one revert (per article) per twenty-four hour period for a period of three months. Violations of this shall be treated as violations of the three-revert rule, and shall cause the three months to reset.

 * Passed 6-0.

Recreation limitation
2) Anthony DiPierro is instructed that if a page is properly deleted via votes for deletion and votes for undeletion fails to get the article recreated then he is not permitted to recreate that article in any namespace on Wikipedia for a period of three months after the vote for undeletion fails. Any violation of this rule will be a candidate for speedy deletion.

 * Passed 4-2.

Bans for disruption
3.1) For one year, if Anthony should, for any reason, make a provocative edit (that is, an edit which is "trolling", "disruptive", and/or "antisocial" as interpreted by an admin) or engage in an edit war, an admin, may at his discretion, block Anthony for a period of one hour.

 * Passed 4-1-1.

Ban from editing the Wikipedia namespace
4) Anthony DiPierro is banned from editing in the Wikipedia namespace for a period of one year due to the fact that almost all the disputed behavior he has engaged in has occurred in that namespace. Edits to requests for arbitration, mediation, and RfCs that he is involved in are excepted. Also if Anthony's behaviour is being disccused on a page in the Wikipedia namespace then he is permitted to put one post where he can explain his actions and invite people to come to his talk page to discuss things. Note that Anthony is not permitted to initiate such discussions, he is only allowed to respond to them.

Should he violate this order, he may be blocked for up to a week by an administrator. After 3 months he can appeal to the ArbCom to review the matter and the ArbCom can then choose to keep or modify the order.

 * Passed 4-1.


text:
Rhode Island Route 5

Route 5 is a state highway in the U.S. state of Rhode Island. It runs approximately 26 mi from US 1 in Warwick to the Massachusetts state line in North Smithfield.

Route description
Route 5 starts at US 1 in Warwick near Gorton Pond. It runs north over I-95 without an interchange before intersecting Route 2 in Cranston. It continues north, generally paralleling I-295. After passing US 44 near Greenville, Route 5 crosses the Stillwater Reservoir on a short causeway. Continuing north, Route 5 has a short concurrency with Route 7, and it continues to North Smithfield. Route 5 crosses the Route 146 expressway without an interchange and terminates at the Massachusetts state line, though the northernmost Route 5 shields are around Route 102 at the south end of the Route 146A concurrency.

History
Route 5 was once numbered Route 1C along the 3.0 mi between its south end at U.S. Route 1 (New England Interstate Route 1 before 1926) and Route 2 (originally Route 1A). It was renumbered Route 5 and extended north by 1934.

title: Rhode Island Route 5


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 2/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Evidence presented by Snowspinner
I don't usually preface these things, but it seems important in this case. I want to thank Anthony for his tireless backing of the inclusionist viewpoint. I absolutely do not object to his belief that Shawn Mikula should get an article. I do not object to his expression of that belief. What I object to is his disruption and violation of policy in pursuit of that belief. To my mind, the key principle of this case is Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Long ago

 * User:Raul654/Anthony evidence is the evidence from the previous arbcom case, which is now germain again as that case has been re-opened due to Anthony's withdrawl from the standing order.

Also Long Ago
I can't find the VfD debate for Shawn Mikula at the moment, though I'll keep looking. Here is what I remember of it, though. The article was created and deleted as a vanity page on a non-notable grad student. The page was recreated several times, deleted several times, listed for undeletion several times, supported by sockpuppets several times, claimed by its creator to be a copyvio several times, and, finally, protected blank. The whole matter was more or less forgotten except for the occasional times when someone would come by and try to recreate it anyway. Regardless, it should be noted that Shawn Mikula probably holds some kind of record for most-deleted article in history.

 * I believe this is the original vfd discussion: Template talk:VfD-Shawn Mikula. See also Requests for investigation/Archives/2004/06 (search for "Mikula" within the page). Wile E. Heresiarch 22:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

31 January

 *
 * Anthony lists Shawn Mikula as a history undeletion.

1 February

 *
 * Anthony claims that he does not intend to recreate the article.

 *
 * Anthony is given partial content of the article.

2 February

 * (Note:Admin viewable only)
 * Anthony recreates Shawn Mikula in his userspace. Note that the content is almost exactly the content he was given the day before shortly after saying he would not recreate the article.

3 February

 *
 * Anthony claims that no vote is necessary. This is untrue. Shawn Mikula was deleted on VfD, and has a history only because it was protected blank against recreation vandalism. This is explained to Anthony.

4 February

 *
 * Anthony makes his first accusation that this protection was an abuse of admin powers.

 *
 * I remove the listing, clearly indicating in the edit summary that Anthony should list it as a full undeletion.

5 February

 *
 * Anthony relists the article, removing the previous debate. For this, I block him for 24 hours under his standing order and revert.

6 February

 *
 * Anthony relists again. Is banned again for it.

 *
 * Dpbsmith provides the information. He later apologizes via talk page when I point out the history of the debate to him - a history that he was unaware of because of Anthony's demonstrably untrue claim that no vote was required. In other words, at this point, Anthony has lied and tricked an admin into giving him information he should not have had.

11 February

 * (Admin viewable)
 * Anthony replies to my inquiry as to what the point of his recreation is, saying that he intends to create a page in the Wikipedia.

14 February

 * (Admin viewable)
 * I list the page as a speedy deletion candidate. Note that the speedy deletion boxes state "do not remove this notice from articles that you have created yourself."

15 February

 * (Admin viewable)
 * Anthony does just that. Revert war ensues. The account User:Iamasockpoppet and User:Iamnotasockpoppet are used, though there is no particular reason to think either of these are Anthony. The tag is also removed by User:Jesse's Girl. I reinstate the tag on the grounds that there is no particular way to improve the content, and that it is unclear that it is not a CSD.

17 February

 * David Gerard deletes the page.

18 February

 *
 * Anthony claims to David on his talk page that the page is not a recreation.

19 February

 *
 * Anthony lists his user subpage on VfU.

20 February

 *
 * Anthony claims that the content is different from the content that is deleted.

21 February

 *
 * The page is recreated by the IP 82.32.38.159. Anthony edits it twice after this. I delete it as a clear recreation.

 *
 * Anthony accuses me of starting an edit war over the deletion tag. Note that he removed the tag against policy, making this accusation... interesting.

 *
 * Anthony attempts to claim that the two pages are in fact different.

23 February

 *
 * Anthony claims that he created the page to improve Wikipedia, insisting he needs no further justification.

24 February

 *
 * Anthony claims that the VfD applies only to the old article - not to the idea of ever having an article on Shawn Mikula.

 *
 * Anthony offers a more in depth explanation of the above, in which he claims that it is unclear whether or not a non-vanity article on Shawn Mikula could be created based on the VfD.

 *
 * Anthony directs vague hostility towards me, saying I should mind my own business. As a sysop, it should be noted that CSDs and enforcing standing orders is my business.

27 February

 *
 * Anthony recreates the content again on his userpage. Shortly later he removes the content, instead linking to two mirrors that haven't updated to remove the article yet.

20 March

 * and
 * Anthony, upon seeing the possibility of a ban from the Wikipedia namespace, begins removing comments of his from the Wikipedia namespace while he still can. When confronted on this by Jnc, he did not provide any explanation, simply declaring that it was his right. It was not until I explained the situation for him that Jnc had any actual idea what was going on, When several people, including Jnc, requested he strike through the comments for the sake of historical record, this was met with refusal. Furthermore, Anthony has suggested that his content is not actually licensed under the GFDL, alleging that the GFDL has been violated.

Evidence presented by Raul654
As Snowspinner has presented a very long and detailed case, I'm just going to state my case in very simple terms. Anthony has been on Wikipedia a long time. In that time, he has contributed very, very little of value. On the other hand, Anthony is forever causing troubles; he has already been through arbitration once, where he was ordered to stay making provocative edits on the Votes for Deletion (an order he subsequently choose to ignore).

He then moved his trolling to the featured article candidates. First he nominated a list as a featured article candidates (as someone later pointed out, it was obviously a breaching experiment). It was roundly shot down. So, obviously not having gotten a rise out of people, he went and nominated a stub. This was subsequently removed as obvious trolling, and he began to edit war over it. Furthermore, he began to edit war on the featured article template, ultimately resorting to sheer vandalism (overwritting a picture of Jim Henson with a blank picture using the upload summary "public domain image" - . He did this on the grounds that he did not think we should be using fair use images on the main page). That's what led to his 2nd near miss with the arbcom (User:Raul654/Anthony evidence) He agreed to the standing order, which let others ban him if he made provocative edits.

He has repeatedly been banned under that agreement, by numerous admins, for various forms of trolling. As per his usual MO, once he was thrown off the VFD and the FAC, he moved his trolling elsewhere, to the votes for undeletion. He was banned for edit-warring (which he promised not to do; a lie, because he edit warred on clitoris in January); for making provocative edits on the Votes for Undeletions and elsewhere; 'etc. RickK left over his trolling.

I think it's about time we got rid of Anthony. All he does is cause trouble. →Raul654 22:52, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by KeithTyler on behalf of Anthony DiPierro
I apologize for submitting evidence out of order; there are multiple issues and angles here, and a single linear timeline doesn't seem the best to me in this case.

Objections (resolved)

 * (Snowspinner's first of 2 Feburary)
 * (Snowspinner's first of 11 February)
 * (Snowspinner's first of 14 February)
 * (Snowspinner's first of 15 February)
 * For all of the above: I strongly object to the submission, inclusion, and consideration of any evidence which is not visible to either Anthony DiPierro or myself.

Public versions of the above:
 * 2 Feb:
 * 11 Feb:
 * 14 Feb:
 * 15 Feb:

24 July 2004

 *
 * The standing order (aka agreement) for Anthony mentioned in Snowspinner's complaint. It states that the order is entered into so that Anthony can avoid arbitration. Note that this is an agreement signed by Raul654, Anthony, and 4 members of the Arbitration Committee specifically serving as representatives of such.

21 February

 *
 * The initial submission of this RfAr by Snowspinner against Anthony, specifically regarding the Shawn Mikula matter.

(13:04 UTC)

 *
 * Acceptance of the Snowspinner RfAr by the Arbitration Committee.

(16:49 UTC)

 *
 * Anthony posts to the discussion page for the standing order, stating that his understanding of the agreement means that the opening of arbitration against him (see previous) causes the order to be nullified.

(16:52 UTC)

 *
 * Anthony's withdrawal from the standing order.

15 October 2004

 * (Unavailable)
 * The deleted content of Shawn Mikula as of October 15 2004, prior to deletion. (This is admin-only information; I don't know the exact URL to their view of it.)

2 February

 *
 * The content of User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula prior to CSD by Snowspinner. There are improvements (albeit minor, but improvements nonetheless) to the content of the article as compared to the deleted mainspace version of the article Shawn Mikula (see previous).

13 February

 *
 * First CSD of the userspace article by Snowspinner.

15 February

 *
 * Vote by Angela on the reconsideration of the standing order, for only half the extension term predicated by the agreement. The implication is that a full 6 months was not deemed warranted.

18 February

 *
 * Vote by Bcorr on the reconsideration of the standing order, likewise for only half the extension term predicated by the agreement. The implication is that a full 6 months was not deemed warranted.

19 February

 *
 * Vote by Cimon questioning the validity of a 3 month extension, given that the agreement specifies 6 months, or nothing. Given the choice between 6 months or nothing, Cimon chooses nothing (no extension).

Evidence presented by Anthony

 * 13:49, 17 Mar 2005: Snowspinner removes a CSD tag from an article he created. The article was deleted as vanity via VfD, failed VfU, and was recreated with different content.
 * 22:56, 2005 Mar 17: On Talk:Steak and Blowjob Day: Snowspinner argues in complete opposition to the arguments he's making in this case. "Deletion serves to delete article text - not subject matter." and "speedying is for unambiguous cases. The number of people who have restored the article or removed the tag makes clear that this is not unambiguous."
 * Refactoring
 * 16:31, 14 Mar 2005 Gamaliel states: "With the exception of a few specific circumstances such as posting personal attacks, I find the idea that someone could be blocked for what they do with their own userspace outrageous."
 * undated The vast majority of my edits are outside the Wikipedia: namespace.
 * undated The vast majority of my edits within the Wikipedia: namespace are helpful to the encyclopedia.
 * undated I have not recently engaged in disruptive edits to the Wikipedia: namespace
 * undated I did not ever nominate a stub for a featured article candidate.
 * What is a troll Nominating a list for a featured article candidate is not trolling.

Evidence presented by Netoholic
18:58, 2005 Mar 19: Snowspinner reverts an edit and removes evidence against himself. He leaves the ironic message "you should not modify other people's sections".

Evidence presented by KeithTyler

 * ,
 * Snowspinner, once again, edits another member's user page without notice. Arbitration has not seen fit to sanction or even cite Snowspinner for this sort of stomping on other member's user space, in contradiction with stated and civil policy laid out in User page and elsewhere, including this case's FoFs.


text:
Brussels South Charleroi Airport

Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA), also informally called Brussels-Charleroi Airport or Charleroi Airport, is an international airport located in Gosselies, a part of the city of Charleroi, Belgium. The airport is 4 NM north of Charleroi and 46 km south of central Brussels.

The airport is the second busiest in Belgium in terms of passengers and aircraft movements, having served 8,224,196 passengers in 2019 (82,043 movements). It is also a busy general aviation airfield, being home to three flight schools. The Aéropole, one of the Science Parks of Wallonia, is also located near the airport.

Early years
The first aeronautical activities in Gosselies date back to 1919: a flight school was opened on Mont des Bergers—the highest point in the region—then, the following year, the Société Générale d'Aéronautique (SEGA) began aeronautical maintenance activities. The British aircraft manufacturer Fairey Aviation settled a subsidiary Avions Fairey on the site in 1931, making Gosselies a centre of the Belgian aeronautical industry.

During World War II, the site was arranged as an Advanced Landing Ground (A-87) for the allied air forces, from 14 September 1944 until 10 August 1945. After the war, the Gosselies airfield became a public aerodrome operated by the Belgian State through its agency Régie des Voies Aériennes (RVA)/Regie der Luchtwegen (RLW), but the main activities of the site remained aeronautical constructions (installation of the Société Anonyme Belge de Constructions Aéronautiques (SABCA) in 1954, then the Société Nationale de Construction Aéronautique (SONACA) in 1978, taking over the activities of Fairey).

In the 1970s, the Belgian national airline Sabena launched a Liège–Charleroi–London service, but this was soon dropped because of poor results. Gosselies was left with almost no passenger traffic, the airport being mainly used for private or pleasure flights, training flights and occasional charters to leisure destinations around the Mediterranean Sea or to Algeria.

Development since the 1990s
On 9 July 1991, the limited company Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA) was created. This operation was part of the effective transfer from the State to the Regions of the powers to manage and operate regional airports, which took place on 1 January 1992. During 1992 and 1993, a series of management procedures were put in place, which began to take effect in 1995 and even more so in 1996.

Operations at Brussels South Charleroi grew in the 1990s, with this new commercial management structure and the arrival of Irish low-cost airline Ryanair in 1997, which opened its first continental base at Charleroi a few years later. Although criticised for the subsidies paid by the Walloon government to help its installation, Ryanair opened new routes from Brussels South Charleroi (they also closed two destinations: London–Stansted and Liverpool, although Stansted was re-introduced in June 2007 before being suspended again). Other low-cost carriers later joined Ryanair in Brussels South Charleroi, such as Wizz Air. The Polish airline Air Polonia operated services from here to Warsaw and Katowice before going bankrupt in August 2004.

In September 2006, it was announced that Moroccan low-cost airline Jet4you would launch three weekly flights to Casablanca (on Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday) starting 1 November 2006, in code-share cooperation with Belgian airline Jetairfly. A new terminal opened in January 2008. It has a capacity of up to 5 million passengers a year, which means that it has reached its maximum capacity in 2010 (5,195,372 passengers).

The European Commission objected to assistance the airport offered to Ryanair, since the airport is owned by the Wallonia regional government and thus the discounts and other benefits could be considered state aid. However, the Court of First Instance (a European Union court) decided on 17 December 2008 that the commission's decision finding that illegal aid had been granted to Ryanair should be annulled and quashed as being erroneous in law. However, in March 2012, the commission reopened the case in order to take this judgment into account.

In January 2017, a second terminal (Terminal 2) was opened in order to relieve the T1 during rush hours and to be able to accommodate 10 million passengers a year in the future. In May 2019, work began on an extension of Charleroi Airport's runway, bringing it to a total length of 3,200 metres. Runway 06/24 is undergoing a 650-meter extension on the 24 end of the runway. On 8 October 2021, the runway extension was inaugurated in the presence of the Walloon Minister in charge of Airports Jean-Luc Crucke

The SABCA facility on site conducts depot-level maintenance, repair and overhaul work on United States Air Force F-16s based in Europe.

Airlines and destinations
The following airlines operate regular scheduled and charter flights at Brussels South Charleroi Airport:

Bus
There are several shuttles to different cities in the neighbouring countries (Luxembourg, Metz, Thionville, Lille) plus a regular coach service that runs from the airport to Brussels-Central railway station. Also, a special bus (Airport Express – A) operates from the airport to Charleroi-Central railway station. A combined bus and train ticket to any other Belgian railway station can be bought in the terminal. Starting 4 July 2024, Flibco will provide a daily service to the airport from Maastricht (NL) via Liège (BE).

Car
The airport is accessible by the A54/E420 highway

Accidents and incidents

 * On 4 April 1978, a Boeing 737 OO-SDH operated on a training flight with an instructor and two co-pilot students. Both students were going to practice ILS approaches to runway 25 at Charleroi-Gosselies Airport (CRL) followed by a touch-and-go. The initial six approaches were uneventful. The students then changed seats. The second student's first approach and touch-and-go were uneventful. During the second touch-and-go a flock of birds (ring doves) were observed crossing the runway. Several birds were ingested as the airplane was rotating. The instructor took over control and attempted to continue takeoff. The airplane failed to respond to his control inputs and seemed to decelerate. He then decided to abort the takeoff. There was insufficient runway length available so the Boeing overran, struck localiser antennas and skidded. The right main gear collapsed and the no. 2 engine was torn off in the slide. The aircraft came to rest 300 m past the runway end and was destroyed by fire.
 * On 8 April 2011, a Dutch F-16 had to make an emergency landing because of a failure of one of its sets of landing gear. The plane landed on its belly. The pilot did not suffer any injuries.
 * On 9 February 2013, a small Cessna plane crashed near the runway after suffering technical problems during take-off, killing all 5 people on board. The airport was closed for about six hours before resuming services.

title: Brussels South Charleroi Airport