text:
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Snowspinner

I have a good amount of experience with the arbcom, having, I believe, a record for number of cases involved in. I have a lot of respect for what the job takes, and I feel confident saying that the single biggest thing it takes is wading through evidence pages - often confusingly ordered and worded evidence pages. It involves reading diffs, and a huge amount of dedication to piecing together what's going on.

This is a change from what the arbcom needed last year. Last year, the arbcom was dealing with cases like Lir, Plautus, and Irismeister regularly, and dragging at them. That's not the case this year - the last slam dunk malevolent user the arbcom dealt with was Plautus, which took them a week.

Anyone who knows me knows I'm not one to tolerate disruption, trolling, and malicious intent, and I won't - those who come to Wikipedia to be pains in the ass should be shown the door as soon as possible, and I'd prefer those cases never even hit the arbcom. But when they do, I will act to protect Wikipedia from the abusive. But that's not 10% of what the arbcom is about now.

It doesn't take anyone special to ban Plautus or Lir - I doubt there's a person running in this election who wouldn't have done that. What we need are arbitrators who are willing and able to put in the commitment to the harder cases - to the ones that involve the well-meaning editors with a legitimate disagreement that need to be disentangled, not smashed with a banstick.

Different circumstances require different kinds of arbitrators. And I promise to be one of those different kinds of arbitrators. If elected, I promise to review evidence carefully, and to look at situations with the larger Wikipedia community in mind. Like it or not, arbcom decisions are cited as justifications in policy debates now, and the arbcom needs to be careful about what it says in light of that. A recent near-disaster is the Coolcat case, when the arbcom nearly made a ruling that could easily have been interpreted as shutting down informal mediation. I was one of the ones who pointed out that problem, and if elected, I intend to keep problems like that from happening - without abandoning the need for effective rulings that minimize the need for repeat cases.

The point of the arbcom is to take difficult disputes - dispute that are disrupting Wikipedia, and making it impossible for articles to improve, and make it so that the articles can improve. Nothing more, nothing less. I understand that well, and if elected, you can trust that I won't forget it. And you can trust that I will be diligent and attentive to my duties. I promise that no case will sit more than two weeks without my attention - whether in the form of a vote, or in the form of a specific question to participants to clarify the matter.

Joke question by Snowspinner himself
Mr. Spinner, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Question from Sjakkalle
You write in your candidates statement "Anyone who knows me knows I'm not one to tolerate disruption, trolling, and malicious intent" and "those who come to Wikipedia to be pains in the ass should be shown the door as soon as possible". I have some questions regarding this:

 * 1) What do you feel the community consensus is regarding your decision to delete a number of AFD debates at Requests for comment/Snowspinner 2?
 * 2) *Considering that there are over 150 signatures split over 17 separate views, I'm not sure it's fair to call the result of that RfC a consensus. I think, if anything, that RfC showed that there are deep divides within the Wikipedia community regarding deletion issues and how to handle them, and no consensus either for or against the deletion of the AFD debates. In the absence of consensus, I haven't done it again - regardless of whether it's the right thing to do, its disruption clearly outweighs any benefits it might bring, and for that reason alone, it shouldn't be done. Snowspinner 15:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) A more philosophical question, so I only expect some thoughts rearding this, but what is a troll and what is not a troll in your opinion?
 * 4) *I still largely agree with what I wrote at What is a troll. Snowspinner 15:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) How long is "as soon as possible"? As a case study, how do you feel the community handled and resolved the fairly long Requests for comment/SamuraiClinton?
 * 6) *I'm not sure there's a generalizable rule about "as soon as possible." When Plautus returned, I was pretty confident in removing him around edit #5. In the case of Samurai Clinton, he doesn't seem to me to fall into the category of "those who come to Wikipedia to be pains in the ass" in the first place, and so I'm not sure the "as soon as possible" description applies - I think the community handled the issue fairly well. It looks to me as though Samurai Clinton was a slow learner, but at least a learner, and his behavior, though irritating, seemed to only have a few out and out policy violations - the Insane Clown Posse edit, the Autosexual/Homosexual merger, and of course the use of sockpuppets for voting. I would think banning the socks would be a no-brainer. Past that, the central question I'd ask in looking at his behavior is whether the list of things he's doing wrong is shrinking or not. A similar case - User:John-1107 - I blocked indefinitely because he showed no understanding whatsoever of the social norms of Wikipedia, and seemed infinitely capable of finding new problems to cause. In general, I think for cases like SamuraiClinton where a probable diagnosis of Asperger's presents itself, the best thing that can be done is for the user to get a mentor. Ideally this mentor comes voluntarily from the community. Less ideally, it's forcibly imposed by the arbcom once there's already a lot of bad blood. (Speaking of which, an Association of Mentors would be a GREAT thing for some Wikipedians to get together and form) Snowspinner 15:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Some questions being asked of all the candidates by jguk
''Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)''

A: 23, PhD student in English focusing on popular culture and on theater. Snowspinner 15:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Q: How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?

A: As many as it takes, and yes. Snowspinner 15:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

''Q: If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator.''

A: I think this question is misleading in some important ways. Certainly article writing experience is helpful - and I have a fair amount, though most of it is old. I think I would point to Heteronormativity as the best example of my working collaboratively and in a situation of dispute. The article has been under continual dispute since I got to Wikipedia, but I think what's been most notable is the fact that User:AlexR and I, who originally were on opposite sides of the dispute and edit warring kind of bitterly, have pretty much come together in agreement on what needs to be done on the article, and gotten an article that, even if neither of us are happy with it (Because we haven't had time to go do the referencing work the article needs), we're at least happy with what it's trying to be. Above all, what this indicates to me is that what's often needed in disputes is time. I walked away from the article twice, and that helped a lot.

But I think what's most indicative is not my edits to Heteronormativity, but my edits to Talk:Heteronormativity. Which is to say, my experience in dealing with disputes, rather than being in disputes. Here, I cite my work at WP:TINMC, my work mediating on the Lyndon LaRouche articles (A mediation that was unsuccessful, due to my own mistakes, and from which I learned an important lesson about the nature of NPOV, verifiability, and cults), and my involvement in arbitration cases before as relevent experience. Snowspinner 15:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.

A: I have edited under one other username, which I decline to state here. It's a sock I maintain so that I can edit articles without what I see as the priviledge of being an administrator, and so publicly declaring it would somewhat defeat its purpose. It's been admitted elsewhere, and is not hard to find if you want - User:Mirv is aware of it, and has commented on its existence publicly, and I am happy to disclose it to specifically interested people via e-mail or on their talk pages. Snowspinner 15:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I note that I asked Snowspinner to reveal his sockpuppet but he has not done so. Grace Note 01:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thought I did. I have now. Sorry. Snowspinner 01:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions from Ral315
You say that you've probably been involved in a record number of ArbCom cases. For the record, have any specific cases made rulings in any way affecting you? Also, curiously, are there any cases where you believe you've been partially at fault for?

 * I have never been affected by an arbcom ruling. The only two cases to be successfully raised against me Requests for arbitration/Snowspinner vs. Lir and Requests for arbitration/John Gohde ended with the people raising them getting a one year ban. The one case I do feel partially at fault for is Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 2, which was in part prompted by a misunderstanding of the speedy deletion process on my part. I did not recieve sanction for that, I assume because it was a reasonable misunderstanding, if a misunderstanding, and not something I've done since. Snowspinner 15:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Request from Dragons flight
Arbcom is overworked and no fun. Please review these discussions:   Come up with a short list of suggestions for ways you would endorse for improving the arbitration process. Bonus points for actually managing to create new policy. Dragons flight 08:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I've participated in some of those discussions, in fact. For the most part, I think the arbitration process works fine when arbitrators make decisions - it's just a matter of speeding that up. Somewhere - maybe in one of those debates - I proposed a specific timeline in which arbitrators who do not explicitly vote to accept (Or refuse) a case within two weeks would be assumed to be recused for it, thus eliminating the effect of people who essentially act as "no" votes on every proposal by never getting around to voting. This, coupled with, maybe, a six-person increase to the committees size (To prevent majorities of 3) would help a lot, and do so in a non-radical way, which I think is an important goal. No need to reinvent the wheel, honestly - the wheel turns. It's just a mite flat. Snowspinner 13:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Question by Quadell
Greetings. I have only had one interaction with you before, and it dealt with conflicts between users. It was not a positive experience, and I wanted to ask you your perception of it in hindsight.

Background: back in April, I submitted thousands of untagged and orphaned images to Images and media for deletion, and deleted them if there were no objections in the time period required. Over 99% of these deletions were uncontroversial, and were (I feel) a much-needed cleanup task. However, two of the images were uploaded by Anthere, a vice-chair of the Wikimedia Foundation at the time. Due to an oversight I failed to inform her on her talk page that the images had been listed for deletion, and she was upset to see them deleted. I apologized to her, and we worked it out.

Regarding that conflict, you left me the following note on my talk page:
 * There are a handful of users on Wikipedia where, should you find yourself in conflict with them, it is almost certain that you have done something wrong. Anthere is one of them. I say this because, from what I can tell, you have upset Anthere. Also, from what I can tell, this was avoidable. When deleting an image uploaded by a respected and longtime contributor, you don't delete without asking questions first. Had you asked Anthere, she could have explained. But you didn't. And you offended a good contributor with it.
 * I hope you'll take this as a lesson in the future.

My question is, do you still stand by this statement? In arbitrating, will you be biased by believing that certain users should be assumed to be in the right because of who they are? This is especially relevant now that unverified orphans are being deleted within a week, and similar cases could certainly arise. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I stand by it in the sense that there are people who, when you find yourself in conflict with them, you should probably stop and reconsider the situation. Anthere is certainly one of them. Would I ever propose an arbcom principle along the lines of "Anthere is a priori right?" Of course not. Would I, if I were doing image deletion, leave an Anthere image until I checked with her? Yes, and I still think that's good practice.

 * Your question is also a bit misleading, in that I left that message before things had been worked out between you and Anthere. You make it sound like I came late to the party - I did not.

 * Regardless, yes - for editing practice, it makes sense to give people who have repeatedly proven their respactability the benefit of the doubt. I see this as an extension of Assume good faith.

Is it possible that Anthere could be wrong? Of course. But glancing at a situation, I assume Anthere to be the voice of reason, and I'm surprised if I see otherwise. Snowspinner 21:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Q from SchmuckyTheCat
What's more important - the letter of any specific policy, the intent of the policy, or the goal of the project? How do you balance these? SchmuckyTheCat 01:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The goal of the project always trumps individual policies, and nothing that conflicts with the goal can be considered a policy. Phil Sandifer 21:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Form question by Snowspinner
Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I teach freshman composition at a public university. My bullshit detector is as sensitive as they come. Phil Sandifer 21:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Form question by karmafist

 *  You more or less already answered this above, but many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then WP:IAR makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do? karmafist 18:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer to form question by Karmafist
It would depend entirely on what the two policies were, how old they each were, who was involved in crafting them, etc. Phil Sandifer 19:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions from User:-Ril-

 * The following questions are for each candidate, and do not specifically target you

''Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam, or on which end you should break a boiled egg)? If so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these?''

How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?

Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?

''In the case against Yuber, it was decided by the arbitration committee that it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate, and rule on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Do you support this decision? [if current arbitrator] Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this decision?''

--Victim of signature fascism 16:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) Not that spring to mind.
 * 2) If I think the other arbitrators are making a problematic decision, I will contest it without hesitation.
 * No, but requests to re-address cases need to bring some evidence of a reason to readdress them. A good example of this is the recent readressing of the climate change issue, where the fact that one user's parole was being used only as a means of harassment was at issue.
 * 1) I think that if a problem is staring the arbcom in the face, it would be remiss of them not to aid in its correction.

Phil Sandifer 17:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Question from Marsden
Many people have noted that Wikipedia's original communitarian structure is no longer functioning very well. One editor has suggested that ArbCom is "about getting the trains to run on time," which is a reference to a fulfulled promise of Mussolini's fascist government. Do you agree that Wikipedia needs to become more orderly, and if so, do you think there are any options other than a move toward a more centrally controlled authoritarian system? Do you think that the spirit of cooperation in Wikipedia would survive such a change? Marsden 16:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you support the creation of a Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at User talk:Jimbo Wales? - Ted Wilkes 18:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I support, as a general rule, all elements of the code of conduct. I adamantly oppose codifying it - to do so seems to me nothing more than an invitation for users involved in arbitration to become even worse wikilawyers. Phil Sandifer 20:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

 * This invites a question of my own. I regard what you call "wikilawyering" as simply a natural part of the development of the community and its processes, not something particularly good or bad itself, but something to be handled pragmatically. In fact, there is one sense in which it is arguably good, in that it represents respect for the rules and working within an approved context—sort of a sign of maturity and cohesiveness, of a developed sense of structure. But I've always observed you to vehemently oppose "wikilawyering". Could you outline some of your views in this regard? Do you disagree that it is a natural development? Do you disagree that it should be handled pragmatically, instead favoring a harder, activist "anti-rule" philosophy (not to say that I think you oppose all rules, although for all I know you might, but that you have a general disdain for them as a matter of philosophy and prefer flexible administration by assertive individuals)? Should "wikilawyers" be punished for choosing "wikilawyering" as a manner of argument? Is "wikilawyering" generally an easy or a hard thing to define and identify? Everyking 09:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I would define wikilawyering as putting process ahead of product, to the point where no concern for product is actually expressed. This is definitively, to my mind, a bad thing. I do not think this should be punished - mostly, I think it should be ignored entirely, as though the would-be lawyer had never spoken. When they have something of value to contribute, they are considerably more worth listening to. But, for example, when someone's only objection to an arbitration process is that they had two days less time to get their evidence together than they had asked for, and yet they still present no shred of an actual content-based argument, I find it difficult to take them seriously. Phil Sandifer 03:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone created the article without my knowledge. As such, would you mind offering some input? Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 21:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?
Do you support User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

 * No. Phil Sandifer 03:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless the underlying idea that wikipedia ia a powerful world influence that has the propensity to become a much more powerful one, i.e. one of the main de facto sources of truth in the world, what does this candidate think are the guiding principles the arbcom should follow as wikipedia progresses and in order to help make it progress? Matt Stan 20:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions being asked by Titoxd to all candidates

 * 1) How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?
 * As much as I have to. Phil Sandifer 07:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom delibations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?

 * Policy formation and the maintanance of policy pages, and the general cleanup of trolls, vandals, and other idiocies. Phil Sandifer 07:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) To what extent would those projects be affected?
 * I think all of those projects have plenty of other people who could take up the slack. Phil Sandifer 07:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Tito xd (?!? - help us) 07:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions from Zordrac
Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 16:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) What are your views with regards to transparency of ArbCom decisions?
 * Can you be more specific? Phil Sandifer 17:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you think that administrators should be treated differently to non-administrators in ArbCom decisions?
 * This seems designed to be a loaded question. In what context? Administrators are, generally speaking, respected members of the community who have proven their good will and cool head. This gives them certain credibility and respect that other users - particularly users with proven track records of problems - may lack. This does affect treatment, but it has nothing to do, inherently, with their admin status. Phil Sandifer 17:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you think that someone who is critical of Arbitration Committee decisions is in violation of WP:AGF?
 * Certainly not inherently. Phil Sandifer 17:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) How would you handle a case in which you were personally involved?
 * If I were genuinely personally involved, I would recuse. Phil Sandifer 17:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you think that Arbitration Committee decisions should be able to be reviewed?
 * What do you mean by this? Phil Sandifer 17:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Question from Radiant
One or two of the other candidates appear to be people that you really don't get along with. What would your reaction be if both you and one of them are requested to join the ArbCom (by Jimbo or by the community)? Radiant_ >|< 02:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

 * My reaction would be "Drat, that's going to be annoying," followed by a lot of being professional, assuming good faith, and working towards consensus - just like I would if one of them showed up to edit an article I was working on. Phil Sandifer 02:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions from User:Benapgar
1. In a recent RFC against another administrator (whom you unblocked during the dispute which instigated the RFC), you wrote an outside view that said: "I propose that the seriousness of the offenses is such that [the user] should not be allowed to have a cookie tonight. If [the user] gives his word that he has refrained from a cookie tonight, I consider the matter settled."

Jimbo Wales said about the same administrator: "I think for an administrator to behave in such a fashion is a terrific disgrace and that he should be desysopped. I'm sure the ArbCom will take care of the matter in due course, of course."

Why is Jimbo's view is so different from yours?

 * Because Jimbo and I are not a hive mind, and sensible people periodically disagree. Phil Sandifer 03:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

2. You were also recently involved in a block war with other adminstrators. Can you describe what happend there?

 * That's an interesting choice of block wars, since I never unblocked myself once. If you mean the block war over karmafist? Simply put, I believed karmafist was acting under a good faith interpretation of the 3RR, and that a block was inappropriate. I made no effort anywhere in that to unblock myself, nor did I ask to be unblocked. I unblocked karmafist once, and when SCZenz subsequently wheel warred over a block about wheel warring, I blocked him because he had, frankly, added to the problem instead of fixing it. I made all of these actions once and only once.

 * But that may not answer your question - what are you really looking for here? Phil Sandifer 16:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality question and Censuring questions from -Ril-
(Being asked of all candidates)

Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?

As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?

Since you are asking explicitly about Kelly, I will say only that reading the RfC as a request for censure is an appalling way to read it, and that Wikipedia is not and never has been run by numbers alone. Phil Sandifer 08:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

''wikipedia has a policy of NPOV. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a substantial opinion or fact that contradicts your own political or religious viewpoint into an article on a topic of which you have strong opinions, and if you have, how frequently do you do so compared to your other substatial edits to articles?''

--Victim of signature fascism 01:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing actively comes to mind on this topic - if it is truly of interest to you, I advise looking through my history yourself. Phil Sandifer 08:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion
I am asking these questions of all candidates:

1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct?

 * "But I say unto you, Swear not at all"

2. Are there any parts of Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.

 * I oppose its existence. This seems rather hard to improve.

3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?

 * I don't see how extra seats are going to alleviate backlog, as it will just require more votes. I think the solution remains empowering administrators to deal with things themselves more often.

4. Have you voted over at Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.

 * I have not, because polls are evil and I avoid them when possible. Phil Sandifer 08:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —James S. 06:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

What about this example
What does this edit say about your suitability for this job? --NathanDW 16:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Very little. Phil Sandifer 08:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Rob Church

 * 1) You've had your fair share of dealings with ArbCom. Do you feel that's given you a bit of an insight as to what needs changing?
 * I can't honestly say I think a lot needs canging. The arbcom is very, very good at what it does, and is consistently the part of the chain that gets it right, with only a handful of exceptions. (To my mind, they've flubbed three cases this term, two of which they reversed themselves on) There are things I would change about Wikipedia, but the arbcom isn't really one of them. Phil Sandifer 16:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) What do you feel about the effectiveness of our dispute resolution processes as a whole?
 * As a whole? Mixed. RfCs remain little more than dress rehearsals for RFArs, and mediation is a rarely-productive timesink. So of our formal dispute resolution process, only 1/3 of it works. That said, our informal dispute resolution process of several thousand users existing still works wonders on article content, even if it's completely broken on matters of policy. Phil Sandifer 16:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) If WP:IAR was to be revoked tomorrow, what would you have to say about it?
 * I'd probably ignore it. Phil Sandifer 16:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ta. Rob Church Talk 13:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Question from Mistress Selina Kyle
You're joking, right? -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  20:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

 * No - I really have stopped beating my wife. Phil Sandifer 20:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Quick questions from Matt Yeager
So, supposing you get elected, what happens if/when you get involved in another Arbcom case? Do you think that maybe if you've upset some fellow members (by questioning their votes, voting against them, etc.), you might be shot down? Wouldn't it destroy the integrity of the system if the other Arbcoms voted for a temporary ban on you? In addition, you've made your share of enemies, or so it seems. Since these "enemies" would likely be the sort of people to appear in Arbcom cases, wouldn't you have to recuse yourself from an awful lot of cases?

All this to say: don't you think that someone a little less controversial would be a better choice for an arbcom member? Matt Yeager 07:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I can count on one hand the number of people that I think I would have to recuse if they were to come to the arbcom. Which is to say, I may have a number of enemies, but I am very few people's enemies. Nor do I see why you are fretting about the possibility of a temporary ban - no ban has ever been proposed as a remedy against me in an arbcom case. The only time I have ever gotten any negative mention in an arbcom case was when all parties were sanctioned regarding civility in the webcomics case. And as far as I know, I have cordial relationships with all current arbitrators. So I fail to see what grave controversy you're seeing here. Phil Sandifer 09:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Your nickname
Being an Inuit, your nickname "Snowspinner", a racial slur for my people, is deeply offensive to me. Tapir 20:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh. Phil Sandifer 21:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerns over personal attack templates
User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Village pump (policy):

 * I am concerned about |recent templates surviving AfD that appear to contrast with established policy. In particular, I feel that these templates are Poisoning the well when it comes for how we treat our fellow wikipedians. There are circumstances where knowing too much about one's neighbours politicises how one deals with them. This is, to an extent, unavoidable in society, but wearing signs of hate as badges on our shoulders takes what is a small problem that we can usually deal with into the realm of being damaging to the community. Already, there have been signs of people refusing to help each other because they are on different ends of a political spectrum -- this seems likely to get worse if this trend continues. Some people cry that this is an attack on their first amendment rights (if they're American, anyhow), but that doesn't apply here because Wikipedia is not the U.S. government -- it is a community that has always self-regulated, and more importantly it is an encyclopedia with a goal of producing encyclopedic content. We have a tradition of respecting a certain amount of autonomy on userpages, but never absolute autonomy. We might imagine, for example, templates with little swastikas saying "this user hates jews". I am not saying that such a thing would be morally equivalent to this template against scientology, but rather that we should aim to minimise that aspect of ourselves, at least on Wikipedia, so we can make a better encyclopedia. The spirit of NPOV does not mean that we cannot have strong views and still be wikipedians, but rather that we should not wear signs of our views like badges, strive not to have our views be immediately obvious in what we edit and how we argue, and fully express ourselves in other places (Myspace? Personal webpage?) where it is more appropriate and less divisive.

I am inviting all candidates, including Improv, to expand on this theme on their questions pages. Do you agree that this is a cause for concern as we move into 2006? How do you see the role of the arbitration committee in interpreting the interpretation of Wikipedia policy in the light of this concern? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I largely think the arbcom is somewhat ineffective in creating new policy, and is at its weakest when it is trying to force the Wikipedia community to adhere to something it's running away from. On the other hand, its job is in part to uphold Wikipedia's principles even when a bloc of users disagrees. I think the best bet here is for the arbcom to impose sanctions on those who edit war to attack other users - but I would be leery of a policy declaration. I think I would just be inclined to sanction those who edit war to attack, and to be sympathetic towards those who edit to maintain sense and civility. Phil Sandifer 21:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


text: User talk:71.108.215.93

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

title: User talk:71.108.215.93


text:
User:Sam2095

Lived in Sydney all my life (other than a few years now and then in Europe here and there) now currently living on the Northern Beaches.

Current hobby site (and often my reason for visiting and modifying entries in Wikipedia) is http://www.minilps.net/mini-lp-replicas/what-is-an-obi-strip/

title: User:Sam2095


text:
Talk:Actus reus

Untitled
This article should have a literal translation of actus reus

It does: it is the Latin for "guilty act". David91 03:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I submit that this article may need to be reworked a little to provide a more clear differentiation between actus reus and attendant circumstance. In the United States in particular, some legal scholars analyze the elements of a crime in up to three categories: the actus reus, the mens rea, and the attendant circumstance. Essentially all crimes have at least one actus reus element. As pointed out in the article, most but not all crimes have a mens rea element. Further, some crimes also have an attendant circumstance element -- which is separate from actus reus and mens rea. In my opinion, this actus reus article is conflating actus reus and attendant circumstance to some extent. Famspear 15:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

So, to avoid this conflation, you should consider adding an element specific to the United States. David91 04:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Editorial changes
I have identified "Attendant circumstance" as specific to the U.S. To the best of my limited knowledge, no other state makes this distinction (and, frankly I do not understand it and would like a specific definition and reference to on-line sources so that I can read up on the theory). I also consolidated the results elements because it is relevant to all two/three classes and not just acts. And the second "key element" currently identified is incomprehensible to an English lawyer. Could you please provide a specific example not dependent on a mental element. The current example of driving "dangerously" is clearly mens rea related because the defendant is only culpable because he or she knows that she suffers from diabetes and, not having eaten recently, has an elevated risk of having a hypoglycaemic episode, or that the vehicle has a mechanical defect, or is driving recklessly, all of which would trigger the policy to justify criminalising the behaviour to protect the public. Many thanks in anticipation of your assistance to clarify this for non-U.S. readers. David91 02:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Attendant circumstance is a new one to me... but I don't do criminal law, and I trust Famspear's knowledge of the law based on our previous interactions. bd2412  T 03:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear David91: I am a tax practitioner. I do not practice criminal law as such, though criminal tax law issues come up occasionally. The way I remember it from law school is roughly as follows:

 * 1. Conduct (actus reus) (commission or omission, depending on the crime).

 * 2. Attendant circumstance – facts and circumstances surrounding the event – not really part of the defendant’s physical act or omission.

 * 3. Result (e.g., in a murder, the victim died).

In so-called Model Penal Code states in the USA, there are usually four possible levels of mens rea, and each statute defining a crime states (or should state) the level of mens rea required for the offense:

 * 1. Intent (a conscious object or desire to engage in the conduct, awareness of the attendant circumstances, and conscious object or desire to cause the result). In some jurisdictions, the term “willfulness” may be used in lieu of “intent.”

 * 2. Knowledge (awareness that one is engaging in the conduct, awareness of the attendant circumstances, awareness of the possibility of the occurrence of the result).

 * 3. Recklessness (aware of, but consciously disregarded, a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstance existed or, in the case of the result, that the result would occur).

 * 4. Negligence (should have been aware of, but may not have been aware of, a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstance existed or, in the case of the result, that the result would occur).

Notice that the mens rea element might or might not apply to the “attendant circumstances,” depending on the crime.

In the USA, tax evasion can be an example of the application of the concepts (note: the Federal tax crime statutes are not based on the “Model Penal Code”). Internal Revenue Code section 7201 provides:

 * Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

Under this statute and related case law, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the following three elements:

 * (1) the "mens rea" or "mental" element of willfulness -- the specific intent to violate an actually known legal duty;

 * (2) the "attendant circumstance" of the existence of a tax deficiency -- an unpaid tax liability; and

 * (3) the "actus reus" (i.e., guilty conduct) – in the case of this particular crime, an affirmative act (and not merely an omission or failure to act) in any manner constituting evasion or an attempt to evade either the (A) assessment of a tax or (B) the payment of a tax.

I argue that the attendant circumstance -- the existence of an unpaid tax – is not really part of the “conduct” of the offender – at least not for purposes of this criminal statute. The way I learned it in law school, “conduct” really refers narrowly to physical acts or failures to act. The following example of Mr. “Joe Baker” is illustrative.

 * Joe Baker is a nice guy, but he’s not very well educated, and he’s not very honest. Suppose that in July of 2005, Joe receives a large amount of cash from somewhere. Right now we don’t want to say where. Now, Joe’s tax year ends on December 31, 2005. His tax return is due on Monday, April 17, 2006. Like many Americans, he waits until about April 14th to even start thinking about preparing his return.

 * In a panic on April 14th, he begins thinking about taxes. If Joe Baker files a Federal income tax return, that is an affirmative act (conduct).

 * Suppose Joe prepares the return and reports all that year 2005 income on the return. Suppose, however, that he also knowingly takes a very large deduction for business expenses he neither incurred nor paid. Suppose that he is not legally entitled to the deduction, and that he is aware (he knows) that he is not legally entitled to the deduction -- but he takes the deduction on the return anyway, because he just does not want to show a tax liability on the return or pay a tax.

 * Here, the mens rea requirement is satisfied, as applied to Joe’s conduct. In knowingly preparing and filing a false return (a return he knows includes a false business deduction), he has “attempted” to evade the assessment of a tax, and he has a specific intent to break the law. He has acted willfully for purposes of section 7201.

 * Now, with respect to the attendant circumstance of the existence of an actual unpaid tax liability, Joe is aware (mens rea) – or at least he thinks he is aware – that there is an unpaid tax, a tax obligation he owes.

 * But suppose that Joe has made another mistake on the return – this one unintentional. Suppose that the income he fully reported on the return – the only income he had for the year – was, say, “life insurance proceeds received by reason of the death of the insured.” His mother had died, and he was the beneficiary of her life insurance policy. That’s how he received all his 2005 income. Under Internal Revenue Code section 101, such life insurance proceeds are not taxable. Such income is not even required to be shown on a Federal income tax return. But Joe was not aware of that.

 * Joe had an intent to evade tax – but his “knowledge” of the attendant circumstance (existence of a legally owed unpaid tax) was faulty.

 * Indeed, there really was no attendant circumstance. He did not really owe a tax, because the income he received was not really taxable. He did not need to falsely claim a deduction to reduce his taxable income, and his tax, to zero – because the tax already was zero. Under these facts, Joe has not violated section 7201 – even though he intended to do so. In fact, the zero amount for tax he showed on the return was the correct amount under the law.

 * (Joe has willfully filed a false return, however, and that is a tax crime in the USA, even if no tax was due – it’s separate from tax evasion.)

In this situation, I argue that '''the existence or non-existence of the attendant circumstance (non-existence of a tax liability) is separate from and has nothing to do with Joe’s conduct in filling out the forms, signing them, and mailing them. In this sense, I argue that there is no redundancy in talking about "conduct" as being separate from "attendant circumstance."''' The non-existence of the attendant circumstance -- an actual unpaid, legally owed tax -- was based only on the fact that the income he happened to receive simply was not taxable under the law in question. The nature of the non-existence of the attendant circumstance was fixed by (A) the applicable law, (B) the fact that his only income was a life insurance benefit, and (C) the fact that the tax year had closed (i.e., on December 31, 2005). All the facts making up the attendant circumstances were fixed long before April of 2006, when he began his conduct -- thinking about evading the “tax” and began his “conduct” of preparing, signing and filing the tax return. Yours, Famspear 05:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

 * This always happens when one expert talks to a person with a different expertise. I apologise for setting the hare running. I have made a detailed response to this at Talk:Attendant circumstance. Unfortunately, it would appear to ignore the second question specific to actus reus. Please supply an example of a "key element" that is not dependent on a consideration mens rea evidence because your example of dangerous driving appears to me to be defective for the reasons given above. David91 06:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am an English lawyer too. I realise that many law schools still use a binary (actus reus, mens rea) division of the elements of a crime, but the way I was taught - and it is a reasonable way to analyse crimes - is into three elements. The additional element sounds like the "attendant circumstances" being discussed here. A good example is "being found drunk in a public place". That requires no act or intention on the part of the defendant. Our lecturer gave the example of someone who was carried (by police I think) while asleep (but drunk) into a public place and there arrested for being found drunk in a public place. This is a very clear example of something which is not an act or a mental element of a crime. Francis Davey (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

First Assesment
Given a B as not many links included as readablility and detail could be imporved. High importance, cournerstone of criminal law. Bamkin 19:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Vagina and consent
The following appears: Commentator Dennis Baker asserts: "Although lawyers find the expression actus reus convenient, it is misleading in one respect. It means not just the criminal act but all the external elements of an offence. Ordinarily, there is a criminal act, which is what makes the term actus reus generally acceptable. But there are crimes without an act, and therefore without an actus reus in the obvious meaning of that term. The expression “conduct” is more satisfactory, because wider; it covers not only an act but an omission, and (by a stretch) a bodily position. The conduct must sometimes take place in legally relevant circumstances. The relevant circumstances might include consent in the case of rape. The act of sexual intercourse becomes a wrongful act only if it is committed in circumstances where the vagina does not consent. Other crimes require the act to produce a legally forbidden consequence. Such crimes are called result crimes. ... All that can truly be said, without exception, is that a crime requires some external state of affairs that can be categorized as criminal. What goes on inside a person’s head is never enough in itself to constitute a crime, even though it might be proved by a confession that is fully believed to be genuine Clearly a vagina can't consent (since it is a part of the body). This quote is rather long (possibly too long to be defensible in copyright law in England and Wales anyway). I am not sure it is helpful to have such a long quote in this context either. However, I don't have the source to check the "vagina" point. Can someone who does please check that is there or amend. Francis Davey (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Table of Contents
Why is there no table of contents for this talk page? Seraphim System (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

 * The table of contents only appears (automatically) once there are 4 section headings on the talk page. See H:TOC for more explanation. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Globalize tag
I added a Globalize tag because this concept is not just relevant to United States or English law, but is relevant in jurisdictions around the world. The article should explore how this concept is relevant in other countries, and give relevant explanations and examples, too. This would make for a globally relevant article. There should be examples from all the criminal jurisdictions mentioned in the lead section. The lead section should provide an accessible overview of the topic, so if something is mentioned in the lead section it should be covered in the body of the article, too. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Actus reus


text: User talk:69.219.172.176

title: User talk:69.219.172.176


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ziad

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied. Wikibofh 15:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Ziad
Appears to be spam promoting a (possibly nonexistent) company/person. Created by User:211.30.179.139, then marked by User:Robchurch as needing "cleanup-importance", but that flag was then removed by User:211.30.179.139 (and at the same time adding some seemingly irrelevant text). I could find nothing about this person/company on Google, so I suspect that it doesn't exist. We don't seem to have any content to keep, or sources from which to create such content. Erik Demaine 02:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Kewp (t) 06:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I cannot find any information on him on the internet. The name of the article isn't even the name mentioned in the text. As to Mawassi, I guess it would be more notable to put up pages on Al Mawassi in tha Gaza strip or on a certain successfull scientist from Isreal. Karol 06:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

This is legitimate information. Ziad Mawassi is a real person and a local hero who lends his valuable time to many people in the community. He has helped many troubled teenagers by giving them a knowledge and experience in the automotive industry. Ziad Mawassi improved the quality of my life when he transformed my classic Ford into a show winner, as he has to many others.
 * Has he appeared in any newspaper articles or anything of that sort which would prove what you've told us? --Last Malthusian 11:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Last Malthusian 11:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I can also attest to Ziads quality of work. Previously having bad experiences with another restorator, i had a meeting with Ziad to discuss my options with my vehicle. Noting his professional behaviour and vast knowledge of the industry, i decided to trust him with my pride and joy. The final results were unimaginable. Even i couldnt envision such a quality job!

I would also like to state how much Ziad has contributed to our community. Realising that his success has been hugely a result of our community, he now strives to give back what he can. Quite often he has been a part of charity fundraising. From simple ordeals, to larger-scale projects, such as restoring cars to be sold off to raise funds.

I can not stress enough the faith i have in Ziad Mawassi, and his level of character.

I can and will definately hold my flag up high and show support that Ziad Mawassi as a genuine person. I can surely solemly swear that he singlehandedly "tricked up" my show winning Datsun Fairlady roadster. 2 Cheers for ziad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hooray!!

 * Delete per nom. FYI, the two unindented postings above are by User:138.25.2.22 (see her/his talk page).  This IP resolves to a different Australian ISP than the creator of Ziad, User:211.30.179.139.  However, the wording suggests that they are the same person or closely aligned. --Erik Demaine 13:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Kgf0 20:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; doing good auto restoration work and local charity work is not inherently notable. MCB 01:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ziad


text: User talk:65.24.52.69

title: User talk:65.24.52.69


text:
Izon, Gironde

Izon (Ison) is a commune in the Gironde department in Nouvelle-Aquitaine in southwestern France.

title: Izon, Gironde


text:
Robert Fellmeth

Robert ("Bob") Fellmeth is an American lawyer. He is a tenured Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law, holder of the Price Chair in Public Interest Law, and executive director of the Center for Public Interest Law and the Children's Advocacy Institute.

Education
Fellmeth attended Kailua High School on Oahu in the state of Hawaii. He was elected its student body president in 1962 and graduated in 1963. Fellmeth then graduated with an AB cum laude from Stanford University in 1967 and with a JD from Harvard University in 1970). While at Harvard, he chaired the law school's Civil Rights – Civil Liberties Research Committee and worked on the initial issues of the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review.

Initial consumer advocacy
While at Harvard Law School, Fellmeth became one of the original "Nader's Raiders," working as part of the consumer movement of the 1960s and '70s with consumer advocate Ralph Nader. He was one of the initial 7 law students investigating the Federal Trade Commission in 1968, and was one of three co-authors of The Nader Report on the Federal Trade Commission. After its publication, he organized what was then called "Nader's Raiders" in the summer of 1969, raising funds and recruiting researchers divided into 5 groups examining the performance of the FDA, Department of Agriculture, air pollution and water pollution control and the transportation regulation of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), respectively. Resulting books included The Chemical Feast, Vanishing Air, Water Wasteland, Sewing the Wind, and the Interstate Commerce Omission. He supervised the ICC project of 7 law students, resulting in a jointly authored book, The Interstate Commerce Omission (Grossman, 1969). During this period, Life Magazine featured these researchers in an article entitled "The Lone Ranger Gets a Posse" and picturing the students, including Fellmeth and the team directors, standing behind Nader on the Capitol steps.

Fellmeth remained with Nader after graduation from the Harvard Law School in 1970. He then directed a study of land use policy in California, under the aegis of Nader's Center for Study of Responsive Law, producing a report and then the book: The Politics of Land (Grossman, 1970). From 1971 to 1973, he directed the Nader Congress Project as part of that Center. That Project produced 30- to 50-page profiles of every incumbent member of Congress, written by young journalists and journalism students, with support from volunteer researchers in the state capitols and Congressional districts. The profiles included demographics about districts, campaign finance details and campaign promises, and included early revelation of committee votes of members (previously not easily available publicly). Many of the profiles were published in summary form in newspapers in the relevant Congressional districts just prior to the 1972 elections. The profile writing part of the Congress Project was overseen by Joan Claybrook, later director of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and later president of the national consumer and public interest organization: Public Citizen.

The Project also published five books about the major committees of the Congress, with Fellmeth contributing to The Commerce Committees book edited by Project Director David Price, later a member of Congress. The Project also produced the best seller Who Runs Congress. Fellmeth wrote the preface as project director, with the book's authorship divided among David Zwick, James Fallows, and Mark Green. Fellmeth's work related to the early consumer movement in the 1970s, including the Federal Trade Commission (the FTC Improvements Act) and the deregulation of trucking (the Surface Transportation Deregulation Act). He was one of the first consumer advocates to embrace restoration of free market forces – and at times was identified as the "conservative" within the movement. He and the other "Raiders" are associated with the consumer safety and environmental statutes of this period. Fellmeth is featured in the biographies of Nader and the early years of the consumer movement, including the recent documentary An Unreasonable Man.

White collar crime prosecutor: 1973–1981
Fellmeth left the Nader organization after the Congress Project in 1973. That same year he began service as a public prosecutor in San Diego County, enforcing state law as a deputy district attorney until 1981, specializing in white collar crime. In 1974, he started the nation's first dedicated local prosecution unit enforcing antitrust and unfair competition statutes. For the next seven years he filed related cases. For the last two of those years, from 1979 to 1981, he was cross commissioned also as an Assistant United States Attorney – a status that allows the filing of criminal or civil cases in either the state or federal jurisdiction. Over this period, he prosecuted 22 antitrust and unfair competition cases. Those reported (with published appellate decisions) included People v. Mobile Magic and People v. National Association of Realtors, with a resulting judgment of liability for per se unlawful tie-in and price fixing offenses against the national, state and local realtor trade associations.

During this period, Fellmeth taught antitrust and unfair competition subject areas at the College of the National Association of District Attorneys, and at the National Judicial College (the training facility in Reno, Nevada created by the U.S. Supreme Court for the training of federal and state court judges).

He also worked with the California District Attorneys' Association to rewrite the unfair competition laws of California. Four amendments were introduced by then state legislator Alan Sieroty, which moved the statute from Civil Code Section 3369 and expanded it into its present form in Ca. Bus. & Profs. Code Section 17200 et seq. In later years, he enforced the statute, first as a prosecutor, and then as private civil counsel, and over the last twenty years as a public interest advocate through the Center for Public Interest Law.

After 1993, he became concerned about plaintiff attorney abuses of the Unfair Competition Law he had been instrumental in drafting. He recommended reforms to require some of the due process elements of class action law to prevent multiple or spurious lawsuits for the same alleged offense. The state legislature appointed him as special consultant to its own "Law Revision Commission" from 1995 to 1998 to consider reforms. His proposals included a requirement that the person bringing the action for the "general public" qualify as a typical victim and must "adequately represent" the public (e.g., have no inappropriate relationship with the attorneys involved and no conflicts of interest), that proper notice be given to the public through the offices of the Attorney General and proper publication for "opt out" opportunity, and that a court review all cases and settlements for due process compliance and fairness. These measures, Fellmeth argued in his final report, would limit abuses, and confer proper finality to cases. However, his reforms were opposed by both the insurance industry and the trial lawyers and the legislature rejected them as addressing non-existent problems. Three years later, the Trevor Law Group in Beverly Hills and several other firms began to commit widespread abuses as he had predicted. That is, law firms brought hundreds of pro forma actions, particularly against car repair firms, nail salons and restaurants, for technical violations and demanding payment, with no finality or res judicata that would prevent another suit for the same alleged wrongs, and without judicial review of attorneys' fees demanded and paid. The State Bar responded with disciplinary action against the lawyers involved, and Fellmeth was retained as one of the Bar's "expert witnesses" in these prosecutions—which eventually disbarred most of the offending attorneys.

However, the abuses also mobilized industry to limit California's Unfair Competition Law. They proposed Proposition 64 in 2004, which went well beyond the changes urged by Fellmeth, and imposed restrictions that he opposed. The measure passed by a 59% to 41% margin and included full class action requirements beyond those recommended by Fellmeth, and over his stated opposition in op eds at the time. The proposition removed from unfair competition coverage of any case not involving direct financial loss. Hence, health, safety, privacy and environmental offenses no longer were included within the statute's ambit.

California Athletic Commission
During the 1976 to 1981 period, Fellmeth was appointed by the governor to the State Athletic Commission, then a five-member body regulating boxing and wrestling, et al. Fellmeth was selected to chair the commission for 3 of his 5 years by other commissioners. He drafted the first pension plan for boxers and sponsored its legislative enactment in 1980 (Bus. & Profs. Section 18880 et seq.) It currently covers approximately 500 boxers, those who fought enough rounds over four or more years to "vest." It also includes disability benefits. Through the Center for Public Interest Law (CPIL), Fellmeth has periodically defended the pension plan from promoter opposition and attempts to eliminate it. In recent years, CPIL supported legislation that has liberalized it to allow early benefits for non-boxing employment vocational training. Fellmeth has advocated for adoption of similar pension plans nationally and in other major states (Nevada, New Jersey, New York). However, those efforts have not been successful, and the California system remains the only pension system in place for professional boxers.

Fellmeth also proposed and won enactment of deregulation reforms applicable to boxing regulation, removing theatrical professional wrestling from regulation and reducing the number of persons requiring licensure (such as ushers, ticket takers, ticket printers) that he argued impeded promoter competition.

Teaching and the Center for Public Interest Law
In 1978, Fellmeth began to teach antitrust and consumer law at the University of San Diego School of Law part-time, while still serving as a prosecutor. He moved over full-time to teaching in 1982 and won tenure as a full professor at the school in 1984. Soon thereafter, he was appointed to hold the "Price Chair in Public Interest Law" one of several such chairs nationally. He has taught consumer law, antitrust law, trade regulation, intellectual property, and criminal process. For the last twenty years, his focus has been two courses: Public Interest Law and Practice and Child Rights and Remedies.

Center for Public Interest Law establishment and purpose
Fellmeth started the Center for Public Interest Law (CPIL) in 1980, training law students in public interest practice. [www.cpil.org]  The "Public Interest Law and Practice" course noted above is a part of the CPIL program and includes a clinic component. The course uses state agencies as the forum for teaching public interest law. The regulatory forum was selected because of the strong domination of the associations of trades/professions regulated by each of them, respectively), their broad authority and general enabling statutes. Covered agencies include the Public Utilities Commission, the State Bar, the Accountancy Board, the Medical Board, the Department of Managed Health Care, Cal-OSHA, the Insurance Commissioner, the Department of Real Estate and 20 other agencies.

During its first decade of the 1980s, CPIL brought suit in Le Dao v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance to allow the licensure of more than 25 Vietnamese doctors who had allegedly been unfairly denied the right to practice after attending an AMA certified medical school, escaping Vietnam as "boat people", passing all of California's examinations and performing as interns in hospitals. The filed case became irrelevant when the Legislature enacted CPIL sponsored legislation effectively mandating licensure. Other litigation during the early years concerned the state's Open Meetings and Public Records Acts.

Legislation has included strengthening amendments to the Public Records Act and to the Administrative Procedure Act. One consistent theme of concerns "muzzle clauses" prohibiting any report by the plaintiff to the licensing agency of the defendant about the alleged wrongful acts or damage resulting. Fellmeth argues that such clauses benefit the offender, and the plaintiff's counsel is essentially compelled to accept them because of the settlement funds at issue to be received by the client. CPIL had been successful in prohibiting such clauses as to attorney malpractice suits, and more recently has won enactment of a statute to prohibit them as to all of trades and professions regulated under the Department of Consumer Affairs. However, they are not comprehensively banned.

CPIL objects to the system of five separate proceedings to decide discipline of licensed professionals: (a) a hearing before an administrative law judge that leads to a "proposed decision" to (b) a board or agency head, who then makes a decision without judicial background, and without having seen the witnesses. It then goes (c) to superior court for retrial on an "independent judgment" basis, and then (d) to the court of appeal and (e) to petition to the state Supreme Court. CPIL documents argue that these five steps are two more than exist for criminal prosecutions, and the delay is commonly above 5 years where fully pursued. CPIL advocates for fewer steps, each purportedly of higher quality. The first would be a full trial before an administrative law judge, preferably with knowledge of the subject area, followed by a single step judicial review.

The CPIL reforms have been partially enacted as to enforcement by the Medical Board, and are more fully reflected in the State Bar's system fashioned largely by Fellmeth and Bar presidents in the late 1980s (see discussion below of Fellmeth's State Bar Discipline Monitor position). Fellmeth's theory of regulation, including advocacy of presumptive reliance on market forces, with an analysis of market flaws that warrant intervention and a preferable ordering of those options, is in his early article: A Theory of Regulation: A Platform for State Regulatory Reform.

Evolution of CPIL, current status
In 1985, Elizabeth (Mulroy) Mohr, who had been serving as deputy director of CPIL and editor of its California Regulatory Law Reporter, moved to San Francisco and took a position as counsel within the California Department of Insurance – a post she still holds. A search was conducted among former USD students to replace her. One of the candidates was Julianne D'Angelo, a graduate of the school and one of its top students – the editor-in-chief of its Law Review. Following her graduation in 1982 from USD School of Law, Ms. D'Angelo clerked for a federal district court judge in Phoenix and then worked for the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. She was among those recruited to the University of San Diego post in 1985 and returned to the school to fill it. By 1986, she served as both editor of the California Regulatory Law Reporter and the administrative director of the Center for Public Interest Law. Meanwhile, in 1989 Fellmeth moved over into the child advocacy subject area with the Children's Advocacy Institute. In 1995, while both were in their forties, Julie D'Angelo and Robert Fellmeth married.

Fellmeth, as the holder of the Price Chair in Public Interest Law, serves as executive director of CPIL. But most of its work over the last two decades has been directed by Administrative Director, Professor Julianne Fellmeth. During that period, CPIL has participated in consumer advocacy, particularly before the PUC, the State Bar, the Accountancy Board, the Department of Insurance, the Medical Board, the Contractors State Licensing Board. She helped draft and CPIL co-sponsored the state legislation to implement the Sarbanes - Oxley accounting reforms—with the California version allegedly a stronger regulatory version. CPIL has opposed policies advocated by the Big Three Accounting firms. One example is the Bonnie Moore case. CPIL contended that the Accountancy Board, allegedly dominated by practicing CPAs, attempted to prohibit the use of the word "accountant" for use by anyone other than themselves through a Board rule. The court restrained the board from allowing its segment of practitioners to exclusively capture the term – which CPIL and others contended has a broader meaning.

CPIL has also been active in the monitoring of agencies under the authority of the state legislature. CPIL served as the staff of the Contractor's State Licensing Board (CSLB) Enforcement Monitor. That appointed monitor, Tom Papageorge, is a longstanding federal and state white collar crime prosecutor. The CSLB project led to legislation to alter its enforcement system, including consumer protections in representations and contractor bonds.

CPIL's Professor Julie Fellmeth was herself appointed as the Medical Board Enforcement Monitor pursuant to legislation authorizing a multi-year investigation relevant to competent physician practice and patient safety. Her reports resulted in legislation altering physician discipline, as discussed above.

CPIL advocacy resulted in some legislation demarking medical regulation from most other trades and professions. Instead of a generic group of "consumer investigators" within the Department of Consumer Affairs, the Medical Board has specialized investigators. Similarly, the Office of Attorney General now has a dedicated medical quality unit that prosecutes these cases. And the Office of Administrative Hearings, providing the Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) that try the cases, also now has a distinct group that conducts the trials, allowing a smaller group of judges to experience many cases in this subject area, rather than spreading the cases across ALJs that handle alcohol, financial, real estate and many other areas of regulation. CPIL sponsored legislation creating those changes (SB 2375 (Presley) in 1990 and SB 916 (Presley) in 1993). The Medical Board cases may now be brought within three steps instead of four to five. Traditionally and as to most agencies, after the ALJ hearing, the proposed decision is still reviewed de novo by the Medical Board (which has no judicial expertise and did not view the testimony – a step CPIL opposes) and then moves to independent judgment review by a superior court, automatic right of appeal to the court of appeal, and discretionary Supreme Court review. In the case of the Medical Board, CPIL won a change that makes the appellate court review by petition (and therefore discretionary). CPIL argued that the difference here is that a third level of appeal "of right" means even spurious appeals can delay final decision for years. So the Medical Board system has somewhat fewer proceedings and with some enhanced expertise by the officials involved. In addition to general process, CPIL has directed substantial advocacy to the problem of alcohol and drug abuse among professionals, including doctors, nurses and other health professionals, and attorneys. As Medical Board Enforcement Monitor, Professor D'Angelo Fellmeth audited the "diversion" program of the Medical Board—allowing those accused of incompetence or other dangerous practice to delay or mitigate their discipline through substance abuse programs. She also found a great deal of "gaming" of the system. Her conclusions repeated similar findings of two prior audits by the Office of the State Auditor. Another audit after her report again repeated the same critique. Accordingly, the diversion program of the Medical Board was terminated by unanimous vote of the board effective in 2011. CPIL's stated position is not to oppose drug/alcohol rehabilitation, but to avoid using rigged treatment that is not policed nor achieves compliance, as a means to continue practice without adequate disciplinary protection and with resulting patient jeopardy.

Expert testimony, consulting, appointments and boards
In addition to the white collar crime consultation with public prosecutors noted above, Fellmeth has served as an expert witness in both private and public cases involving issues of consumer and antitrust law, regulatory law, children's law, and legal ethics. He has been retained by the District Attorneys of San Diego, Los Angeles and 7 other counties, the state Attorney General involved in Judicial Commission Enforcement Actions against sitting judges, the State Bars of California and Washington, and the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District.

For most of the years from 1994 to the present, Fellmeth has served on the federal "screening" committees that review applications for U.S. Attorney and federal judge positions. Appointed by Senator Barbara Boxer, he served on the bi-partisan screening committee for appointees to the Southern District of California during the Bush presidency and currently is one of 6 persons on the committee appointed by Senator Boxer for the Obama Administration. Each of California's senators has such a committee and each screens for 1/2 of the open federal positions in that district.

During the 1980s, Fellmeth served on two boards related to the work of CPIL. They include the Board of Consumers Union of the United States, the publisher of Consumer Reports, from 1981 to 1985. He then served on the Board of California Common Cause from 1986–91, acting as its Litigation Chair from 1989–91. One of his cases was an unsuccessful attempt to remove the requirement that judges seeking re-election finance their own ballot statement – at a cost approaching the annual salary for a superior court position. The Kaplan case rejected Fellmeth's argument that such a state-created expense added obligations requiring judicial campaign solicitations and violated constitutional requirements for judicial independence.

Fellmeth served as chair of the board of the Public Citizen Foundation, a public interest lobby in Washington, D.C., from 1992 to 2012, and remains on the board. Public Citizen includes divisions that focus on Congress ("Congress Watch"), the Health Research Group, Global Trade Watch, Energy Policy, a Litigation Unit, and a Texas field office. Those divisions have advocated for air bags in automobiles, transparency and ethics in government (including the recent legislation banning insider trading by the Congress), are working for a Constitutional amendment to reverse the Citizens United Supreme Court case giving corporations free speech rights to contribute to campaigns through Political Action Committees without limitation or full disclosure. The Health Research Group published Best Pills – Worst Pills book and its FDA advocacy has led to the withdrawal of several dangerous drugs from the market. The Litigation Group specializes in U.S. Supreme Court advocacy and prepares counsel in approximately 1/3 of the cases considered by the Court. [www.citizen.org]

Fellmeth has been instrumental in the creation of ancillary consumer entities. In 1983, he helped to create the Utility Consumer Action Network (UCAN) as a project of CPIL during its first three years. It sought access to the billing envelopes of the San Diego Gas and Electric Utility through an administrative action brought by CPIL before the PUC. CPIL won the case and UCAN has since become a major utility ratepayer organization, [www.ucan.org] In 1988, he helped to create the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, a national research and advocacy center on privacy rights. [www.privacyrights.org]  In 2006, he helped to organize, the Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC) at the University of San Diego School of Law, and sits on its advisory board. EPIC includes law school courses in energy and environmental law, clinic placements with the PUC, Energy Commission and other agencies, and an annual environmental symposium of national experts. In 2008, EPIC sponsored the nation's first student law review on the subject of global warming.

State Bar Discipline Monitor position, attorney ethics and regulation
In 1987, Fellmeth was appointed to the newly created position of State Bar Discipline Monitor by then state attorney general John Van de Kamp. This one-time position lasted for a term of five years, reporting to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and to the legislature creating it. He served for the tenure of the post, which was given discovery power to review State Bar operations, and investigated the Bar's discipline system. He issued nine reports and sponsored reform legislation or Bar rulemaking to implement many of them. His work resulted in the revamping of the State of California's attorney discipline system.

He was an outspoken critic of attorney misconduct. His frank assessment of the dishonesty employed by lawyers in civil litigation was reported in one State Bar Discipline Monitor Report: "The level of attorney dishonesty in representations to the court, in promises to clients, in dealings with adverse counsel, and perhaps especially in points and authorities and legal briefs, is embarrassing to anyone with a measure of intellectual pride. [...] Part of the problem has to do with the lack of certain sanctions for deceit. [...] It is possible to develop new rules of behavior supervening adversary representation, and restoring a measure of honor to a profession which is in a current state of well-deserved dishonor."

Some of Fellmeth's recommended State Bar reforms were enacted during the early 1990s, including the creation of an independent State Bar Court. Previously, attorneys adjudged complaints against their colleagues, with a review before an 18-member committee composed mostly of practicing attorneys. The California Supreme Court reviewed all cases and became increasingly critical of the State Bar adjudication system. The new State Bar Court recommended by Fellmeth, and supported by 4 successive State Bar presidents, removed the State Bar's jurisdiction, placing it with an independent State Bar Court of judges appointed primarily by the Supreme Court and separate from practicing attorneys. The Supreme Court approved of the change during the 1990s and issued an order allowing finality to the new Court, without required Supreme Court review of every case.

More recent State Bar advocacy by CPIL includes the substantial revision of its system of governance. For most of its history, the State Bar was governed by 23 members on its "Board of Governors." The Board included a supermajority of 17 attorneys selected by other attorneys in district elections. CPIL contended that these were often dominated by private, local trade associations. In 2011, the state legislature enacted measures long sought by CPIL that ended the control of the agency by members of the profession regulated. Accordingly the newly constituted State Bar will be controlled by a 19-member "Board of Trustees", with 6 members elected by attorneys and the remaining 13 selected by public officials, including the Supreme Court. The CPIL-sponsored legislation also subjected the State Bar to the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act.

Public interest, consumer publications
Fellmeth's publications in the consumer/antitrust area include 11 books and numerous academic articles (including the Theory of Regulation article discussed above, conference presentations/publications, and commentaries or newspaper op eds. These include, in addition to the three books noted above, he has written or contributed to the following public interest related books: The Politics of Land, with co/authors, Grossman, 1972; chapters in American Government, a political science text edited by Peter Woll (Little, Brown 1972) and California Administrative and Antitrust Law, w/ Professor Ralph Folsom (Butterworths, 1991). He is the co-author of the 2013 4th edition of California White Collar Crime and Business Litigation, a 700-page treatise on economic, political and other white collar offenses.

Child advocacy and the Children's Advocacy Institute
Ten years after founding the Center for Public Interest Law, Fellmeth created a sister advocacy group, the Children's Advocacy Institute (CAI). After lobbying for consumers in Sacramento, he chose to focus on children's rights.

CAI structure
The Children's Advocacy Institute (CAI) is directed by an Administrative Director/Attorney; two other San Diego-based CAI attorneys are graduates of the CAI law school program. CAI also has attorneys working from its offices based in Sacramento and Washington, D.C. CAI is advised by a group of experts called the Council for Children. It includes 20 current and emeritus members. They include the former president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the former chair of California's Medical Board and past president of the U.S. Federation of State Medical Boards, the president of San Diego's Children's Hospital, two recently serving state legislators, and leaders in child education, family law, juvenile law, public health and other disciplines.

Teaching and clinics
Since 1989, Fellmeth has focused on child advocacy. He developed a Child Rights law school course that covers issues of policy influence, court access, poverty and opportunity, education, nutrition, disability and other rights, as well as the traditional civil liberties material. His text for juvenile law, Child Rights and Remedies, is in its third edition (Clarity Press, 2002, 2006, 2011). The CAI academic program also includes clinics where students are certified by the State Bar to represent abused children in juvenile dependency court, and work on behalf of accused delinquents in juvenile delinquency court. It also include a "policy clinic" allowing students to work with the professional litigators and lobbyists of CAI in San Diego, Sacramento, and Washington D.C., where it has offices and attorney staff. [www.caichildlaw.org] As with the "public interest law" program of CPIL, which offers a "Public Interest Law" Concentration designation at graduation, students can obtain credit and graduation acknowledgment in a "Child Rights Concentration". The Child Rights Concentration combines CAI courses with the special education clinic and other courses offered by USD's School of Law and School of Education.

CAI brings test litigation, intervenes in rulemaking, and lobbies. It has sponsored various enacted bills in California since 1990, including the "Kid's Plates" (California auto license plates with a heart, plus sign, hand shape or heart) to fund child protection programs, and safety laws concerning swimming pools, kids in cars, bicycle helmets, and playgrounds. CAI has also been active in sponsoring legislation in the areas of child support collection, homeless youth, and child welfare. From 1991 to 2004 CAI published a 650-page California Children's Budget— detailing the demographic data and federal/state/local spending relevant to child poverty, nutrition, health, disability, education (k-12 and higher), protection, and delinquency. Since 1998, it has issued an annual Legislative Report Card on the performance of the State Legislature, including a score or grade for each legislator. CAI also publishes a Children's Regulatory Law Reporter, summarizing rulemaking by the major agencies affecting children (especially the Departments of Health Services, Social Services, and Education).

Since 2008, CAI has released national reports in three subject areas: (a) effective counsel for children in dependency court, (b) disclosure of information pertaining to the deaths and near deaths from child abuse, and (c) state takings from foster children (The Fleecing of Foster Children). The pattern for these studies is to issue an initial report, and then to publish an updated edition every two to three years to stay on the theme of each. The reports examine the statutes and rules of the fifty states in the subject matter, and for the first two subject areas, publish "grades" from A to F for each state's performance in protecting its children. Two such updated reports (a) and (b) above were released in 2012. A future report on new subject matter has been announced for 2013 analyzing the performance of the Department of Health and Human Services, federal courts, and Congress in assuring state compliance with constitutional and statutory floors in child protection.

Reports on the California state level have been published studying the fate of foster children emancipating into adulthood, where outcomes are problematical. CAI has been promoting a solution to the fate of emancipating foster children, called the "Transition Life Coach" (TLC) plan. CAI argues that it recognizes that the median age of self-sufficiency in the U.S, is not 21 years of age, but 26. The TLC plan creates a "trust instrument" funded at the median level of parental support for children (approximately $50,000 for self-sufficiency). The court, who has been the legal parent of the foster child would continue to have a presence in each youth's life. A trustee, called a "Transition Life Coach" (a name selected by foster kids), would provide personal mentoring and write checks under a plan developed with the youth, and monitored by the court. CAI argues that this method allows major input from the child, and is personal. The "coach" (trustee) will often be someone known to the youth, or someone trained to guide him or her, with each having no more than one or two to assist. CAI has written reports and conducted an economic study indicating that the long run consequences would involve public money savings. And CAI has succeeded in amending California law to allow these trusts to be formed by dependency court judges for any foster youth to achieve self-sufficiency without age or other limitation. Nevertheless, no county in California or any other state has to date implemented the proposal, nor has any effectuated a pilot project to date.

Future announced California reports may include (a) a study of child representation in family court, (b) a survey of the impact of AB 12 – the state law implementing the federal Fostering Connections to Success Act which can extend assistance to foster children to age 21, (c) and a study of the effects of public coverage of foster children and dependency proceedings.Children's Advocacy Institute As to the last, CAI has consistently supported presumptive transparency of public decisionmaking affecting foster children, with liberal allowance for protective orders and confidentiality where in the child's best interest. CAI has contended that a presumptively concealed system – typical in most states—allows child abuse harm and foster child detriment to continue without democratic check.

Child-related organizations
Fellmeth has been involved in the governance of the National Association of Counsel for Children (NACC) since 2004, serving as its Board President from 2010 to 2012, [www.naccchildlaw.org]. He is on the board of the First Star Foundation, [www.firststar.org]. He has been on the board of the National Association of Child Advocates and counsel to the board of its successor, Voices for America's Children. [www.voices.org]

Within California, Fellmeth helped in the development of the Maternal and Child Health Access Foundation of Lynn Kersey in Los Angeles starting in the 1980s that continues to provide services and advocacy for impoverished pregnant women and young children. [www.mchaccess.org] He remains one of its board members. For the last 22 years, CAI has convened the "Child Advocates Roundtable" in Sacramento, bringing together for meetings, conference calls and webcasts, 65 organizations with an interest in children, with quarterly education meetings, special expert speakers and advocacy planning and coordination work.

Child-related publications
In addition to reports, articles, and conference presentation publications discussed briefly above, Fellmeth has written or contributed to a number of books in the child rights area in addition to the Child Rights and Remedies text. These include Health and Welfare for Families in the 21st Century, edited by Helen Wallace, (Jones and Bartlett, 4th edition, 2007); Expert Testimony in Child Related Litigation, (w. Dr. David Chadwick), Chapter 12 in The Forensic Pathology of Infancy and Childhood (edited by R. Byard and K. Collins, Springer Publishing, 2013); and Legal Issues, Chapter 31 in Child Maltreatment 4E: A Clinical Guide and Reference (edited by Chadwick, Giardino and Alexander, STM Learning, 2013).

Litigation
Fellmeth has been counsel in 40 published appellate cases, half as counsel for a party, usually the plaintiff or petitioner challenging corporate or governmental action. The remainder represent amicus contributions at the circuit or Supreme Court level. Consumer, white collar crime and legal ethics litigation make up about 60% of all of the appellate litigation, with the remaining 40% focusing on child rights.

Center for Public Interest Law
The most recent major case of CPIL is Shames v. Hertz, an antitrust case against all 7 of the airport rental car companies operating in California, and the California Travel and Tourism Commission (CTTC), a state agency controlled by the tourism industry. The case challenged two airport rental car charges that 2006 legislation allowed the industry to "itemize" on consumer bills. The case alleges that instead of "itemizing" the charges, they were "added on" to the previous charges on every subsequent bill, effective on January 1, 2007 when the legislation took effect, with the CTTC assisting in the horizontal price fix. The case was initiated and litigated by CPIL, with three antitrust firms brought into the case. It went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal on an important legal issue pertaining to legislative intent and agency liability, and which upheld the CPIL position – reversing the trial court dismissal of the CTTC from the case. The case was settled in 2013, with a court order stopping what started as a $90 million a year overcharge to consumers, awarding 250,000 consumers as much or more than the overcharge they suffered, and subjecting the CTTC to the Open Meetings Act it had allegedly violated repeatedly.

Children's Advocacy Institute
CAI's litigation includes California Foster Parents' Association v. Lightbourne, a Ninth Circuit case that found the Department of Social Services compensation to family foster care providers to be over 30% below their actual out-of-pocket costs, in violation of federal law. CAI argued that these rates were also irrational because children in homes with functioning parents have much better outcomes than do group homes with employees serving the parental role, but the latter receive more than 8 times the compensation as do families. The litigation was assisted by the pro bono efforts of Morrison and Foerster joining with the CAI legal team. The supply of family foster care providers had fallen as the compensation levels retracted due to uncompensated inflation in the years following 1998. The case required a 30% immediate increase and CPI adjustment hereafter.

CAI has two other test cases in the courts as of 2013. One challenges the 388 child caseloads of Sacramento dependency court attorneys (E.T., the other challenges the rules of the Department of Social Services (DSS) that allegedly implemented SB 39, a bill sponsored by CAI to provide for disclosure of deaths from child abuse or neglect consistent with federal and state law. The complaint contends that the rules, influenced by counties and social workers, conceals the causes of deaths contrary to the statutory intent and construction. In 2013, the Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of the case, invoking the equitable doctrine of "abstention," or categorical deferral to state court practice. Fellmeth has condemned the decision.

Fellmeth and CAI are also involved as counsel for objectors to the current federal case of Fraley v. Facebook.

In addition to appellate litigation by CAI and CPIL, Fellmeth has written numerous amicus briefs at the appellate level, including the brief for the National Association of Counsel for Children in the Troxel case, and for CAI on the Camreta case—both before the U.S. Supreme Court since 2006. The Camreta brief was selected as "Brief of the Week" by the National Law Journal in 2011.

Awards
In 1997, Fellmeth was named "Community Champion for 30 Years of Work in Injury Prevention" by the Civil Justice Foundation. In 2009, he was honored by the university's School of Education Sciences and Leadership as a "Remarkable Leader in Education." In 2012, Fellmeth won the Thorsnes Prize for outstanding scholarship for the third edition of his text Child Rights and Remedies.

title: Robert Fellmeth


text:
User talk:Andthendougsaid

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karmafist 02:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer be able to have them marked as minor by default. For more information on what a minor edit is, see WP:MINOR or feel to get in touch.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Andthendougsaid


text:
List of social networking services

A social networking service is an online platform that people use to build social networks or social relationships with other people who share similar personal or career interests, activities, backgrounds or real-life connections.

This is a list of notable active social network services, excluding online dating services, that have Wikipedia articles. For defunct social networking websites, see List of defunct social networking services.

title: List of social networking services


text:
Talk:Mostaccioli

Untitled
This seems to be a recipe rather than an explanation of what mostaccioli is, which if I recall, isn't really wikipedia's sort of thing... maybe one of the sister projects? Not sure. Someone that knows more than n00bish me needs to weigh-in I think, but it really does need an explanation of what it is at least. Wish I could write it! -Graptor
 * Addressed. See edit summary. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mostaccioli


text:
User talk:Xanaduchisimo

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karmafist 02:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Fair use rationale for Image:Wbmbs28.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Wbmbs28.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  03:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Xanaduchisimo