7870:
goes away after he learns again that such disruption will be reverted by more numerous, neutral editors. That said, it is a fact that such storms are stressful and may result in a good editor taking a long wikibreak or even permanently leaving, fed up with flaming and harassment. It is very, very difficult to get a user on the
Digwuren's warning list and later, blocked - even if one produces a big list of very clear diffs you get the usual "random admin decision", usually erring on the case of 'let's give him another chance' or 'he was warned few month ago and inactive recently, so let's just warn him again'. And certainly, other admins may be to timid or afraid to apply the remedy to experienced editors who have proven their skills with wikilawyering. Thus I do think that the Digwuren sanction ended up being relatively pointless. Just as before, what we need are a few blocks (or topical ban - see who creates little to no content but flames and revert wars) - and the problem would cease to exist. Perhaps some conclusions from
6016:
subjects. A broader subject category, like all pseudoscience/alternative science, becomes muddled with lots of other issues (see my statement). The discretionary sanctions for the narrow topics say any percieved " to adhere to the purpose of
Knowledge", by any admin who feels strongly about it. There's lots of admins who feel strongly about their interpretation of NPOV, whether they're involved or not, and especially if they're involved in the broader discussions though not technically involved in the given page at the given time. The discretionary sanctions don't discriminate between bad editor practices like incivility, edit warring, etc. and good faith content disputes. Good faith content disputes can easily be seen as a "conduct problem", as that happens all the time. Maybe I am making a mountain out of a molehill, but hopefully you can see where the concern comes from. On a side-note, if we already have tools available for getting problem editors off these articles, why aren't they already banned? --
5237:- In many cases it is not our intention to permanently deprive a user of their tools, else we would say so. It's not enough to just say "they may reapply via RFA" and wash our hands of it; some users may never realistically have a fair chance in open debate after an Arbcom desysopping. We wish to ensure that if they do their part and change, they will have a fair chance to get the bit back. For example a user who is active in dispute resolution and blocking, may have made many enemies who will be only too glad to "stick the knife in" on their one mistake. When we say "temporary desysop", we want to make sure they do in fact have the reasonable chance we have promised, that if their conduct is good they may stand a chance to regain their bit, even if this takes time and involves going slowly. "By application" is one way to ensure a user can instead in the course of time, have a discussion and re-hearing by the same Committee that originally endorsed the desysopping.
8092:
plagued by "a few persistent trolls and borderline disruptive users". Those are not a problem that requires ArbCom's involvement. It is plagued by a few long-standing and dedicated editors whose sole aim is to glorify their country and to skew the perspective with their tendentious editing. For a start I'd be for putting
Piotrus under editing restrictions, for it would go a longer way toward lightening up the atmosphere than any of the proposed motions. Since I had not been editing English Knowledge between November and June (apart from inserting interwiki links to my articles in Russian Knowledge), nobody can call me the mastermind of all the problems, as Piotrus had insinuated in the previous cases. If nothing has changed for the better, what was the purpose of ArbCom's ousting me out of English Knowledge during the Digwuren case? That screw-up highlighted ArbCom's incompetence and inefficiency, and the proposed motion will have a similar effect. --
6224:
wrong, and determining what actually is wrong to begin with. That's what RfCs are all about. If the goal is to relieve the burden on the ArbCom, that can be done without dropping the discussions altogether. A very simple way to do that is to say "If after a RfC about applying sanctions on the user, allowing for community input and consensus-building, an uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict." Anything less is setting the bar for deleting a user from a topic lower than deleting a topic itself. The RfC also has the benefit of providing the banning/blocking admin with a summary of the issues surrounding the user so they could make an informed decision. The admin could, of course, in their discretion, interpret the RfC anyway they wish and impose their discretionary sanctions, but at least there'd be a discussion on the matter. --
2503:), This is a major escalation from a civility remedy with blocks no longer than a month, to discretionary sanctions allowing blocks of up to one year for any reason with a very narrow definition of involved admin. This proposal was brought on the back of a single Polish/German topic dispute (which is not even within the scope of the original locus of dispute), so why should it be applicable to the Baltic States or Russia, but not Ireland? Where is the reward for those areas that have improved since 2007, if anything we should be seeing a narrowing of the scope of the current remedy to reflect these improvements, not introducing heavier sanctions. There is also an additional concern expressed by some quarters that certain admins may abuse this provision to settle some old scores, which in my view is valid given the bad blood generated in past conflicts in EE.
2310:
reliable sources ("source X opined that they are axe scars"). We have neither. A google search shows nothing except blogs. There is apparently not one reliable source in Google News. The actual article statement is backed up by a source of no merit whatsoever (a video purporting to be an
Israeli TV recording), but no evidence backing this exists in any reliable source I can find. We have no real evidence it was "channel 10" or any Israeli TV channel (much less a reputable one), what its provenance and reliability are. There is a channel ident on the video, but that doesnt matter - I (or any video editing hack) could fake that. A website saying "I am official" doesnt make it official. A video saying "I am channel 10" doesnt make it channel 10. We need a reliable source - ie, provenance - not just a source that claims to be reliable.
5719:. LP protests that the Black and Tans article did not directly relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland. While the Black and Tans were clearly operational only prior to the creation of Northern Ireland, I interpreted that articles "related in any way to the conflict in Northern Ireland" would include about the recent history of conflict that resulted in the creation of the constituent country. If the edits had been non controversial then I would probably had overlooked it, but they content was clearly a continuation of the "habitual point of view editing" that was found during the ArbCom. If the remedy is to be upheld, I would ask that ArbCom clarify whether they meant that remedy to be interpreted narrowly, or to include articles that relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland more generally.
2202:
talk page and article in her judgement of the handling. Bans and the like are preventative, and ChrisO sounds like he may have done mostly the right thing this case, but with poor and misleading communication, even though in prior instances he was breaching good practice and needed warning. I urge both to re-affirm that they are working together, and to collaborate better, which would make the sanction perhaps less necessary to uphold. But the bottom line is, I feel it's best to leave the final decision in Elonka's hands to decide (she's admining on this dispute area, and is doing it well). My own feeling is that if appropriate and if she feels ChrisO may have now learned from this about the importance of good communication in sensitive, already-restricted areas, she might feel like giving
1617:
this case Elonka) are the gatekeepers for the article. To avoid this, I suggest a system of rotation, whereby the uninvolved admins move on to different areas and different articles every few months. This will ensure things do not go stale, that grudges do not fester and build up, and that the admins involved get a fresh look on different articles rather than deal with the same things over and over again (ie. avoid burn out). This would also address the perennial question of whether admins are truly uninvolved and committed. If the admins in question are uninvolved, then they will not mind moving on a different article every few months. Possibly all this has been suggested elsewhere. If not, please do pass it on to whatever board is considering these things this month. :-)
6121:
throw up a report just to see what sticks; only truly legit reports would get filed if this were to occur. For example, maybe you wouldn't mind being called "braindead", but it would offend a lot of people. Also, you (you as in everyone, both sides) may consider your efforts on wiki non-POV, but others may not. If everyone involved here would take a step back, take a deep breath, and admit that the world of wiki is plenty big for everyone, things would be a lot calmer. These types of disputes start and go on and on when no one allows room for the other side. I see this not only in the pseudoscience area, but Mid-East, East Europe, Sri Lanka, etc disputes. On top of all this, there's about disagreement about the civility here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
3807:. I am at a loss for how to solve these problems. Could the Committee please review this situation and provide guidance. Perhaps an additional remedy is needed to expedite clean up of the messes. Ideally, we need the ability to blank, revert, or delete articles to a state that is untainted by misrepresented sources. It is neither efficient nor scalable to have to go through all the same arguments as we faced at arbitration for each instance of the problem. By now, there should be a presumption that PHG's information on East-West cultural connections from the time period prior to arbitration is not reliable. Additionally, I think PHG needs to stand aside and not obstruct clean up efforts in any way.
6161:
and axes to grind. I'm sure many of them would love to ban their opponents on content disputes for up to a year. What sort of assurances can one like myself who edits paranormal-related articles as a hobby, not advocacy, be given that the new powers won't be abused? I don't edit war, am civil, but I've irritated admins in the past simply by disagreeing with them in content disputes, particularly that
Knowledge can also cover folklore neutrally without having a solely science point-of-view. Some admins adamantly reject that eventhough most agree that such a prospect is entirely neutral. AGF went out the window about two years ago on these topics, so frankly I'm a little concerned.
4700:
via the usual means or he would not have accepted the RfA nomination. It is rather frustrating for the body making decisions to also announce that these decisions are not ambiguous after they have seen the community struggle to agree on the correct interpretation. I do not think my request here is complicated or unreasonable, I simply want answers to two questions: (1) is
Shoemaker's Holiday able to request adminship via the normal means and (2) what guidance can ArbCom offer bureaucrats in interpreting their decisions where they choose not to specifically mention whether or not the usual means are available? So far I distill the following from your answer:
4172:
the last clarification a few months ago, PHG has been doing a very good job at abiding by his sanctions. He is still creating articles at a rapid rate, but he is staying out of the medieval topic area, has not been engaging in excessive debate at talkpages, and appears (last I checked) to be sticking to reliable
English-language sources. I do agree with Shell Kinney that since PHG's old mentor appears to be inactive, that it would be wise to choose a new mentor (I recommend Shell, if PHG would accept). As for cleanup, I recommend that anything new that is found, that requires cleanup from PHG's past efforts, be added to the list at
5194:
community to allow it to be hidden if he sought RFA); there was repeated mis-use which is not acceptable to allow to recur and regardless of good intentions, without clear conditions and help, he might accidentally do so again in the course of time, under stress; he might not get a fair chance at the tools back (both usual admin concerns, and also other users with concerns, in the areas he edits); he might be over-stressed by RFA and have problems with the process. It was for these reasons -- and it should be emphasized heavily, to protect and help mostly him -- that this remedy was stated to be "by application".
4947:. The user also posted what I hope was only a summary of that information on Knowledge at one time (and a commentator above notes that it has since been oversighted), and even that summary, which I recall is material and significant. Editors who don't have access to the private data, which I probably don't have in full, really don't know what they are talking about. So 1) passers by can't usefully comment and 2) there really is private data that should keep this out of the communitys hands unless (which I think would be a really really really bad idea) the affected editor chooses to release that data publicly.
7413:, of which "Knowledge is an encyclopedia" and "Knowledge has a neutral point of view" are the first two, and arguably the most important ones, compared to "Knowledge has a code of conduct" as fourth. Thus, as we try to write an encyclopedia, I think it is necessary that much more attention is given to the content that editors add or remove, rather than to civility or the lack thereof, or the skill with which some editors can provoke uncivil responses while getting judged civil themselves. For example, Molobo repeatedly denied that there was a by-election to the Polish parliament in 1920
5307:
and without any help or protection we might have arranged for them), or if it was to protect others, then we will have to explain our concerns on the wiki or in exceptional cases (I don't know if this has happened to date) perhaps summarily state conditions rather than amicably discuss them, or even request directly that the user in fact not be resysopped due to concerns of a privacy- or abuse-related nature, or due to concerns we are unable to state on-wiki which are private or to protect some other user(s). Whichever it is, ignoring the decision might lead to a mess.
6118:, trying to see what will stick. Many admins are wary to block because of fears another admin that is sympathetic to the blockee will unblock. The remedies in place are not working and something has to be done about it. There are also significant agreements among admins about what constitutes civility. This leads to users who have mastered the art of being borderline incivil and getting away with it for years. A firm policy about this sort of incivility being blockable, long term if necessary, need to be put in place. Copied from my comment at WP:AE archive 20..."
6249:. Editors active in this area should write their comments assuming that their own actions, and those of whom they agree with on content, will be reviewed and possibly sanctioned. I know of multiple editors in each faction who have effectively developed enemy lists of other editors they want banned, which is a bad sign for the ability of the editors in these areas to work together. We need to clear out those who can't or won't work with those who disagree with them so that a reasonable communal editing environment exists for current and future editors.
4968:, rather severe, and this causes occasional periods, up to a month long, where I am largely bedridden or nearly bedridden, with the corresponding difficulty in responding in a timely manner. The arbcom case was opened after Charles Matthews contacted me in one such period about a block, then again in a later, second period. Having forgotten about the first messages after I came out of the bad period, I felt I should make some effort to respond, even if I was still in a bad period. However, because I was severely ill, made a hash of it.
6198:). Talking about the folklore on those articles is sometimes called POV pushing by admins who say that the article should predominantly be about methane gases, etc. So, yes, there is a potential for abuse based solely on ideologies and old grudges. If the goal is to just to refresh the editor pool on these topics regardless of whether they're productive Wikipedians, that's fine, that goal will be served if no oversight is in place. But if the goal is to only target disruptive editors, there will need to be some sort of oversight.
7734:
and the heavy threat of desysoping other admins who may overturn a sanction. A very profitable outcome to any baiter compared with the current situation. Arguing for additional sanctions across all
Eastern European articles because of a dispute about some German/Polish topic is akin to arguing for discretionary sanctions across all North American related articles because of disruption in some US related article like 9/11. I'm sure those editing Canadian or Mexican topics would not be happy about that prospect.
6566:
occasionally disrupted, but not nearly enough for the scope of this proposal to be anything more than a hindrance. The areas that this will apply to need to be better spelled out. There are probably thousands of articles that fall within the pseudoscience area, especially if broadly defined. And if BLP's are included in that, ie the ones of proponents of pseudoscience, there are an even greater number of articles. I would wager that it is pretty clear the the biggest problems lie in the
3797:) has ended. Coren appears to have been inactive since May 8, 2008. The mess of damaged articles remains. Attempts to fix this mess meet with resistance because editors are unaware of the problems. I have been asked to prove, yet again, that sources have been misrepresented. Please excuse me for not having 8 hours to drive to a research library, find an obscure book, and go through the article line by line to yet again demonstrate the same problem that was demonstrated at arbitration.
39:
8223:
Knowledge, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
7972:
Knowledge, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
6895:
Knowledge, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
6729:
Knowledge, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
1574:), and everyone else is back to work. I acted in the best interest of the project, and got rapid control of a situation that was in near chaos, with only very minor course corrections on my part. I wish that ChrisO could recognize that my system works. That he is continuing to escalate and is now trying to spin this as a BLP issue, is disappointing. There were many ways that he could have edited the article to remove anything that he found problematic, by
4176:. We are still working our way through the dozens of other PHG-edited articles with NPOV problems, so it couldn't hurt to add a few more, perhaps in a section like, "Additional articles for review", to make it clear that these may be in slightly different topic areas. At least that will provide a depository where identified articles can be clearly listed as still needing review, and will help identify the scope of the problem. --
1767:
like "conspiracy theories" to describe other viewpoints; I believe this provokes other editors into inappropriate actions). This is not to say that the editing of his "opponents" has not also been problematic. But, as an experienced user, ChrisO should know better. Frankly, I'm impressed with how Elonka has handled the situation, and feel this approach should be used with other contentious articles. No ArbCom action needed here.
6311:
seen obviously biased admins who are supposedly "outside" the debates come in and give sanctions. For example, some of those banning people relative to the 9/11 or
Homeopathy issues. In other words, I have no fear of neutrality, but I have fear of hidden bias. If even Nealparr is scared, I certainly am, because I've been deionized all over the place irrespective of my actual edits, beliefs, ideas or intent.
3996:
events related to the
Siamese revolution over the 40 or so pages which he personnally authors. For some details, I also sometimes relied on the translations themselves. As far as I know, this is accepted by Knowledge, provided that the primary accounts have been published by a reliable secondary source, and that the primary sources are used for purposed of factual documentation, which is the case here (see
6485:
on religious beliefs to paranormal articles. For instance, I suspect that not even members of the WikiProject Rational Skepticism would attempt to make Knowledge say that the Catholic Church is not real. Can you apply a similar standard to the EVP article without characterizing as real or not real? Can you just say what it is reported to be? Doing so would certainly stop a lot of the content disputes.
8266:), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.
8015:), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.
6938:), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.
6772:), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.
5228:
happen and might repeat, and, because a user is hitting a bad patch and needs time to regain calm and balance, ride out their instable period, and gradually ease themselves back into tool use following a "bad time" or a gross misjudgement under stress. (The latter may happen when an administrator misused their tools, and seems likely to repeat it again, next time they are faced with serious stress.)
8238:, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Knowledge as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Knowledge's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct,
7987:, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Knowledge as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Knowledge's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct,
6910:, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Knowledge as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Knowledge's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct,
6744:, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Knowledge as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Knowledge's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct,
2995:
1643:
leeway was given to him (presumably because of his status as an admin) than to other editors, who were subjected to similar sanctions for behavior that was, in my opinion, much less disruptive than ChrisO’s. He has clearly edit warred on the page, and reverted on multiple occasions, despite being notified of both the 0RR restrictions and the general ArbCom decision related to I-P articles.
1720:
removing such violations is a serious error in judgment. Mediating in this or any I-P related article is a thankless task that few if any have the time, patience, or willingness to undertake, and Elonka should be commended for taking a stab at a difficult task. But a bit more flexibility is called for here, and a hard "no reverts ever" is simply bad practice and completely unworkable.
5045:", by application to the Committee, or by some other means. In this case the method specified was "by application to the Committee, upon demonstration of six months editing in compliance with communal norms and conduct standards", and as such a request for adminship is not permitted within that decision. I would suggest that if people disagree with the decision they should appeal it. --
2817:(eg from his talk page), and doesn't change the communication problems at all. It can't be assumed that a blocked user who has checked and found Emailuser was not working, would think to read a user page in detail as well. A working and validated emailuser address is a norm for RFA; likewise so is good responsive communication for active administrators. Examples where this is stated:
2165:
description of the reason that anyone can follow, and by willingness to discuss collaboratively after removal. Where it may not be clear to others, a good talk page description should usually be provided and ideally posted within moments of the edit and noted in the edit summary, so that the two will be seen together by other editors, and so it doesn't get mistaken for edit warring.
7767:
need to be revert-paroled, some incorrigible trolls topic-banned, and some baiters blocked", he should name them here, as I know of none in the Baltic states topic area that requires the imposition of addtitional discretionary sanctions. I'm not aware of issues in the areas either, e.g. like Ukraine, certainly nothing serious enough to warrant reporting to ANI or other boards.
1736:
exclusions that go far beyond just BLP: "If something is added that is unsourced, that is obviously troublesome (such as very biased or potentially untrue), it can be deleted on the spot." Chris’ initial arguments seem to be that his edit was within the limits of Elonka’s restrictions. I think this is just a simple disagreement over the nature of Chris' particular edit.
6363:
every forum possible, just as present. And i do not think the problem is that hopeless either, because I think the community is evolving standards. The problem is not individual topics--the problem is what degree of tolerance we should have for disruptive actions by good editors. Personally, I don't think they should get the essentially free ride they have at present.
6469:
would be comfortable with a venue in which I could present my viewpoint to a panel, editors with a contrary viewpoint could do the same and the panel would decide the article based on their "fair and informed" decision of what was presented. Give each presenter 500 words and ten diffs. I think I could find a way to live with that and I am certainly willing to try.
2352:
points coming out of it to go forward. ChrisO especially could have notified it better, and explained it more on the talk page. It wasn't well explained and was in a contentious area. An exceptional issue may need exceptional communication. Editing a contentious area with poor communication following on from prior breach of restriction is a risky proposition.
2970:
the meantime there can't be more blocks of this kind, there needs to be communication and sorting this out back to normality before blocking gets used further, some reassurance it's okay. As I think we all agree, clown' is a good and long standing user, so it's more perplexity than anything, and "no blocking in the meantime till discussed and all okay again".
5190:
handling. Whilst less could have gone wrong, it is not clear whether the end result would have been much different in terms of remedy provisions. The decision was probably right, but despite many people trying to be accomodating, the mishandling led to a lot of avoidable anger and upset that didn't help the user at all, and that aspect deserves an apology.
5537:, and I don't understand why. What is the point in restricting an editor who does not edit? By the time the decision was reached, I had not edited for two months. A further thirteen were to pass before I returned. Simple misunderstandings on the parts of the ArbCom members could have been cleared up, such as the seeming belief of one that "
1593:), who had been banned for 90 days. We instructed him to work on other articles for awhile, and he did, so we lifted his talkpage ban to allow him to resume discussions. But evidently ChrisO would rather stir things up here at ArbCom for a few weeks, rather than just waiting until the weekend to participate at talk, so here we are. --
2179:). This goes double when 0RR is in operation and also when a prior history of warnings for editing conduct has taken place. ChrisO had previously been warned about editing conduct on the article. He then posted a revert of multiple edits to the introduction, with an edit summary "blatant POV-pushing". Some of the reverted material
6650:
also be useful for some of the religion and pseudoscience content as well, given the often disparate opinions there. Might it be possible to expand the remit of the existing cultural disputes group, and possibly its membership, to include these other matters as well, or alterntely create similar groups for these matters?
5624:
are calling for an investigation into their claims of a rise in the number of birth defects", "The evidence is anecdotal because there are no records from the era of Saddam Hussein to compare their stories against", "The indications remain anecdotal, in the absence of either a study, or any available official records") -
4639:. There seems to have been no view that MONGO is prevented from applying through RfA due to those remedies. It seems to me logical to presume that Committee intends the community to be able to restore access unless it expressly says otherwise but as other interpretations have been put forwards in discussion surrounding
7667:. If this ruling was already accepted, he or his allies would simply block me or anyone else for a year, and this is it. Giving so much power to Moreschi is fine. But giving so much power to nationalist administrators is not a good idea. That is why I insisted on a different definition of "uninvolved administrator".
7800:" raises some valid issues with Moreschi's views on ethnic diversity of viewpoints in Knowledge. We all want to build an encyclopedia without drama, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and applying discretionary sanctions aimed at particular national groupings is a step in the wrong direction.
2119:) is textbook edit-warring. Policy and practice grant much leeway to people to deal with BLP problems, but they have to have a sound basis for exercising such leeway, and they have to communicate that they think there's a BLP issue when they take action so that other editors understand what they're doing.
1708:, for example, where he has blocked an editor with whom he has an active content dispute) – I think that ChrisO got off extremely lightly (a 30 day ban from a single article), and that a more appropriate sanction would be a topic ban, from all I-P related articles, for a substantially longer time period.
1444:
essentially unknowable since at the time I knew of no original copy of the video. The source was unusable and the information in it uncorroborated. It would be appreciated if arbitrators could address whether this is a BLP and probable copyright violation and if so, whether removing it was reasonable. --
6593:
scientists do not publish papers saying that hokum is hokum. The result is a series of in-universe articles on fictional topics. Added to that, we have believers in these paranormal ideas whose primary function on Knowledge is to attempt to have them documented as reality, not a fringe belief system.
7958:
discretionary sanctions have passed (by virtue of having six support and one abstention, which reduces the majority to six), and the case is moving towards being closed. Per Kirill below, who said that the Committee was waiting to see which version of discretionary sanctions was prefered, I think the
7931:
I agree with Moreschi, the Digwuren sanction encourage editors to bite other parties into the civilty violations and does not help to solve the underlying problem that many editors consider Eastern European articles as battleground and soapbox instead and insert deliberately inflammatory edits to the
7826:
in his usual style in support of his compatriots, right or wrong. If only Kirill had at the very least widened the definition of involved admin and narrowed the scope to specific topic areas, like Russia, I could support this motion, but as it stands, I can not. The problem with this approach is that
7553:
and on responding to various RfCs and posts on noticeboards - perhaps half a dozen articles altogether. It would be more except for the (a) blatant wikilawyering and misrepresentation of sources that happens as a matter of course and (b) outright baiting and misapplication of civility. I'm not one of
6711:
discretionary sanctions have passed (by virtue of having six support and one abstention, which reduces the majority to six), and the case is moving towards being closed. Per Kirill below, who said that the Committee was waiting to see which version of discretionary sanctions was prefered, I think the
6538:
This has too much potential for abuse the way it is worded. Some people consider anything they disagree with to be pseudoscience and would attempt to apply this far beyond its scope. (For example, most evangelical Christians believe in something other than atheistic evolution, therefore someone who
6043:
Regarding the concern about appeals, they should generally be appealable like any other admin action enforcing ArbCom sanctions: 1) Post to AN to ask other admins to review it. 2) Appeal to ArbCom. Excessive, repeated or otherwise disruptive series of appeals are not appeals at all; they are stumping
5336:
that Shoemaker's Holiday is ready for adminship at this time. A significant part of my lack of confidence is the user's failing to come to terms with the fact that his behavior with the admin tools, for which he was de-sysopped, was unacceptable and inexcusable. Instead, he has fixated on perceived
5081:
Re Durova, I can't speak to what the then members of the Committee were thinking nineteen months ago in the Seabhcan case. All I was saying is that in every single case since then involving a desysopping, the Committee has expressly identified the methods by which the relevant user could re-apply for
4979:
expect was for everyone to take this information, and then, by the way they discussed it (which, particularly as arbcom itself recommended its suppression, one would think you would know better than to bring it up in the first place), created a strong impression that I had some deep, dark secret that
4926:
Virtually the only other recent case that closed with a prohibition on RFA was the Alkivar case; the off-wiki evidence regarding Alkivar was entirely or almost entirely my own submission and I assembled it from public records. I have been never been under any pledge of confidentiality regarding that
4922:
At this juncture I wish to remind the Committee it has been my opinion for many months that the Matthew Hoffman case was the worst-handled arbitration I have ever seen, and rather than remedy any of its numerous errors the Committee appears intent upon compounding them. Hollow apologies mean little;
4851:
Bainer, what announcement did ArbCom ever make about that? And why didn't it either clarify the Seabhcan case or expressly forbid resysopping through RFA in the Matthew Hoffman case? The rest of us aren't privy to the Committee's private deliberations; we cannot intuit a secret change that abandons
4699:
the community seems to have been pretty split in interpreting whether an RfA is permissible. I would not, as a bureaucrat, have felt the remedy was clear enough that the RfA was a defacto nullity. It also obviously was not unambiguously clear to Shoemaker's Holiday that he could not request the tools
4605:
4) Vanished user's adminship will be waived at this time, and the case provisionally closed. Vanished user may regain his sysop access by application to the Committee, upon demonstration of six months editing in compliance with communal norms and conduct standards. If regained, he will then be placed
3995:
with Preface by Smithies, an English translation of the account by de la Touche with Preface by Smithies, an English translation of an account by Vollant des Verquains with Preface by Smithies, a Conclusion and Chronology by Michael Smithies. Altogether, Smithies gives a rather precise account of the
2857:
He has had a month to reply since this came up before and has not done so. Several users emailed him and left talk page messages for him, including me. There was pretty much unanimous agreement that if it happened again, he should be blocked and/or desysopped forthwith. Finding one - essentially a
2845:
Please take note that as this was being written and posted, I found an e-mail address on a mailing list, that he used to use. He has been e-mailed, so it might be wise to give him some time to reply, even though it would seem unlikely that he will due to the actions he has been taking despite notices
2201:
I hope Elonka and ChrisO will talk and sort matters out, having seen first-hand the consequences of this communication issue. It's easy to learn from and both are good editors capable of insight. I note the sanction Elonka chose is reasonable and not excessive, and that Elonka carefully distinguishes
2154:
Yes, 0RR is an appropriate choice available to an uninvolved administrator, within the sanctions provided. Elonka has correctly understood both the purpose of the discretion given, and the extent of the tools made available for that purpose, and has applied them following appropriate prior warnings,
2010:
Prior to the ban ChrisO violated 3RR but escaped a block for technical reasons (report filed too late). He intimidated other editors using his admin "rank". His contribution page (prior to the ban) almost all his 500 edits are in one article. (or this request for arbitration plus related talk page -
1819:
and establishing a consensus that the application of the sanction should be reversed. I don't think the Arbitration Committee's input is needed unless the community is unable to resolve the matter, or clarification of the remedy is needed. Neither appears to be the case here. The Committee will waste
1331:
In hindsight my edit summary was poorly written and did not make sufficiently clear that the removed material was a BLP and copyright violation. As WP:BLP mandates that "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals" (by extension the same would apply to a 0RR regime), I did not consider this
7869:
For the most part I agree with Marting. I don't think that CE/EE area is much more inflamed then many others; we just have a few persistent trolls and borderline disruptive users. We have weeks of quiet punctuated by an occasional week when one of them "wakes up" and disrupts an article or two, then
7554:
those who believes that civility is pointless when dealing with POV-pushers, but what we have in these articles is that any statement of fact - "that source is obviously irrelevant" - is met with head-shaking reminders to be civil in the hope that some form ArbCom-mandated sanction will be required.
7358:
Judging by recent edit-war patterns, it's articles relating to the conflicts between Russia, Poland, Germany, Ukraine, Romania, and Moldova that are most in need of this. I suggest this as the "area of conflict" for now. AFAIK Baltic-Russian articles have gone quiet since the Digwuren case, but this
7334:
To Martintg: it's not bloody misanthropy. Chimpanzees are welcome to edit Knowledge provided they grok the principles of neutrality, objectivity, and verifiability. If people can't manage this, then they have no place here, no matter if they offer an ethnically diverse viewpoint from Alpha Centauri.
6484:
Guy, most of us "believers" just want to have the articles you are complaining about explain what the subject is said to be or thought to be without trying to say what you think it is or what you want the public to believe. I would be interested in how you would apply the treatment used for articles
6160:
Sure, if by "uninvolved administrator" you mean administrators not involved in "pseudoscience and alternative science topics, broadly construed" as a whole, or regularly, rather than a given page at a given time. After years of this madness, Knowledge has collected some ban-happy admins with grudges
6035:
Requesting or advocating that such discretionary empowerment be limited to consensus discussions is essentially the same as opposing this request. The community already has the power to impose bans and other sanctions via community discussion. I tend to think that over time, using such a method will
5623:
none of which make the link as a 100% fact, merely that there are calls for an investigation (eg, the sources state "Families in Fallujah are calling for an investigation into the rise of birth defects after the US used phosphorus over the Iraqi city in 2004", "Families in the Iraqi city of Fallujah
5189:
In the present case, the problem was, there was genuine and repeated misuse of the tools. The other problem was, the case was badly handled, disjointed, it is hard to see any kind of satisfactory-ness to it, and the resulting process was unfair to a stressed user who needed above all good and steady
5014:
Being ill is not a violation of Knowledge policy, and forcing me to reveal full details of my illness as a requirement for a request for adminship violated my privacy with no Knowledge policy justification. Indeed, you should never have talked about secret evidence, as noone would ever presume that
4774:
In one part, the one arbitrator oversighted a diff where I volunteered to give up my sysop for health reasons, but did not forward it on to the other arbitrators. As the stress-levels caused by the case made my health problems far worse - I moved from ill, but just about coping to having to drop out
2900:
CSCWEM has been asked numerous times to explain his use of admin tools, specifically related to a fair number of inappropriate blocks. He's continued to use the tools without communicating with anybody, including those IPs and accounts that he has blocked. CSCWEM should be desysopped, and preferably
2562:
Given the nature of the change being made in the case (ie just updating the wording of the general article sanctions), I can't really see that there is a problem here. The remedy has already been adopted and all that is happening now is a tweak to the way it works. Even if there was a clear conflict
2351:
To sum up, ChrisO has admitted that he was at fault for stepping over previous restrictions. But in removing this item, and persisting, he's on target and has got BLP right, and given it the priority it needs. I put the issue down to communication and forethought rather than anything else, with good
2301:
the kind of thing BLP policy was set up to deal with quickly and override other concerns on. Let's look at the case. A living person, the joint subject of an article, has a part of the article saying that medically and factually, an Israeli doctor has examined his scars and they are not bullet scars
2122:
Thirdly, I agree with Carcharoth's view. Speaking generally, in these types of situations, the appearance of non-involvement is often as important as actual non-involvement. Perhaps, in the light of the increased number of discretionary sanctions remedies the Committee has passed over the last year,
1467:
I've been watching these discussions from afar, as I'm way too busy with RL to contribute to Knowledge on a solid base. Elonka has been reasonable and helpful in moving the page forward, though it would be even more helpful if people stopped making sarcastic and pejorative comments on the talk page,
1359:
Knowledge's BLP and copyright rules cannot be overridden by an individual admin's restrictions, and an admin-imposed 0RR cannot supersede the long-standing rule that the removal of BLP violations is not counted towards reversions. Elonka's action has the unfortunate effect of penalising a good-faith
8226:
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies
7975:
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies
7247:
currently shows nicely, the Eastern Europe flamewars cannot be dealt with by the current provisions of the Digwuren case. At any rate, I cannot cope, and I don't think anyone else can either. Isolating civility in the way the case does has simply encouraged users to bait other users in an effort to
6898:
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies
6732:
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies
6649:
Given the occasionally contentious nature of the discussions regarding this subject, perhaps it might be possible for the ArbCom to help in the selection of a group of editors who would be able to function in much the same way as the recently created cultural disputes group is supposed to. It might
6464:
Lets face it, an arbitration takes way too long, and as I can see, they have hardly any effect except to more clearly define the sides. If an admin blocks an appeal to authority, then the person making the appeal is discredited and the abusive editor becomes more bullet proof. In fact, Knowledge is
6403:
I'd also like to echo GRBerry's comments above. There are multiple editors who have developed "watch lists" of other editors and administrators that they either want banned, or removed from various positions at Knowledge. I will not go into specifics here regarding that, but it's a statement that's
6310:
little confidence in the ability of admins 1) to be neutral if they are involved and 2) to get it if they are not. Indeed, I have seen editors like Zvika who did my interview struggle with the issues in these cases, and find it nearly impossible (many many hours of work to get up to date). I have
6223:
discussion than what it takes to delete an article. This is essentially a "speedy delete" applied to a user, in spirit. It's always harder to correct a mistake than it is to prevent a mistake. Community discussion is essential when dealing with users who may not be aware that what they are doing is
6120:
Closing comment...enough already. This has descended into a finger-pointing complaint session by both sides. Before writing anything about someone else, ask "Would I want to be called that?". If not, don't write it. If it's borderline don't write it-this would stop all the attempts here where users
5984:
I believe relying on more than common sense for the definition of "uninvolved" will only lead to wikilawyering. All of the proposed definitions I've seen essentially leave massive loopholes that anyone looking to game the system or skirt the rules could use. If there is a disagreement about whether
5664:
That's from a quick look at his contribs, and there's many, many more controversial edits especially in the Israel/Palestine area and articles relating to the war in Iraq. What ArbCom (or any admins reading this) should really consider is whether Lapsed Pacifist should be banned from Knowledge as a
5306:
Either way a desysopped user whose remedy says "by application to the Committee" is given that remedy for good reasons, and ignoring it will usually have one of two results: - if it was to protect them, they will lose whatever protection they might have had (they are essentially on their own at RFA
4171:
I'm not entirely understanding why this is at ArbCom again. The article that Jehochman is talking about, has not been edited by PHG in several months. So what exactly is it that Jehochman wants the arbitrators to do? Ban PHG for something he's not doing anymore? As near as I can tell, ever since
3176:
perform any administrative action prior to the Committee confirming the matter has been satisfactorily closed, then his administrative privileges will be suspended, pending resolution of the concerns that have been raised. In such an event, he may apply for them back by application to the Committee
2969:
That's my impression too. I really don't understand, either, hence why the note - and the motions below discussed on the list - assume there will be a good reason, and why they aim to protect users from problematic blocking, and hope for some good explanation and a return to normal activity. But in
2343:
NPOV issues do not by themselves reach the standard needed for summary deletion/reversion per BLP, when 0RR is in operation. The exception is when the overall effect is BLP breaching. Here it may well have been, since the introduction had been generally negatively shaded in tone against the subject
2146:
There are several matters in this clarification: compatibility of 0RR with the case sanction (was Elonka within her rights?) and balancing of that sanction with BLP (if imposed, would 0RR preclude BLP reversion?). A question also exists, per ChrisO's statement, whether the specific item in question
2111:) or to the Committee. While the remedy didn't spell it out explicitly, the usual understanding is that one would start with the individual administrator, and then proceed "up" the chain of review from there, with review by the Committee being the last step, if others have not produced a resolution.
1896:
With the recent court decision, the release of the raw footage, and the latest articles, the equation has changed such that to continue to insist that that the opposing viewpoint is "fringe" or "conspiracy theory" becomes not only insulting, but rather a barrier to productive editing. Thus I tried
1494:
that I placed on this article. So I wouldn't mind hearing from ArbCom as to whether or not I have been working in accordance with the Discretionary Sanctions that they envisioned in January. To describe the situation in a nutshell: ChrisO, an admin who was participating as an involved editor, was
1384:
us to reliably source statements about living people ("Be very firm about the use of high quality references"). It wasn't possible to remove the unusable source while leaving in place an unsupported, potentially libelous claim - that would have been a BLP violation in my part. The only recourse was
8141:
For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be
7766:
in the first half of 2008. This is a testament to the improvement that has been made since 2007, and thus no comparison to other problematic areas such as Arab-Israeli, for example, which has had already 2 Arbcom cases in 2008 so far. If Moreschi believes there are a "whole pile of revert-warriors
7733:
Alex Bakharev contends the current sanction encourages editors to "bait" other parties into civility violations. If this is the case, then discretionary sanctions will be an even bigger encouragement to bait editors into violation, since it only requires the discretion of a single uninvolved admin
7717:
Experience has shown that in the case of EE, disruption is usually caused by one or two individuals, and if they are banned/blocked harmony quickly returns. This is clearly a case concerning the behaviour of an individual and has no relevance to any other topic areas like Ukraine, Poland/Russia or
7662:
So far, the discretionary sanctions in the Digwurien ruling only drive away several good editors like Turgidson, but they did not really resolve anything (as Moreschi said). However, this amended ruling will only make things worse unless you can deal with nationalist administrators who edit in the
7276:
for a list of EE-related ArbCom cases. The problem goes back years, and is easily comparable to other problematic areas such as Arab-Israeli, Balkans, or India-Pakistan. At the moment a whole pile of revert-warriors need to be revert-paroled, some incorrigible trolls topic-banned, and some baiters
6677:
and related articles, and I have to admit I was somewhat underwhelmed. I have also encountered a fair number of administrators who are FRINGE proponents or antiscience themselves, so just giving all administrators more power is not a very well-reasoned response. I would like to see a more measured
6627:
My own personal sentiment is that the current options for enforcement have not yet been applied in a stringent way, and should not be broadened until they have been fully tested. That said, I share Vassayana's frustration, and would hope that this will serve to push administrators to use the tools
6460:
Any effort that would make it possible for administrators to more effectively arbitrate content disputes would help. I have been treated as poorly by some admins as I have by some rank and file editors, so I am not in favor of giving any individual admin more authority. Perhaps a cadre of three or
6015:
If I may comment directly (if not you can move this to my section). I'm more concerned about abuse-through-misunderstanding rather than abuse-abuse. It's not always clear what's neutral, and the discretionary sanctions designed for Homeopathy and the Palestine-Israeli issue are designed for narrow
5999:
In reply to Neal's oppose, I simply cannot understand that point of view, though I have tried. We permit administrators to impose full site blocks without an expiration date at their discretion. I fail to see how giving administrators lessor options (such as a topic ban instead of a full block) in
5980:
Regarding the concerns about potential admin abuse, I would expect that if ArbCom accepted this request that they would be open to reviewing complaints about related admin abuse. I believe this would increase the oversight and reduce the potential abuse of sysop discretion. Sysops would have to be
5007:
I hereby ask for this case to be reopened, every finding of fact rewritten in order to honestly state what you made me look far worse by attempting to conceal - acting as if I was part of a sneaky campaign to gain power, instead of simply an admin with poor guidance as to what conflict of interest
4863:
To the arbitrators who have commented below, you fail to explain the reasons why Shoemaker's Holiday merits prohibition from RFA (which you never made explicit until now). The only reason I have ever seen put forward privately or publicly for this extraordinary prohibition regards his own health,
3832:
The pattern in this article is very obvious, given my close attention to the prior case. Regrettably, uninvolved editors like yourself generally don't see the problems on quick inspection. This is the great danger of subtle misrepresentation and insertion of original research. As you point out,
2925:
It is regrettable to see this action being undertaken. I have been on Knowledge almost 3 years and CSCWEM has always been a conscientious, trieless worker out to help the site. A question to the Arbitrators though; is this the first time CSCWEM has been bought before the ARBCOM, or have their been
2338:
Other edits reverted were POV. Whether or not serious doubt exists (it may well), these edits placed this doubt in Knowledge's voice, and implied a negative slant to the bio throughout much of its introduction. Likely ChrisO's version is better in that it cites facts and statements, more neutrally
1964:
Concerning the issue of what ChrisO refers to as "ongoing litigation" in his statement. There is currently no ongoing litigation. Until and unless France 2 takes this to the Supreme Court, the issue has been decided. On the point of BLP, the latest court decision says of the main figure in this
1766:
I fully endorse Elonka's actions - as someone who tried to make a foray into this article as an uninvolved party, I can testify that a firm hand is needed in handling this article. ChrisO's behavior has been problematic at times, as Elonka states (particularly his continual use of derogatory terms
1743:
I am sympathetic to Chris’ feelings. I think that his general concern was having the article within policy. But I think that an admin in Elonka’s position would have had to have given Chris the benefit of the doubt to think that his edit was not a reversion. And at that point nobody on the talk
1658:
on the same article (prior to the recent restrictions and Elonka’s involvement). He did not claim he was reverting BLP issues in any of his 5 reverts, 3 of which consisted of removing "Category:Violence in media", which is clearly pure edit warring over a content issue that has nothing to do with
1642:
Elonka has done a commendable job of stepping into a controversial article and, through the imposition of strict editing conditions, eliminated edit warring while allowing for continuous improvement of the article. As she notes, ChrisO was given plenty of warning about his behavior, and much more
1616:
Just a brief comment here. Elonka's system is interesting, and is in fact similar to what I have advocated elsewhere. I'm glad to see that some of these (rather obvious) ideas are at least being put into practice. I am concerned though that sometimes it can end up looking like some individuals (in
1443:
This makes the father out to be a liar, it states a purely anecdotal claim made by an interviewee in the report as fact, no other reliable source that I know of has made that claim, it's sourced to a Youtube-style video hosting site (ergo, a probable copyvio), and the reliability of the source was
6468:
I have only edited on a few paranormal articles so I may be unaware of some of the grievances. Nevertheless, from my viewpoint, it is unrealistic to imagine that it is possible to arbitrate content disputes without deciding on content--not taking sides, but saying what the article will include. I
5286:
Essentially it's a safeguard - sometimes it protects the user from misjudgement of the community, sometimes it protects the community (or specific users/disputes) from the reintroduction of a disruptive problem, sometimes it just gives us the chance to ensure private matters are wrapped up and
5197:
That said his feelings are understandable. If he emailed us that he wished to take his chance with the community, and is able to disclose to the community without minimizing, the relevant information that others would need to make a fully informed communal decision (or will accept conditions that
5193:
The condition of "by application to the Committee" in this case was for multiple reasons: the user had disclosed personal matters which directly pertains to appropriate use of the tools (it would not have been fair to him to force disclosure as a prerequisite to regain the tools, nor fair to the
4971:
As I had such health issues, I offered to Arbcom to resign my adminship, if they felt that these occasional difficulties meant that I would be unable to fulfil admin actions in a timely manner. Flonight felt that it was a bad idea to admit my illness under my own name, and oversighted it. At the
3844:
I thought about stubbing the article, but as you can see from the AfD discussion, blanking and starting from scratch has significant opposition. I do not think changing the forum of discussion from AfD to the article talk page would have helped in any way. At least AfD helps bring in some fresh
3037:
I did attempt to contact CSCWEM by the email address given on the userpage. I got no response, including no failure message regarding delivery. I realise that this does not mean it didn't get caught in a spam filter or was otherwise not read, but it seems that it was another line of communication
2788:
also continued to be uncontactable, and has failed to respond to the concerns expressed about the merits of some of the blocks as well as the prior and present concerns about communications, when raised on his talkpage and elsewhere. Five of these blocks took place after the June 12 notice, which
1935:
I didn't challenge my ban until discovering ChrisO had received a much lighter restriction despite numerous warnings. Indeed, one might suppose he could have been expected, as an administrator and experienced editor, to have required fewer warnings, to have been held to a higher standard than I.
8274:
For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be
8222:
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of
8091:
Daniel's motion is far too wide in scope. I'm afraid it will have the effect of shifting the power from ArbCom to the legions of IRC-recruited admins, with bans randomly flying like rifle shots in passing. This is based on a flawed idea of justice. I don't agree with Piotrus that the EE field is
8023:
For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be
7971:
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of
7705:
So what has happened since February? A scan through the WP:AE archives reveals only a small number of cases reported to the AE board have anything actually to do with Eastern Europe. Out of 126 cases since February, only 4 are EE related, particularly Poland, and of those 4, 3 are concerned with
7639:
Still, this might be a good idea if the area is clearly defined (e.g. Russia-Ukrainian conflict). But the definition of "uninvolved administrator" is terrible. There are many highly opinionated administrators who edit in the area. They will simply block all others. An "uninvolved administrator"
6946:
For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be
6780:
For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be
6592:
There is a long-standing issue with pseudoscience, fringe and paranormal articles. The sources which discuss these subjects are typically either wholly uncritical, or dedicated sceptics. The fact that the mainstream science community does not accept paranormal claims is hard to source, because
6565:
I'm going to have to agree with B on this one. There are some areas which qualify as pseudoscience but which do not need this sort of protection. The ID related articles are stable for the most part, because there are a great number of fine editors who are very active on those pages. They are
6399:
I believe that, if implemented properly, could be an effective tool in finally ending the heated disagreements between the "anti-science" and "pro-science" camps. I do not believe it will lead to an end of hidden bias or blatant bias -- nor should it -- but that the implementation of a topic ban
6369:
If we do something of this sort, I would not leave it to individual admins. or editors. What I think we'd need is the equivalent of a topic ban noticeboard, and some degree of practical consensus would be required. I remember the fate of the community ban noticeboard and I'm a little skeptical.
6362:
I think the "endorsements" above show why it might not actually work--the disagreement between different arbitrators over the standards for these articles is fairly complete. Everyone things that they are neutral. I can predict what will happen, which is continual appeals from it, carried on in
2519:
In reply to FayssalF, Petri Krohn is actually Finnish, not Russian. The Digwuren conflict at its core was primarily between an Estonian and a Finn, were the Finn recruited some Russian editors to his cause. (Krohn is even now continuing his battle off-wiki in the Estonian press with his opinion
2367:
were impeccable - Elonka managing the dispute, ChrisO spotting the genuine serious BLP issue and persisting with removing it. The communication and understanding failed. Above average care, and above average communication, are needed on more sensitive contended areas... a person who doesnt, will
2247:
almost, and to deal with a range of behaviors that need strong action. If an uninvolved administrator feels 0RR/1RR may resolve problems (for example by compelling discussion of all points that become visibly disputed) then that may well be exactly whats needed. If not, we'll find out. Default =
2170:
The revert by ChrisO does include material that was a clear violation of BLP (negative and unsourced/poorly sourced content). It also included reverting a number of edits that by themselves were not BLP violating, but taken together had a very one-sided negative effect that possibly did meet BLP
2164:
The caveat is, a user who claims "BLP-vio!" to do this, takes the chance they could be deemed edit warring unless the case is obvious. "Exceptional claims" (which include the claim "we have to ignore sanctions and restrictions, delete this now, and discuss later") should be accompanied by a good
1320:
requires that "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work". Elonka's own restrictions state that "If something is added that is unsourced, that is obviously troublesome (such as very biased or potentially
8068:
to provide set of tools that could be applied generically, without having to trigger a full-scale arbitration to achieve that end? I don't think it would be appropriate to allow an individual arbitrator to impose such a regime by him- or herself, but perhaps it could be triggered if there was a
6894:
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of
6728:
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of
6600:
documents the verifiable facts which are undisputed, being the identity and martyrdom, documented in local Roman records; discusses the mythology of the Holy Well; and discusses the cult of Alban. I think we can document the paranormal belief system in the same way, but we have too many people
5341:
I would support that, too. It would not be fair on the user community to ask them to decide whether to support his regaining admin status without the benefit of such full knowledge. By submitting private evidence to the Committee, a user must understand that keeping such confidences binds the
5294:
which cases it is fine (but at their own risk), and which cases we actually know of real concerns we want to check out quietly first, or private factors we want to consider off the wiki. The way to look at it is, we are hoping to work with such users to try and get the best result all round. We
5227:
In all but the most serious cases, there is often a hope the user will return to adminship. Even desysopping is protective. Temporary desysopping is often used two ways: as a means to give a final warning rather than going directly to permanent desysopping, for a user who may not believe it can
4888:
When you previously forbade normal RFA, you made that explicit. You're changing the rules as you go. If I'm mistaken, show me one announcement--anywhere onsite--stating when this supposed innovation in the decision formula came into existence. The Alkivar case closed only three months before
2589:
If the case was limited to Digwuren I'd have had recused myself of course. The scale of this case goes far beyond that and involve a dozen of editors and many (hundreds?) of articles. Please bear in mind that I am neither a Russian, Estonian or a Polish editor. Also note that I had blocked both
1814:
This seems to be about the imposition of a fairly routine discretionary sanction as provided for by the remedies in the case in question. If someone thinks an administrator erred in imposing such a sanction, their first avenue of redress is surely to seek input from other administrators, say by
1578:
the text rather than just reverting. It is also disappointing that he's going to the trouble of filing what will probably be a lengthy appeal, which will probably take weeks to resolve. I had pointed out to him that an easier route would be to simply avoid the talkpage for the rest of the week
6437:
I understand the intention, and fear the result. I think that in order to maintain standing as an encyclopedia, we need be more specific, and actually take a side in favor of facts. Discretionary sanctions should be made available, targeted towards editors that make edits stating or implying a
6404:
been made numerous times previously, here and elsewhere, and that it is leading to a serious divide in how, as editors and administrators, can resolve this long-standing conflict. I'd like to see a "topic ban noticeboard," but I am afraid that it would fall to either inactivity or hidden bias.
6000:
long-disputed areas with persistant conduct problems would increase abuse potential. I should additionally note that we're discussing long-term problems, involving users who either know better by know or almost assuredly are never going to get it, not newbies who are unfamiliar with Knowledge.
5145:
The point of the remedy as written was to require the user to contact ArbCom prior to gaining administrator tools again by any means. The Committee now does this whenever the Committee makes a decision from information that is not available to the whole community. In every case, contacting the
4987:
While I don't blame GRBerry, I really feel that Arbcom's actions with this evidence - taking an admission that someone was severely ill, suppressing it, then, when questioned about me, referring to secret evidence that they can't go into, only served to make me look bad - far worse than if the
2309:
The article is citing this as fact in Knowledge's voice. Its effect is to discredit the subject of the article. We need a high quality and reliable source to support a claim that roughly speaking this is either 1/ considered the case by the medical world ("they are axe scars"), or 2/ backed by
1944:
If three months is acceptable for one party in a mediated dispute, how is a week and one month from the article so egregious? I believe that ChrisO abused his administrative powers to shoe-horn his POV into this article, and is now trying to break an agreed-upon mediation. He should accept the
1719:
I find it rather hard to believe that, in the name of "mediation", one administrator can simply ignore policy and guidelines on NPOV and BLP and such. All edits and/or reverts are not created equal; if someone edits in violation of Knowledge policy, to sanction someone else for addressing and
7783:
To clarify, the other person banned in this case, Petri Krohn, is actually Finnish, not Russian. The Digwuren conflict at its core was primarily between an Estonian and a Finn, were the Finn recruited some Russian editors to his cause. (Krohn is even now continuing his battle off-wiki in the
2072:
I half expected to see this request when I commented on the issue a little bit ago. I'm not sure on the specifics, but I will say that a blanket no-revert rule on an article, applied to all editors, isn't wise. Sometimes someone will make an edit with no redeeming qualities at all, negatively
6036:
only open up another battleground. Enforcement threads have already become another place to argue for the disputants in heated areas. I shudder to think what kind of response would be received after the first couple of sanction discussions make it "real" to such parties. (For an example, see
5327:
Since the full circumstances of the de-sysopped user were disclosed to the AC in confidence, the only appropriate way for this user to regain the tools is to convince the AC – the only group of users with full knowledge of the situation – that the circumstances have changed such that we have
4618:
I would also appreciate guidance for future reference as to how bureaucrats should interpret ArbCom remedies that are silent as to the availabiliy of the usual remedies. I note that it is usually the Committee's practice to deal with this matter expressly. For instance the relevant remedy of
1735:
When I first read Chris' statement I thought it did raise an interesting policy question: can editing restrictions override our policy restrictions. But, having looked everything over once again, I'm not sure that there is an actual policy difference here. Elonka's conditions seem to have
5862:
2036:
I do not know the background, but let's assume for the sake for the argument that the editing sanctions were rightfully applied. If a removal is done per BLP, and it is recognized as such by the mediator and others, then it is a granted exception to the editorial ban. This has to be a very
5683:. Does not to me appear to be demonstrating that they would be editing without problems in this area. This restriction is broader than the discretionary sanctions in The Troubles arbcomm case, so it is not an adequate substitute. See the WP:AE archives related to the two recent blocks:
5960:
threads, only from the AE noticeboard, only involving a very limited number of users involved in the broader dispute. I believe ArbCom explicitly endorsing discretionary sanctions would empower and embolden sysops and the community to resolve these long-standing issues, once and for all.
4923:
I would like to see for starters Charles Matthews withdraw the repeated personal attacks he posted to the case pages. Ideally you ought to be vacating this case because it was requested in a non-emergency situation with no prior attempt at dispute resolution--thus outside your mandate.
3220:
CSCWEM would have had to be logged in to perform blocks, and would therefore be aware of talk page communication expressing concern. The blocks have continued. This situation would still be a problem if the blocks were all good; as shown on the Administrators' noticeboard, and by my own
5985:
an administrator is involved or not, a brief community discussion or appeal to ArbCom should suffice. I simply fail to see the point of creating a limited definition prone to gaming, which would require other admins and the community to employ their natural power of reason regardless.
1662:
His behavior on this article has been problematic from the get go. He has abused his admin privileges by posting warning notifications on the Talk pages of all those who opposed him, even though he was an involved admin. This behavior was found problematic by several uninvolved admins
5757:
No statement by Lapsed_Pacifist saying the reason that editing restrictions should be removed. On my first review, I'm not seeing any reason for the sanction to be lifted at this time. Right now, the community is dealing with current issues. I see no reason to intervene at this time.
7557:
As a general rule, any section of the 'pedia permanently plagued with clashing historical narratives requires our most stringent controls. These are more difficult to administer and keep clean, because of the free availability and difficulty in recognising dubious sourcing, than the
4883:
For showing consistently poor judgment in performing administrative actions, Alkivar's (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) administrative privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated by appeal to the Committee, but not through the usual
1557:
I would also like to point out that when I first learned of the situation, the article was already protected, the talkpage was in the middle of a severe dispute, and ChrisO was begging for an uninvolved administrator to help out. When I offered my assistance, he said it would be
3065:
There are 13 active arbitrators, so 7 is the number of votes needed for the motion to pass. Given the circumstances, the arbitrators may choose to activate any motion that passes as soon as there is a seventh vote in favour, should they decide not to wait the standard 24 hours.
6818:
Do we seriously need a horse and pony show over this? The fact of the matter is, the encyclopedia comes first. In an encyclopedia, established facts backed up by evidence comes first. Scientific academia is making a more significant effort than the alternative to adhere to the
5525:
I'd like to appeal this ban, because it was decided upon and imposed while I was on an extended break. I was not given the opportunity to confront my accusers (whose exaggerations, distortions and outright falsehoods I was therefore unable to refute), and was presented with a
3924:
Per Mathsci's report below, I request PHG to be blocked until a mentor is appointed. It is not fair to those cleaning up his messes in article space to allow this pattern of editing to continue without any sort of restraint. PHG is using up a huge amount of volunteer time.
4992:, developed after I caught flu while working as a farm labourer, and was literally dragged out of bed to help with the milking, making the illness far worse. I would question whether that rises to the level of evidence, let alone how it was treated - as secret evidence
3833:
PHG has not touched the article for a long time, but it has not been fixed yet because the damage is not obvious. I really do not have the time to engage in lengthy discussion on each and every tainted article while attempting to fix it. There has to be a better way.
1511:. Most editors complied, but ChrisO kept reverting. Since he's an admin, I tried to give him lots of leeway, but it's obvious that he felt that the restrictions were for other people, and not for him, and he kept on with warring and incivility, such as referring to
4864:
and he has disclosed that to me freely and fully himself. Furthermore, if this is the rationale, his adamant desire is that the Committee refrain from further interference in a matter none of you are qualified to deal with and that you have consistently mishandled.
2326:
source refers to any of this at all... all we have is one anonymous video of a person who says they were a doctor in the 1990s holding up an X ray and making a claim. On this basis the introduction states the subject has been in effect, proven untruthful. We need a
7699:
A similar motion to impose discretionary sanctions across all of Easter Europe, on the back of a single 3RR violation in that case, was attempted back in February, but was archived due to lack of interest and some important questions of scope remaining unanswered
5172:
To Shoemaker's Holiday: I'm very sorry for the pain and distress this situation has caused you. The removal of your administrator privileges was well warranted — but your case could certainly have been handled better — for that I'm sorry and for that I apologize.
1579:(until June 22), and then if he resumed participation in a civil and constructive manner, that I would consider lifting the article editing ban early, rather than requiring that he sit out the full 30 days. I've already done this with one of the other editors,
4322:
Getting a new mentor asp seems to be the obvious solution. And in the future, PHG needs to let the Committee know if his mentor stops working with him. In the future, not letting us know might result in loss of editing privileges or other editing restrictions.
4214:
of this translation makes it clear that it requires the skills of a professional historian to interpret these first-hand accounts, plagued by rivalries and jealousies between different French factions. Other sources are not mentioned, e.g. Hutchinson's classic
3038:
that wasn't responded to. I would also take the opportunity to re-iterate both my concerns regarding CSCWEM's behaviour and the plea to make any sanction without prejudice to a resysopping upon reasonable explanation/undertaking given in the earlier Request.
7846:, which was a surprise to me since I originally assumed he was American born. Not an issue for me, ofcourse, but I do wonder if this sensitivity has led to the introduction of sanctions that are more draconian and wider in scope than they really need to be.
7841:
Biophys is right, if this remedy is adopted, the definition of involved admin needs to be expanded, being an admin doesn't magically make one forget their national origin or the desire to defend their view. Even Kirill admitted to me his background made him
5337:
injustices in the process and minimized his own culpability. This leads me to believe that should he regain admin tools, further problems will occur. However, as with several other arbitrators above, if Shoemaker's Holiday wishes instead to submit to RFA
1739:
Chris does acknowledge that he did not adequately construct his summary. If he did alter content beyond what was necessary to satisfy BLP concerns, it is easy to see why Elonka would have felt this was a reversion in violation of the editing conditions.
7620:"Blocks of up to one year" on discretion of a single uninvolved administrator... Such drastic measured could only be used for users with long blocking history (say 6+ blocks). Besides, the area of conflict should be clearly defined. I asked previously if
6833:, then it should be regarded as such. Violations of the principle of undue weight should be treated with editorial treatment so that due weight is restored. People should be blocked from editing articles when their edits are more trouble than it's worth.
2040:
I have no problem with banned ones requesting others to make edits, BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT the proxy editor must acknowledge that they have passed the request through their own judgment and they are willing to be responsible for their edits. That way, it is
7819:
3910:
5096:
Re WjBscribe, apologies if I caused offence; I now realise you've been interpreting the remedies to permit everything that is not absolutely prohibited, instead of only permitting what is expressly allowed. The answers you've distilled are essentially
2590:
warring parties before; Digwuren (Estonian) and Petri Krohn (Russian) who were both banned for one year afterwards as a result of an ArbCom case. However, I am ready to recuse myself but would that change the outcome? If yes, then I'd gladly do it. --
3398:
Desysopping until we get an explanation from CSCWEM is the best recourse here in order to prevent further questionable blocks without any sign of communication. I've also sent him an email today and waiting for a satisfactory or positive response. --
2783:
to the incidents since that time, and an examination of a number of blocks by various users also identified a significant proportion as untenable, questionable, or poor judgement. The Committee re-examined these and concurred some blocks were flawed.
4211:, there do still appear to be problems with his edits. He appears to have used as his principal source translations of primary documents, reports by french soldiers present at the time, recently translated from French by Michael Smithies. A review
2321:
that this is a doctor, or the doctor, or that there was a surgery case as described, or that the interview is of a reliable nature and not tampered, no confirmation that the claims in the video are endorsed by any reliable source, not one reliable
7401:, trying to take advantage that I had been added quickly to the Digwuren list shortly after it was opened, and got immediately blocked, while he and well known other editors have, well, since been overlooked somehow? I perceive the composition of
5878:
3880:
This bears checking. It looks a lot like PHG is sill using Knowledge to publish original research. The past ruling may be insufficient to solve the problem. I'd like to see mandatory mentorship for PHG's editing in all areas of the encyclopedia.
4980:
meant that I could never be trusted. If you say that there is secret evidence, and this secret evidence means I shouldn't be an admin, then it makes it sound like I had, say, intentionally acted to damage Knowledge. The fact of the matter is
4707:(2) If ArbCom is totally silent as to any means for regaining adminship, the usual means are permitted. If however the Committee makes a provision for appeal as a means of reinstatement but says nothing about the usual means, they are excluded.
2114:
Secondly, I agree with the substance of what Elonka has said. From what I have seen this does not appear to be a BLP situation, but one of simple edit-warring. Reverting simply so your preferred version can stand (here, with an edit summary of
7516:
3585:, voluntarily resigns all rights to adminship for one year from this date. After that time, should I wish to become an admin, he may apply by RfA or request to the committee. In either case, he and the committee will select a suitable mentor.
7558:
pseudoscience/scientific consensus articles that people have wailing conniptions about all over the noticeboards. Not to mention there are fewer people able and willing to keep an eye on it, and its much tougher to recognise POV-pushing....
7252:
style to counter this, though with a good definition of the area of conflict (I would suggest, at the least, that it covers Polish-German disputes, in addition to Polish-Russian and articles relating to the Baltic states and Ukraine). Best,
5122:
As for cases that are silent as to methods, well, there haven't been any since the Seabhcan case in December 2006. It may be that we need to go back now and clarify those, but every case in the past eighteen months has been quite explicit.
7475:
despite other editors providing evidence that the was wrong, very wrong. Is such behavior acceptable? Molobo almost got permabanned two years ago. He returned after his one year block, and seemingly was allowed to do as he pleases since.
845:
7498:
1468:
directly and indirectly calling each other's position into ideological questioning. I haven't been following up on the page with enough persistence to make any further comment but I felt a vote of confidence in Elonka's efforts was due.
4443:
3621:
5059:
Re Wjbscribe and Durova's point about the Seabhcan case, that was the last case to include the old, ambiguous wording regarding desysopping. Beginning in early 2007, cases have expressly identified the method for reapplying. I believe
1364:
I would therefore be grateful for outside views on this matter. Please note that I fully support Elonka's mediation efforts; this unfortunate misunderstanding should not be taken as criticism of the rest of her work on the article. --
7523:
instant messenger. One of the biggest weaknesses of Knowledge policies is that they treat editors as isolated individuals, especially in 3RR cases, while highly questionable forms of cooperations are overlooked, ignored, or denied.
4747:
7127:
5265:, for example in ensuring a generally good user will have support, refine their judgement and avoid mistakes or a second desysopping, in areas of past weakness (mentorship, parole, Arbcom resysopping without stress of RFA, etc), or
4727:
1431:
However, scars that were supposedly caused by the Israeli gun-fire, were not left by bullets. Instead, they're the same scars identified by an Israeli doctor who treated Jamal after he was attacked by a Palestinian gang armed with
6037:
1731:
Like everyone else, I have to say that Elonka has done a wonderful job on the talk page. This was definitely a mop and bucket job. I can see how the editing conditions may seem a little draconian but the alternatives are worse.
5379:
4343:. Will be a good idea to get several people to help, since this is an ongoing situation. Any one else that is interested can contact me on my talk page, email the arbcom mailing list or me, or leave a message on PHG's talk page.
3469:
2304:"scars that were supposedly caused by the Israeli gun-fire, were not left by bullets. Instead, they're the same scars identified by an Israeli doctor who treated Jamal after he was attacked by a Palestinian gang armed with axes"
1553:
saying that it excuses his total revert. I disagree. The case is pretty simple as far as I'm concerned, and has nothing to do with BLP. ChrisO was edit-warring, he was told to stop, he didn't, I put a brief page ban on him.
7561:
If ArbCom suggests that I present a few diffs of the sort of occasion where (a) civility restrictions have led to baiting and (b) discretionary sanctions would have been helpful - just from my own experience - I am willing to.
1561:
I am proud to say that since I placed my conditions on the article on June 10, the article has become much more stable, with some very constructive conversations going on at the talkpage. And all of this was accomplished with
7502:
6672:
Although I understand the desire to come up with a quick fix or a magic bullet here, I do not think that more enforcement is the answer. I have observed how well more enforcement and greater empowerment of admins worked at
1701:, after he had been told by the responding admin that “I would tread on the cautious side and say that if it's not obvious, then note it to someone else and let others do it, if 0RR applies to one of the editors involved.”
1653:
after the fact, and used it as an excuse for a revert that encompassed much more than any potential BLP issues. I’d like to highlight he fact that this is apparently a common modus operandi with ChrisO. On May 23rd, he was
1156:
A number of previously uninvolved editors have recently been editing the article. Some of the editing and talk page contributions have been very problematic. The article was fully protected for a time and two new editors,
7796:". And it is a pity that some ArbCom members have apparently bought into it rather than look at the facts on the ground. Regardless of one's opinion of Sarah777, her rebuttal of Morsechi's thesis in her lampooning essay "
2260:
because nothing less seems powerful enough to work, and (provided it is fairly used) to support a strong hand which may actually be what is needed for admins to do their job managing conduct on an article, without being
2037:
cut-and-dry case, though, where it is unambiguously in compliance with the ArbCom statement which goes along the lines of "BLP must be enforced at all costs". Otherwise, it is a breach of the ban and should be reverted.
5066:
was the first case to do so. In any event, regardless of any ambiguity in old cases (that may or may not need resolving now), the remedy here did not have that ambiguity, as it was express about the methods available.
4761:
4694:", I'm sorry but I find that comment fairly insulting. I came here asking ArbCom to clear up the ambiguity in one of their decisions. I think my reasons for doing so are fairly clear: in the two places this has arisen
5272:
that it is safe to "trial" them having back the tools under some kind of supervision (which in some cases is the only fair way to do so), or that they will be desysopped if they repeat the same conduct with any other
3559:
3891:
Thank you for suggesting places to list articles for cleanup, and I like Shell Kinney's idea that PHG needs to find a new mentor. This should be mandatory, and include all editing. The mentor needs to speak French.
8254:) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.
8003:) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.
6926:) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.
6760:) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.
4755:
8150:
7918:
6852:
5751:
5034:
4286:
5287:
history before the user goes back, and sometimes it ensures there is a gradual reacquisition of tools under some kind of parole, probation or mentorship that helps ensure the user avoids the same mistakes again.
2642:
5705:
5684:
5583:
5548:
1788:
Based on the user's comments below, I guess I would ask why Tundrabuggy's sanction was so much more severe than ChrisO's, for what seems to be a much lighter offense. If anything, Tundrabuggy should have gotten
5779:
To answer the other question:User conduct is the driving force behind our remedy, so we need to include the articles that bring out the user conduct problems. I suggest the broader interpretation of the topic.
2094:
5202:(parole) specified in the remedy would hold either way since those are intended to protect others rather than the user in question, by making it easier to take action if he did slip back after regaining them.
4959:
4670:. I would appreciate guidance here, are the two editors in that case (and others where ArbCom does not specify whether or not the usual means are available) able to apply for their access to be reinstated via
2411:
2388:
Agree with the above, especially FT2's expression of hope that Elonka & ChrisO can resolve; in light of this consensus in the those of the Committee who have posted, I think we should remove this request.
4613:
1917:
Elonka stepped in and volunteered to mediate. She was accepted by all including ChrisO. As part of her ongoing mediation, she lifted protection on the article in exchange for some simple edit restrictions.
5040:
While I did not participate in that case, I can say that desysopping remedies are always explicit about the methods by which the person concerned can reapply to be a sysop, identifying that it may be by the
3025:
2792:
As a result of the above, a number of users have indicated that the Committee may need to revisit the case and review the user's actions. This is in addition to the prior request which was deemed premature.
8212:
8101:
6438:
factual basis for pseudoscientific or paranormal topics. If we did that for a while, the heat and rancor would die down, because people attempting to corrupt the encyclopedia would eventually be eliminated.
4758:
4146:
Elonka makes a good suggestion - we already had a de facto central area where we were listing articles to review and I'm sure no one would mind if Jehochman has other articles he wants to add to the list.
3956:. This is old stuff, and I will be glad to discuss if there are any specific issues to be addressed. We're all here to contribute content as best as we can. For some of my latest contributions, please see
2556:
2104:
2606:
I don't see any good reason to go down the road of "jury selection", or allowing arguments to be brought on the recusal of Arbitrators. There is no particular problem with the current system of recusals.
1144:
concerns a controversy that is currently the subject of libel litigation in France as well as an off-wiki campaign that accuses several individuals of criminal and professional misconduct. Personal abuse
7359:
may flare up again, so we should keep the option open of extending the area of conflict to include these states, as well as any others - such as Czech Republic and Slovakia - that may need it in future.
6201:
I'd like to see what DGG mentioned below, a Topic Ban Noticeboard and some degree of practical consensus to prevent a single editor/admin, or ideological group of editors/admins, from going ban-happy. --
1541:
with a misleading edit summary of "blatant POV pushing" (his edit summary didn't describe it as a revert, but it was clear that he had cleanly wiped out 8 intervening edits, back to his own last version.
7827:
mere assumed membership of a group is then sufficient to cast suspicion. Institutionalize this approach by adopting discretionary sanctions for Eastern Europe and the result will be disastrously clear.
6884:
1459:
7541:
5586:, all based on nothing more than his POV. He is single minded in pushing an anti-British, anti-Israeli, anti-American, anti-almost anything POV. For example relating to Americans in Iraq, he changes "
1389:
Elonka's action is likely to have on any future efforts to ensure that BLP is followed. We need a clear statement on whether or not editing restrictions can override BLP and copyright enforcement. --
4227:, both translations of contemporary accounts. So apparently most of the article seems to be derived from primary sources and not a secondary text by a professional historian. The Thailand article in
1659:
BLP. But once the 3RR report was filed, he suddenly came up with the "BLP" angle, to excuse his behavior ex post facto, and without pointing to any actual BLP issues that his reverts were aimed at.
4804:
4790:
4122:
2028:
6063:
What if the scope were limited to areas and users that have severe long-running and/or perpetually recurring behavioral issues? I believe that would keep the scope from being too broad or limited.
5715:
3868:
logical fallacy. I have not suggested banning PHG here. Could you look a bit more closely at some of PHG's recent contribution. Actually go get the source and look at it. For just one example,
1921:
On June 10th I made the first single-word edit on the newly unprotected article -- "reported" -- and was surprised by a 90 day edit-ban on both article and talk page by previously uninvolved admin
6956:
6790:
6641:
6557:
4591:
1860:
7792:). It is unfortunate that the remedies in the Digwuren case were extended to broadly cover Eastern Europe, and is now being exploited by Moreschi to further his agenda as expressed in his essay "
5925:
2532:". And it is a pity that some ArbCom members have apparently bought into it rather than look at the facts on the ground. I think Sarah777's rebuttal of Morsechi's thesis in her lampooning essay "
2528:). It is unfortunate that the remedies in the Digwuren case were extended to broadly cover Eastern Europe, and is now being exploited by Moreschi to further his agenda as expressed in his essay "
1500:
1291:
requires the removal of "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" from talk pages and articles. I therefore redacted them and asked Julia1987 not to post unsourced allegations in future.
7497:(actively?) "a big list" of (not so clear) diffs collected until December to take advantage of the restrictions, and managed to have Dr. Dan listed as the very first extension to the list, with
7472:
6452:
5696:
4795:
As to bainer's statement below, After that case, I want as little to do with arbcom as possible, and would decline any re-sysop that ties me to the people involved with that case for 6 months.
2439:
1723:
1608:
857:
8343:
7015:
6298:
6237:
4778:
I would like a clarification of how the arbcom thinks these problems happened, how they plan to avoid them in future, and, if possible, an apology for the severe negative effects on my life.
3760:
2064:
2002:
1806:
4455:
3633:
3598:
2187:
above all should have been given. Especially given the circumstances, he should have made exceptional efforts to be clear. ChrisO did not communicate and the result was a foregone conclusion.
2073:
effecting the article, but without it being vandalism (or a BLP issue). My suggestion to Elonka was to make this restriction more.. restricted. Apply it to certain editors, certain texts, or
815:
810:
803:
798:
793:
788:
783:
778:
773:
768:
763:
758:
753:
748:
743:
738:
733:
728:
723:
718:
711:
706:
701:
696:
691:
686:
681:
676:
671:
8427:
8371:
8056:
7946:
7578:
7377:
7235:
7042:
6152:
5916:
4163:
4015:
3934:
1836:
7449:"A German author claims that after the town was ceded to Poland a large part of German inhabitants left the area but the candidate of the German Party, Ernst Barczewski, was elected to the
6400:
could finally kill the endless attacks against other editors and administrators, and could finally open the door for new editors, with fresh viewpoints and dialogues, to come in and edit.
4155:
3608:
3133:
3104:
2616:
1820:
a lot of time if they're to agree to provide "first instance" review of every discretionary sanction imposed by an administrator. I think other avenues of redress should be explored first.
666:
661:
656:
651:
646:
641:
636:
631:
626:
619:
614:
609:
604:
599:
594:
589:
584:
579:
574:
569:
564:
559:
554:
549:
544:
539:
534:
527:
522:
517:
512:
507:
502:
497:
492:
487:
482:
477:
472:
467:
462:
457:
452:
447:
442:
435:
430:
425:
420:
415:
410:
405:
400:
395:
390:
385:
380:
375:
370:
365:
360:
355:
350:
343:
338:
333:
328:
323:
318:
313:
308:
303:
298:
293:
288:
283:
278:
273:
268:
263:
258:
251:
246:
236:
231:
226:
221:
216:
211:
109:
101:
96:
84:
79:
71:
8409:
8295:
This provision supersedes the "General restriction" remedy, but does not affect any other provisions of the case, or any sanctions already imposed under the "General restriction" remedy.
7089:
6619:
5668:
5230:
We usually decide "by application to the Committee" to give this a chance of happening appropriately and fairly, and to protect the user, the community/other users, or both, as necessary:
4191:
3368:
8359:
8329:
8206:
8135:
7051:
7030:
7001:
6866:
5900:
The list of users in affected areas is too large to collect, list and notify conveniently. I will place notices of this request, so the community as a whole is aware, on the village pump,
5364:
5024:
2892:
1996:
206:
201:
196:
191:
186:
181:
176:
171:
166:
8083:
7941:
7684:
7402:
7139:
6699:
6530:
6389:
6077:
5833:
4809:
4317:
3379:
3230:
3047:
2572:
1482:
1088:
8388:
7871:
7368:
7344:
7304:
7286:
7262:
7101:
7068:
6494:
5132:
141:
7861:
7612:
6664:
6500:
5801:
5391:
5180:
4938:
4414:
4398:
3481:
3241:
3141:
2584:
1758:
8317:
5091:
5076:
4111:
4099:
4065:
I guess you could always just de-ref the article, i.e. yank all the references (not added in the past 11 months) and put them on the article talk page, and then replace them all with
4060:
4048:
3896:
3858:
3849:
3837:
3825:
3410:
3355:
2920:
1913:"... to put it bluntly the SPAs and conspiracy theory advocates are not listening and are attempting to edit-war their view into the article. There is some very blatant soapboxing..."
126:
5847:
5054:
4428:
3929:
3393:
2874:
2396:
8187:
8171:
7855:
7836:
7809:
7776:
7743:
7535:
7348:
7308:
7290:
6989:
6878:
6290:
6024:
5787:
5765:
5165:
5153:
4380:
4368:
4350:
4330:
4303:
3428:
3271:
3215:
2628:
2601:
2545:
2512:
2444:
1477:
1360:
effort to remove material that indisputably violates BLP, COPY and NPOV. This risks sending a message to editors that BLP doesn't matter and attempts to uphold it will be penalised.
1356:. Elonka has argued that my edit was an impermissible reversion and constituted "edit-warring", but has not acknowledged any of the NPOV, BLP or copyright issues that I have raised.
6584:
6429:
6352:
4743:
In it, a 2-month-old block was the cause of a rush to voting in 12 hours, before I provided any evidence, and a refusal to grant another couple weeks so that I could sit my exams.
3255:
2945:
2139:
7912:
7692:
There is no justification to extend discretionary sanctions to other topic areas such as the Polish/Russian articles, Ukraine or particularly the Baltic states. An examination of
7676:
7653:
7573:
6267:
5819:
5517:
5355:
4044:
and that ArbCom case came into effect in March of this year. The case explicitly doesn't forbid him from commenting on Talk page, so I'm sure commenting on AfD's is fair game. --
3289:
2984:
1634:
3436:
6144:
4910:
4895:
4870:
4858:
4138:
2849:
2059:
1453:
1398:
6123:"...Something has to be done here, this long term situation is highly divisive to the encyclopedic and takes way too admin effort to keep it within harmonic editing boundaries.
5208:
4373:
PHG has agreed on Angusmclellan as a new mentor. I notified the rest of the Committee and there were no objections. So let's go forward with the mentoring arrangement for now.
3297:
2974:
8263:
8012:
6935:
6769:
6659:
5770:
Per Lapsed_Pacifist's request on my talk page, I'm commenting further. I think the editing restrictions are needed so that collaborative article work can happen on this topic.
4527:
3700:
1958:
1285:
On 13 June, Julia1987 posted unsourced allegations on the article talk page that an individual mentioned in the article was a drug dealer who had been attacked by a drug gang.
7440:
no source in Polish wikipedia and I can just as well edit that article that Martians invaded Działdowo in 1920. They were no elections in 1920 in Poland to Sejm. Case closed.
4253:
2212:
7718:
the Baltic States. Massive intervention that risks totally chilling a broad subject area is not required, particularly when precise targeted action is more than sufficient.
7211:
6722:
6478:
5949:
5868:
5733:
5575:
4656:
3776:, I spotted a familiar a pattern of original research, original maps that have no sources, and copyright violations in the form of book cover uploads. Sure enough, I found
2915:
2419:
1753:
1626:
6813:
3052:
2654:
7433:
also on talk, and stubbornly refused to acknowledge that after the Versailles Treaty made Soldau/Dzialdowo Polish, a by-election was held, which apparently is also stated
6347:
6053:
5680:
5313:
4943:
Some of those commenting seem not to have noticed that the committee has pointed out that its decision was based in part on private information submitted to the committee
4009:
3885:
3811:
3090:
2829:
2696:
2374:
2084:
2023:
1831:
1490:
Personally I think that ChrisO is wasting his time here, but this appeal might actually benefit from an ArbCom review, as a few editors have been sharply critical of the
847:
8142:
participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of discretionary sanctions.
8096:
6579:
5941:
4024:
1380:
In response to Elonka's comment below, I couldn't source Julia1987's allegations to anything other than the pirate video, an unusable source which had to be removed. BLP
7487:
7372:
7266:
6314:
I would like an advocate that I can agree is neutral, such as LaraLove or DGG or maybe Vassyana to review things before any action is take against me. Same for others.
6253:
6232:
6209:
6072:
6009:
5994:
5970:
5738:
5198:
will fully cover this problem area, or will take his chances on his future conduct without any "safety net"), then I would endorse a committee decision to allow it. The
4722:
4685:
3060:
2481:
2284:
it was in a biographical article or shaded negatively towards a living person, I would expect it to be removed. Caveat - I would not expect it edit warred over or gamed.
1855:
984:
929:
7624:
Russia-related subjects belong to Digwuren case, but there was no answer. I trust Moreschi judgment, but we need some safeguards if this is adopted as a general policy.
5945:
5937:
5929:
5158:
The case was handled in an extremely disjointed manner that added extra stress for Shoemaker's Holiday at a time when he least needed it. For that I'm extremely sorry.
4239:
by David K. Wyatt (117-118). Detailed secondary sources (such as the detailed account of Hutchinson) have not been identified by PHG. I hope these comments are useful.
1704:
Given this extremely disruptive behavior, the length of time it has been going on, and the fact that similar behavior has been exhibited on other articles as well (see
8078:
8051:
7727:
7607:
6636:
5691:
5011:
I would also ask an apology for forcing me into a corner whereby the only option available to me was to make private matters public, lest I end up looking far worse.
4248:
4186:
2935:
2886:
123:
25:
5953:
2761:
7888:
7633:
6808:
6424:
6272:
We need more than that. We need a statement of neutrality toward the subjects themselves. I've seen mediators come in and say essentially "Well it's bunk so..." ——
6106:
4951:
4933:
4845:
3818:
3801:
3623:
1893:
Since then I've had a quick lesson in navigating, editing, rules and general "culture" of WP. I believed my half-dozen edits on the article were fair and neutral.
1603:
1374:
7506:
6842:
3973:
6694:
6525:
3034:
3020:
2950:
Reply -- I only asked because given his previous work on here, this seems very uncharacteristic. I wanted to know if he had ever had a previous spell like this.
2765:
1801:
1775:
6085:
I heartily endorse this request for stronger measures re editors on both sides of this issue. More details to follow. I'll be on wiki break much of this weekend.
7713:
5924:
I would like to request that ArbCom explicitly permit discretionary sanctions on all pseudoscience and alternative science topics, broadly construed, similar to
2733:
2194:
says (citing WJBScribe), this should probably not be brought here first. This dispute is probably not an RFAR matter (at this time). But now it's here, so be it.
1670:
8284:
8033:
6552:
1255:
6614:
6543:
is editing an article on pseudoscience, right?) It needs to be spelled out what this applies to - theories of origin, alternative medicine, paranormal, etc. --
6447:
6381:
4280:
8262:
Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently
8011:
Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently
6934:
Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently
6768:
Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently
4054:
3991:
ISBN 9745240052. The book is organized as follows: a Preface and General Introduction by Michael Smithies, an English translation of the account published by
2867:
2837:
2243:.) 0RR is a restriction that would apply only to existing or new editors on the article. The aim of an ultra-broad remedy is to get the article back on track
8275:
participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.
8024:
participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.
6947:
participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.
6781:
participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.
5470:
5061:
4822:
4640:
3347:
3325:
3162:
3146:
2794:
2749:
2690:
1885:
1879:
1711:
3919:
8230:
In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to
7979:
In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to
7823:
6902:
In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to
6827:
by envious researchers who want to do no more than to destroy other researchers). Alternative thought still has a place in articles, but while it still is
6736:
In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to
3578:
3206:
1907:
1680:
1341:
I was shocked and surprised to find on 15 June that Elonka had banned me for one week from the article's talk page and thirty days from the article itself.
6516:, that is to have a place in which we can assess some measure of administrators' consensus when applying broad restrictions such as topic bans or blocks.
3805:
2789:
would usually be visible as a "new messages" banner presented on the blocking page on each occasion, and upon the "block successful" pages that followed.
2107:, on appeals of discretionary sanctions, providing that appeals could be made to the sanctioning administrator, the relevant admin noticeboard (presently
1096:
I wish to appeal a page ban applied by Elonka after I removed an obvious copyright, BLP and NPOV violation from an article. The background is as follows:
7672:
7649:
7629:
1655:
1298:
On 14 June, Julia1987 made a series of edits in which she deleted some sourced material and added essentially the same allegations, this time sourced to
6263:
model - has never been involved in a content dispute on any article in the pseudoscience/paranormal topic area with that topic area broadly construed.
2802:
1689:
1312:
requires that "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that ... relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in
8074:
7959:
Committee has decided to this effect (the other discretionary sanctions proposal in that case only recieved one support, so the disparity is evident).
6712:
Committee has decided to this effect (the other discretionary sanctions proposal in that case only recieved one support, so the disparity is evident).
5933:
5556:
I can only assume this is some sort of bizarre joke on the part of Lapsed Pacifist, given he is a tendentious editor in virtually every area he edits.
5381:
4445:
4259:
I've asked FloNight (on her talk page) about this issue's status since PHG seems to have ignored the one offer of mentoring by Angus (see PHG's talk).
3913:? The list is associated with the arbitration case, and may include things that are not closely related to Franks and Mongols. 16:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3471:
1449:
1394:
1370:
887:
3577:
They are replaced with the following: Due to several incidents of poor judgement, possibly aggravated by severe illness he was suffering at the time,
2123:
it would be worth setting aside a page somewhere to discuss discretionary sanction "best practice": what has worked, what hasn't worked, and so forth.
1983:
and to reiterate the substance of the investigations that the court decision used to determine its verdict would not seem to me to be in violation of
8145:
6847:
5746:
5029:
4552:
3872:, mentioned by PHG below. I have been told by somebody who speaks French that one of PHG's sources is a book by Michael Smithies of translations of
3603:
3523:
5704:
My block appears to be one that precipitated this appeal, so I will comment to explain that. I noticed that request for Arbitration Enforcement at:
4583:
1981:
7759:
7710:
6190:). Presenting information regarding just the "beliefs" is sometimes called POV pushing by admins. There's also the cultural, folklore perspective (
5864:
5465:
3768:
We have a big problem in that PHG's convincing looking citations can fool a majority of good faith editors. In attempting to clean up the article
2241:"restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary..."
7493:
Regarding Piotrus' statement: it was Piotrus who made the most effective use of the new Digwuren case as soon as October 2007. It was him who had
4667:
7525:
7519:. And as Piotrus and others know very well, it is hardly a coincidence that edits "will be reverted by more numerous" users who are listening to
7477:
7379:
7218:
2941:
Comment -- it doesn't really matter. Admins are expected to communicate with the community if they are going to be actively using their tools. --
2089:
2456:
of online intrusion by Digwuren. Whether or not these allegations were prompted by his earlier heated conflict with some editors over claims of
1302:, undated, unsourced, translated by an unknown individual, on a video sharing website. Julia1987's edits stated the allegations as proven facts.
8157:
7668:
7645:
7625:
7614:
2769:
1683:
4056:
It's a stretch of the F-Ma case to declare that everything he ever touched is permanently sullied, and he was right to call you out on it. --
2171:
criteria. (See below: "detail".) I'm willing to accept ChrisO's statement that despite describing it as "POV", this was what made him revert (
8070:
8058:
4361:
and brought the Committee up to date on ArbCom mailing list today. Will try to get the mentoring arrangement finalized in the next few days.
4308:
Along with the emerging consensus here, all we need to do is to find a volunteer to replace Coren as PHG's mentor. Are there any volunteers?
2729:
2714:
1873:
1692:
1667:
1445:
1390:
1366:
1090:
882:
148:
2551:
1945:
mediator's decision(s) in good spirit, and abide by them. To me the terms seem generous, and I think he could use his time to consider his
5433:
4927:
material. Until now I have chosen to handle it with discretion because of its sensitive nature; that does not oblige me to remain silent.
4901:
2315:"In an anonymous video, Doctor X of hospital Y stated that he identified them as surgical scars from an operation he had performed in 1994"
5650:
protesters (where he has a conflict of interest) despite it being complete original research on his part, and edit warring to retain it -
4403:
I think Mathsci's comments are telling. They suggest an ongoing problem. Yes a new mentor — but PHG must be made to understand and follow
3109:
I've counted him as un-recused so far as I can't see anything which would make him involved in the dispute, or a direct recusal from him.
7129:
4636:
2813:
Minor amendment: Clown's email address is on his user page. However this wouldn't help a user who looks for it on the standard place, at
2702:
1974:"and the statements procured by the cameraman ... cannot be found truly credible neither in their presentation nor in their substance..."
6596:
I do believe we can make this work by applying the same methods as are applied in articles on religious belief systems. The article on
2175:). A person reverting others' work should be very careful at the best of times not to do so unnecessarily nor to revert valid material (
1544:) I then put him on (what I felt was) a mild ban of avoiding the talkpage for one week, and avoiding edits to the article for one month.
8235:
7984:
7755:
6907:
6741:
6678:
and careful approach for dealing with this kind of problem, such as those potential options being considered at the discussion lead by
4876:
4620:
4599:
I would like ArbCom to clarify whether this remedy precludes the desysopped user from requesting adminship through the usual channels:
4546:
3517:
2317:
would be better. The translation issue is not a problem (we can check it, like any other non-English source.) But note - we still have
1332:
to be a revert. I did not revert to a previous version, as I retained Julia1987's and another editor's non-problematic additions. (See
5901:
3165:) is directed not to perform any further blocks or administrator actions pending his communicating with the Arbitration Committee, at
2457:
6219:
per Vassyana's replies on it's intended use. It seems fundamentally wrong that blocking or banning a user, a person, would have less
4173:
4130:
I think this might be solvable by having PHG choose a new mentor, since Coren does not appear to be performing that duty any longer.
3319:
3156:
2818:
2764:
of users using the administrative tools, either all or mostly without visible communication with the blocked users or other users. A
2743:
2684:
7696:
and other boards will reveal that these areas are relatively harmonious, and the existing mechanisms such as 3RR are working well.
7663:
area of conflict. For example, this administrator threatened me with block while making himself his fourth revert in 24 hours
4661:
2012:
1679:, seeking to get his opponents banned or otherwise sanctioned and his own actions vindicated, on no fewer than 6 different venues:
8108:
7386:
5904:
5824:
Decline appeal; it seems fair to read the restrictions imposed as including the Irish War of Independence and the Irish Civil War.
5567:
4832:
4628:
2498:
2490:
2469:
2465:
1222:
1149:
and death threats have been directed against some of those involved. I have monitored the article for BLP reasons since April 2007.
2720:
1793:
leniency than ChrisO, given that Tundrabuggy is relatively new and ChrisO is, and has been, well aware of editing practices here.
7707:
5907:
5146:
Committee prior to starting a RFA can be useful since frequently we have knowledge about ongoing issues that may not be obvious.
3329:
3166:
1904:
1901:
1686:
6184:). Presenting that historical information is sometimes called POV pushing by admins. There's also the sociological perspective (
5243:- There may be private issues we want the chance to chance to check out, so we don't have to raise them in the middle of an RFA.
2708:
8176:
It must be reminded that this is not a place for discussions as it is mentioned on top of this page. It doesn't help a lot. --
6567:
5482:
2183:
have been reverted (but on well-explained grounds), some should have been discussed but not reverted -- and a good explanation
1175:
1118:
1113:
1055:
1008:
8156:
I have recused myself once and I believe that at least I can say that this area needs more strict measures. I also agree with
7701:
5599:
5082:
sysophood. I don't think there was any "announcement", it's just been included explicitly in all the remedies passed since. --
1344:
Elonka has since restricted Julia1987 for deleting sourced content in the same series of edits as the BLP/copyright violation
7751:
7273:
5627:
5427:
1122:
4775:
for a semester of university - this attempt to protect me from others learning about my state of health backfired severely.
2487:
This is not some minor tweak or "just updating the wording" as claimed by Sam Blacketer, (who also voted in favour claiming
1939:
MZMcBride said of my ban of three months: "There truly isn't any need for this level of discussion for something so minor."
7153:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
5892:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
5405:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
4827:
For misuse of his administrative tools and failure to relate appropriately with other administrators, MONGO is desysopped.
4469:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3647:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3495:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3315:
3173:
3152:
2785:
2757:
2739:
2679:
2668:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2644:
2433:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
871:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
8440:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
7123:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
5858:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
5677:
5375:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
4439:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
4042:
3951:
3617:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3465:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3382:
I hope that CSCWEM responds satisfactorily to Deskana's email, in which case his administrator privileges can be restored.
2638:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2461:
2407:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1889:"notified of the case in relation to single-purpose account editing and promotion of personal views and original research"
1271:
I fully accept that I overstepped the restrictions on a couple of occasions through sheer frustration, as noted by Elonka.
6038:
Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive409#User:Mccready_-_endless.2C_disruptive.2C_repetitive_edit_warring
5659:
5657:
5655:
5653:
5651:
5117:
If the remedy says that the usual means are allowed, then the usual means are allowed; if it does not, then they are not.
4666:
As I pointed out above, it is not the case that Arbitration remedies are always specific on this point. Take for example
1105:
6570:
area and the paranormal areas. Focusing on the most problematic areas is a better idea than a big sweeping probation.
5625:
5601:
1512:
1508:
1491:
4570:
4107:
I don't see how undoing the labors of dozens of editors over several years solves anything. There's no "quick fix." --
3541:
1385:
to remove the claim and the unusable source. I'm also not sitting this out because of the unresolved BLP issue and the
6862:
case; while I'm open to imposing them here, I'd prefer to avoid doing so until we decide on the better wording there.
5328:
confidence in his ability to handle adminship without problems. I wish to state categorically that at this time I am
1925:
1876:
1571:
1503:, and had been in a state of dispute for quite awhile. I, as an uninvolved admin (and member of the ArbCom-appointed
1261:
8160:
though the safeguards come usually with the pack. What Moreschi is asking for is the green light from the ArbCom. --
7398:
6164:
Paranormal topics aren't just pseudoscience (though they are, in part, that). There's also a historical perspective (
5909:
If another editor believes there is a specific user or another on-wiki forum that should receive notice, they should
4750:) While not itself a problem, this was followed by the arbitrators ignoring repeated comments by several people that
4746:
In one finding of fact, evidence was researched and created by the Arbcom that did not appear in the evidence page. (
4576:
3547:
1590:
1216:
4904:: the Committee acted in open defiance of a solid community consensus; this person should not have been desysopped.
4040:
1940:
1931:
1928:
1906:. The following day Moreschi goes to the Admin Noticeboard asking for an uninvolved admin to ban me and Julia1987.
5636:
5634:
5630:
5595:
4633:"Tango may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.
4564:
4558:
3725:
3535:
3529:
3169:
or by e-mail. This action is intended to be temporary, pending resolution of the concerns that have been raised.
2780:
2116:
1559:
1542:
1533:
1531:
1406:
1322:
1303:
1299:
1292:
1286:
1269:
1150:
7787:
7664:
4748:
Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Proposed_decision#Vanished_user.27s_use_of_administrative_tools
2523:
8243:
7992:
6915:
6749:
6341:
6284:
5476:
4491:
3664:
3332:
or by e-mail. This action is intended to be temporary pending resolution of the concerns that have been raised.
1545:
1536:
1528:
1526:
1524:
1522:
1520:
1518:
1516:
1342:
1278:
1275:
1272:
1169:
1146:
1049:
1002:
4203:, following a private communication. Having looked at some of PHG's recent edits to articles connected with the
4053:
You trotted him out as a bogey-man and cited his having edited the article as a reason for deleting the article.
2776:, advised him of the serious concerns, and requesting he did not block users without rectifying the situation.
2577:
Agree with Sam. There isn't a sufficient reason for us to ask FayssalF to change his mind on matter of recusal.
1127:
831:
8247:
7996:
7444:
7438:
7423:
7420:
7418:
7416:
7414:
7228:
7175:
6919:
6753:
5632:
5579:
5571:
5564:
5457:
5020:
4800:
4786:
4733:
4540:
3997:
3594:
3511:
2536:" raises some real problems with Moreschi's misanthropic views on ethnic diversity of viewpoints in Knowledge.
2460:
is not clear, however there is a clear conflict of interest in FayssalF's participation, which he acknowledges
1695:
1345:
58:
If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of
21:
3755:
1844:
I think the problematic part is the fact that some people would read the original wording as only sanctioning
1570:
page protection. Instead, three editors (two new editors, and ChrisO) were placed on temporary bans (see our
1547:
He immediately started wikilawyering with multiple messages to my talkpage about why he was allowed to revert,
1539:
1329:
8069:
consensus among uninvolved admins that there was a problem requiring the application of the ARBMAC tools. --
7797:
7295:
Re Daniel: better definition of the area of conflict needed, I'm afraid. Just "Eastern Europe" is too vague.
5451:
5445:
4503:
3676:
2533:
2440:
Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FDigwuren
2858:"this is your last chance, we mean it this time", is a really bad idea - he's ALREADY on his last chance. --
1664:
1651:
1551:
1548:
1357:
8384:
8239:
7988:
7586:
I endorses this request. Many of the long-term problematic areas of wiki need strong and flexible remedies.
7187:
7064:
6911:
6745:
6418:
5815:
5616:
5559:
His ban on articles relating to the Northern Ireland conflict was evaded when he made contentious edits to
5351:
4711:
Am I understanding correctly and can you see why it was a bit much to expect the community to intuit this?
4521:
4509:
4231:
by Ronald S. Love gives more detailed references, including a 40 page paper from 1935 by Hutchinson in the
4183:
3694:
3682:
3424:
3285:
2453:
1600:
1405:
There appears to be some confusion over which edit prompted the page-ban. Elonka page-banned me for making
1246:
1139:
948:
893:
134:
7425:
5711:
5709:
2248:
trust. If anyone feels that 0RR is a bad idea, it can be appealled (via Elonka as imposing administrator,
2080:
This may or may not be an issue yet, and this may or may not apply to ChrisO, but that's my two cents. --
8231:
7980:
7814:
To Moreschi: assigning the bad behaviour of individuals to national groups, then characterising it as a "
7205:
7193:
6903:
6737:
5587:
5506:
5439:
4989:
4965:
4497:
3906:
3794:
3670:
3328:)'s administrator privileges are suspended, pending his communicating with the Arbitration Committee, at
3004:
1911:
Later (ChrisO (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2008)labels other editors: Canadian Monkey, Gilabrand, & Leifern
1234:
1199:
1079:
1032:
5545:, which it is not. Put simply, I was not given a chance to argue my case, and I would like that chance.
7181:
5494:
4515:
4105:
3688:
2612:
1187:
1067:
1020:
960:
905:
46:
4212:
3954:
3877:
1697:. In fact, this most recent appeal follows on the heels of yet another appeal, his 7th (!!) this time
7199:
6858:
We are currently looking into some modifications to the discretionary sanction ruling as part of the
5612:
5550:
5421:
5016:
4982:
I made some bad judgements when severely ill, and could not guarantee that I would not fall ill again
4796:
4782:
4729:
4535:
4208:
3980:
3957:
3943:
3769:
3719:
3590:
3582:
3561:
3506:
1333:
1240:
978:
966:
923:
911:
7159:
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
5898:
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
5411:
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
4740:
If we're going to review this case, now's as good as a time as any to look over the problems of it.
4475:
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
3501:
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
2674:
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
877:
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
7793:
6188:
5643:
3749:
3043:
2822:
2529:
1675:
Unable to get consensus for his views on the Talk page of the article, he has engaged in egregious
1473:
954:
899:
7549:
There is absolutely no doubt that this is required. My involvement in EE issues is limited to the
2873:
I didn't see it above so here, for reference, is the previous discussion on ANI from a month ago:
2499:
a better definition of the area of conflict needed, I'm afraid. Just "Eastern Europe" is too vague
8339:
8251:
8112:
8064:
This might be too radical a suggestion, I know, but might it be possible to adapt something like
8000:
7937:
7924:
7568:
7550:
7460:
7011:
6923:
6757:
5829:
5500:
4313:
3737:
3364:
3226:
3110:
3067:
2926:
previous incidents where his blocks/bans have been questionable or not up to his usual standard?
2568:
1313:
1228:
1193:
1135:
1109:
1073:
1026:
972:
917:
7428:
5186:
FloNight says it well. I have added below some comments on the "by application" style of remedy.
4697:
4635:" However, the Committee is also sometimes silent on this issue, for example in the remedies at
4625:
He may apply to have them reinstated by appeal to the Committee, but not through the usual means
2753:
2276:- A genuinely harmful BLP issue must take priority over most other editorial concerns. If there
1949:
behavior in regard to this article, rather than trying to find fault in the behavior of others.
1698:
8300:
There are 11 active arbitrators (excluding one who has abstained), so six votes are a majority.
6838:
2055:
2045:
proxy editing, but with the benefit of a human filter to prevent bad stuff from going through.
2030:
1386:
1353:
3221:
investigation, some are questionable. This direction is therefore not likely to be effective.
3096:
Is FT2 considered an active arbitrator for this motion? I assume he is, just wanted to check.
8424:
8368:
7248:
get their opponents put on civility supervision and blocked. We need discretionary sanctions
7098:
7039:
6655:
5798:
5676:
Blocked twice in the last month for violating this restriction and in that time put on notice
5488:
5177:
4411:
4395:
4089:
3950:
etc...) and photographs. My last contribution gets back to August 30, 2007, about a year ago
3376:
3238:
2910:
2608:
2581:
2393:
1992:
1954:
1872:. On June 2, the first external contribution to my talk page was the notification posted by
1584:
1210:
1181:
1131:
1061:
1014:
17:
7321:
makes clear, the term "Eastern Europe" is something rather ambiguous and definitions differ.
4606:
on parole with regard to both conduct and admin tool use for a further period of six months.
6490:
6474:
5728:
5416:
4695:
1897:
to use neutral terms such as "was reported." This edit, however, became proof of being a
1749:
1636:
1622:
1409:
edit. The BLP violation I removed was this bit (the bolded text is that which was added by
1268:
On 10 June, Elonka stepped in to mediate, impose editing restrictions and lift protection.
4839:
No statement disallowing RFA; subsequent RFA took place without special appeal to ArbCom.
8:
8405:
8314:
8203:
7394:
7085:
6986:
6863:
6834:
6337:
6280:
5843:
5639:
5361:
5290:
As such, a user who goes directly to RFA would be fine sometimes.... but the problem is,
5128:
5087:
5072:
5050:
4718:
4681:
4652:
4485:
4424:
3658:
3039:
3027:
2256:
is a bad admin judgement, or harms the article. Arbitration remedies like this get given
2135:
2019:
1827:
1504:
1469:
1461:
1163:
1043:
996:
8194:
My response here is the same one that I made in regards to the identical request in the
1535:
I told him clearly that if he did one more, he risked being put on tighter restrictions.
1328:
I therefore removed Julia1987's problematic additions and restored the deleted material.
8356:
8335:
8326:
8184:
8168:
7933:
7920:
7851:
7832:
7805:
7772:
7739:
7723:
7564:
7543:
7528:
7480:
7364:
7340:
7300:
7282:
7258:
7222:
7169:
7027:
7007:
6998:
6875:
6068:
6049:
6005:
5990:
5966:
5825:
5784:
5762:
5706:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive23#Lapsed Pacifist
5685:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive23#Lapsed Pacifist
5162:
5150:
4377:
4365:
4347:
4327:
4309:
4300:
3953:. Just look at the state and length of the article, even before I contributed anything
3407:
3360:
3344:
3268:
3222:
3203:
2625:
2598:
2564:
2541:
2508:
2477:
2295:
Was the reverted material (despite its revert as "POV") really a genuine BLP violation?
2158:
BLP (if a genuine case) would have a very high priority indeed and would override xRR.
1869:
1496:
1101:
6259:
I agree that a strong definition of uninvolved/neutral is needed here. I commend the
2162:
There is a caveat (because BLP is sometimes pushed or gamed for POV removal purposes).
8111:
diff, Biophys suggests the following change to the proposed discretionary sanctions.
7905:
7881:
6820:
6634:
5629:. Describing Israeli settlements as "colonies" and edit warring to retain the term -
5608:
4244:
4149:
4132:
4124:
3992:
3743:
3389:
3251:
2955:
2931:
2814:
2051:
7898:-like solutions to Digwuren's case. This would vastly improve their effectiveness.--
6957:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Log of blocks and bans
6791:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Log of blocks and bans
5926:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions
5611:
in the city" and edit warring to retain the sentence and sources. It was sourced by
3780:
had heavily edited the article. This is exactly the same pattern as we saw before.
1705:
8421:
8380:
8365:
8093:
8085:
8065:
8047:
7895:
7600:
7464:
7249:
7095:
7060:
7036:
6804:
6651:
6643:
6575:
6412:
6260:
6137:
6099:
5811:
5795:
5604:
5538:
5347:
5174:
4408:
4392:
4273:
4204:
4180:
4079:
3984:
3961:
3869:
3420:
3373:
3281:
3235:
3102:
2902:
2894:
2578:
2390:
2176:
2048:
If the editing ban was wrongfully placed, then that's for the ArbCom to deal with.
1988:
1950:
1862:
1782:
1597:
1580:
1205:
942:
7843:
5295:
aren't "against" them as such. If we say no, it's for genuine concerns -- whether
2252:, or the Committee). But so far as I am aware, no claim is made that imposing 0RR
7468:
7456:
6690:
6521:
6486:
6470:
6454:
5720:
5698:
3788:
3731:
3011:
1745:
1725:
1618:
1610:
8283:
All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at
8032:
All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at
7453:
with 74,6 % of votes in 1920, although no Sejm elections took place at the time"
6955:
All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at
6789:
All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at
6186:
eg. 73 percent of the general US population holds some sort of paranormal belief
5258:(eg "no proxies", "one account", "no interaction with X", "have you dropped Y"),
1413:, unbolded article text is previously existing material which I didn't remove)):
8401:
8309:
Proposed as promised; wording is taken from the (currently) passing version in
7754:
for a list of EE-related ArbCom cases, we see that there were 6 cases in 2007 (
7318:
7081:
6981:
Proposed as promised; wording is taken from the (currently) passing version in
6331:
6300:
6274:
6175:
6167:
5910:
5839:
5560:
5339:
with full and frank disclosure of the circumstances surrounding his desysopping
5124:
5083:
5068:
5046:
4764:, see also the (now deleted) Request for comment the Arbcom asked to be run.)
4713:
4676:
4647:
4612:
It has been noted that the Committee voted for this provision in preference to
4593:
4480:
4420:
4200:
4108:
4096:
4057:
4045:
4021:
3926:
3893:
3882:
3855:
3846:
3834:
3822:
3808:
3762:
3653:
2131:
2081:
2066:
2015:
2004:
1922:
1868:
As a new user I started my account 28th May and the first article I edited was
1822:
1816:
1808:
1676:
1410:
1317:
1258:
1158:
1038:
991:
59:
51:
7818:", is not misanthropic? I sympathize fully with what admins like yourself are
4229:
Distant Lands and Diverse Continents: The French Experience in Aisa, 1600-1700
4104:
Well, the article was pretty far along before (apparently) PHG ever got there.
2901:
should have to answer to the community, not just the arbitration committee. -
827:
8349:
8323:
8177:
8161:
7847:
7828:
7801:
7768:
7735:
7719:
7693:
7686:
7360:
7336:
7296:
7278:
7254:
7237:
7164:
7048:
7020:
6995:
6872:
6609:
6603:
6586:
6509:
6443:
6377:
6325:
to the subjects be set up to deal with sourcing in paranormal areas. "Do you
6226:
6203:
6179:
6154:
6064:
6045:
6018:
6001:
5986:
5962:
5918:
5781:
5759:
5740:
5519:
5159:
5147:
5042:
4374:
4362:
4344:
4324:
4293:
4069:
4005:
3969:
3821:
to see all the time that has thus far been invested in dispute resolution.
3773:
3713:
3400:
3352:
3341:
3261:
3212:
3200:
3178:
3054:
2942:
2773:
2622:
2591:
2537:
2504:
2473:
2446:
2203:
2172:
1984:
1882:
1851:
1838:
1309:
1288:
1252:
8198:
case below: I'll be happy to move for discretionary sanctions here once the
5665:
whole, not whether his current ban from certain articles should be upheld.
5282:
If none of these apply, then usually the re-RFA would be "in the usual way".
4219:
7901:
7877:
7863:
7410:
7244:
6679:
6629:
6621:
6540:
6264:
6250:
6246:
6239:
6115:
5688:
5670:
5647:
5620:
5594:" (or similar) which is a major violation of NPOV and not supported by the
4948:
4616:
which expressly provided for a return of adminship through the usual means.
4404:
4240:
4193:
3385:
3247:
2951:
2927:
2839:
2249:
2108:
1978:"the lack of probative value of the photographs of Jamal AL DURA’s wounds."
8334:
This wording seems to work better and give more clarity to all concerned.
2738:
The Arbitration Committee's attention has been drawn to recent actions by
2103:
Firstly, I agree with WJBscribe's comment. The original decision included
1971:"admitted that the film, ... perhaps did not correspond to his commentary"
8376:
8043:
7948:
7589:
7580:
7390:
7094:
I am not yet convinced of the wisdom of these sanctions in this context.
7056:
6824:
6800:
6701:
6597:
6571:
6559:
6548:
6406:
6392:
6193:
6126:
6088:
6079:
6044:
and should be treated by another uninvolved administrator as disruptive.
5807:
5591:
5343:
4928:
4905:
4890:
4865:
4853:
4840:
4811:
4262:
4225:
4177:
4165:
3947:
3416:
3277:
3097:
2882:
2875:
Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive431#Blocks_by_CSCWEM
2863:
2191:
1903:, a sentiment endorsed by Moreschi, at the FTN with this highly POV edit
1647:
1594:
1484:
1424:
was severely wounded in the same incident and was treated in hospital in
937:
7968:
Remedy 11, "General restriction" is superceded by the following remedy:
6683:
5004:. The fact of the matter is I am doing far better now than I was then.
832:
6686:
6674:
6666:
6517:
6502:
3784:
2412:
Request for recusal in Request_to_amend_prior_case:Digwuren (July 2008)
1967:"he inevitably and knowingly exposes himself to more careful scrutiny,"
1794:
1768:
1760:
7277:
blocked. The current Digwuren case does not allow for this to happen.
5000:, and using it to say I should not be an admin due to secret evidence
3987:
do use as one of their sources the very interesting Michael Smithies'
8202:
case closes and we know which version of the sanctions is preferred.
7520:
7513:
is very, very difficult to get a user on the Digwuren's warning list"
6329:
neutral toward issues of the paranormal?" Should be the question. ——
5806:
Decline. User demonstrates no good reason to lift the restrictions.
5015:
such comments did not relate to unrevealed policy violations by me.
4033:
3865:
1713:
6967:
This provision does not affect any existing provisions of the case.
5008:
was, and who made a few bad decisions under the effects of illness.
4359:
6513:
6439:
6431:
6372:
6355:
5310:
5205:
4336:
4001:
3965:
3936:
3911:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Checklist
3708:
3433:
3294:
2971:
2826:
2799:
2371:
2209:
1672:) and he was told it was improper (though not sanctioned for it).
829:
8285:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans
8034:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans
7932:
articles instead of striving to present some balanced view points
5342:
Committee to decisions that cannot be fully explained in public.
2077:
that wouldn't debilitate one of our most basic cleanup functions.
1429:
Tierney, Michael. ''Glasgow Herald'', August 23, 2003</ref: -->
7874:
may prove useful in dealing with this problem once and for all.--
7511:, against which Dr.Dan protested). On the other hand, it indeed "
7335:
Good articles are not written by competing teams of POV-pushers.
6245:
Concur that this is a good idea, as an admin who is a regular at
5542:
3854:
It is a hard problem, which is why I have come here for advice.
6972:
There are 12 active arbitrators, so seven votes are a majority.
6544:
6532:
6465:
not able to manage editors who are willing to game the system.
4823:
Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#MONGO_is_desysopped
2878:
2859:
2851:
1507:), decided to take a look at the situation, and chose to place
1425:
1352:
I have since unsuccessfully sought to resolve this with Elonka
4356:
4340:
833:
8264:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement
8013:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement
7434:
7317:
think "Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted" is too vague. As
6936:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement
6770:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement
6723:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist
5869:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist
2796:. The Committee agrees there are grounds for these concerns.
2368:
often have a problem as a result. ChrisO didn't communicate.
1930:
and suggesting the ban is excessive, explains her rationale:
5681:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles
5332:
that the circumstances have sufficiently changed and that I
4752:
the diffs did not support the statements made based on them.
2752:), a respected long-time administrator. Since last editing
2280:
a genuine issue with poorly sourced or unsourced material,
848:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles
7450:
6171:
5687:
and the second section on that page with identical title.
4095:
tag up top, and just let the article evolve from there. --
4036:
3777:
3276:
Unresponsiveness suggests this may not be the best option.
2563:
of interest (which I doubt) it would not matter very much.
8400:
I preferred the prior, wider definition of involvement. --
7080:
I preferred the prior, wider definition of involvement. --
5114:
No, a request for adminship is not available in this case;
5638:(many more diffs available for "colonies"). Claiming the
4767:
This is a particular problem when the person edits under
3909:. Should we move that list to a dedicated page, such as
3819:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance
3802:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Buddhism and Christianity
3624:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance
2768:
filed on June 12 was rejected as premature in favor of a
2147:
is in fact a BLP violation. Quick answers (detail below):
1550:
and then he came up with this after-the-fact "BLP" angle,
1509:
a civility and 0RR (no revert) restriction on the article
7006:
As above; the clearest wording for this type of remedy.
5541:" (referred to in the decision) is the northern half of
2313:
The doctor and hospital are named, and a statement that
2297:- Unequivocably yes, but capable of correction. This is
1501:
Palestine-Israel articles ArbCom discretionary sanctions
4174:
Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#List of articles for review
3946:, most of my contribution being historical background (
2117:"please let this stand for more than half an hour, OK?"
1650:. As Elonka notes, ChrisO came up with the "BLP" angle
1515:. So I gave him a steadily increasing set of cautions.
6461:
five editors would provide protection to both sides.
5222:
Comment on "by application to the Committee" remedies
4988:
information was in the open. I have a severe case of
3989:
Three Military Accounts of the 1688 revolution in Siam
1428:
for multiple bullet wounds.<ref name="Tierney": -->
7459:, he repeatedly made false claims, denying that both
5249:- There may be conditions to be agreed, for example:
4075:
tags, or information that is especially suspect with
3942:
I think I contributed only about 15% of this article
2100:
I find myself agreeing with a number of people here:
2452:
FayssalF was an involved party in this case, making
1965:
controversy (Charles Enderlin) that in his position
1656:
reported for a 3RR violation by an uninvolved editor
7894:Clarification: I support Moreschi's idea of adding
2468:. Nevertheless, it appears that FayssalF has voted
5382:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist
4996:. Worse, you are taking an admission of my health
4446:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman
3472:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman
5607:by US forces has resulted in a large increase in
5865:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
3567:I would ask the following be done in this case:
1878:without comment or discussion, and logged here:
6178:was once accepted by the elite in society like
4900:New arbitrators and passers-by please refer to
3964:, which I am very proud to contribute. Cheers.
6306:Endorse per everything Nealparr said. I have
5584:Category:State terrorism in the United Kingdom
4829:Passed 6 to 0 at 07:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
2237:Compatibility of 0RR with the general sanction
1850:warning, and not to start with blanket 0RR. -
1505:Working Group on ethnic and cultural edit wars
5716:Lapsed Pacifist banned from affected articles
5533:The basis for my request is that I was tried
4771:, like I did, and has a fairly unique name.
4199:I am adding these comments at the request of
4032:OK, but PHG hasn't edited that article since
142:
8236:avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors
7985:avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors
6908:avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors
6742:avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors
4902:Knowledge:Requests_for_comment/Vanished_user
2495:which contradicts the proponent's statement
7130:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren
6512:'s proposal, with the caveats presented by
4692:the remedy here did not have that ambiguity
4637:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan
4405:our policy with regard to original research
3571:Charles Matthews' statements are retracted.
2491:it would give more clarity to all concerned
2239:- The remedy is extremely broad (including
7962:Therefore I propose the following motion:
7756:Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration/Anonimu
7471:rather than Karkonosze. In both cases, he
6823:and prove their stuff (through a rigorous
6715:Therefore I propose the following motion:
6321:subject matter experts, or simply editors
5603:. Sourcing that "The controversial use of
4877:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar
4621:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar
4419:I also agree with Elonka, Sam, and Flo. --
4355:I followed up with PHG and Angusmclellan.
3300:Tried requesting already, but to no avail.
1976:and in regard to the wounds of the father:
1499:article, which is within the scope of the
149:
135:
7499:Dr. Dan inflaming Eastern European topics
3905:I've added a few articles to the list at
2819:Knowledge:Guide to requests for adminship
2779:On July 18 the community's attention was
2230:More detail on the actual points raised:
1321:untrue), it can be deleted on the spot."
7642:who never edited in the area of conflict
7422:with support by another well known user
5598:, and edit warring to retain the term -
5568:Category:Terrorism in the United Kingdom
5360:I'm in full agreement with Morven here.
4972:time, I found her statement convincing.
4833:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/MONGO 2
4629:Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration/Tango
1980:Thus the court has made their statement
7822:, particularly when Irpen wades in and
7437:(which he repeatedly rejects, eg. with
3330:Wikipedia_talk:Requests for arbitration
3167:Wikipedia_talk:Requests for arbitration
2989:Uhh... his e-mail is own his userpage:
14:
7784:Estonian press with his opinion piece
7455:would probably still remain. Also, on
5582:his newly-created (and since deleted)
4835:ran 22 January 2008 to 26 January 2008
4643:, I think clarification would be wise.
4335:I see one offer to act as a mentor on
56:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7902:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
7878:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
7752:User:Moreschi/The Plague/Useful links
7274:User:Moreschi/The Plague/Useful links
3876:by French soldiers and missionaries.
2339:and with less opinioning. In general
2331:to support such a statement. That is
1251:, have been the subject of action by
7788:Estonia is a fascist apartheid state
7149:The following discussion is closed.
5888:The following discussion is closed.
5713:to were in violation of the remedy:
5401:The following discussion is closed.
4465:The following discussion is closed.
3643:The following discussion is closed.
3491:The following discussion is closed.
2664:The following discussion is closed.
2524:Estonia is a fascist apartheid state
2429:The following discussion is closed.
1435:Ch. 10, April 29, 2008 </ref: -->
867:The following discussion is closed.
52:Clarification and Amendment requests
33:
5292:it won't always be clear in advance
4994:that meant I should not be an admin
4817:Bainer, please note the following:
3783:Regrettably, PHG's mentorship with
2645:User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me
31:
6196:are common in Southern US folklore
4223:Witness to a Revolution: Siam 1688
3574:All findings about me are vacated.
1334:User talk:Elonka#Sequence of edits
32:
8450:
6721:The following remedy is added to
5976:Reply about potential admin abuse
4391:Agree with Elonka, Sam, and Flo.
3920:Request for temporary restriction
2621:Agree with above arb's opinions.
1927:Elonka asks for reconsideration:
1744:page deserved such a benefit. --
8436:The discussion above is closed.
7119:The discussion above is closed.
6031:Reply about community discussion
5854:The discussion above is closed.
5371:The discussion above is closed.
4435:The discussion above is closed.
3613:The discussion above is closed.
3461:The discussion above is closed.
2993:
2634:The discussion above is closed.
2403:The discussion above is closed.
1538:The next day, he reverted again,
37:
8151:Arbitrator views and discussion
7508:Another Eastern European flamer
6853:Arbitrator views and discussion
6174:were studied by the Air Force,
5752:Arbitrator views and discussion
5035:Arbitrator views and discussion
4287:Arbitrator views and discussion
3609:Arbitrator views and discussion
3142:Arbitrator views and discussion
2557:Arbitrator views and discussion
2095:Arbitrator views and discussion
8364:Yes, as previously discussed.
7965:--- START PROPOSED MOTION ---
6718:--- START PROPOSED MOTION ---
6317:I suggest that a committee of
5981:accoutable for their actions.
5906:and fringe theory noticeboard.
5679:for problematic editing under
3998:Knowledge:No original research
3316:Can't sleep, clown will eat me
3174:Can't sleep, clown will eat me
3153:Can't sleep, clown will eat me
2991:cannot.sleep.clown.will.eat.me
2740:Can't sleep, clown will eat me
2680:Can't sleep, clown will eat me
13:
1:
8322:Using the preferred wording.
8102:Proposed wording from biophys
7503:Another Eastern European spat
7501:. Soon, he got me, too, with
7128:Request to amend prior case:
6994:Using the preferred wording.
6059:Reply to concerns about scope
5838:Decline appeal, per above. --
5708:. I concluded that his edits
5530:upon my return to Knowledge.
3864:Elonka, please stop with the
2846:being left on his talk page.
8039:--- END PROPOSED MOTION ---
7758:doesn't count, as discussed
6796:--- END PROPOSED MOTION ---
6114:Both sides throw reports at
5903:administrators' noticeboard,
5588:private military contractors
4960:Reply by Shoemaker's Holiday
4584:Shoemaker's Holiday notified
3804:, in particular, this edit:
2185:at that exact time of revert
7:
8213:Proposed motions and voting
7405:as lopsided and doubt that
6885:Proposed motions and voting
6628:that they have been given.
6601:asserting that it is real.
5576:Category:British terrorists
5263:protect the desysopped user
4990:post-viral fatigue syndrome
4966:post-viral fatigue syndrome
4444:Request for clarification:
4233:Journal of the Siam Society
3907:Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance
3772:that I found listed at the
124:Clarification and Amendment
26:Clarification and Amendment
10:
8455:
8196:Martinphi-ScienceApologist
7551:Worst Article On Knowledge
7515:when he defends him, like
7473:Refused to 'get the point'
5642:(Irish police) engaged in
5270:reassure or protect others
2335:what BLP is for. Dead end.
1781:Further comment on ban of
825:
120:
8428:17:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
8389:01:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
8318:01:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
8270:Uninvolved administrators
8097:09:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
8079:00:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
8052:01:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
8019:Uninvolved administrators
7913:22:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
7856:20:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
7837:20:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
7677:12:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
7309:22:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
7102:16:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
7069:01:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
6990:01:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
6942:Uninvolved administrators
6809:01:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
6776:Uninvolved administrators
5913:to drop a link to them.
5848:06:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
5834:10:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
5820:23:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
5802:13:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
5788:16:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
5766:13:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
5734:02:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
5692:13:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
5365:12:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
5356:23:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
5314:01:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
5209:01:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
5181:17:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
5166:17:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
5154:16:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
5133:13:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
5092:13:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
5077:06:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
5055:04:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
5025:23:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
4952:18:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
4934:23:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
4911:18:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
4896:01:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
4871:01:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
4859:08:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
4846:05:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
4805:04:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
4791:03:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
4723:15:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
4686:05:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
4657:02:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
4641:this recent withdrawn RfA
4429:13:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
4381:16:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
4369:14:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
4281:11:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
4237:Thailand: a short history
4209:Siamese revolution (1688)
3981:France-Thailand relations
3958:France-Thailand relations
3944:Christianity and Buddhism
3774:fringe theory noticeboard
3770:Buddhism and Christianity
3599:23:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
3437:23:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
3429:23:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
3411:20:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
3394:19:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
3380:18:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
3369:18:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
3356:18:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
3348:17:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
3298:23:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
3290:23:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
3272:20:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
3256:19:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
3242:18:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
3231:18:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
3216:18:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
3207:17:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
3134:18:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
3105:18:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
3091:18:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
3048:20:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
3021:20:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
2994:
2975:21:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
2946:19:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
2936:18:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
2916:18:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
2887:18:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
2868:18:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
2830:22:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
2803:17:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
2375:13:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
2213:13:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
2140:09:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
2085:08:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2060:02:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
2024:18:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
1997:20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
1959:20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
1856:16:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
1832:15:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
1802:02:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
1776:14:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
1754:12:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
1627:23:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
1604:23:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
1513:loony conspiracy theories
1478:22:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
1454:10:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
1399:23:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
1375:20:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
8438:Please do not modify it.
8410:02:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
8372:16:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
8360:09:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
8344:08:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
8330:13:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
8207:00:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
8188:09:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
8172:18:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
8136:17:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
7942:03:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
7889:14:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
7810:11:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
7777:19:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
7744:04:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
7728:21:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
7654:16:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
7634:17:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
7608:02:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
7574:06:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
7536:09:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
7488:02:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
7407:Eastern Europe flamewars
7373:12:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
7349:21:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
7291:22:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
7267:22:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
7151:Please do not modify it.
7121:Please do not modify it.
7090:02:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
7052:16:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
7043:16:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
7031:09:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
7016:08:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
7002:13:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
6843:02:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
6695:20:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
6508:Agree in principle with
6170:was studied by the CIA,
5890:Please do not modify it.
5856:Please do not modify it.
5644:extrajudicial punishment
5549:Statement by uninvolved
5403:Please do not modify it.
5373:Please do not modify it.
4467:Please do not modify it.
4437:Please do not modify it.
4415:17:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
4399:16:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
4351:15:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
4331:02:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
4318:09:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
4304:09:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
4249:13:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
4187:05:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
4156:05:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
4139:03:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
4112:20:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
4100:19:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
4061:18:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
4049:18:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
4025:18:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
4010:20:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
3974:04:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3930:00:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
3897:12:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3886:12:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3859:20:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
3850:19:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
3838:19:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
3826:18:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
3812:18:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
3645:Please do not modify it.
3615:Please do not modify it.
3583:User:Shoemaker's Holiday
3493:Please do not modify it.
3463:Please do not modify it.
2823:Knowledge:Administrators
2666:Please do not modify it.
2636:Please do not modify it.
2629:00:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
2617:06:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
2602:17:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
2585:16:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
2573:14:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2546:21:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
2513:19:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2482:11:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2431:Please do not modify it.
2405:Please do not modify it.
2397:16:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
1881:. Until "tidied up" by
1530:After his second revert,
869:Please do not modify it.
8218:Discretionary sanctions
7461:Encyclopedia Britannica
7411:Knowledge has 5 pillars
7409:are conducted one way.
6890:Discretionary sanctions
6879:19:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
6867:01:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
6660:01:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
6637:17:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
6615:12:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
6580:18:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
6553:17:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
6526:03:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
6495:21:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
6479:00:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
6448:20:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
6425:19:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
6382:18:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
6348:16:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
6291:17:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
6268:17:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
6254:15:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
6233:18:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
6210:13:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
6145:00:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
6107:13:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
6073:18:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
6054:13:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
6025:22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
6010:19:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
5995:13:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
5971:12:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
5330:very far from convinced
4020:Dispute resolution? --
2766:request for desysopping
2762:almost a hundred blocks
2643:Motion: Desysopping of
2109:arbitration enforcement
2011:arguing about the ban)
1314:Knowledge:Verifiability
8377:Matthew Brown (Morven)
7393:opened two against me
7389:at WP:AE, after which
7057:Matthew Brown (Morven)
5808:Matthew Brown (Morven)
5344:Matthew Brown (Morven)
5334:do not have confidence
5254:Conditions related to
3417:Matthew Brown (Morven)
3278:Matthew Brown (Morven)
3179:requests for adminship
1887:later, the edit read:
1815:raising the matter at
1492:conditions for editing
8244:neutral point of view
7993:neutral point of view
7824:ratchets up the drama
7447:, the misinformation
6916:neutral point of view
6750:neutral point of view
5247:Protective conditions
5200:protective conditions
4975:What I certainly did
4016:Statement by Kenrick7
2329:higher quality source
1646:The "BLP" issue is a
1300:this pirate web video
18:Knowledge:Arbitration
8248:no original research
7997:no original research
6920:no original research
6754:no original research
5551:One Night In Hackney
5380:Request for appeal:
4945:by the affected user
4852:existing precedent.
4662:Replies to Thebainer
4221:and the very recent
3622:Request for review:
3470:Request for appeal:
2921:Statement by Iceflow
2454:unproven allegations
2245:however is necessary
1899:9/11-style thruthers
1495:edit-warring at the
846:Request for appeal:
7505:(originally titled
7140:Original discussion
5956:. That is only the
5879:Original discussion
5392:Original discussion
5261:Conditions made to
5017:Shoemaker's Holiday
4797:Shoemaker's Holiday
4783:Shoemaker's Holiday
4730:Shoemaker's Holiday
4536:Shoemaker's Holiday
4456:Original discussion
3874:first hand accounts
3634:Original discussion
3591:Shoemaker's Holiday
3581:, who now edits as
3562:Shoemaker's Holiday
3507:Shoemaker's Holiday
3482:Original discussion
3028:User:LessHeard vanU
2655:Original discussion
2420:Original discussion
858:Original discussion
8240:dispute resolution
7989:dispute resolution
7640:should be someone
7517:in Darwinek's case
7152:
6912:dispute resolution
6746:dispute resolution
5891:
5863:Request to amend:
5578:), then trying to
5570:(which he quickly
5404:
4939:Comment by GRBerry
4468:
4217:Revolution in Siam
3646:
3579:User:Vanished user
3494:
3100:
2985:Statement by Maxim
2774:assumed good faith
2667:
2432:
2363:of their actions,
2341:with one exception
2319:no reliable source
1870:Muhammad al-Durrah
1497:Muhammad al-Durrah
1420:Muhammad's father
1102:Muhammad al-Durrah
870:
8358:
8348:Long overdue. --
8232:assume good faith
8186:
8170:
8138:
7981:assume good faith
7532:
7484:
7150:
7029:
6904:assume good faith
6821:scientific method
6738:assume good faith
6613:
6524:
6423:
5889:
5794:Decline per Flo.
5609:birth deformities
5402:
5320:
5319:
4889:Matthew Hoffman.
4466:
4302:
3993:General Desfarges
3817:Kendrick7: Click
3644:
3492:
3409:
3392:
3270:
3254:
3098:
3033:When placing the
3016:
2913:
2815:Special:Emailuser
2665:
2600:
2430:
2381:
2380:
2274:BLP vs. sanctions
868:
839:
838:
821:
820:
115:
114:
66:
65:
8446:
8355:
8352:
8291:Other provisions
8227:and guidelines.
8183:
8180:
8167:
8164:
8132:
8130:
8128:
8126:
8124:
8106:
7976:and guidelines.
7910:
7908:
7886:
7884:
7606:
7603:
7597:
7572:
7533:
7530:
7485:
7482:
7465:Opera Corcontica
7443:). If I had not
7215:
7026:
7023:
6963:Other provisions
6899:and guidelines.
6733:and guidelines.
6632:
6607:
6520:
6421:
6415:
6409:
6405:
6346:
6334:
6289:
6277:
6229:
6206:
6143:
6140:
6134:
6105:
6102:
6096:
6021:
5731:
5727:
5723:
5605:white phosphorus
5539:Northern Ireland
5510:
5483:deleted contribs
5461:
5434:deleted contribs
5268:Conditions that
5219:
5218:
4931:
4908:
4893:
4868:
4856:
4843:
4721:
4690:In response to "
4684:
4655:
4580:
4553:deleted contribs
4531:
4299:
4296:
4279:
4276:
4270:
4205:Siege of Bangkok
4154:
4152:
4137:
4135:
4094:
4088:
4084:
4078:
4074:
4068:
3985:Siege of Bangkok
3962:Siege of Bangkok
3870:Siege of Bangkok
3845:points of view.
3753:
3726:deleted contribs
3704:
3551:
3524:deleted contribs
3406:
3403:
3388:
3267:
3264:
3250:
3130:
3128:
3126:
3124:
3122:
3087:
3085:
3083:
3081:
3079:
3035:previous Request
3018:
3014:
3010:
3007:
3000:
2998:
2997:
2996:
2952:Thor Malmjursson
2928:Thor Malmjursson
2911:
2908:
2905:
2724:
2697:deleted contribs
2609:Charles Matthews
2597:
2594:
2222:
2221:
1830:
1799:
1783:User:Tundrabuggy
1773:
1354:on her talk page
1250:
1223:deleted contribs
1203:
1176:deleted contribs
1143:
1125:
1083:
1056:deleted contribs
1036:
1009:deleted contribs
988:
933:
834:
163:
162:
151:
144:
137:
118:
117:
93:
68:
67:
41:
40:
34:
8454:
8453:
8449:
8448:
8447:
8445:
8444:
8443:
8442:
8441:
8350:
8215:
8178:
8162:
8153:
8148:
8122:
8120:
8118:
8116:
8114:
8104:
8089:
8062:
7952:
7929:
7911:
7906:
7900:
7887:
7882:
7876:
7867:
7798:The Real Plague
7690:
7618:
7601:
7590:
7587:
7584:
7563:
7547:
7529:
7481:
7469:Giant Mountains
7457:Talk:Karkonosze
7427:, calling it a
7383:
7241:
7167:
7155:
7134:
7125:
7124:
7021:
6887:
6855:
6850:
6816:
6705:
6670:
6647:
6630:
6625:
6590:
6563:
6536:
6506:
6458:
6435:
6419:
6413:
6407:
6397:
6360:
6344:
6332:
6304:
6287:
6275:
6243:
6227:
6204:
6158:
6138:
6127:
6124:
6100:
6089:
6086:
6083:
6019:
5922:
5894:
5873:
5860:
5859:
5754:
5749:
5744:
5729:
5725:
5721:
5702:
5674:
5554:
5523:
5520:Lapsed Pacifist
5468:
5419:
5417:Lapsed Pacifist
5407:
5386:
5377:
5376:
5256:private matters
5241:Private matters
5037:
5032:
4962:
4941:
4929:
4906:
4891:
4866:
4854:
4841:
4815:
4769:their real name
4738:
4712:
4675:
4672:the usual means
4664:
4646:
4597:
4538:
4483:
4471:
4450:
4441:
4440:
4294:
4292:Per Elonka. --
4289:
4274:
4263:
4260:
4256:
4197:
4169:
4150:
4148:
4133:
4131:
4128:
4092:
4086:
4082:
4076:
4072:
4066:
4018:
3940:
3922:
3766:
3711:
3656:
3649:
3628:
3619:
3618:
3611:
3606:
3565:
3509:
3497:
3476:
3467:
3466:
3401:
3262:
3149:
3144:
3120:
3118:
3116:
3114:
3112:
3077:
3075:
3073:
3071:
3069:
3063:
3058:
3031:
3017:
3012:
3005:
3003:
2992:
2990:
2987:
2923:
2906:
2903:
2898:
2855:
2843:
2754:on April 1 2008
2736:
2682:
2670:
2649:
2640:
2639:
2592:
2559:
2554:
2534:The Real Plague
2450:
2435:
2414:
2409:
2408:
2344:by these edits.
2204:a second chance
2097:
2092:
2070:
2034:
2008:
1866:
1842:
1821:
1812:
1795:
1769:
1764:
1729:
1717:
1640:
1637:Canadian Monkey
1614:
1488:
1465:
1387:chilling effect
1208:
1161:
1116:
1100:
1094:
1041:
994:
940:
885:
873:
852:
840:
835:
830:
157:
156:
155:
129:
89:
38:
30:
29:
28:
12:
11:
5:
8452:
8435:
8434:
8433:
8432:
8431:
8430:
8415:
8414:
8413:
8412:
8394:
8393:
8392:
8391:
8374:
8362:
8346:
8332:
8320:
8303:
8302:
8293:
8292:
8281:
8280:
8272:
8271:
8260:
8259:
8220:
8219:
8214:
8211:
8210:
8209:
8192:
8191:
8190:
8152:
8149:
8147:
8144:
8103:
8100:
8088:
8082:
8061:
8055:
8030:
8029:
8021:
8020:
8009:
8008:
7951:
7945:
7928:
7917:
7916:
7915:
7899:
7875:
7866:
7860:
7859:
7858:
7839:
7812:
7780:
7779:
7747:
7746:
7689:
7683:
7682:
7681:
7680:
7679:
7657:
7656:
7617:
7611:
7583:
7577:
7546:
7540:
7539:
7538:
7387:opened at case
7382:
7376:
7356:
7355:
7354:
7353:
7352:
7351:
7327:
7326:
7325:
7324:
7323:
7322:
7319:Eastern Europe
7240:
7234:
7233:
7232:
7216:
7156:
7147:
7146:
7145:
7144:
7133:
7126:
7118:
7117:
7116:
7115:
7114:
7113:
7107:
7106:
7105:
7104:
7092:
7074:
7073:
7072:
7071:
7054:
7045:
7033:
7018:
7004:
6992:
6975:
6974:
6965:
6964:
6953:
6952:
6944:
6943:
6932:
6931:
6892:
6891:
6886:
6883:
6882:
6881:
6869:
6854:
6851:
6849:
6846:
6815:
6812:
6787:
6786:
6778:
6777:
6766:
6765:
6704:
6698:
6669:
6663:
6646:
6640:
6624:
6618:
6589:
6583:
6562:
6556:
6535:
6529:
6505:
6499:
6498:
6497:
6457:
6451:
6434:
6428:
6396:
6388:
6387:
6386:
6385:
6384:
6359:
6351:
6303:
6297:
6296:
6295:
6294:
6293:
6242:
6236:
6217:
6216:
6176:Parapsychology
6168:Remote viewing
6157:
6151:
6150:
6149:
6148:
6147:
6082:
6076:
6061:
6060:
6033:
6032:
6028:
6027:
5978:
5977:
5921:
5915:
5895:
5886:
5885:
5884:
5883:
5872:
5861:
5853:
5852:
5851:
5850:
5836:
5822:
5804:
5792:
5791:
5790:
5774:
5773:
5772:
5771:
5753:
5750:
5748:
5745:
5743:
5737:
5701:
5695:
5673:
5667:
5640:Garda Síochána
5561:Black and Tans
5553:
5547:
5522:
5516:
5514:
5512:
5511:
5463:
5408:
5399:
5398:
5397:
5396:
5385:
5378:
5370:
5369:
5368:
5367:
5358:
5324:
5323:
5322:
5321:
5318:
5317:
5284:
5283:
5279:
5278:
5277:
5276:
5275:
5274:
5266:
5259:
5244:
5238:
5224:
5223:
5213:
5212:
5183:
5170:
5169:
5168:
5142:
5141:
5140:
5139:
5138:
5137:
5136:
5135:
5120:
5119:
5118:
5115:
5103:
5102:
5101:
5100:
5099:
5098:
5094:
5036:
5033:
5031:
5028:
4961:
4958:
4956:
4940:
4937:
4920:
4919:
4918:
4917:
4916:
4915:
4914:
4913:
4886:
4880:
4837:
4836:
4830:
4814:
4808:
4737:
4726:
4709:
4708:
4705:
4668:these remedies
4663:
4660:
4644:
4627:" and that in
4617:
4610:
4609:
4596:
4590:
4589:
4588:
4587:
4586:
4533:
4472:
4463:
4462:
4461:
4460:
4449:
4442:
4434:
4433:
4432:
4431:
4417:
4401:
4389:
4388:
4387:
4386:
4385:
4384:
4383:
4320:
4306:
4288:
4285:
4284:
4283:
4255:
4252:
4196:
4190:
4168:
4162:
4161:
4160:
4159:
4158:
4127:
4121:
4119:
4117:
4116:
4115:
4114:
4102:
4085:. Stick a big
4063:
4051:
4017:
4014:
4013:
4012:
3939:
3933:
3921:
3918:
3917:
3916:
3915:
3914:
3900:
3899:
3862:
3861:
3852:
3841:
3840:
3829:
3828:
3765:
3759:
3758:
3757:
3706:
3650:
3641:
3640:
3639:
3638:
3627:
3620:
3612:
3610:
3607:
3605:
3602:
3587:
3586:
3575:
3572:
3564:
3558:
3556:
3554:
3553:
3498:
3489:
3488:
3487:
3486:
3475:
3468:
3460:
3459:
3458:
3457:
3454:
3453:
3449:
3448:
3445:
3444:
3440:
3439:
3431:
3413:
3396:
3383:
3371:
3358:
3350:
3338:
3337:
3313:
3311:
3310:
3307:
3306:
3302:
3301:
3292:
3274:
3258:
3245:
3233:
3218:
3209:
3196:
3195:
3191:
3190:
3187:
3186:
3148:
3145:
3143:
3140:
3139:
3138:
3137:
3136:
3062:
3059:
3057:
3055:any other user
3051:
3040:LessHeard vanU
3030:
3024:
3009:
2986:
2983:
2982:
2981:
2980:
2979:
2978:
2977:
2962:
2961:
2960:
2959:
2922:
2919:
2897:
2891:
2890:
2889:
2854:
2848:
2842:
2836:
2835:
2834:
2833:
2832:
2807:
2735:
2732:
2726:
2725:
2671:
2662:
2661:
2660:
2659:
2648:
2641:
2633:
2632:
2631:
2619:
2604:
2587:
2575:
2558:
2555:
2553:
2550:
2549:
2548:
2516:
2515:
2449:
2443:
2436:
2427:
2426:
2425:
2424:
2413:
2410:
2402:
2401:
2400:
2399:
2385:
2384:
2383:
2382:
2379:
2378:
2349:
2348:
2347:
2346:
2302:as he claims (
2288:
2287:
2286:
2285:
2268:
2267:
2266:
2265:
2227:
2226:
2216:
2215:
2207:
2198:
2197:
2196:
2195:
2188:
2168:
2167:
2166:
2156:
2155:and with care.
2149:
2148:
2143:
2142:
2127:
2126:
2125:
2124:
2120:
2112:
2096:
2093:
2091:
2088:
2069:
2063:
2033:
2027:
2007:
2001:
2000:
1999:
1865:
1859:
1841:
1835:
1811:
1805:
1786:
1785:
1763:
1757:
1728:
1722:
1716:
1710:
1677:forum shopping
1639:
1633:
1631:
1613:
1607:
1487:
1481:
1470:Eternalsleeper
1464:
1462:Eternalsleeper
1458:
1457:
1456:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1415:
1414:
1411:User:Julia1987
1402:
1401:
1362:
1361:
1349:
1348:
1338:
1337:
1325:
1324:
1306:
1305:
1295:
1294:
1282:
1281:
1265:
1264:
1153:
1152:
1093:
1087:
1086:
1085:
989:
935:
874:
865:
864:
863:
862:
851:
844:
842:
837:
836:
828:
826:
823:
822:
819:
818:
813:
807:
806:
801:
796:
791:
786:
781:
776:
771:
766:
761:
756:
751:
746:
741:
736:
731:
726:
721:
715:
714:
709:
704:
699:
694:
689:
684:
679:
674:
669:
664:
659:
654:
649:
644:
639:
634:
629:
623:
622:
617:
612:
607:
602:
597:
592:
587:
582:
577:
572:
567:
562:
557:
552:
547:
542:
537:
531:
530:
525:
520:
515:
510:
505:
500:
495:
490:
485:
480:
475:
470:
465:
460:
455:
450:
445:
439:
438:
433:
428:
423:
418:
413:
408:
403:
398:
393:
388:
383:
378:
373:
368:
363:
358:
353:
347:
346:
341:
336:
331:
326:
321:
316:
311:
306:
301:
296:
291:
286:
281:
276:
271:
266:
261:
255:
254:
249:
244:
239:
234:
229:
224:
219:
214:
209:
204:
199:
194:
189:
184:
179:
174:
169:
159:
158:
154:
153:
146:
139:
131:
130:
122:
121:
116:
113:
112:
107:
104:
99:
94:
87:
82:
77:
74:
64:
63:
42:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
8451:
8439:
8429:
8426:
8423:
8420:
8419:
8417:
8416:
8411:
8407:
8403:
8399:
8398:
8396:
8395:
8390:
8386:
8382:
8378:
8375:
8373:
8370:
8367:
8363:
8361:
8357:
8353:
8347:
8345:
8341:
8337:
8336:Sam Blacketer
8333:
8331:
8328:
8325:
8321:
8319:
8316:
8312:
8308:
8307:
8305:
8304:
8301:
8298:
8297:
8296:
8290:
8289:
8288:
8286:
8278:
8277:
8276:
8269:
8268:
8267:
8265:
8257:
8256:
8255:
8253:
8252:verifiability
8249:
8245:
8241:
8237:
8233:
8228:
8224:
8217:
8216:
8208:
8205:
8201:
8197:
8193:
8189:
8185:
8181:
8175:
8174:
8173:
8169:
8165:
8159:
8155:
8154:
8143:
8139:
8137:
8134:
8133:
8110:
8099:
8098:
8095:
8087:
8084:Statement by
8081:
8080:
8076:
8072:
8067:
8060:
8057:Statement by
8054:
8053:
8049:
8045:
8040:
8037:
8035:
8027:
8026:
8025:
8018:
8017:
8016:
8014:
8006:
8005:
8004:
8002:
8001:verifiability
7998:
7994:
7990:
7986:
7982:
7977:
7973:
7969:
7966:
7963:
7960:
7957:
7950:
7947:Statement by
7944:
7943:
7939:
7935:
7934:Alex Bakharev
7926:
7922:
7921:Alex Bakharev
7919:Statement by
7914:
7909:
7903:
7897:
7893:
7892:
7891:
7890:
7885:
7879:
7873:
7865:
7857:
7853:
7849:
7845:
7840:
7838:
7834:
7830:
7825:
7821:
7817:
7813:
7811:
7807:
7803:
7799:
7795:
7791:
7789:
7782:
7781:
7778:
7774:
7770:
7765:
7761:
7757:
7753:
7749:
7748:
7745:
7741:
7737:
7732:
7731:
7730:
7729:
7725:
7721:
7715:
7714:
7711:
7708:
7703:
7702:
7697:
7695:
7688:
7678:
7674:
7670:
7666:
7661:
7660:
7659:
7658:
7655:
7651:
7647:
7643:
7638:
7637:
7636:
7635:
7631:
7627:
7623:
7616:
7610:
7609:
7604:
7598:
7596:
7594:
7582:
7579:Statement by
7576:
7575:
7570:
7566:
7565:Relata refero
7559:
7555:
7552:
7545:
7544:Relata refero
7542:Statement by
7537:
7534:
7527:
7522:
7518:
7514:
7510:
7509:
7504:
7500:
7496:
7492:
7491:
7490:
7489:
7486:
7479:
7474:
7470:
7466:
7462:
7458:
7454:
7452:
7446:
7442:
7441:
7436:
7432:
7431:
7426:
7424:
7421:
7419:
7417:
7415:
7412:
7408:
7404:
7400:
7396:
7392:
7388:
7381:
7378:Statement by
7375:
7374:
7370:
7366:
7362:
7350:
7346:
7342:
7338:
7333:
7332:
7331:
7330:
7329:
7328:
7320:
7316:
7312:
7311:
7310:
7306:
7302:
7298:
7294:
7293:
7292:
7288:
7284:
7280:
7275:
7271:
7270:
7269:
7268:
7264:
7260:
7256:
7251:
7246:
7239:
7236:Statement by
7230:
7227:
7224:
7220:
7217:
7213:
7210:
7207:
7204:
7201:
7198:
7195:
7192:
7189:
7186:
7183:
7180:
7177:
7174:
7171:
7166:
7163:
7162:
7161:
7160:
7154:
7143:
7142:
7141:
7136:
7135:
7131:
7122:
7112:
7111:
7109:
7108:
7103:
7100:
7097:
7093:
7091:
7087:
7083:
7079:
7078:
7076:
7075:
7070:
7066:
7062:
7058:
7055:
7053:
7050:
7046:
7044:
7041:
7038:
7034:
7032:
7028:
7024:
7019:
7017:
7013:
7009:
7008:Sam Blacketer
7005:
7003:
7000:
6997:
6993:
6991:
6988:
6984:
6980:
6979:
6977:
6976:
6973:
6970:
6969:
6968:
6962:
6961:
6960:
6958:
6950:
6949:
6948:
6941:
6940:
6939:
6937:
6929:
6928:
6927:
6925:
6924:verifiability
6921:
6917:
6913:
6909:
6905:
6900:
6896:
6889:
6888:
6880:
6877:
6874:
6870:
6868:
6865:
6861:
6857:
6856:
6845:
6844:
6840:
6836:
6832:
6831:
6826:
6822:
6811:
6810:
6806:
6802:
6797:
6794:
6792:
6784:
6783:
6782:
6775:
6774:
6773:
6771:
6763:
6762:
6761:
6759:
6758:verifiability
6755:
6751:
6747:
6743:
6739:
6734:
6730:
6726:
6724:
6719:
6716:
6713:
6710:
6703:
6700:Statement by
6697:
6696:
6692:
6688:
6684:
6681:
6676:
6668:
6665:Statement by
6662:
6661:
6657:
6653:
6645:
6642:Statement by
6639:
6638:
6635:
6633:
6623:
6620:Statement by
6617:
6616:
6611:
6606:
6605:
6599:
6594:
6588:
6585:Statement by
6582:
6581:
6577:
6573:
6569:
6561:
6558:Statement by
6555:
6554:
6550:
6546:
6542:
6534:
6531:Statement by
6528:
6527:
6523:
6519:
6515:
6511:
6504:
6501:Statement by
6496:
6492:
6488:
6483:
6482:
6481:
6480:
6476:
6472:
6466:
6462:
6456:
6453:Statement by
6450:
6449:
6445:
6441:
6433:
6430:Statement by
6427:
6426:
6422:
6416:
6410:
6401:
6395:
6394:
6390:Statement by
6383:
6379:
6375:
6374:
6368:
6367:
6366:
6365:
6364:
6358:
6357:
6353:Statement by
6350:
6349:
6343:
6339:
6336:
6335:
6328:
6324:
6323:truly neutral
6320:
6319:truly neutral
6315:
6312:
6309:
6302:
6299:Statement by
6292:
6286:
6282:
6279:
6278:
6271:
6270:
6269:
6266:
6262:
6258:
6257:
6256:
6255:
6252:
6248:
6241:
6238:Statement by
6235:
6234:
6231:
6230:
6222:
6214:
6213:
6212:
6211:
6208:
6207:
6199:
6197:
6195:
6189:
6187:
6183:
6181:
6180:William James
6177:
6173:
6169:
6162:
6156:
6153:Statement by
6146:
6141:
6135:
6133:
6131:
6122:
6117:
6113:
6112:
6111:
6110:
6109:
6108:
6103:
6097:
6095:
6093:
6081:
6078:Statement by
6075:
6074:
6070:
6066:
6058:
6057:
6056:
6055:
6051:
6047:
6041:
6039:
6030:
6029:
6026:
6023:
6022:
6014:
6013:
6012:
6011:
6007:
6003:
5997:
5996:
5992:
5988:
5982:
5975:
5974:
5973:
5972:
5968:
5964:
5959:
5955:
5951:
5947:
5943:
5939:
5935:
5931:
5927:
5920:
5917:Statement by
5914:
5912:
5908:
5905:
5902:
5899:
5893:
5882:
5881:
5880:
5875:
5874:
5870:
5866:
5857:
5849:
5845:
5841:
5837:
5835:
5831:
5827:
5826:Sam Blacketer
5823:
5821:
5817:
5813:
5809:
5805:
5803:
5800:
5797:
5793:
5789:
5786:
5783:
5778:
5777:
5776:
5775:
5769:
5768:
5767:
5764:
5761:
5756:
5755:
5742:
5739:Statement by
5736:
5735:
5732:
5724:
5718:
5717:
5712:
5710:
5707:
5700:
5697:Statement by
5694:
5693:
5690:
5686:
5682:
5678:
5672:
5669:Statement by
5666:
5662:
5660:
5658:
5656:
5654:
5652:
5649:
5645:
5641:
5637:
5635:
5633:
5631:
5628:
5626:
5622:
5618:
5614:
5610:
5606:
5602:
5600:
5597:
5593:
5589:
5585:
5581:
5577:
5573:
5569:
5566:
5562:
5557:
5552:
5546:
5544:
5540:
5536:
5531:
5529:
5528:fait accompli
5521:
5518:Statement by
5515:
5508:
5505:
5502:
5499:
5496:
5493:
5490:
5487:
5484:
5481:
5478:
5475:
5472:
5467:
5464:
5459:
5456:
5453:
5450:
5447:
5444:
5441:
5438:
5435:
5432:
5429:
5426:
5423:
5418:
5415:
5414:
5413:
5412:
5406:
5395:
5394:
5393:
5388:
5387:
5383:
5374:
5366:
5363:
5359:
5357:
5353:
5349:
5345:
5340:
5335:
5331:
5326:
5325:
5316:
5315:
5312:
5308:
5304:
5302:
5298:
5293:
5288:
5281:
5280:
5271:
5267:
5264:
5260:
5257:
5253:
5252:
5251:
5250:
5248:
5245:
5242:
5239:
5236:
5233:
5232:
5231:
5226:
5225:
5221:
5220:
5217:
5216:
5215:
5214:
5211:
5210:
5207:
5203:
5201:
5195:
5191:
5187:
5184:
5182:
5179:
5176:
5171:
5167:
5164:
5161:
5157:
5156:
5155:
5152:
5149:
5144:
5143:
5134:
5130:
5126:
5121:
5116:
5113:
5112:
5111:
5110:
5109:
5108:
5107:
5106:
5105:
5104:
5095:
5093:
5089:
5085:
5080:
5079:
5078:
5074:
5070:
5065:
5064:
5058:
5057:
5056:
5052:
5048:
5044:
5039:
5038:
5027:
5026:
5022:
5018:
5012:
5009:
5005:
5003:
4999:
4995:
4991:
4985:
4983:
4978:
4973:
4969:
4967:
4957:
4954:
4953:
4950:
4946:
4936:
4935:
4932:
4924:
4912:
4909:
4903:
4899:
4898:
4897:
4894:
4887:
4885:
4881:
4878:
4874:
4873:
4872:
4869:
4862:
4861:
4860:
4857:
4850:
4849:
4848:
4847:
4844:
4834:
4831:
4828:
4824:
4820:
4819:
4818:
4813:
4810:Statement by
4807:
4806:
4802:
4798:
4793:
4792:
4788:
4784:
4779:
4776:
4772:
4770:
4765:
4763:
4760:
4759:second thread
4757:
4753:
4749:
4744:
4741:
4735:
4731:
4728:Statement by
4725:
4724:
4720:
4717:
4716:
4706:
4703:
4702:
4701:
4698:
4696:
4693:
4688:
4687:
4683:
4680:
4679:
4673:
4669:
4659:
4658:
4654:
4651:
4650:
4642:
4638:
4634:
4630:
4626:
4622:
4615:
4607:
4602:
4601:
4600:
4595:
4592:Statement by
4585:
4582:
4581:
4578:
4575:
4572:
4569:
4566:
4563:
4560:
4557:
4554:
4551:
4548:
4545:
4542:
4537:
4534:
4529:
4526:
4523:
4520:
4517:
4514:
4511:
4508:
4505:
4502:
4499:
4496:
4493:
4490:
4487:
4482:
4479:
4478:
4477:
4476:
4470:
4459:
4458:
4457:
4452:
4451:
4447:
4438:
4430:
4426:
4422:
4418:
4416:
4413:
4410:
4406:
4402:
4400:
4397:
4394:
4390:
4382:
4379:
4376:
4372:
4371:
4370:
4367:
4364:
4360:
4357:
4354:
4353:
4352:
4349:
4346:
4342:
4338:
4334:
4333:
4332:
4329:
4326:
4321:
4319:
4315:
4311:
4310:Sam Blacketer
4307:
4305:
4301:
4297:
4291:
4290:
4282:
4277:
4271:
4269:
4267:
4258:
4257:
4251:
4250:
4246:
4242:
4238:
4234:
4230:
4226:
4224:
4220:
4218:
4213:
4210:
4206:
4202:
4195:
4192:Statement by
4189:
4188:
4185:
4182:
4179:
4175:
4167:
4164:Statement by
4157:
4153:
4145:
4144:
4143:
4142:
4141:
4140:
4136:
4126:
4123:Statement by
4120:
4113:
4110:
4106:
4103:
4101:
4098:
4091:
4081:
4071:
4064:
4062:
4059:
4055:
4052:
4050:
4047:
4043:
4041:
4038:
4035:
4031:
4030:
4029:
4028:
4027:
4026:
4023:
4011:
4007:
4003:
3999:
3994:
3990:
3986:
3982:
3978:
3977:
3976:
3975:
3971:
3967:
3963:
3959:
3955:
3952:
3949:
3945:
3938:
3935:Statement by
3932:
3931:
3928:
3912:
3908:
3904:
3903:
3902:
3901:
3898:
3895:
3890:
3889:
3888:
3887:
3884:
3879:
3875:
3871:
3867:
3860:
3857:
3853:
3851:
3848:
3843:
3842:
3839:
3836:
3831:
3830:
3827:
3824:
3820:
3816:
3815:
3814:
3813:
3810:
3806:
3803:
3798:
3796:
3793:
3790:
3786:
3781:
3779:
3775:
3771:
3764:
3761:Statement by
3756:
3751:
3748:
3745:
3742:
3739:
3736:
3733:
3730:
3727:
3724:
3721:
3718:
3715:
3710:
3707:
3702:
3699:
3696:
3693:
3690:
3687:
3684:
3681:
3678:
3675:
3672:
3669:
3666:
3663:
3660:
3655:
3652:
3651:
3648:
3637:
3636:
3635:
3630:
3629:
3625:
3616:
3601:
3600:
3596:
3592:
3584:
3580:
3576:
3573:
3570:
3569:
3568:
3563:
3560:Statement by
3557:
3549:
3546:
3543:
3540:
3537:
3534:
3531:
3528:
3525:
3522:
3519:
3516:
3513:
3508:
3505:
3504:
3503:
3502:
3496:
3485:
3484:
3483:
3478:
3477:
3473:
3464:
3456:
3455:
3451:
3450:
3447:
3446:
3442:
3441:
3438:
3435:
3432:
3430:
3426:
3422:
3418:
3414:
3412:
3408:
3404:
3397:
3395:
3391:
3387:
3384:
3381:
3378:
3375:
3372:
3370:
3366:
3362:
3361:Sam Blacketer
3359:
3357:
3354:
3351:
3349:
3346:
3343:
3340:
3339:
3335:
3334:
3333:
3331:
3327:
3324:
3321:
3317:
3309:
3308:
3304:
3303:
3299:
3296:
3293:
3291:
3287:
3283:
3279:
3275:
3273:
3269:
3265:
3259:
3257:
3253:
3249:
3246:
3243:
3240:
3237:
3234:
3232:
3228:
3224:
3223:Sam Blacketer
3219:
3217:
3214:
3210:
3208:
3205:
3202:
3198:
3197:
3193:
3192:
3189:
3188:
3184:
3183:
3182:
3180:
3175:
3170:
3168:
3164:
3161:
3158:
3154:
3135:
3132:
3131:
3108:
3107:
3106:
3103:
3101:
3095:
3094:
3093:
3092:
3089:
3088:
3056:
3053:Statement by
3050:
3049:
3045:
3041:
3036:
3029:
3026:Statement by
3023:
3022:
3019:
3015:
3008:
2976:
2973:
2968:
2967:
2966:
2965:
2964:
2963:
2957:
2953:
2949:
2948:
2947:
2944:
2940:
2939:
2938:
2937:
2933:
2929:
2918:
2917:
2914:
2909:
2896:
2888:
2884:
2880:
2876:
2872:
2871:
2870:
2869:
2865:
2861:
2853:
2847:
2841:
2838:Statement by
2831:
2828:
2824:
2820:
2816:
2812:
2811:
2810:
2809:
2808:
2805:
2804:
2801:
2797:
2795:
2790:
2787:
2782:
2777:
2775:
2771:
2767:
2763:
2760:has executed
2759:
2755:
2751:
2748:
2745:
2741:
2731:
2730:
2722:
2719:
2716:
2713:
2710:
2707:
2704:
2701:
2698:
2695:
2692:
2689:
2686:
2681:
2678:
2677:
2676:
2675:
2669:
2658:
2657:
2656:
2651:
2650:
2646:
2637:
2630:
2627:
2624:
2620:
2618:
2614:
2610:
2605:
2603:
2599:
2595:
2588:
2586:
2583:
2580:
2576:
2574:
2570:
2566:
2565:Sam Blacketer
2561:
2560:
2547:
2543:
2539:
2535:
2531:
2527:
2525:
2518:
2517:
2514:
2510:
2506:
2502:
2500:
2494:
2492:
2486:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2479:
2475:
2471:
2467:
2463:
2459:
2455:
2448:
2445:Statement by
2442:
2441:
2434:
2423:
2422:
2421:
2416:
2415:
2406:
2398:
2395:
2392:
2387:
2386:
2377:
2376:
2373:
2369:
2366:
2362:
2358:
2353:
2345:
2342:
2336:
2334:
2330:
2325:
2320:
2316:
2311:
2307:
2305:
2300:
2296:
2292:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2283:
2279:
2275:
2272:
2271:
2270:
2269:
2264:
2262:
2259:
2255:
2251:
2246:
2242:
2238:
2234:
2233:
2232:
2231:
2229:
2228:
2225:More detail.
2224:
2223:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2214:
2211:
2208:
2205:
2200:
2199:
2193:
2189:
2186:
2182:
2178:
2174:
2169:
2163:
2160:
2159:
2157:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2150:
2145:
2144:
2141:
2137:
2133:
2129:
2128:
2121:
2118:
2113:
2110:
2106:
2102:
2101:
2099:
2098:
2087:
2086:
2083:
2078:
2076:
2068:
2065:Statement by
2062:
2061:
2057:
2053:
2049:
2046:
2044:
2038:
2032:
2029:Statement by
2026:
2025:
2021:
2017:
2013:
2006:
2003:Statement by
1998:
1994:
1990:
1986:
1982:
1979:
1975:
1972:
1968:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1956:
1952:
1948:
1942:
1941:
1937:
1933:
1932:
1929:
1926:
1924:
1919:
1915:
1914:
1909:
1908:
1905:
1902:
1900:
1894:
1891:
1890:
1886:
1884:
1880:
1877:
1875:
1871:
1864:
1861:Statement by
1858:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1848:
1840:
1837:Statement by
1834:
1833:
1829:
1826:
1825:
1818:
1810:
1807:Statement by
1804:
1803:
1800:
1798:
1792:
1784:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1774:
1772:
1762:
1759:Statement by
1756:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1741:
1737:
1733:
1727:
1724:Statement by
1721:
1715:
1712:Statement by
1709:
1707:
1702:
1700:
1696:
1693:
1690:
1687:
1684:
1681:
1678:
1673:
1671:
1668:
1665:
1660:
1657:
1652:
1649:
1644:
1638:
1635:Statement by
1632:
1629:
1628:
1624:
1620:
1612:
1609:Statement by
1606:
1605:
1602:
1599:
1596:
1592:
1589:
1586:
1582:
1577:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1560:
1555:
1552:
1549:
1546:
1543:
1540:
1537:
1534:
1532:
1529:
1527:
1525:
1523:
1521:
1519:
1517:
1514:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1493:
1486:
1483:Statement by
1480:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1463:
1460:Statement by
1455:
1451:
1447:
1442:
1441:
1433:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1403:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1383:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1358:
1355:
1351:
1350:
1346:
1343:
1340:
1339:
1335:
1330:
1327:
1326:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1308:
1307:
1304:
1301:
1297:
1296:
1293:
1290:
1287:
1284:
1283:
1279:
1276:
1273:
1270:
1267:
1266:
1263:respectively.
1262:
1260:
1256:
1254:
1248:
1245:
1242:
1239:
1236:
1233:
1230:
1227:
1224:
1221:
1218:
1215:
1212:
1207:
1201:
1198:
1195:
1192:
1189:
1186:
1183:
1180:
1177:
1174:
1171:
1168:
1165:
1160:
1155:
1154:
1151:
1148:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1124:
1120:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1092:
1089:Statement by
1081:
1078:
1075:
1072:
1069:
1066:
1063:
1060:
1057:
1054:
1051:
1048:
1045:
1040:
1034:
1031:
1028:
1025:
1022:
1019:
1016:
1013:
1010:
1007:
1004:
1001:
998:
993:
990:
986:
983:
980:
977:
974:
971:
968:
965:
962:
959:
956:
953:
950:
947:
944:
939:
936:
931:
928:
925:
922:
919:
916:
913:
910:
907:
904:
901:
898:
895:
892:
889:
884:
881:
880:
879:
878:
872:
861:
860:
859:
854:
853:
849:
843:
824:
817:
814:
812:
809:
808:
805:
802:
800:
797:
795:
792:
790:
787:
785:
782:
780:
777:
775:
772:
770:
767:
765:
762:
760:
757:
755:
752:
750:
747:
745:
742:
740:
737:
735:
732:
730:
727:
725:
722:
720:
717:
716:
713:
710:
708:
705:
703:
700:
698:
695:
693:
690:
688:
685:
683:
680:
678:
675:
673:
670:
668:
665:
663:
660:
658:
655:
653:
650:
648:
645:
643:
640:
638:
635:
633:
630:
628:
625:
624:
621:
618:
616:
613:
611:
608:
606:
603:
601:
598:
596:
593:
591:
588:
586:
583:
581:
578:
576:
573:
571:
568:
566:
563:
561:
558:
556:
553:
551:
548:
546:
543:
541:
538:
536:
533:
532:
529:
526:
524:
521:
519:
516:
514:
511:
509:
506:
504:
501:
499:
496:
494:
491:
489:
486:
484:
481:
479:
476:
474:
471:
469:
466:
464:
461:
459:
456:
454:
451:
449:
446:
444:
441:
440:
437:
434:
432:
429:
427:
424:
422:
419:
417:
414:
412:
409:
407:
404:
402:
399:
397:
394:
392:
389:
387:
384:
382:
379:
377:
374:
372:
369:
367:
364:
362:
359:
357:
354:
352:
349:
348:
345:
342:
340:
337:
335:
332:
330:
327:
325:
322:
320:
317:
315:
312:
310:
307:
305:
302:
300:
297:
295:
292:
290:
287:
285:
282:
280:
277:
275:
272:
270:
267:
265:
262:
260:
257:
256:
253:
250:
248:
245:
243:
240:
238:
235:
233:
230:
228:
225:
223:
220:
218:
215:
213:
210:
208:
205:
203:
200:
198:
195:
193:
190:
188:
185:
183:
180:
178:
175:
173:
170:
168:
165:
164:
161:
160:
152:
147:
145:
140:
138:
133:
132:
128:
125:
119:
111:
108:
105:
103:
100:
98:
95:
92:
88:
86:
83:
81:
78:
75:
73:
70:
69:
61:
57:
53:
49:
48:
43:
36:
35:
27:
23:
19:
8437:
8310:
8299:
8294:
8282:
8273:
8261:
8229:
8225:
8221:
8199:
8195:
8158:user:Biophys
8140:
8113:
8105:
8090:
8063:
8041:
8038:
8031:
8022:
8010:
7978:
7974:
7970:
7967:
7964:
7961:
7955:
7953:
7930:
7868:
7815:
7785:
7763:
7716:
7704:
7698:
7691:
7641:
7621:
7619:
7592:
7591:
7585:
7560:
7556:
7548:
7512:
7507:
7494:
7448:
7439:
7429:
7406:
7395:1st (closed)
7384:
7357:
7314:
7242:
7225:
7208:
7202:
7196:
7190:
7184:
7178:
7172:
7158:
7157:
7148:
7138:
7137:
7120:
7035:Again, yes.
6982:
6971:
6966:
6954:
6945:
6933:
6901:
6897:
6893:
6871:Per Kirill.
6859:
6835:MessedRocker
6829:
6828:
6817:
6814:Messedrocker
6798:
6795:
6788:
6779:
6767:
6735:
6731:
6727:
6720:
6717:
6714:
6708:
6706:
6680:User:Raul654
6671:
6648:
6626:
6602:
6595:
6591:
6564:
6541:Bobby Bowden
6537:
6507:
6467:
6463:
6459:
6436:
6402:
6398:
6391:
6371:
6361:
6354:
6330:
6326:
6322:
6318:
6316:
6313:
6307:
6305:
6273:
6244:
6225:
6220:
6218:
6202:
6200:
6191:
6185:
6165:
6163:
6159:
6129:
6128:
6119:
6091:
6090:
6084:
6062:
6042:
6034:
6017:
5998:
5983:
5979:
5957:
5923:
5897:
5896:
5887:
5877:
5876:
5855:
5714:
5703:
5675:
5663:
5648:Shell to Sea
5596:cited source
5558:
5555:
5534:
5532:
5527:
5524:
5513:
5503:
5497:
5491:
5485:
5479:
5473:
5454:
5448:
5442:
5436:
5430:
5424:
5410:
5409:
5400:
5390:
5389:
5372:
5338:
5333:
5329:
5309:
5305:
5300:
5296:
5291:
5289:
5285:
5269:
5262:
5255:
5246:
5240:
5234:
5229:
5204:
5199:
5196:
5192:
5188:
5185:
5062:
5013:
5010:
5006:
5001:
4997:
4993:
4986:
4981:
4976:
4974:
4970:
4963:
4955:
4944:
4942:
4925:
4921:
4882:
4838:
4826:
4816:
4794:
4780:
4777:
4773:
4768:
4766:
4762:third thread
4756:first thread
4751:
4745:
4742:
4739:
4714:
4710:
4691:
4689:
4677:
4671:
4665:
4648:
4632:
4624:
4611:
4604:
4598:
4573:
4567:
4561:
4555:
4549:
4543:
4524:
4518:
4512:
4506:
4500:
4494:
4488:
4474:
4473:
4464:
4454:
4453:
4436:
4265:
4264:
4236:
4232:
4228:
4222:
4216:
4198:
4170:
4129:
4125:Shell Kinney
4118:
4090:unreferenced
4019:
3988:
3979:My articles
3941:
3923:
3878:Book review
3873:
3863:
3799:
3791:
3782:
3767:
3746:
3740:
3734:
3728:
3722:
3716:
3705:(instigator)
3697:
3691:
3685:
3679:
3673:
3667:
3661:
3642:
3632:
3631:
3614:
3588:
3566:
3555:
3544:
3538:
3532:
3526:
3520:
3514:
3500:
3499:
3490:
3480:
3479:
3462:
3322:
3312:
3260:Per Sam. --
3171:
3159:
3150:
3111:
3068:
3064:
3032:
3002:
2988:
2924:
2899:
2856:
2844:
2806:
2798:
2791:
2778:
2746:
2737:
2727:
2717:
2711:
2705:
2699:
2693:
2687:
2673:
2672:
2663:
2653:
2652:
2635:
2521:
2496:
2488:
2451:
2437:
2428:
2418:
2417:
2404:
2370:
2364:
2360:
2356:
2354:
2350:
2340:
2337:
2332:
2328:
2323:
2318:
2314:
2312:
2308:
2303:
2298:
2294:
2293:
2281:
2277:
2273:
2263:
2261:stonewalled.
2257:
2253:
2244:
2240:
2236:
2235:
2184:
2180:
2161:
2079:
2074:
2071:
2052:MessedRocker
2050:
2047:
2042:
2039:
2035:
2031:Messedrocker
2009:
1977:
1973:
1970:
1969:and that he
1966:
1946:
1943:
1938:
1934:
1920:
1916:
1912:
1910:
1898:
1895:
1892:
1888:
1867:
1846:
1845:
1843:
1823:
1813:
1796:
1790:
1787:
1770:
1765:
1742:
1738:
1734:
1730:
1718:
1703:
1674:
1661:
1645:
1641:
1630:
1615:
1587:
1575:
1567:
1563:
1558:appreciated.
1556:
1489:
1466:
1434:<ref: -->
1430:
1421:
1381:
1363:
1243:
1237:
1231:
1225:
1219:
1213:
1196:
1190:
1184:
1178:
1172:
1166:
1095:
1076:
1070:
1064:
1058:
1052:
1046:
1029:
1023:
1017:
1011:
1005:
999:
981:
975:
969:
963:
957:
951:
945:
926:
920:
914:
908:
902:
896:
890:
876:
875:
866:
856:
855:
841:
241:
90:
55:
45:
8422:Paul August
8146:Clerk notes
7872:this debate
7862:Comment by
7750:Looking at
7685:Comment by
7613:Comment by
7430:German hoax
7391:User:Molobo
7272:Please see
7243:As I think
7188:protections
7132:(July 2008)
7096:Paul August
6848:Clerk notes
6830:alternative
6652:John Carter
6644:John Carter
6598:Saint Alban
6560:User:Baegis
6194:Spooklights
5871:(July 2008)
5796:Paul August
5747:Clerk notes
5592:mercenaries
5535:in absentia
5462:(initiator)
5384:(July 2008)
5235:Fair chance
5175:Paul August
5043:usual means
5030:Clerk notes
4998:in December
4781:Thank you,
4532:(initiator)
4504:protections
4448:(July 2008)
4409:Paul August
4254:Clerk notes
4000:). Cheers.
3948:Indo-Greeks
3677:protections
3626:(July 2008)
3604:Clerk notes
3552:(initiator)
3474:(July 2008)
3374:Paul August
3236:Paul August
3177:or via the
3061:Clerk notes
2895:AuburnPilot
2893:Comment by
2850:Comment by
2786:Can't sleep
2758:Can't sleep
2647:(July 2008)
2552:Clerk notes
2458:admin abuse
2438:Concerning
2324:independent
2105:this remedy
2090:Clerk notes
1989:Tundrabuggy
1951:Tundrabuggy
1863:Tundrabuggy
1726:JGGardiner
1648:Red herring
1581:Tundrabuggy
1566:blocks and
1206:Tundrabuggy
961:protections
934:(initiator)
906:protections
850:(July 2008)
44:This is an
8311:Homeopathy
8200:Homeopathy
7956:Homeopathy
7820:up against
7794:The Plague
7435:on pl-wiki
7200:page moves
6983:Homeopathy
6860:Homeopathy
6709:Homeopathy
6675:homeopathy
6487:Tom Butler
6471:Tom Butler
6455:Tom Butler
5741:other user
5699:Rockpocket
5563:, such as
5501:block user
5495:filter log
5452:block user
5446:filter log
4875:Moreover,
4571:block user
4565:filter log
4516:page moves
3754:notified:
3744:block user
3738:filter log
3689:page moves
3542:block user
3536:filter log
2728:Notified:
2715:block user
2709:filter log
2530:The Plague
2357:intentions
1746:JGGardiner
1619:Carcharoth
1611:Carcharoth
1241:block user
1235:filter log
1194:block user
1188:filter log
1074:block user
1068:filter log
1027:block user
1021:filter log
973:page moves
918:page moves
110:Archive 20
102:Archive 18
97:Archive 17
91:Archive 16
85:Archive 15
80:Archive 14
72:Archive 10
8418:Abstain:
8306:Support:
8066:WP:ARBMAC
8042:Regards,
7896:WP:ARBMAC
7844:sensitive
7706:Matthead
7521:Gadu Gadu
7250:WP:ARBMAC
7194:deletions
7110:Abstain:
6978:Support:
6799:Regards,
6518:≈ jossi ≈
6301:Martinphi
6261:WP:ARBPIA
5911:feel free
5507:block log
5466:username2
5458:block log
4645:Regards,
4623:states: "
4594:WJBscribe
4577:block log
4510:deletions
4481:WJBscribe
4341:talk page
4201:Jehochman
4109:Kendrick7
4097:Kendrick7
4058:Kendrick7
4046:Kendrick7
4034:30 August
4022:Kendrick7
3927:Jehochman
3894:Jehochman
3883:Jehochman
3866:straw man
3856:Jehochman
3847:Jehochman
3835:Jehochman
3823:Jehochman
3809:Jehochman
3763:Jehochman
3750:block log
3683:deletions
3654:Jehochman
3548:block log
3415:Support.
3181:process.
2999:gmail.com
2734:Statement
2721:block log
2355:In their
2333:precisely
2190:Last, as
2177:WP:REVERT
2082:Ned Scott
2075:something
2067:Ned Scott
2016:Julia1987
2005:Julia1987
1923:MZMcBride
1809:WJBscribe
1572:admin log
1259:MZMcBride
1247:block log
1200:block log
1159:Julia1987
1147:like this
1080:block log
1039:Southkept
1033:block log
992:Julia1987
967:deletions
912:deletions
60:this page
8397:Oppose:
8366:James F.
8351:FayssalF
8324:FloNight
8179:FayssalF
8163:FayssalF
7848:Martintg
7829:Martintg
7802:Martintg
7769:Martintg
7736:Martintg
7720:Martintg
7687:Martintg
7526:Matthead
7495:produced
7478:Matthead
7445:fixed it
7403:the list
7380:Matthead
7361:Moreschi
7337:Moreschi
7297:Moreschi
7279:Moreschi
7255:Moreschi
7238:Moreschi
7229:contribs
7219:Matthead
7176:contribs
7165:Moreschi
7077:Oppose:
7049:jpgordon
7037:James F.
7022:FayssalF
6996:FloNight
6873:FloNight
6510:Vassyana
6420:contribs
6228:Nealparr
6205:Nealparr
6155:Nealparr
6065:Vassyana
6046:Vassyana
6020:Nealparr
6002:Vassyana
5987:Vassyana
5963:Vassyana
5919:Vassyana
5782:FloNight
5760:FloNight
5722:Rockpock
5477:contribs
5428:contribs
5299:them or
5160:FloNight
5148:FloNight
5097:correct:
5063:Darwinek
4547:contribs
4492:contribs
4393:James F.
4375:FloNight
4363:FloNight
4345:FloNight
4337:User:PHG
4325:FloNight
4295:FayssalF
3937:User:PHG
3795:contribs
3720:contribs
3665:contribs
3518:contribs
3402:FayssalF
3353:jpgordon
3342:FloNight
3326:contribs
3263:FayssalF
3244:Per Sam.
3213:jpgordon
3201:FloNight
3163:contribs
2943:jpgordon
2750:contribs
2691:contribs
2623:FloNight
2593:FayssalF
2579:James F.
2538:Martintg
2505:Martintg
2474:Martintg
2447:Martintg
2391:James F.
2359:and the
1883:Moreschi
1852:Penwhale
1839:Penwhale
1591:contribs
1576:changing
1422:claim he
1382:requires
1253:Moreschi
1217:contribs
1170:contribs
1050:contribs
1003:contribs
949:contribs
894:contribs
127:archives
50:of past
24: |
22:Requests
20: |
8279:Logging
8258:Appeals
8028:Logging
8007:Appeals
7864:Piotrus
7762:), but
7669:Biophys
7646:Biophys
7626:Biophys
7615:Biophys
7531:Discuß
7483:Discuß
7047:Yes. --
6951:Logging
6930:Appeals
6785:Logging
6764:Appeals
6631:Antelan
6622:Antelan
6265:GRBerry
6251:GRBerry
6240:GRBerry
6221:outside
5689:GRBerry
5671:GRBerry
5572:changed
5543:Ireland
5002:in July
4964:I have
4949:GRBerry
4704:(1) No.
4631:states
4241:Mathsci
4194:Mathsci
4080:dubious
3452:Abstain
3386:Deskana
3336:Support
3305:Abstain
3248:Deskana
3185:Support
3172:Should
3147:Motions
2840:Deskana
2299:exactly
1817:WP:AN/I
1318:WP:COPY
1119:protect
1114:history
47:archive
8402:bainer
8369:(talk)
8315:Kirill
8204:Kirill
8094:Ghirla
8086:Ghirla
8071:ChrisO
8059:ChrisO
8044:Daniel
7949:Daniel
7816:plague
7694:WP:ANI
7581:Rlevse
7385:I had
7369:debate
7345:debate
7305:debate
7287:debate
7263:debate
7206:rights
7182:blocks
7082:bainer
7040:(talk)
6987:Kirill
6864:Kirill
6825:review
6801:Daniel
6702:Daniel
6572:Baegis
6539:edits
6533:User:B
6522:(talk)
6408:seicer
6393:Seicer
6333:Martin
6276:Martin
6215:Oppose
6182:, etc.
6080:Rlevse
5958:recent
5928:. See
5840:bainer
5619:, and
5590:" to "
5565:adding
5362:Kirill
5303:them.
5125:bainer
5084:bainer
5069:bainer
5047:bainer
4930:Durova
4907:Durova
4892:Durova
4884:means.
4867:Durova
4855:Durova
4842:Durova
4812:Durova
4719:scribe
4682:scribe
4653:scribe
4522:rights
4498:blocks
4421:bainer
4396:(talk)
4166:Elonka
3695:rights
3671:blocks
3443:Oppose
3390:(talk)
3252:(talk)
3194:Oppose
3099:Avruch
3013:(talk)
2904:auburn
2852:User:B
2582:(talk)
2520:piece
2470:anyway
2394:(talk)
2254:per se
2192:bainer
2181:should
2173:WP:AGF
2132:bainer
1985:WP:BLP
1874:ChrisO
1828:scribe
1485:Elonka
1446:ChrisO
1426:Jordan
1391:ChrisO
1367:ChrisO
1310:WP:BLP
1289:WP:BLP
1123:delete
1091:ChrisO
979:rights
955:blocks
938:Elonka
924:rights
900:blocks
883:ChrisO
7907:talk
7883:talk
7595:levse
7569:disp.
7315:still
7245:WP:AE
6687:Filll
6667:Filll
6610:Help!
6503:Jossi
6247:WP:AE
6132:levse
6116:WP:AE
6094:levse
5646:with
5301:about
5273:user.
4821:From
4268:levse
4151:Shell
4134:Shell
3785:Coren
3006:Maxim
2907:pilot
2781:drawn
2772:that
2250:WP:AE
1847:AFTER
1797:Kelly
1771:Kelly
1761:Kelly
1432:axes.
1140:views
1132:watch
1128:links
1037:(aka
16:<
8406:talk
8340:talk
8250:and
8234:and
8109:this
8107:Per
8075:talk
8048:talk
7999:and
7983:and
7954:The
7938:talk
7925:talk
7852:talk
7833:talk
7806:talk
7773:talk
7764:zero
7760:here
7740:talk
7724:talk
7673:talk
7665:here
7650:talk
7630:talk
7602:Talk
7467:use
7463:and
7451:Sejm
7397:and
7365:talk
7341:talk
7301:talk
7283:talk
7259:talk
7223:talk
7170:talk
7086:talk
7012:talk
6922:and
6906:and
6839:talk
6805:talk
6756:and
6740:and
6707:The
6691:talk
6656:talk
6576:talk
6549:talk
6491:talk
6475:talk
6444:talk
6414:talk
6378:talk
6327:feel
6308:very
6192:eg.
6172:UFOs
6166:eg.
6139:Talk
6101:Talk
6069:talk
6050:talk
6040:.)
6006:talk
5991:talk
5967:talk
5954:here
5952:and
5950:here
5946:here
5942:here
5938:here
5934:here
5930:here
5867:and
5844:talk
5830:talk
5621:this
5617:this
5613:this
5489:logs
5471:talk
5440:logs
5422:talk
5129:talk
5088:talk
5073:talk
5051:talk
5021:talk
4801:talk
4787:talk
4734:talk
4559:logs
4541:talk
4486:talk
4425:talk
4314:talk
4275:Talk
4245:talk
4235:and
4207:and
4070:fact
4037:2007
4006:talk
3970:talk
3800:See
3789:talk
3732:logs
3714:talk
3659:talk
3595:talk
3530:logs
3512:talk
3365:talk
3320:talk
3227:talk
3157:talk
3044:talk
2956:talk
2932:talk
2912:talk
2883:talk
2877:. --
2864:talk
2821:and
2770:note
2744:talk
2703:logs
2685:talk
2613:talk
2569:talk
2542:talk
2509:talk
2478:talk
2466:here
2464:and
2462:here
2365:both
2278:were
2258:only
2136:talk
2056:talk
2043:like
2020:talk
1993:talk
1955:talk
1791:more
1750:talk
1714:Tarc
1706:this
1699:here
1623:talk
1585:talk
1474:talk
1450:talk
1407:this
1395:talk
1371:talk
1257:and
1229:logs
1211:talk
1204:and
1182:logs
1164:talk
1136:logs
1110:talk
1106:edit
1062:logs
1044:talk
1015:logs
997:talk
943:talk
888:talk
8327:♥♥♥
7622:any
7524:--
7476:--
7399:2nd
7367:) (
7343:) (
7303:) (
7285:) (
7261:) (
7212:RfA
6999:♥♥♥
6876:♥♥♥
6685:.--
6682:at
6604:Guy
6587:JzG
6568:CAM
6514:DGG
6440:Kww
6432:Kww
6373:DGG
6356:DGG
5785:♥♥♥
5763:♥♥♥
5661:.
5580:add
5574:to
5311:FT2
5297:for
5206:FT2
5163:♥♥♥
5151:♥♥♥
4977:not
4715:WjB
4678:WjB
4649:WjB
4614:one
4528:RfA
4378:♥♥♥
4366:♥♥♥
4348:♥♥♥
4339:'s
4328:♥♥♥
4002:PHG
3983:or
3966:PHG
3960:or
3778:PHG
3709:PHG
3701:RfA
3434:FT2
3345:♥♥♥
3314:2)
3295:FT2
3204:♥♥♥
3151:1)
2972:FT2
2827:FT2
2800:FT2
2756:,
2626:♥♥♥
2372:FT2
2361:aim
2282:and
2210:FT2
1947:own
1854:|
1824:WjB
1316:".
985:RfA
930:RfA
816:128
811:127
804:126
799:125
794:124
789:123
784:122
779:121
774:120
769:119
764:118
759:117
754:116
749:115
744:114
739:113
734:112
729:111
724:110
719:109
712:108
707:107
702:106
697:105
692:104
687:103
682:102
677:101
672:100
8408:)
8387:)
8354:-
8342:)
8313:.
8287:.
8246:,
8242:,
8182:-
8166:-
8131:te
8129:ai
8127:hw
8125:et
8123:tl
8121:os
8117:an
8115:Ry
8077:)
8050:)
8036:.
7995:,
7991:,
7940:)
7854:)
7835:)
7808:)
7775:)
7742:)
7726:)
7675:)
7652:)
7644:!
7632:)
7605:•
7599:•
7588:—
7562:--
7371:)
7347:)
7313:I
7307:)
7289:)
7265:)
7088:)
7067:)
7025:-
7014:)
6985:.
6959:.
6918:,
6914:,
6841:)
6807:)
6793:.
6752:,
6748:,
6725::
6693:)
6658:)
6578:)
6551:)
6493:)
6477:)
6446:)
6417:|
6411:|
6380:)
6345:——
6340:Ψ
6288:——
6283:Ψ
6142:•
6136:•
6125:—
6104:•
6098:•
6087:—
6071:)
6052:)
6008:)
5993:)
5969:)
5948:,
5944:,
5940:,
5936:,
5932:,
5846:)
5832:)
5818:)
5615:,
5354:)
5131:)
5123:--
5090:)
5075:)
5067:--
5053:)
5023:)
4984:.
4825::
4803:)
4789:)
4674:?
4427:)
4407:.
4358:,
4316:)
4298:-
4278:•
4272:•
4261:—
4247:)
4184:ka
4181:on
4178:El
4093:}}
4087:{{
4083:}}
4077:{{
4073:}}
4067:{{
4008:)
3972:)
3597:)
3589:-
3427:)
3405:-
3367:)
3288:)
3266:-
3229:)
3211:--
3199:--
3129:te
3127:ai
3125:hw
3123:et
3121:tl
3119:os
3115:an
3113:Ry
3086:te
3084:ai
3082:hw
3080:et
3078:tl
3076:os
3072:an
3070:Ry
3046:)
3001:.
2934:)
2885:)
2866:)
2825:.
2615:)
2596:-
2571:)
2544:)
2511:)
2480:)
2472:.
2306:).
2138:)
2130:--
2058:)
2022:)
2014:--
1995:)
1987:.
1957:)
1752:)
1694:,
1691:,
1688:,
1685:,
1682:,
1666:,
1625:)
1601:ka
1598:on
1595:El
1568:no
1564:no
1476:)
1452:)
1397:)
1373:)
1336:).
1138:|
1134:|
1130:|
1126:|
1121:|
1117:|
1112:|
1108:|
667:99
662:98
657:97
652:96
647:95
642:94
637:93
632:92
627:91
620:90
615:89
610:88
605:87
600:86
595:85
590:84
585:83
580:82
575:81
570:80
565:79
560:78
555:77
550:76
545:75
540:74
535:73
528:72
523:71
518:70
513:69
508:68
503:67
498:66
493:65
488:64
483:63
478:62
473:61
468:60
463:59
458:58
453:57
448:56
443:55
436:54
431:53
426:52
421:51
416:50
411:49
406:48
401:47
396:46
391:45
386:44
381:43
376:42
371:41
366:40
361:39
356:38
351:37
344:36
339:35
334:34
329:33
324:32
319:31
314:30
309:29
304:28
299:27
294:26
289:25
284:24
279:23
274:22
269:21
264:20
259:19
252:18
247:17
242:16
237:15
232:14
227:13
222:12
217:11
212:10
106:→
76:←
54:.
8425:☎
8404:(
8385:C
8383::
8381:T
8379:(
8338:(
8119:P
8073:(
8046:(
7936:(
7927:)
7923:(
7904:|
7880:|
7850:(
7831:(
7804:(
7790:"
7786:"
7771:(
7738:(
7722:(
7712:,
7709:,
7671:(
7648:(
7628:(
7593:R
7571:)
7567:(
7363:(
7339:(
7299:(
7281:(
7257:(
7231:)
7226:·
7221:(
7214:)
7209:·
7203:·
7197:·
7191:·
7185:·
7179:·
7173:·
7168:(
7099:☎
7084:(
7065:C
7063::
7061:T
7059:(
7010:(
6837:(
6803:(
6689:(
6654:(
6612:)
6608:(
6574:(
6547:(
6545:B
6489:(
6473:(
6442:(
6376:(
6342:Φ
6338:☎
6285:Φ
6281:☎
6130:R
6092:R
6067:(
6048:(
6004:(
5989:(
5965:(
5842:(
5828:(
5816:C
5814::
5812:T
5810:(
5799:☎
5730:t
5726:e
5509:)
5504:·
5498:·
5492:·
5486:·
5480:·
5474:·
5469:(
5460:)
5455:·
5449:·
5443:·
5437:·
5431:·
5425:·
5420:(
5352:C
5350::
5348:T
5346:(
5178:☎
5127:(
5086:(
5071:(
5049:(
5041:"
5019:(
4879::
4799:(
4785:(
4754:(
4736:)
4732:(
4608:"
4603:"
4579:)
4574:·
4568:·
4562:·
4556:·
4550:·
4544:·
4539:(
4530:)
4525:·
4519:·
4513:·
4507:·
4501:·
4495:·
4489:·
4484:(
4423:(
4412:☎
4312:(
4266:R
4243:(
4039:,
4004:(
3968:(
3792:·
3787:(
3752:)
3747:·
3741:·
3735:·
3729:·
3723:·
3717:·
3712:(
3703:)
3698:·
3692:·
3686:·
3680:·
3674:·
3668:·
3662:·
3657:(
3593:(
3550:)
3545:·
3539:·
3533:·
3527:·
3521:·
3515:·
3510:(
3425:C
3423::
3421:T
3419:(
3377:☎
3363:(
3323:·
3318:(
3286:C
3284::
3282:T
3280:(
3239:☎
3225:(
3160:·
3155:(
3117:P
3074:P
3042:(
2958:)
2954:(
2930:(
2881:(
2879:B
2862:(
2860:B
2747:·
2742:(
2723:)
2718:·
2712:·
2706:·
2700:·
2694:·
2688:·
2683:(
2611:(
2567:(
2540:(
2526:"
2522:"
2507:(
2501:"
2497:"
2493:"
2489:"
2476:(
2206:.
2134:(
2054:(
2018:(
1991:(
1953:(
1748:(
1669:,
1663:(
1621:(
1588:·
1583:(
1472:(
1448:(
1436:"
1393:(
1369:(
1347:.
1280:.
1277:,
1274:,
1249:)
1244:·
1238:·
1232:·
1226:·
1220:·
1214:·
1209:(
1202:)
1197:·
1191:·
1185:·
1179:·
1173:·
1167:·
1162:(
1142:)
1104:(
1084:)
1082:)
1077:·
1071:·
1065:·
1059:·
1053:·
1047:·
1042:(
1035:)
1030:·
1024:·
1018:·
1012:·
1006:·
1000:·
995:(
987:)
982:·
976:·
970:·
964:·
958:·
952:·
946:·
941:(
932:)
927:·
921:·
915:·
909:·
903:·
897:·
891:·
886:(
207:9
202:8
197:7
192:6
187:5
182:4
177:3
172:2
167:1
150:e
143:t
136:v
62:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.