1903:, you just don't like it. Neither do I. But it's explained by the volunteer nature of the project. Admins have the power but not the obligation to enforce policies. No one can force or demand that an admin sanction anybody. So what's going to motivate an admin to place a sanction? Well, first, requests and demands for sanctions will probably have the opposite effect; an admin will be less likely to fulfill such requests/demands because no admin wants to be seen as fulfilling requests/demands for sanctions. Second, an admin is more likely to volunteer their time and impose a sanction if they disagree with the edit at issue. If they think the edit improves the encyclopedia even though it violates some rule, they are going to be far less motivated to volunteer their free time to impede what they view as an improvement to the encyclopedia. Because this sort of project is going to attract volunteers who "lean left" (the same way academia leans left and for the same reasons), "left leaning" edits are more likely to be seen as improvements by volunteers and thus less likely to be sanctioned. This is how "house POV" is born: volunteers are more likely to ignore violations they agree with, and do something about violations they disagree with, and a š is going to attract left-leaning volunteers, so the encyclopedia will lean left. And thus, a 1RR violation that says the NYT investigation was "in-depth" is more likely to be ignored than a 1RR violation that says the allegations are "corroborated". It's harder to swim upstream, and that's not going to ever change.
2083:
understand that their feelings, based on childhood teachings of superiority and enfranchisement, are challenged; and they donāt understand why they arenāt happy. This new world also has so many avenues for those that would prey on such. Nothing new in this predilection. It is based upon evolution; which cannot catch up with the changing times and the overload of input ā seriously faulty input. Therein lies the problem ā the ability for manipulative actors, whether true believers (those unable to separate the wheat from the chaff) or simply amoral folk. Itās difficult; but you have to realize that reality is real. So, do your best to withdraw when the goofiness reaches a level where itās just plain maddening to deal with the lack of objectivity. At some point in any discussion, if you canāt convince, step back for a time. Others will take your place. Now, if I could only follow this advice myself.
2730:, I find it challenging to believe that the admin community is unaware that ā particularly related to AP2 topics ā opening an ANI invites editors to pile-on with myriad unrelated matters to avenge long-held grievances typically rooted in partisanship, simply to rid Knowledge of someone they just donāt like. Despite Levivichās ācomprehensive analysisā being comprehensively dismantled, some who exclusively cited his work to support a ban never acknowledged the subsequent dismantling, and may forever continue to believe it was decisive, and none of that would have happened if the discussion wasnāt allowed to descend into a feeding frenzy. If pinged, I would echo any effort to encourage admins to be more attentive to this phenomenon and to act swiftly to nip it in the bud to keep the discussion from going off the rails into irrelevancy and smears.
2775:
inappropriately, and vowed to change his behavior. The allegatons were further discussed in more than a half dozeen journalistic outlets. Please do not unilaterally revert this informmation from the article further until there is further discussion by the community. If you seek to delete it, a discussion should ensue in the broader community and if you continue to ignore the input of others, I will seek out an administrator for an appeal. If you are associated with the subject of the article, you should fully disclose this. It is noteworthy that you deleted any negative information whatsoever about Corn from the article, despite the fact that the original material appeared in publications such as
Politico, Politifact, and the New York Observer.
2708:, I don't know about AP2, but there's a definite AN/ANI problem, and it's likely I would support an action regarding editing there. I honestly thought a proposal in that area was the intention of Tony's thread last month, which instead just played out as an unfocused and unnecessary bitchfest and made me uncomfortable/reluctant to weigh in. That doesn't do the community any favors, and I wasn't interested in pursuing some sort of aimless griping about an editor; however, a more focused conversation about this argumentation style and these "analyses" which forces people to confront their veracity (or lack thereof) seems increasingly inevitable to me. For what it's worth, the "CNN can't be used to critique Fox" suggestion seems to be
2945:
protect sexual harassers, do so remaining anonymously, and feel powerful in some small way in your life. I've looked at a variety of talk pages. Apparently at any given time,you are at wer, arguing with, or harassing too many people to count. It is bizarre that someone would spend so many hundreds of hours denigrating others, but it is damn scary to us normal people. Congrats for harassing normal people off
Knowledge. Have a good time with the next victim, but I'm not playing anymore. As for the David Corn page, you can revert all you like, but the third highest ranking Google result is and will continue to be the article alleging sexual harassment. Perhaps you can intimidate Google to let you make decisions for them too.
937:
2645:
photo choice over at the Greta article. It seems that to the young'ns the
January AfC is ancient history and there is every reason to post a newer (less than a year old) photo. But in the long run, who cares what photo we use for Greta? I doubt that she even cares. But that's not true with our Trump series of articles. You and a few others are the main Knowledge history fact checkers and I am just again and again so grateful to be even a small part of the crew that work to record the history that we are going through. There are a lot of good editors here but you are one of the best. IMO.
2941:
politely asks of you: "Please stop (mis)gendering me," and you answer them by ignoring their civil request. Please do not misgender people: it is cruel if done on purpose and ignorant if done by accident, and morally wrong when it is pointed out to you and you continue to do so. That being your attitude, it is perhaps no surprise that you revert or delete information about sexual harassment (from a credible source such as
Politico) simply because the accused have the same political ideology you do. Sexual harassment by anyoen is wrong, as well as misgendering anyone.
1776:, I think what is interesting is that SPECIFICO hasn't edited since bradv asked for an explanation. Maybe by the time SPECIFICO edits again, anything will be stale, so then of course no block will be given out. Of course, I don't think an egregious example such as what we have here, plus SPECIFICO's own quote on this page demands that we wait for an explanation, plus "these restrictions need to be applied uniformly, or they simply won't work" so I really don't understand why there is no block in this case. The optics just don't make sense to me.
1300:
description of the Times investigation. I hadn't realized that bit was in the midst of the several edits of yours that I reverted this morning. Nobody else reverted or commented on my initial addition of that Times bit. It was not a controversial edit. It just gave context to the following longstanding text that stated what the Times found. I hope that clarifies what I was trying to do. I was not aware that I had re-added my own text among the edits I reverted - my mistake! - so I immediately self-reverted per your request when you came here.
733:. So I'm offering this advice in that spirit and hope you take it in stride. I think you and the project would benefit if you laid off of Kolya or even the Joe Biden topic area for a few days. These are stressful times, and that page is a stressful editing environment; I think taking some time to edit other areas of the encyclopedia would be good for the project (we get more eyes on lesser watched pages) and you (don't have to deal with people you don't like). I'd seen you're interested in economics, and I had found
899:
1500:
by the strictest interpretation to avoid any possible violation ... I'm not aware of any such violations. If you ever see any, please do come show them to me so I can undo them ... Generally, 1RR violations are inadvertent and the offending editor immediatly self-removes the violation when reminded on their user talk page ... I don't recall having seen an editor plead for immunity on the grounds that his judgment overrules the most liberal interpretation of 1RR. Those arguments never prevail.
31:
2264:
926:
1105:. Lots of chatter, but turns out not to matter. And even if in some universe it would be considered significant, the conflicting sources mean we would use only the facts that are widely verified, not everything that's been asserted by the most expansive account. I think you are right to be very cautious about the reverts. There is no agreement among Admins as to the meaning of the restrictions and it's best to stay far away from them. Keep up the good work!
1982:
690:
1082:
If yes, then will I have to wait until 19:11 today to correct that section & put the NYT report back in? Personally, I think the whole police report thing is a big nothing and should be deleted entirely, but, since some wpeditors want to keep in, it needs to have the accurate NYT report & not NPR. I don't want to break any WP "revert" guidelines and that's why I'm asking you before I made any edits. Thanks
2891:
censor another editor because you wrongfully believe in their politics. Your politics mean nothing apparently, as long as it is women being harassed. I should point out that, after reading
Knowledge's standards, you can't simply revert anyone you want for whatever reason and then threaten to block them from editing further. That is the same type of bullying and misogyny you are trying to cover up.
2649:
2087:
964:
1913:
administrative functions topic-banned, but it seems like a good idea. Ideally
Knowledge would be structured in such a way as to encourage intrinsic motivation towards good behavior, rather than fear of external punishment. It all seems so silly that this story would even motivate people politically at this point. It's in the news; it's just wrong to misrepresent it.
2422:
archived talk page discussions that I ask you to review. However, it is just the extent and history of that talk page archive that led to the consensus being protected on that talk page list. You are welcome to start yet another talk page discussion, but in the past, there have been few successful proposals to establish a new consensus to revise items on the list.
1828:, so go to AE. I'd show how SPECIFICO is online all the time and this is perhaps a ploy to not get blocked. I'd bring his quote above and bradv's plea to have editor's be treated equally. Then if/when they refuse to do something, there will be a log of action/inaction which some editor keeps track of AE/AN actions which makes for interesting analysis.
742:
me. In an ideal world, we can make the editing environment better without sanctions, but community patience is wearing thin (as is mine, to be honest), and sanctions are the likely next step if the editing environment at Joe Biden doesn't improve. I hope that we don't have to get to that point. Stay well and thanks for your contributions!
1101:. You might contact that editor and discuss whether that was intended to reject your view about the proper sourcing. If not, she may just be willing to self-revert. If she was disagreeing with your edit, then yes both of the page restrictions would apply. I agree with you the police report was an example of why we have
2744:
The distribution of brilliance among Admins is roughly the same as among editors in general. ANI is highly visible, so there is usually enough input from the most insightful Admins to cut through the customary nonsense. In the end that's what happened in your case, despite the various detours along
2644:
Plenty boring for sure, but when one considers that some men and women went through hell and back in an attempt to make this planet a better place the irritation of the Trump articles does not seem like such a burden. Just the other day I gave up on trying again and again to settle on a long-lasting
1837:
Editors are free to go on break or take pauses, and itās not even been a day since their last edit. I wouldnāt focus on that, but I agree AE is the only logical place for this discussion, at this point. Although I bet somehow weād earn a boomerang for that. The clear message is some editors are clear
1141:
Yes, I think it belongs in neither article at this point. Unfortunately, it seems to be coming up again at the Biden article. In the arc of the man's career and the scope of his activities and accomplishments (like them or not) I can't imagine how this could be considered notewothy. If there's a Tara
820:
Just wanted to thank you for the incredible work you do throughout
Knowledge. Having encountered you on many articles, I am particularly impressed with your tireless efforts in challenging the addition of problematic, policy-violating content. Looking forward to learning from you and collaborating in
402:
It changed the emphasis in a way that I thought was not consistent with the accounts in the cited sources. Changes of a few words or sentence structure can have the effect of obscuring rather than clearly conveying the narratives in our cited sources. But I see that another editor has restored 'your'
2944:
All of your posts and work appears to be done for political and ideological reason, not for pursuit of contributing to the community or the debate. I am sure you have you feel you like you have very little power in your regular life, so this is a good outlet for you, where you can misgender people,
2890:
What you have done here is ugly and bullying: Because he has the same politics as you you want to whitewash his biography to include his ugly misconduct towards the women who have worked for him; simply because you are a fan of his or he is on the same ideological side, you do not have the right to
2331:
and I hope that you do not see that and think that I cannot be trusted. While I genuinely believe that my analysis is correct, for my own well-being I think I will stop watching that page. The next time that I dip my toes into the AP2 waters, if I do so (and I am not precluded from doing so although
2062:
if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard.Ā Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the
1081:
Yesterday I edited/corrected the "police" info in the Tara Reade article at timestamp 19:10. In my edit, I took out the erroneous NPR report and put in the factual NYT report. Sometime later, my edited version was deleted & the NPR passage was put back in. So, is that a "revert" assigned to me?
959:
Welcome to
Knowledge Betsy. I can't imagine more of a baptism of fire than this one. Just ignore the reminders that you are a WP:SPA - that tag is sometimes useful but IMO it is insulting to use it in your case. We all have to start somewhere. You sure are doing a lot better than I did in my first
490:
You need to cite secondary sources to show how they evaluated the significance of the part that's described in article text. My comment was not about the accuracy of the transcript. It was about cherrypicking and not providing secondary source context for it. Cherypicking is a very effective form of
159:
Hi SPECIFICO. Just wondering why you reverted my addition to the Racial views of Donald Trump article as you didn't give any sort of reason. I added it as I thought it was necessary to provide an element of balance. Bloomberg should be a reliable enough source so not sure why you would have objected
2998:
It's not clear to me why anyone would chime in on a NOTFORUM post. Only exception I can think of is to explain to the editor why it was inappropriate, and that is better done on the editor's talk page. Am I missing something? This kind of post is often replied to, generating a long distraction that
2555:
You entirely changed the emphasis and meaning of the article text and your edit summary sounded like a neutral copyedit. This is made more concerning in that it furthers the non-consensus narratives you've repeatedly stated on the article talk page. Please use the talk page before making such edits
2222:
I find your explanation contradictory. On one hand you are saying that you were not edit-warring and on the other hand you are saying I should have warned you of not edit-warring. Considering the timeline, I do not even understand how it would make sense to ask you to self-revert; the timestamps of
1499:
I don't think it makes sense -- especially where there is an explicit page sanction referencing BRD -- for the first editor not to use the talk page to ensure that the problem is solved by whatever new version. ... In terms of the
American Politics articles, the result is that most of us are guided
1397:
I'm at a loss to understand why you think I should remove it. I made a mistake, you pointed it out, I corrected myself. If you're asking me to remove a subsequent edit of similar material, I see no reason to do so. It's uncontroversial among editors, apparently. It's in many secondary sources about
728:
Hi SPECIFICO, I hope you're doing well despite the global circumstances! I wanted to try and offer some advice given your ongoing conflict with Kolya. I think it's obvious that the path we're on isn't a good one. I don't like solving problems with unilateral sanctions, and I believe it's better for
340:
Hello. I understand you may not have done this before, so my intention was just to pause it until it can be properly formatted. The RfC should be introduced with a completely neutral statement and then the language of the alternatives. You should not list what you think are the views other editors
260:
Thanks for your reply though, for clarity, my edit had not removed any of the language that conveyed the sentiment of the Asian
American community - it merely added an update that Trump had stated that he would not use the phase again and also tweeted his support for Asian Americans. I thought this
1299:
Sorry, that's valid text. The Times investigation is not UNDUE - it's the most widely cited new information in RS coverage of the matter. I thought your concern was that I didn't have a source that characterized the Times investigation as "extensive" so I found a secondary source that give its own
1250:
Stop misrepresenting me or I'll have to take this to a noticeboard. Ā My opposition to this edit made no mention of sourcing. Ā Days ago discussions about using a secondary source for The Times in general is obviously unrelated to this text you are edit-warring in. Ā Please self-revert and do not add
741:
in the last few months. I think your expertise could really improve the article, and it would give you some time to build up the encyclopedia without having to worry about interpersonal conflicts. I'd even be willing to help you if that sweetens the deal! Give the idea some thought and get back to
283:
You've objected to the form of an RfC as being not-neutral but you may be unaware that the form was suggested by an administrator as an objective alternative to one that I had posted earlier. As I said previously, I remain willing to compromise and look forward to your offering of an objective RfC
2829:
Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users. Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Knowledge policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the
763:
Thank you, for raising the TPG issue. I had moved the comment(s) to the proper place, but Mark appears to have undone it so that his comment (written much later) is above it again. Iām not going to go to the effort to redo it or ask him to do so. Or make an issue out of it. Iāve learned that when
2627:
I hear folks like the newer versions, but pre-9/11 software is safe from the NSA and corporate spyware and hackers can't touch it. Problem is the DIN pin on my keyboard gets bent every now and then if i lean back in my chair. I think we all need to find new articles to edit. This Trump stuff is
2940:
Signing talk page posts is a relatively small thing, which I am sure I will learn. From reading comments to you by numerous others in the Knowledge community, you apparently have a reputation for strong arming and bullying other people. See above comment from another user, during which someone
2878:
I indeed read the policy, thank you. Once again, Politico is a respected and authoritative source. The CEO and publisher of Mother Jones spoke for the record for the story, and said that Corn's actions were inappropriate. Corn did as well. His comments were included in my edit for reasons of
2347:
I think you'll find Valjean ready to collaborate and consider whatever you have to say. As for your aversion to the American Politics area, that should just give you confidence that you are older and wiser and that you are moderating your engagement while still offering suggestions you feel are
1464:
SPECIFICO thatās an obvious violation of the restriction. I donāt know how else to characterize it. Thereās nothing in the warning that says you need to add better sourcing then you can reinsert. Weāve had long discussions on what constitutes reverts but this falls squarely into the definition.
1058:
It wasn't trivial to misquote a fellow editor with what would have been an absurd misstatement of the revert restriction. Think about it. If each editor could do as many reverts as they saw fit each 24 hours and then a new cycle of as many as they wish begins, etc. -- that wouldn't be much of a
137:
Hi SPECIFICO, I just want to reiterate that I take no pleasure in bringing another editor to AE, and that I hope this can be a constructive experience for both of us, as well as other editors involved. As far as I am concerned, you and I now stand with a tabula rasa, and I hope that we can work
2774:
This was not a small matter. There were two lengthy articles about Corn's alleged conduct in "Politico". "Politico" is a more than credible source. Corn's employer, Mother Jones publicly said that there were two officiial investigations of the matter. Corn himself admitted that he he had acted
2421:
Hello to you too. Changing the text of the sentence and the meaning of the sentence violates the consensus provided in the talk page list. Violating it by making an addition to the sentence is not an exemption. Unfortunately, there has been such extensive discussion of this that there are many
2223:
your reverts were "22:30, 23 November 2019" and "23:07, 24 November 2019". I posted my question to El C's talk page more than 24 hours after the latter revert. And by the way, one of the reasons I specifically consulted El C was because I knew they would let you explain or correct your actions.
806:
1725:
discussion that there was no BLP violation with the text that was in the article. If you feel that a block is necessary, please read the BLPN before deciding if or how long a block is appropriate. I realize the discussion is long but it will give you a good idea of what is going on. Regards,
2914:
You're not even signing your talk page posts after being told about that numerous times. It takes some time and effort to contribute here. I took a quick look at some of your other contributions. If it's any consolation to you, I'd say you've also added inappropriate UNUDE BLP content to the
2815:
The information that you removed was from Politico. That is considered an authoritative source by Knowledge. The paragraphs you deleted were directly from the Politico article, including Corn himself admitting that his conduct was inappropriate and which included his apology. It is hard to
2474:
Thanks very much for that. I thought the article text was some kind of strange combination of misrepresenting the source, incomplete summary of the source's conclusions, and mistranslation of academic jargon and terms of art. Reading your article text, it makes sense to me and clarifies the
2082:
SPECIFICO, I haven't followed this particular discussion. But, a general comment. We are part of a world where a significant part of the population has a problem with logic, reasoning, science, facts in general, and chooses to rely on whatever sources comfort them. Some of these also do not
1912:
It's never going to be easier to swim upstream, but we don't know that we can't change the stream's direction. I don't know what the solution is, but sanctioning individual editors won't make a difference. Maybe administrators need more accountability. I don't know if they can have their
942:
But this happens on lots of articles. Eventually a central narrative stands out and the other stuff simmers down. I think it's in better shape now than before the NY Times and WaPo reports. We're over a month into it, and there's remarkably little to go on relative to all the WP excitement.
452:
It's a real problem. I mean, normal people have lives off the internet and don't relish the prospect of filing evidence and making a case for some sort of orderly process. There are so many thougthful, editors with valid arguments, it's a shame to get stuck on distractions. Carry on!
1059:
restriction, would it? So it's unlikely that anybody would say such a thing. That's why I asked you to show a link to where he said it, becuase it sounded like maybe there was a misunderstanding or some other easily resolved glitch. Anyway, thanks for your visit. Come back any time!
2307:
Hi there. Nice to see you back immediately reverting an edit of mine without joining the ongoing discussion on the talk page, seemingly against the point of WP:ONUS which you bring up so frequently. Do these policies only apply when they support things you think should be included?
1669:
said "I agree that I don't want to see discretionary sanctions enforced selectively. I think that, to maintain regular order at Joe Biden pages, we need to see them enforced across the board under all circumstances." Given those comments the block of Kolya seems much more unfair.
2886:
When someone acts inappropriately to women in the women in the workplace-- so much so that their boss admonishes them publicly, they admit bad conduct and promise to do better, and Politico reports it worthy of being included in his article and fully meets Knowledge's standards.
1265:
I had not recalled my edit that you pointed out, because it was uncontroversial. But when I saw your note and realized that my edit this morning included that text within the larger edit I made this morning, I self-reverted per your request. I don't know what else I can say.
1530:
KB, bless their heart, didn't include all the relevant diffs above, but they're right: you're doing literally the same thing that KB got partial-blocked for a week over, and that you argued justified a TBAN on Bradv's talk page (where you wrote all that stuff I quoted). In
175:
Hi it was mostly a copy edit of pre-existing awkward language. In addition, however, I thought that some of the language from the previous version did do a better job of conveying the sentiment of the Asian American community as to their offense at Trump's remarks.
1808:
It is irrelevant that Specifico has not commented specifically to Bradv, his comments to me show dishonesty and bad faith, and his suspicious break from editing shows he has declined to self-revert. Remember, I was blocked only an hour after Bradv asked me to
2200:
literally means that reverts have to be for "the same material". My memory may fail me, but when I contacted you, I also vaguely remembered that you, maybe in 2017, defended the view that reverts do not necessarily have to be for the same material. Cheers,
2825:
As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, do not block; instead, consult other administrators for advice. After placing a potentially controversial block, it is a good idea to make a note of the block at the administrators' incidents noticeboard for peer review.
1398:
the Times investigation, and it's directly related and due weight context for the mention of the Times' statements. As you've seen, I'm glad to correct any error I may have made. But in the absence of such, please don't demand I revert an innocuous edit.
470:
880:
Hello BRM. I am pleased to say that I have no idea how page moves work, and I was away from my desk for a while. The green means that somebody closed the discussion. It will bbe moved eventually, but there will be lots of kicking and screaming first.
321:
Can you please alert me as to what specifically you have a problem with in the RfC. Is merely noting the position other editors have clearly made known problematic? The intention was to assist new editors in where we were currently at in the process.
2882:
Reading though your edits, you appear to be editing ideologically, from a left point of view, which is fine. I am not someone with politics. The particular person whose conduct you attempted to whitewash did what he did. Politico reported it.
1429:
Note: 24-hr BRD cycle: If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit). Note the active arbitration
125:
This discussion has been closed with a warning to you that talk pages are for discussing article content, not contributors, and that continuing to make personal comments about other editors on article talk pages may result in sanctions.
1744:
My bold edits have nothing to do with this. Have you seen the diffs? This talk page section itself has repeatedly informed Specifico that his edit was reverted (separately at the start of my edits), and he has refused to self-revert.
219:
Dear Stalker, the comment already said "undo edit by Birtig" - so the "copyedit minor" was in addition to that, because I changed a few words from the awkward previous version. Hard to see how that wouldn't properly summarize the edit.
1414:
I did not point out a mistake, stop mistepresenting me. Ā I reverted your edit because it was controversial to me. Ā I do not agree with giving more space in the text related to that quote. Ā Reinserting similar text is a 1RR violation.
2270:. I don't think it makes sense to continue a dispute from months ago where it was left off. If one takes a break for months, one can be seen to forfeit their position in a given dispute. I suggest you move on from this, Politrukki.
1316:
Your opinion that it is a good and uncontroversial edit does not entitle you to restore the edit without discussion. Ā If you do not revert this I can only conclude you are CIVILPOVPUSHING and this will have to go to a notice board.
2332:
I do not want things to end in disaster again), I think it's quite possible that you and I will be on the same side. You don't have to believe meāI probably wouldn't if I were youābut maybe you'll be pleasantly surprised. Regards,
838:
Thank you. I will keep it with my many other barnstars that I am too modest to display here. I see you doing good work in many subject areas. You seem to have a very good command of the available sources and NPOV content writing.
564:, I'm not sure that is correct. In my timezone both reverts were done on the 22nd. The restriction specifies "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article." The reverts were ~12 hours apart. I'm pinging
986:
Thank you for that nice welcome! But, don't be too impressed, I still can't figure out how to upload pictures and I got stuck in the virtual sandbox, in fact, I might still be in it, but I'm too scared to check! Yikes!
2192:. That is correct, but the whole story is that I wanted to hear your opinion on how 3RR should be interpreted as (a) one administrator (in unrelated case) took it as a mitigating factor that the second revert was just
1656:, so, why won't you partially block? The page is under discretionary sanctions and that seems to be exactly what KB did and got blocked for, plus SPECIFICO is a big proponent of the rules as you can see up above.
1627:
emailed me asking to take a look at this. I do think that this is a violation of the BRD restriction, as you restored a contested edit within 24 hours. You need to get consensus for this change on the talk page
2184:
for I have never seen a case where a reliably sourced brief denial is considered undue. I had no idea Specifico's objection was somehow related to Breitbart. Moreover, the denial was only a part of Specifico's
1717:
that totally ignored an ongoing talk page discussion which the editor who made the change was aware of. Even worse, the editor disregarded the consensus of a number of experienced editors and administrators in
1974:
484:
1759:
And there are many ongoing talk page discussions. My bold edit was an attempt at a modest compromise; I did not at all "disregard" the views of others just because I did not agree with everything.
525:. Am I understanding the restriction correctly that the second revert could be a violation? I donāt have any interest in seeing editors sanctioned, but just wanted to be sure you were aware. Thanks.
2327:
I meant everything that I said about you being a fantastic editor far more magnanimous to me than I deserve, but I had to get a few things off my chest regarding another editor's contributions
3025:
Dear User:SPECIFICO, thank you for your messages on my talk page. Regardless of whether or not the term is frequently used in the United States, reliable sources and academics do, such as
2055:
1513:
I believe I've already stated it was a mistake, and as is the practice on these articles KB pointed it out on my talk page and I immediately self-reverted when it was pointed out to me.
738:
2074:
2040:
2386:
2180:
could be considered a reasonable paraphrase of that statement. Even if that were not the case, an editor disagreeing with that could have used an exact quote, an obvious case of
2032:
1791:
I don't understand why there is no block either, but it is consistent with everything else I have seen in Knowledge. I assume Specifico must have social capital here.
1665:
Well I guess we are done here. Just funny seeing no action when you said a few days ago "these restrictions need to be applied uniformly, or they simply won't work" and
1549:
I don't recall having seen an editor plead for immunity on the grounds that his judgment overrules the most liberal interpretation of 1RR. Those arguments never prevail.
582:
Mr. Ernie, the second one was a BLP issue. But at any rate, it was quickly undone by somebody else, so your concern is moot. I'm sure MrX has better uses of his time.
855:
1543:. BTW I agree with KB that it's UNDUE. But that's not the point. The point is you've violated BRD and 1RR and should self-revert, rather than arguing things like
918:
873:
2036:
1234:. Nobody else had objected to it, but you were correct that it would be better with a secondary source, so I replaced it with different secondary sourced text.
2540:
I do not agree that my edit was misleading. I cut wording that was not needed for the full point to be made - remember that the quote was also there. Regards
2984:
No, but I was gonna chime in too, before it was archived. And archiving it so soon means that the user might not have had enough time to see the response.
2373:
2359:
1142:
Reade biography article, maybe it would go in that one in the context of further information about how she is handling the publicity she's been receiving.
790:
506:
284:
candidate to move the process forward. If no alternatives are given in a reasonable amount of time, the administrator suggested RfC will be resubmitted.
1376:
764:
Mark wants something a certain way, heās intractable. Heāll typically only hold back if an admin says something. Regardless, thank you for looking out.
199:
And that's a "Copyedit (minor)"? In my opinion that is not an edit summary that should ever be seen on a reversion. It greatly misrepresents the edit. ā
2709:
1832:
1820:
1800:
1780:
1617:
1441:
1424:
1409:
1392:
1326:
1311:
1294:
1277:
1260:
1245:
1225:
1203:
996:
2486:
1938:
1922:
1907:
1894:
1474:
864:" regarding Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation. That section is now a green box. I am totally confused. Can you please explain it me? Thank you.
342:
2099:
1876:
1153:
1136:
1116:
954:
892:
2739:
1768:
1754:
146:
132:
2705:
2679:
2661:
2238:
977:
2639:
2622:
2608:
2592:
2127:
2113:
418:
119:
108:
3039:
It is UNDUE for this article. That is not a strong source for a term that is not generally used in American Politics. I'm glad you accept this.
2953:
Why did you archive the section on Republican bias on the Donald Trump talk page? The post wasn't up that long, and it seemed rather premature.
2756:
1870:
1847:
1570:
2861:
to get help understanding and editing within Knowledge policies and guidelines. Please take your concerns there and a volunteer will help you.
2414:
1583:
1554:
1490:
593:
464:
293:
251:
231:
214:
1856:
1700:
652:
636:
577:
556:
517:
Iām not sure if you are aware, but the Joe Biden assault allegation page is under a 1RR restriction. You reverted twice today that I can see,
360:
310:
3050:
3010:
2993:
2979:
2567:
2526:
2302:
2228:"consider the messenger, who appears somewhat prone to adverserial and ill-founded accusation rather than simple dialogue with other editors"
1966:
1660:
907:
270:
187:
3033:
2433:
2274:
1882:. It feels like people with power resist challenges by the riffraff for no other reason than fear of being challenged. I don't understand
1648:
1070:
2492:
2381:
1879:
1679:
1127:. I'll take your advise & contact the other editor. To me, the whole police report thing is a stunt that backfired ... a big eye-roll.
102:
2509:
2364:
Thank you for understanding, SPECIFICO. Yes, Valjean has been more accommodating than I expectedāand you're practically a Knowledge saint!
703:
683:
664:
1739:
278:
2819:
You are abusing your power by threatening to block another contributor to Wiikipedia, for which you yourself can be banned for editing.
2798:
If you keep reinserting BLP violations that have been challenged, you are likely to be blocked from editing. Use the article talk page.
2317:
341:
may express in the RfC. The RfC itself is the only record that will determine the outcome. You can see an example of a well-formed RfC
2341:
2328:
2059:
1928:
3020:
1992:
You are topic banned from editing material related to sexual misconduct allegations against Joe Biden for 1 week (until 20 May 2020).
299:
Hello thanks for the note. Could you give me a link to the discussion in which this format was suggested? Thanks. I will have a look
2962:
2164:
I tend to mostly agree with everything you wrote in those discussions. To clarify some things though, just for the record, you said
1098:
522:
518:
2549:
860:
Dear SPECIFCO, Sorry to bother you, but I have a serious question. I don't know what just happened with the talk discussion topic "
773:
2556:
in the future, or better than that -- find new content you feel is noteworthy and deserving of inclusion. Thanks for your visit.
2146:
1091:
1186:
830:
3026:
2906:
2845:
2790:
2151:
850:
2448:
1052:
2457:
2293:- I enjoy reading your thoughtful comments on here & have missed seeing them. I hope all is well with you. ~Sincerely
2253:
2210:
1524:
169:
2468:
2282:
1508:
641:
In terms of the article content, by the time I noticed it, which was before Ernie's visit, it had already been reverted.
375:
334:
2934:
2872:
2809:
2475:
reasonable and empirically valid conclusions of the source. You are indefatigable with your editing. Much appreciated.
2063:
appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.
1029:
2172:, but "their own source" was Fox News; the web article published by Fox News cited Nunes's blanket denial to Fox News:
753:
397:
2721:
2051:
for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanctionāand you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
388:
May I ask why you rv my 2019-20 Conronavirus edits as NPOV edit when everything I done was factual with updated info?
2948:
2235:"Consensus required" is widely followed by experienced editors on all articles, regardless of any DS page restriction
446:
1208:
I did not ask you to provide a source; I asked you to revert text which you added against consensus. Pinging Admin
2532:
2024:
2013:
2009:
2005:
2001:
2028:
1282:
You can acknowledge that I am asking you to stop adding text about The Times investigation, which you added here.
534:
325:
Additionally, the alternative wording I provided was exactly verbatim what was proposed on the discussion page.
2668:
You are very kind. Your efforts and your thoughtful discussions of these difficult topics are most appreciated.
1806:
729:
the project in the long run if people figure out how to work together instead of placing sanctions for what are
2369:
2337:
936:
769:
94:
89:
84:
72:
67:
59:
480:
3029:. Nevertheless, I'm not going to engage in an edit war with you over this. I hope this helps. With regards,
471:
re: Please do not cherrypick Trump Administration spin from the primary White House record of the briefings.
2902:
2841:
2786:
1789:
1712:
1283:
1175:
1172:
1169:
796:
2574:
2410:
1364:
194:
2445:
2142:
I have been away for months, but I just wanted to post a quick follow-up to these archived discussions:
1720:
1034:
38:
2822:
Your threats to block are a violation of Knowledge standards. Please familiarize yourself with them:
2365:
2333:
2048:
1934:
1918:
1890:
1816:
1796:
1764:
1750:
1613:
1437:
1420:
1388:
1322:
1290:
1256:
1231:
1221:
1182:
909:
resulting in move protection. I assume they mean to continue the discussion in the previous section.
765:
610:
It's a violation of 1RR because the reverts were less than 13 hours apart. There is an exemption for
2923:
to learn the ropes. I'm not a good resource for you because I'm done responding to you. Good luck.
2463:
2044:
1009:
476:
2298:
2123:
2095:
1132:
1087:
1076:
992:
914:
869:
154:
2717:
2322:
2017:
1605:
1601:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1576:
1540:
1536:
1532:
2497:
Hi. I hadn't checked that site before so thanks. Not sure you will have come across this page
2047:
to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be
1861:
Hey as long as the right people keep cashing my checks I seem to do alright most of the time.
1015:
491:
spin. I am not suggesting that was your intent, just that we need secondary RS. Please review
2898:
2837:
2782:
2657:
1372:
973:
316:
2498:
2894:
2833:
2778:
2618:
2588:
2398:
2249:
2206:
1930:
1914:
1900:
1886:
1866:
1825:
1812:
1792:
1773:
1760:
1746:
1696:
1688:
1609:
1433:
1416:
1384:
1318:
1286:
1252:
1217:
1178:
1163:
826:
779:
Ha. One day they'll come out with a retractable model. He's a nice guy, just perseverent.
734:
393:
925:
657:
Sorry I missed this. I was digging up another tree stump and chatting with my lawn guy. -
366:
Fair enough, thanks, I will take a look at this as an example and make the proper changes
8:
3045:
3005:
2974:
2929:
2867:
2804:
2751:
2735:
2674:
2634:
2603:
2562:
2521:
2481:
2452:
2428:
2354:
2137:
2069:
1805:
It cannot be argued that the difference here is that he has not "declined to self-revert"
1565:
1519:
1485:
1404:
1306:
1272:
1240:
1198:
1148:
1111:
1065:
949:
887:
845:
785:
748:
678:
647:
588:
501:
459:
413:
355:
305:
226:
182:
47:
17:
618:) but if you're going to claim the exemption you need to do it in the edit summary. See
2920:
2858:
2764:
2313:
2294:
2181:
2119:
2091:
1843:
1675:
1470:
1128:
1083:
988:
910:
865:
730:
573:
552:
530:
442:
246:
209:
127:
1048:
2727:
2713:
2406:
2196:
the 24-hour slot and (b) I have been told by the admin corpse ā few years ago ā that
1102:
758:
723:
630:
404:
371:
330:
289:
2190:"there wasn't a technical violation, which is why the editor reached out, I presume"
1838:
to ignore the sanction, but for some reason I canāt figure out what that reason is.
1285:
Please self-revert and do not add similar information back. You are edit-warring.
1043:
articles, yet you don't see me sending you messages lecturing you on trivial stuff.
2989:
2958:
2653:
2545:
2505:
2109:
1368:
983:
969:
428:
380:
266:
165:
1018:
do you support the section heading "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact
2968:
It was SOAPBOX and it was answered, I believe. Do you think it was constructive?
2614:
2613:
Windows XT? Been a while since I have seen that around. How has it been for you?
2584:
2245:
2202:
1963:
1862:
1829:
1785:
1777:
1657:
1643:
822:
619:
389:
1996:
You have been sanctioned for violation of the 1RR and enforced BRD sanctions at
898:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
3040:
3000:
2969:
2924:
2862:
2799:
2746:
2731:
2669:
2629:
2598:
2557:
2516:
2476:
2439:
2423:
2349:
2288:
2066:
1560:
1514:
1480:
1399:
1301:
1267:
1235:
1211:
1193:
1143:
1122:
1106:
1060:
944:
882:
840:
780:
745:
673:
642:
583:
496:
492:
454:
408:
350:
300:
236:
But "undo edit by Birtig" is not a rationale for reversion. That's the point. ā
221:
177:
1883:
2854:
2699:
2309:
1904:
1853:
1839:
1692:
1684:
1671:
1666:
1624:
1580:
1551:
1505:
1466:
1026:
1022:" or the previous version "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact"? -
700:
661:
569:
561:
548:
542:
526:
438:
346:
237:
200:
139:
112:
1044:
547:
These edits were on different days, so I can't see this being a problem. --
2916:
2240:
Is there a reason why you do not hold yourself to same standards as others?
625:
512:
367:
326:
285:
2166:"I can see where issues of reliability might arise if their own source is
3030:
2985:
2954:
2771:
The information sourced is hardly insignificant or inadequately sourced.
2541:
2501:
2444:
I'm not sure if you are able to read Pulido et al. which you edited here
2105:
1727:
262:
161:
2579:
To be fair I found Specifico's edit summary to be misleading. What does
1810:
2919:
article and others as well as Corn's. I'd again suggest you visit the
2765:
2402:
1959:
1927:
Admins only like advice for who to block if it comes from other admins?
1707:
1653:
1633:
2033:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision
1981:
1975:
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
1788:, all he has to do is wait for someone else to "reset" the Reade text.
2391:
Hello, have you even read the consensus, before making that comment?
2271:
2159:
1997:
1040:
1875:
I'm sure somehow I'd get boomeranged for not "drinking the Kool-Aid"
923:
Oh thanks. Such grim pursuit of something so elusive. Reminds me of
568:
who I consider an expert on AP2 restrictions. Can you help clarify?
475:
A transcript isn't spin. It is just the record of what people said.
1023:
805:
697:
658:
565:
1039:
Hi. There's been plenty wrong with your behaviour recently around
960:
edits - though all things considered I did not do too bad either.
689:
2230:. If you have any specific examples, perhaps I can address them.
968:
You have a remarkable intellect and I hope you stick around.
2395:(#30). I didnt touch any of that info, just added something.
2597:
It's a software glitch in my Windows XT system. Apologies.
2392:
2054:
You may appeal this sanction using the process described
1539:, and then you re-inserted it less than 24 hrs later at
1431:
261:
addition was necessary - you thought otherwise. Regards
2037:
Knowledge:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions
2515:
Great close-up of Ivanka on the upper right. Thanks.
1363:"CIVILPOVPUSHING", what ever is this? Is it this:
437:
with some of these people, you know what I mean? --
109:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SPECIFICO
2500:which I assume you will find interesting. Regards
2198:"whether involving the same or different material"
2043:. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the
1177:Please self-revert and discuss on the talk page.
2830:future. See Knowledge:Do not bite the newcomers.
2176:This appears to be moot now, but I believe that
856:Can you please explain to me what just happened?
107:There is a discussion regarding your conduct at
2447:. I'm able to read it and this is what I found
2035:and, if applicable, the procedure described at
737:which is not only really interesting, but also
2857:policy. Did you look at it? You can go to the
2152:User talk:SPECIFICO/Archive 16#RE: Devin Nunes
2023:This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an
1545:please don't demand I revert an innocuous edit
1097:Hi. So it appears that your edit was reversed
2147:User talk:El C/generic sub-page15#Devin Nunes
1535:you added content, KB removed it as UNDUE at
1479:Ernie it was not the same thing reinserted.
1988:The following sanction now applies to you:
1579:is still the latest revision on Joe Biden.
138:together for mutual benefit in the future.
2393:https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Donald_Trump
2261:Since I was pinged: I view this matter as
1691:admins. How many days until November 3? ā
1383:Are you going to remove the text or not?
1014:Hi SPECIFICO. Regarding the discussion at
614:vandalism and BLP violations (emphasis on
2104:Mmmmm entrenched battleground behaviour.
2039:. This sanction has been recorded in the
1230:I did remove the text, per your request,
2060:arbitration enforcement appeals template
688:
160:to the information I had added. Regards
14:
2999:does not support article improvement.
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
2387:In which SPECIFICO meets a sockmaster
2226:Please stop casting aspersions, e.g.
1632:wait 24 hours before restoring it. ā
2853:I gave you a link to read about our
2646:
2084:
961:
103:Arbitration enforcement notification
25:
279:Deep State in the United States RfC
23:
2348:important. Thanks for your visit.
1710:,Ā What SPECIFICO did was revert a
935:
924:
897:
24:
3062:
2816:understand how this is a smaear.
1192:Done. Secondary source provided.
2647:
2262:
2233:You wrote, on 22 November, that
2085:
1980:
1588:I think it goes like this: bold:
962:
804:
731:normal human reactions to stress
495:and err on the side of caution.
29:
2581:Restoring lonstonvstanding text
2493:Thanks for 'noted with a smile'
2058:. I recommend that you use the
1367:? This sounds very serious...
739:has renewed readership interest
2710:getting the reaction it merits
2219:Please stop (mis)gendering me.
13:
1:
2178:"Nunes denies the allegation"
1575:No, you did not self-revert,
1016:Talk:Joe Biden#Section header
2174:"So none of this is true..."
2118:Clearly quite the opposite.
1168:Specifico, you restored text
862:Requested move 29 April 2020
7:
2879:fairness and completeness.
2283:Hoping all is well with you
2027:under the authority of the
1899:I'd say you understand it,
1365:Knowledge:Civil POV pushing
10:
3067:
2382:"Restore listed consensus"
1559:Right, I did self-revert.
1030:16:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
997:09:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
978:22:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
955:21:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
919:20:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
906:There was a discussion at
893:20:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
874:19:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
851:01:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
831:01:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
791:19:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
774:19:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
754:19:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
704:23:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
684:20:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
665:20:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
653:19:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
637:18:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
594:18:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
578:18:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
557:18:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
535:17:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
507:17:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
485:17:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
465:22:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
447:22:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
419:11:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
398:02:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
376:23:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
361:23:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
335:23:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
311:17:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
294:17:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
271:23:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
252:00:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
232:23:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
215:22:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
188:22:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
170:22:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
3051:18:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
3034:18:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
3011:16:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
2994:04:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
2980:22:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
2963:21:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
2949:Archive Donald Trump talk
2935:02:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
2873:19:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
2810:18:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
2757:18:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
2740:18:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
2722:02:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
2020:the previous violation).
1880:Joe Biden BLPN discussion
810:
803:
147:14:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
133:06:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
120:04:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
2680:20:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
2662:20:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
2640:19:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
2623:18:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
2609:18:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
2593:18:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
2568:17:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
2550:16:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
2533:Misleading edit summary?
2527:12:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
2510:07:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
2487:12:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
2469:02:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
2434:15:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
2415:09:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
2374:20:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
2360:18:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
2342:04:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
2318:20:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
2303:23:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
2275:17:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
2254:13:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
2211:13:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
2128:10:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
2114:03:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
2100:00:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
2075:23:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
2025:uninvolved administrator
1967:13:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
1939:23:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
1923:19:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
1908:18:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
1895:18:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
1871:16:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
1857:16:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
1848:16:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
1833:16:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
1821:13:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
1801:13:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
1781:13:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
1769:13:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
1755:13:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
1740:08:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
1701:15:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
1680:06:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
1661:23:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1649:23:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1618:22:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1584:21:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1571:21:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1555:21:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1525:21:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1509:21:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1491:21:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1475:20:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1442:20:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1425:20:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1410:20:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1393:19:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1377:18:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1327:18:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1312:15:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1295:15:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1278:14:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1261:14:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1246:13:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1226:13:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1204:13:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1187:13:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
669:I hope you had a permit!
3021:Re:"Christian Democrat"
2628:getting boring, right?
1154:22:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
1137:21:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
1117:18:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
1092:16:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
1071:23:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
1053:22:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
345:. There is guidance at
1994:
1962:, any action on this?
1606:Special:Diff/955910074
1602:Special:Diff/955909770
1598:Special:Diff/955900473
1594:Special:Diff/955895855
1590:Special:Diff/955772478
1577:Special:Diff/955910074
1541:Special:Diff/955910074
1537:Special:Diff/955895855
1533:Special:Diff/955772478
1504:Guess who wrote that.
1502:
940:
932:
902:
694:
2029:Arbitration Committee
1990:
1852:House POV obviously.
1497:
1251:alternate versions.
939:
928:
901:
814:The Editor's Barnstar
692:
42:of past discussions.
2366:TheTimesAreAChanging
2334:TheTimesAreAChanging
1174:after I reverted it.
1171:you had boldly added
766:Symmachus Auxiliarus
735:Trillion-dollar coin
477:Sailing californium
18:User talk:SPECIFICO
1020:and sexual assault
941:
933:
903:
695:
433:Sometimes I can't
2910:
2897:comment added by
2849:
2836:comment added by
2794:
2781:comment added by
2575:talk page stalker
2417:
2401:comment added by
1884:what's happening?
1713:"series of edits"
836:
835:
797:Here's a barnstar
693:Yep, I'm all set.
634:
195:talk page stalker
131:
100:
99:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
3058:
2899:Cathradgenations
2892:
2838:Cathradgenations
2831:
2783:Cathradgenations
2776:
2652:
2651:
2650:
2578:
2460:
2455:
2396:
2266:
2265:
2163:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2073:
2041:log of sanctions
2014:this reinsertion
2006:this reinsertion
1984:
1737:
1732:
1724:
1716:
1646:
1641:
1215:
1010:Can you clarify?
967:
966:
965:
934:lepidopterists.
808:
801:
800:
752:
635:
628:
546:
405:Bob's your uncle
249:
244:
212:
207:
198:
143:
130:
116:
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
3066:
3065:
3061:
3060:
3059:
3057:
3056:
3055:
3023:
2951:
2769:
2702:
2648:
2572:
2535:
2495:
2458:
2453:
2442:
2389:
2384:
2325:
2285:
2263:
2157:
2140:
2086:
2079:
2078:
2064:
2031:'s decision at
1985:
1977:
1931:Kolya Butternut
1915:Kolya Butternut
1887:Kolya Butternut
1826:Kolya Butternut
1813:Kolya Butternut
1793:Kolya Butternut
1774:Kolya Butternut
1761:Kolya Butternut
1747:Kolya Butternut
1733:
1728:
1719:
1711:
1687:, yeah we need
1644:
1634:
1610:Kolya Butternut
1434:Kolya Butternut
1417:Kolya Butternut
1385:Kolya Butternut
1319:Kolya Butternut
1287:Kolya Butternut
1253:Kolya Butternut
1218:Kolya Butternut
1209:
1179:Kolya Butternut
1166:
1079:
1077:Revert question
1037:
1012:
963:
858:
799:
761:
743:
726:
623:
540:
515:
473:
431:
383:
319:
281:
247:
238:
210:
201:
192:
157:
155:Why the revert?
141:
114:
105:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3064:
3054:
3053:
3022:
3019:
3018:
3017:
3016:
3015:
3014:
3013:
2950:
2947:
2938:
2937:
2876:
2875:
2813:
2812:
2768:
2763:
2762:
2761:
2760:
2759:
2701:
2698:
2697:
2696:
2695:
2694:
2693:
2692:
2691:
2690:
2689:
2688:
2687:
2686:
2685:
2684:
2683:
2682:
2534:
2531:
2530:
2529:
2494:
2491:
2490:
2489:
2441:
2438:
2437:
2436:
2388:
2385:
2383:
2380:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2376:
2324:
2323:For the record
2321:
2284:
2281:
2280:
2279:
2278:
2277:
2242:
2241:
2231:
2224:
2220:
2188:You also said
2155:
2154:
2149:
2139:
2136:
2135:
2134:
2133:
2132:
2131:
2130:
2045:banning policy
2018:self reverting
2002:this insertion
1986:
1979:
1978:
1976:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1925:
1873:
1859:
1803:
1757:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1663:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1600:, self revert:
1586:
1557:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1427:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1165:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1078:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1036:
1033:
1011:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
896:
895:
857:
854:
834:
833:
817:
816:
811:
809:
798:
795:
794:
793:
760:
757:
725:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
670:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
514:
511:
510:
509:
472:
469:
468:
467:
430:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
382:
379:
364:
363:
318:
315:
314:
313:
280:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
258:
257:
256:
255:
254:
156:
153:
152:
151:
150:
149:
104:
101:
98:
97:
92:
87:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3063:
3052:
3049:
3048:
3044:
3043:
3038:
3037:
3036:
3035:
3032:
3028:
3012:
3009:
3008:
3004:
3003:
2997:
2996:
2995:
2991:
2987:
2983:
2982:
2981:
2978:
2977:
2973:
2972:
2967:
2966:
2965:
2964:
2960:
2956:
2946:
2942:
2936:
2933:
2932:
2928:
2927:
2922:
2918:
2913:
2912:
2911:
2908:
2904:
2900:
2896:
2888:
2884:
2880:
2874:
2871:
2870:
2866:
2865:
2860:
2856:
2852:
2851:
2850:
2847:
2843:
2839:
2835:
2827:
2823:
2820:
2817:
2811:
2808:
2807:
2803:
2802:
2797:
2796:
2795:
2792:
2788:
2784:
2780:
2772:
2767:
2758:
2755:
2754:
2750:
2749:
2743:
2742:
2741:
2737:
2733:
2729:
2726:
2725:
2724:
2723:
2719:
2715:
2711:
2707:
2704:In regard to
2681:
2678:
2677:
2673:
2672:
2667:
2666:
2665:
2664:
2663:
2659:
2655:
2643:
2642:
2641:
2638:
2637:
2633:
2632:
2626:
2625:
2624:
2620:
2616:
2612:
2611:
2610:
2607:
2606:
2602:
2601:
2596:
2595:
2594:
2590:
2586:
2582:
2576:
2571:
2570:
2569:
2566:
2565:
2561:
2560:
2554:
2553:
2552:
2551:
2547:
2543:
2538:
2528:
2525:
2524:
2520:
2519:
2514:
2513:
2512:
2511:
2507:
2503:
2499:
2488:
2485:
2484:
2480:
2479:
2473:
2472:
2471:
2470:
2467:
2465:
2461:
2456:
2449:
2446:
2435:
2432:
2431:
2427:
2426:
2420:
2419:
2418:
2416:
2412:
2408:
2404:
2400:
2394:
2375:
2371:
2367:
2363:
2362:
2361:
2358:
2357:
2353:
2352:
2346:
2345:
2344:
2343:
2339:
2335:
2330:
2320:
2319:
2315:
2311:
2305:
2304:
2300:
2296:
2295:BetsyRMadison
2292:
2291:
2276:
2273:
2269:
2260:
2259:
2258:
2257:
2256:
2255:
2251:
2247:
2239:
2236:
2232:
2229:
2225:
2221:
2218:
2217:
2216:
2213:
2212:
2208:
2204:
2199:
2195:
2191:
2186:
2183:
2179:
2175:
2171:
2169:
2161:
2153:
2150:
2148:
2145:
2144:
2143:
2129:
2125:
2121:
2117:
2116:
2115:
2111:
2107:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2097:
2093:
2081:
2080:
2077:
2076:
2071:
2068:
2061:
2057:
2052:
2050:
2046:
2042:
2038:
2034:
2030:
2026:
2021:
2019:
2015:
2011:
2007:
2003:
1999:
1993:
1989:
1983:
1968:
1965:
1961:
1958:
1940:
1936:
1932:
1929:
1926:
1924:
1920:
1916:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1906:
1902:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1892:
1888:
1885:
1881:
1877:
1874:
1872:
1868:
1864:
1860:
1858:
1855:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1831:
1827:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1811:
1807:
1804:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1787:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1779:
1775:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1766:
1762:
1758:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1738:
1736:
1731:
1722:
1714:
1709:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1694:
1690:
1689:WP:UNINVOLVED
1686:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1677:
1673:
1668:
1664:
1662:
1659:
1655:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1647:
1642:
1640:
1639:
1631:
1626:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1585:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1569:
1568:
1564:
1563:
1558:
1556:
1553:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1523:
1522:
1518:
1517:
1511:
1510:
1507:
1501:
1492:
1489:
1488:
1484:
1483:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1463:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1432:
1428:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1408:
1407:
1403:
1402:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1310:
1309:
1305:
1304:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1276:
1275:
1271:
1270:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1244:
1243:
1239:
1238:
1233:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1213:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1202:
1201:
1197:
1196:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1173:
1170:
1155:
1152:
1151:
1147:
1146:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1129:BetsyRMadison
1126:
1125:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1115:
1114:
1110:
1109:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1084:BetsyRMadison
1072:
1069:
1068:
1064:
1063:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1032:
1031:
1028:
1025:
1021:
1017:
998:
994:
990:
989:BetsyRMadison
985:
981:
980:
979:
975:
971:
958:
957:
956:
953:
952:
948:
947:
938:
931:
927:
922:
921:
920:
916:
912:
908:
905:
904:
900:
894:
891:
890:
886:
885:
879:
878:
877:
876:betsymadison
875:
871:
867:
866:BetsyRMadison
863:
853:
852:
849:
848:
844:
843:
832:
828:
824:
819:
818:
815:
812:
807:
802:
792:
789:
788:
784:
783:
778:
777:
776:
775:
771:
767:
756:
755:
750:
747:
740:
736:
732:
705:
702:
699:
691:
687:
686:
685:
682:
681:
677:
676:
671:
668:
667:
666:
663:
660:
656:
655:
654:
651:
650:
646:
645:
640:
639:
638:
632:
627:
621:
617:
613:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
595:
592:
591:
587:
586:
581:
580:
579:
575:
571:
567:
563:
560:
559:
558:
554:
550:
544:
539:
538:
537:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
508:
505:
504:
500:
499:
494:
489:
488:
487:
486:
482:
478:
466:
463:
462:
458:
457:
451:
450:
449:
448:
444:
440:
436:
420:
417:
416:
412:
411:
406:
401:
400:
399:
395:
391:
387:
386:
385:
384:
378:
377:
373:
369:
362:
359:
358:
354:
353:
348:
344:
339:
338:
337:
336:
332:
328:
323:
317:Rfc I created
312:
309:
308:
304:
303:
298:
297:
296:
295:
291:
287:
272:
268:
264:
259:
253:
250:
245:
243:
242:
235:
234:
233:
230:
229:
225:
224:
218:
217:
216:
213:
208:
206:
205:
196:
191:
190:
189:
186:
185:
181:
180:
174:
173:
172:
171:
167:
163:
148:
145:
144:
136:
135:
134:
129:
128:Seraphimblade
124:
123:
122:
121:
118:
117:
110:
96:
93:
91:
88:
86:
83:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
3046:
3041:
3024:
3006:
3001:
2975:
2970:
2952:
2943:
2939:
2930:
2925:
2917:Ben Domenech
2893:āĀ Preceding
2889:
2885:
2881:
2877:
2868:
2863:
2832:āĀ Preceding
2828:
2824:
2821:
2818:
2814:
2805:
2800:
2777:āĀ Preceding
2773:
2770:
2752:
2747:
2728:Grandpallama
2714:Grandpallama
2703:
2675:
2670:
2635:
2630:
2604:
2599:
2583:even mean?!
2580:
2563:
2558:
2539:
2536:
2522:
2517:
2496:
2482:
2477:
2451:
2443:
2429:
2424:
2397:āĀ Preceding
2390:
2355:
2350:
2326:
2306:
2289:
2286:
2267:
2243:
2234:
2227:
2214:
2197:
2193:
2189:
2187:
2177:
2173:
2167:
2165:
2156:
2141:
2053:
2022:
1995:
1991:
1987:
1734:
1729:
1637:
1635:
1629:
1566:
1561:
1548:
1544:
1520:
1515:
1512:
1503:
1498:
1486:
1481:
1405:
1400:
1307:
1302:
1273:
1268:
1241:
1236:
1199:
1194:
1167:
1164:Edit warring
1149:
1144:
1123:
1112:
1107:
1080:
1066:
1061:
1038:
1019:
1013:
999:betsymadison
950:
945:
929:
888:
883:
861:
859:
846:
841:
837:
821:the future!
813:
786:
781:
762:
727:
679:
674:
672:And a mask.
648:
643:
615:
611:
589:
584:
516:
502:
497:
474:
460:
455:
434:
432:
414:
409:
403:version and
365:
356:
351:
324:
320:
306:
301:
282:
240:
239:
227:
222:
203:
202:
183:
178:
158:
140:
113:
106:
78:
43:
37:
2921:WP:TEAHOUSE
2859:WP:TEAHOUSE
2654:Gandydancer
2215:Specifico,
2138:Devin Nunes
1369:Gandydancer
984:Gandydancer
970:Gandydancer
36:This is an
2766:David Corn
2615:PackMecEng
2585:PackMecEng
2246:Politrukki
2203:Politrukki
1964:Sir Joseph
1863:PackMecEng
1830:Sir Joseph
1786:Sir Joseph
1778:Sir Joseph
1658:Sir Joseph
1604:, restore:
1596:, restore:
1547:, because
1103:WP:NOTNEWS
930:BLESZYNSKI
823:RedHotPear
390:Bsubprime7
95:ArchiveĀ 20
90:ArchiveĀ 19
85:ArchiveĀ 18
79:ArchiveĀ 17
73:ArchiveĀ 16
68:ArchiveĀ 15
60:ArchiveĀ 10
3042:SPECIFICO
3002:SPECIFICO
2971:SPECIFICO
2926:SPECIFICO
2864:SPECIFICO
2801:SPECIFICO
2748:SPECIFICO
2745:the way.
2732:soibangla
2706:this edit
2671:SPECIFICO
2631:SPECIFICO
2600:SPECIFICO
2559:SPECIFICO
2537:Hi there
2518:SPECIFICO
2478:SPECIFICO
2425:SPECIFICO
2351:SPECIFICO
2290:SPECIFICO
2168:Breitbart
1998:Joe Biden
1592:, revert:
1562:SPECIFICO
1516:SPECIFICO
1482:SPECIFICO
1401:SPECIFICO
1303:SPECIFICO
1269:SPECIFICO
1237:SPECIFICO
1212:Wugapodes
1195:SPECIFICO
1145:SPECIFICO
1124:SPECIFICO
1108:SPECIFICO
1062:SPECIFICO
1041:Joe Biden
946:SPECIFICO
884:SPECIFICO
842:SPECIFICO
782:SPECIFICO
759:Thank you
724:Two cents
675:SPECIFICO
644:SPECIFICO
585:SPECIFICO
498:SPECIFICO
456:SPECIFICO
410:SPECIFICO
352:SPECIFICO
302:SPECIFICO
223:SPECIFICO
179:SPECIFICO
3027:this one
2907:contribs
2895:unsigned
2846:contribs
2834:unsigned
2791:contribs
2779:unsigned
2454:starship
2411:contribs
2399:unsigned
2310:Mr Ernie
2244:Cheers,
2182:PRESERVE
2070:aĀ·poĀ·des
1905:Levivich
1854:Levivich
1840:Mr Ernie
1693:Muboshgu
1685:Mr Ernie
1672:Mr Ernie
1667:Muboshgu
1625:Mr Ernie
1581:Levivich
1552:Levivich
1506:Levivich
1467:Mr Ernie
1035:"Advise"
749:aĀ·poĀ·des
620:WP:BANEX
570:Mr Ernie
562:Scjessey
549:Scjessey
543:Mr Ernie
527:Mr Ernie
439:Scjessey
429:Facepalm
381:RV Edits
241:Mandruss
204:Mandruss
142:Ergo Sum
115:Ergo Sum
2185:revert.
2049:blocked
2016:(after
2012:), and
2008:(after
1878:at the
1809:revert.
1430:remedy.
1121:Thanks
626:Awilley
616:obvious
612:obvious
493:WP:NPOV
368:Amorals
327:Amorals
286:TMLutas
39:archive
3031:Anupam
2986:Prcc27
2955:Prcc27
2855:WP:BLP
2542:Birtig
2502:Birtig
2459:.paint
2440:Pulido
2194:inside
2106:Cjhard
2010:revert
1721:"BLPN"
347:WP:RfC
263:Birtig
162:Birtig
2700:TBANs
2403:Urgal
2329:here,
2268:Stale
2120:O3000
2092:O3000
2000:with
1960:Bradv
1718:this
1708:bradv
1654:Bradv
1045:BeŻet
982:Dear
911:O3000
16:<
3047:talk
3007:talk
2990:talk
2976:talk
2959:talk
2931:talk
2903:talk
2869:talk
2842:talk
2806:talk
2787:talk
2753:talk
2736:talk
2718:talk
2676:talk
2658:talk
2636:talk
2619:talk
2605:talk
2589:talk
2564:talk
2546:talk
2523:talk
2506:talk
2483:talk
2464:talk
2430:talk
2407:talk
2370:talk
2356:talk
2338:talk
2314:talk
2299:talk
2272:El_C
2250:talk
2207:talk
2160:El C
2124:talk
2110:talk
2096:talk
2067:WugĀ·
2056:here
1935:talk
1919:talk
1891:talk
1867:talk
1844:talk
1817:talk
1797:talk
1765:talk
1751:talk
1697:talk
1676:talk
1636:brad
1614:talk
1567:talk
1521:talk
1487:talk
1471:talk
1438:talk
1421:talk
1406:talk
1389:talk
1373:talk
1323:talk
1308:talk
1291:talk
1274:talk
1257:talk
1242:talk
1232:here
1222:talk
1200:talk
1183:talk
1150:talk
1133:talk
1113:talk
1099:here
1088:talk
1067:talk
1049:talk
993:talk
974:talk
951:talk
915:talk
889:talk
870:talk
847:talk
827:talk
787:talk
770:talk
746:WugĀ·
680:talk
649:talk
631:talk
590:talk
574:talk
553:talk
531:talk
523:here
521:and
519:here
513:1RR?
503:talk
481:talk
461:talk
443:talk
435:even
415:talk
394:talk
372:talk
357:talk
343:here
331:talk
307:talk
290:talk
267:talk
228:talk
184:talk
166:talk
2287:Hi
1735:527
1730:CBS
1630:AND
1608:.
1024:MrX
698:MrX
659:MrX
566:MrX
2992:)
2961:)
2909:)
2905:ā¢
2848:)
2844:ā¢
2793:)
2789:ā¢
2738:)
2720:)
2712:.
2660:)
2621:)
2591:)
2548:)
2508:)
2450:.
2413:)
2409:ā¢
2372:)
2340:)
2316:)
2301:)
2252:)
2209:)
2126:)
2112:)
2098:)
2065:ā
2004:,
1937:)
1921:)
1901:KB
1893:)
1869:)
1846:)
1819:)
1799:)
1767:)
1753:)
1699:)
1678:)
1645:š
1616:)
1473:)
1440:)
1423:)
1391:)
1375:)
1325:)
1293:)
1259:)
1224:)
1216:.
1185:)
1135:)
1090:)
1051:)
1027:š
995:)
976:)
917:)
872:)
829:)
772:)
744:ā
701:š
696:-
662:š
622:.
576:)
555:)
533:)
483:)
445:)
407:.
396:)
374:)
349:.
333:)
292:)
269:)
168:)
111:.
64:ā
2988:(
2957:(
2901:(
2840:(
2785:(
2734:(
2716:(
2656:(
2617:(
2587:(
2577:)
2573:(
2544:(
2504:(
2466:)
2462:(
2405:(
2368:(
2336:(
2312:(
2297:(
2248:(
2237:.
2205:(
2170:"
2162::
2158:@
2122:(
2108:(
2094:(
2072:ā
1933:(
1917:(
1889:(
1865:(
1842:(
1815:(
1795:(
1763:(
1749:(
1723:.
1715:.
1695:(
1674:(
1638:v
1612:(
1469:(
1436:(
1419:(
1387:(
1371:(
1321:(
1289:(
1255:(
1220:(
1214::
1210:@
1181:(
1131:(
1086:(
1047:(
991:(
972:(
913:(
868:(
825:(
768:(
751:ā
633:)
629:(
624:~
572:(
551:(
545::
541:@
529:(
479:(
441:(
392:(
370:(
329:(
288:(
265:(
248:ā
211:ā
197:)
193:(
164:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.