Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics

1689:

stalking him) in the fine art of poisoning Knowledge articles. I must say that P. & W.'s comments are surprising and quite misleading. In particular, even if the Franklin allegations are true, Lawrence King was one of the few African Americans involved and the overwhelming majority of the alleged perpetrators were white – race played no part in my decision to edit the article. I was in substantial agreement with one other editor, yet I hardly "mentored" him, we were never "partners," and I have had no contact with him after editing Franklin. I don’t intend to reargue the Franklin case here, however those who may be wondering why I chose to edit Franklin in the first place should know the following: the Franklin allegations did include complaints of child abuse and child prostitution, based on considerable evidence presented before a Nebraska legislative committee, however I always considered the more sensational allegations (Satan worship or "snuff films") spurious; the allegations were championed by State Senator John DeCamp who is also an attorney in good standing in Lincoln, Nebraska; DeCamp and many others (including the legislative committee that brought the Franklin allegations before a grand jury) did not consider these allegations to have been "a hoax" and they formally objected to the grand jury's ruling; P. & W. successfully challenged the sourcing of the article based on the fact that the 700-odd Omaha World-Herald articles used for sourcing were available mostly on mirrored sites; there was no doubt as to their authenticity, which we were able to spot check, however despite their initial validation as reliable sources, the mirroring was eventually deemed inappropriate; I abandoned the article because I could not afford to directly access the Omaha World-Herald articles using the paywall protocols they established, and not because the Omaha World-Herald articles constituted unreliable sourcing; I have no intention of returning to edit the Franklin article, because there is evidence the net of involvement extends into very high political circles at the national level, and I do not have the requisite resources to fight an extended battle for inclusion of the story on Knowledge. I know that Knowledge cannot do justice to every story.

1564:

faith. Prior to the April ANI discussion, my usual rule when editing racially sensitive articles was to imagine I was in a room filled with people from varying racial backgrounds. The problem is that when I imagined that room, the people I pictured were immediate family, extended family and close friends—all of whom know that I am a multi-racial and multi-ethnic person (Northern European, Black, Native American, Ashkenazi Jew) whose multi-racial and multi-ethnic spouse (Chinese, Portuguese, Filipino) and multi-racial and multi-ethnic children and grandchildren are all “people of color.” They know that my white maternal ancestors were Quakers who fully condemned American chattel slavery, that my paternal family ended up in California at the beginning of the Civil War because they sheltered runaway slaves on their Missouri farm in defiance of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 (for which their farm was confiscated), and that I have been active in the American Civil Rights movement since my middle-teens (1963) as a champion of racial equality. In other words, when I picture myself among family and friends, they are mostly “people of color,” and I have standing; they know I am not a racist and that I harbor no animosity towards any racial group. So when I wrote on “Criminal Black Man Stereotype: Talk” that I have found it a regrettable necessity, because of repeated experiences with black-on-black, black-on-white, and black-on-asian crime, to be wary of unknown black men in public (street) settings, I was saying no more than Jesse Jackson when he lamented, “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps... then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved.” But I am not as recognizable as Jesse Jackson; I would not venture into this territory today, following the ANI discussion, because I now realize that my comments would likely be perceived as racist. On Knowledge, as in politics, I now know that perception is reality, and even incorrect perceptions can lead to hurt feelings.

1621:

Robert Trivors during interviews journalist/writer Hugh Pearson conducted with both men after Newton’s death. Although the legitimacy of these interview has never been questioned, and both men say that Newton admitted killing Frey and was proud of having done so (Trivors says that Newton bragged to him on multiple occasions, “’The baddest ni-----r that ever walked’ was the phrase he would use with me, because he had killed a white police officer and gotten away with it,” remembers Trivors .) UTCL wishes to dismiss these interviews, even though she once used Pearson as a source, referencing the fact that Newton was proud of having killed Frey because it put the police on notice in Oakland’s black neighborhoods. I believe the information Pearson gained from these interviews should be included, because Newton’s original claim of innocence was a seminal event that led to the “Free Huey” campaign and threats by Oakland Panthers that they would precipitate a race war, initially in Oakland’s ghettos and then nationwide, if Huey P. Newton were not freed. This is not the place to debate the legitimacy of Pearson’s account, however I consider UTCL’s attempt to portray Newton’s confession as merely the result of inebriate ramblings during the evening prior to his death, as highly disingenuous. The reason I have not returned to the Newton article to reinstate the information is because I have not been able to find two articles UTCL added as sources, and I know that any rewrite of this section must withstand extreme scrutiny.

1761:, both of which she started without any discussion on the relevant pages. This is not the first time she has brought the same trivial matter to AN/I and so far has been unsuccessful in garnering support. When consensus in arbitration was against her, she resorted to immature behavior, insults, etc, and threatened to permanently leave wikipedia. In my opinion, she has shown a clear pattern of taking minor disputes directly to arbitration/Dispute resolution/noticeboard, and is never hesitant to escalate a situation. She only just returned to wikipedia after an extended break, and has taken at least 3 different matters that I am now involved in to some sort of resolution center. She is very stubborn and has a very strong POV stance. I can't necessarily comment on Apostle12's behavior, as I don't have much history editing along side him, but he seems to be a good faith, if somewhat misguided and unpopular editor. Certainly, wikipedia is not a popularity contest. A mentor for both UTCL and Apostle12 would do the community well, considering both have somewhat contentious histories. Hell, even I could go for a mentor. 1599:“What became standard Black Panther discourse emerged from a long history of urban activism, social criticism and political struggle by African Americans. There is considerable debate about the impact that the Black Panther Party had on the greater society, or even their local environment. Author Jama Lazerow writes “As inheritors of the discipline, pride, and calm self-assurance preached by Malcolm X, the Panthers became national heroes in African American communities by infusing abstract nationalism with street toughness—by joining the rhythms of black working-class youth culture to the interracial élan and effervescence of Bay Area New Left politics...In 1966, the Panthers defined Oakland’s ghetto as a territory, the police as interlopers, and the Panther mission as the defense of community. The Panthers' famous “policing the police” drew attention to the spatial remove that White Americans enjoyed from the state violence that had come to characterize life in black urban communities.” In his book 1650:

political organization he and Bobby Seale founded reflected similar qualities. Please note that I have been the first to edit these articles to defend against vandalism, racist attacks or other distortions that discredit those involved, and the recent section on “Womanism” that I helped edit in the Black Panther article is a good example of my positive contributions. Yet when I began editing these articles, it quickly became clear that they did not reflect a neutral point of view. Many of the negative aspects of Huey P. Newton’s character (Pearson explores these character attributes in detail and Elaine Brown, Bobby Seale, David Hilliard and many others augment his observations) were nowhere to be found in the Knowledge article, nor did the Black Panther article present a balanced portrayal of Party activities.

1654:

similar danger exists with regard to other race-related articles – “White privilege” and “Criminal black man stereotype” are among them. I decided to take the risk and begin editing articles having to do with race, and if there is a common thread to my editing it is my commitment to a neutral point of view. I agree with Newyorkbrad when he writes “No one can deny that the subject-matters of race, of crime, and of their intersection are of transcendent social importance and are worthy of full encyclopedic coverage on Knowledge, during the course of which some very disheartening facts and statistics must be addressed.”

1560:

presence among NBA and NFL players), or more or less neutral with respect to black outcomes (whites, blacks and other asian groups all come up short when compared to the educational accomplishments of east asians) — my point was only to spotlight differential outcomes that relate more to personal responsibility than to the existence of white privilege, and I never disparaged blacks or any other racial group. I also agreed to present sources for any controversial discussion on Talk as per TParis’s request and to refrain from relating personal stories that I considered relevant to Talk discussions.

1613:.) It should be noted that UTCL’s wholesale rejection of Kate Coleman as a reliable source is not established policy, and her work is used as a source in various articles. Other editors, especially Pokey5945, have been in conflict with UTCL for a long time regarding this issue, and Pokey withdrew from editing the “Huey P. Newton” article because UTCL refused even to consider Coleman’s status as a respected contributor to the literature surrounding Huey P. Newton, Eldridge Cleaver and the Black Panthers. UTCL has consistently proven herself intractable and unwilling to compromise. 1508:

fewer resources for dealing with behavioral issues, which means that only the most obviously egregious behavioral issues are addressed or even commented upon. The consequence of this is that behavioral issues are allowed to fester, and may wind up further polarizing editors. Providing for additional levels for both complaint and appeal of behavioral issues, and their oversight, may help ensure that those with complaints feel that they have gotten a fair hearing, and over the long term that ArbCom's time is used only for the most difficult examples of problematic behavior. --

1604:

Wheelock conference wanted to examine the real legacy of the Panthers, its participants should have pored over the cold statistics showing a spike in drive-by shooting deaths and gang warfare that took place in Oakland in the decade following the Panthers' demise. The Black Panther Party had so fetishized the gun as part of its mystique that young men in the ghetto felt incomplete without one....The Panther fetish of the gun, worshiped by impressionable young black males, maimed hundreds of black citizens in Oakland more surely than any bully cops.”

1075:, from a discussion at White privilege. Below, Apostle12 says "my point was only to spotlight differential outcomes that relate more to personal responsibility than to the existence of white privilege" but this is in fact a judgement call on Apostle12's part; it speculates about the relative merits of "personal responsibility" and embedded or structural barriers to achievement. And regardless, I believe this to still be NOTFORUM, which states "Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article..." 1609:

praise of the Black Panthers. I believe both opinions should appear in this paragraph because it deals with the “considerable debate” (i.e. opinions) “about the impact that the Black Panther Party had on the greater society, or even their local environment.” Kate Coleman’s opinion is well sourced as being her opinion by the Bay Area’s newspaper of record, The San Francisco Chronicle, and by The Los Angeles times, and her opinion is at least as notable as Jama Lazerow's. My discussion on Talk appears here (

1264:

what is more or less the same topic. Simply re-inserting them into another article which deals with much the same subject, and characterizing that as "restore sourced content" seems rather problematic to me, particularly when there seems to be such a consistently anti-Newton and anti-Panther agenda in her writings. And just to be clear, I in no way oppose the inclusion of material that reflects poorly on the character of these historical actors. I have made a number of comments to that effect.

1937:

to examine in arbitration. I also notice that Apostle12 claims that a recent AE thread vindicated him, when in fact it was merely closed with the result that Apostle12's edits were outwith the scope of R&I discretionary sanctions (which is an altogether different result and not one that proves or disproves disruptive editing); he should probably fix that. Withholding vote, but I'm minded to decline this request as unnecessary (after topic-banning Apostle12 by motion if appropriate).

134: 2082:

evidence pertaining to motions. A case takes longer, but there is more scope to lay out and present evidence. It also provides scope for harsher and/or more nuanced sanctions than would be applied by motion, and could examine the conduct of more than a single editor. The main reason request stages get bogged down is that people start presenting detailed evidence too early. There is a reason it is called a

854:

Apostle12, was immediately characterized as political, and no action was taken. Apostle12's unwillingness to respond to the suggestions made there is characteristic of his editing style. Initially he stated that he would respond to the RfC in "a few days"; after a number of other editors had painted the RfC as illegitimate, he felt it was not worth his time. Stonewalling and

1504:(hopefully I can at least spell the abbreviation right) This comment is not intended as a pleading for a particular direction of this case. I am commenting solely because I find NW's proposal novel and interesting. I will resist making parallels with this case. And I know noone asked me, so I ask for forgiveness if this is off-topic or too meta. 942:

some such), and to a lesser extent the various MKULTRA related articles. The IDHT is on display, as far as I can tell, at most of those articles to various degrees; when there is a friendly editing atmosphere as was apparent at pont-saint-esprit for some time, this behavior is not in evidence. but even in the last few days at

1563:

Most helpful during the extended ANI discussions was a comment from one editor to the effect that on Knowledge “we are all dogs.” I realized that on Knowledge, as with e-mail and other online communication, the tendency is for readers to assume the worst, and one must not rely on assumptions of good

1484:

I will be adhering to 1RR for at minimum the next 3 months, and perhaps indefinitely as other editors have done. My intent is also largely to avoid these articles for at least the near future (several months), and limit whatever editing I may wind up doing to medical-related articles. I would also be

2066:

Comment - Am inclining towards accepting a case, as I'm not convinced the full range of issues being touched on here can be addressed by motion. It would help if those commenting would focus on why they think a case is needed or not, and to say so in less words. Only brief evidence is needed here at

1720:

article. If she had the tenacity to do that much research, surely she knows that our initial jibes quickly developed into a mutually respectful, collaborative editing effort that greatly benefitted the article. We were both a little rough on one another, yet neither of us saw fit to take things to

1579:

So, what happened? Have I somehow backslid? Why are we here? No, I have not backslid, and I remain committed to editing articles having to do with race and ethnicity with much-enhanced sensitivity. What has happened is that UTCL has once again resurrected her claims of malfeasance, indeed racism,

1507:

It seems like your proposal, or something like it, might have the effect of providing for more layers of dispute resolution, to further involve the wider WP community. At the moment I feel like there are adequate resources for dealing with content issues, narrowly construed. There appear to me to be

1263:

to my removal of that source, he states "her opinion matters." I like to think that a reasonable editor might think that since there have been substantial issues with using her writings as source material in the past, one should be careful with their use in the future, particularly when dealing with

1936:

This case request has not been framed in enough detail nor with enough evidence. Everybody must please clearly (1) say whether Apostle12 is or isn't a problematic editor, (2) if he is then provide brief evidence demonstrating that he is, and (3) say whether this wider topic area is one that we need

1788:

Note: Due to extremely recent events I would like to strike my previous paragraphs because I believe in second chances. I will leave the statements up, but I am no longer convinced they are relevant to the issue at hand. I know of at least one admin who will probably be interested in weighing in on

1608:

Then, on 4 April 2013, editor Abegaza deleted the section beginning “Similarly, journalist Kate Coleman…” When I finally noticed the deletion on 20 April 2013, I restored it because I think Kate Coleman’s opinion piece nicely balances the opinion offered by Jama Lazerow, which is effusive in its

853:

Previous attempts, the aforementioned RSN discussions as well as DRN and an RfC/U, have been unsuccessful in dealing with these or other problems, either from a content or behavior perspective. The RfC/U, despite making what I think are reasonable suggestions for addressing the behavior issues with

2081:

The idea of having a request stage is so that people can say whether previous dispute resolution has been followed and whether a case is needed if such prior dispute resolution and community discussions have failed to resolve the matter. A request stage is not designed for presentation of detailed

2045:

Contra Carcharoth, I don't see substantial evidence that this topic area needs an arbitration case, and I'm fairly convinced that the issue with Apostle12's editing is suitable for summary disposition. My first choice is to deal with this by motion and then decline the case request as unnecessary;

1657:

One of the great things about Knowledge is that it is a laboratory where one is brought face-to-face with one’s own deficiencies. I am learning to address these issues in a fashion that will better allow me to avoid inflaming the sensitivities of others. I was naïve with respect to how difficult

1603:

journalist Hugh Pearson takes a more jaundiced view, linking Panther criminality and violence to worsening conditions in America's black ghettos as their influence spread nationwide. Similarly, journalist Kate Coleman writes regarding a 2003 Panther conference at Boston's Wheelock College, "If the

1556:) is one I took to heart. This discussion became quite tendentious and led to a proposal by Newyorkbrad that I be topic-banned, which led to more intense discussion and no conclusion. (Question: Will this threat of topic-banning, like the interminable filings by UTCL, hang over my head forever?) 1287:

As for whether this is a wider topic area that requires arbitration, I don't know that I am competent to enter a comment on that, as it seems like something ArbCom would decide for themselves. I will say that I think part of the reason I have found working in this article area so difficult is that

941:

In regards to the sourcing, this can be seen in Apostle12's edits not just at the aforementioned articles on racial or political topics, but also in his edit history at the Franklin prostitution allegation article, pont-saint-esprit (which was spun off into 1951 pont-saint-esprit mass poisoning or

1781:

etc... I really don't have time to look up all the diffs, but they are there, though somewhat old and buried in contribs pages. She's basically been told in quite a number of instances to stop edit warring, stop creating a hostile editing environment, to stop insulting other editors, stop abusing

1632:

I need to close this very long statement (again, my apologies; don’t know how I could adequately answer these charges with more brevity) by explaining how I came to focus on this series of race-related articles. It began with the publishing by Michelle Alexander, an author known to me, of a book

1620:

The final edit that UTCL objected to was my 18 April 2013 reinstatement of material that was deleted by an unnamed editor on 17 April 2013. This had to do with Newton’s admission that he intentionally killed Oakland Police officer John Frey, which was reported by Newton friends Willie Payne and

1616:

I made another edit that UTCL objected to, reinstating the words “and their criminality” referring to Panther activities that are acknowledged as having been illegal. UTCL deleted this reinstatement, objecting to the sourcing. I have since reinstated this wording, after providing overwhelming

1567:

Now UTCL is, once again, accusing me of “making incredibly insensitive comments about people of color” and “spewing offensive and racist assertions.” She brings this up, over and over, while at the same time insisting that she is “not calling me a racist” and that she does not know my “conscious

1540:

Following Sandstein’s dismissal, UTCL immediately (4-25) filed an ANI, repeating exactly the same accusations. When this ANI discussion expired, she filed the identical complaint twice more, voicing her intent to keep filing, even if it meant that she herself might be sanctioned. Finally, the

1649:

So I started to peruse the relevant articles on Knowledge, and I realized that they tended to tell only part of the story. Regarding Huey P. Newton and the Black Panther Party in particular, it is very true that Newton was brilliant, courageous, insightful, and bold and it is also true that the

1637:

I found Alexander's treatment of the subject matter disturbing, and this led to a perusal of much of the Panther literature (Austin, Pearson, Brown, Seale, Cleaver, and others) and a revisiting of the time I knew so well when I witnessed the beginnings of Black Panther militantism in Oakland and

1258:

I will also note that Apostle12 has a particular fondness for the work of Kate Coleman. He frequently repeats that she is a respected journalist, though I myself see no evidence of that; I have looked. (The overwhelming majority of her journalistic output in the last few decades has been opinion

1133:

changed "Certain thinkers of the party thought that gender fight was a threat to men and race struggle" to "Some Party leaders, including Huey Newton and Eldridge Cleaver, thought the fight for gender equality was a threat to men and the struggle for racial equality" in a referenced paragraph. I

898:

If indeed they are actionable under existing WP:ARBR&I principles already, then perhaps some clarification of that is in order, and this does not need to go to full arbitration. I certainly do not want to waste anyone's time if there are other ways to get this sorted out. After raising these

1678:

Phoenix & Winslow and Mongo were both editors at "Franklin child prostitution ring allegations" and I have had no contact with them during the past two years. The question must be asked: How did they happen to arrive just in time to participate in this discussion? Were they contacted, as

1532:

This Request for Arbitration follows on the heels of many months of similar filings, all initiated by UTCL. I have replied to each of these filings, with the exception of those that have been dismissed as having no merit, those that UTCL abandoned saying that she intended to go on an extended

1318:

My collapsed boxes were intended to make the provided diffs a bit easier on the eyes. I can endeavor to try and reduce the overall size of my statement further over the next few days. If there are particular areas I should focus on I would appreciate such guidance. (I tend to be a bit wordy, my

1097:

In retrospect, I may have been complicit in allowing this editing pattern to continue, by not speaking out more forcefully about it, or perhaps in my selection of venues in which to speak out about it. I also have to say that I was even more ignorant then than I am now about what an appropriate

1688:

Phoenix & Winslow insinuates that my previous editing at “Franklin child prostitution ring allegations” might somehow have been racially motivated because Franklin figure Lawrence King was African American. P. & W. also accuses me of having mentored other editors (one of whom is now

1653:

I think this imbalance runs counter to Knowledge’s purpose, and I think it is dangerous to tell only one side of the story. This is especially true with regard to Newton and the Black Panthers, since younger black readers in particular may be encouraged to repeat past mistakes. I believe a

1559:

Based on the discussion at ANI, I agreed that it would have been better on “White Privilege:Talk” to have mentioned only those differential outcomes that were congratulatory of positive black outcomes (high self-esteem among black girls), supportive of positive black outcomes (majority black

1641:

What is of concern to me is that, despite the best efforts of many like myself who are committed to the cause of civil rights and racial justice, things have gotten progressively worse in America’s black ghettos, with violence an ever-present threat. I am in agreement with Hoover Institution

861:

I have certainly made mistakes, though I have repeatedly asked for help and guidance, and been willing to adhere to it when it was provided. I would welcome the guidance of arbcom in addressing these deficiencies. But as a new editor, I have only tried to do my best with the information and

1023:

The issue of whether or not Apostle12 is a problematic editor, I can provide what I believe is the most salient evidence here that establishes a pattern of not just recent problematic edits, but also a pattern of problematic editing that has persisted throughout my encounters with him.

946:

there has been the repeated insistence that Kate Coleman's work is respected, cited, etc without any discussion of what that actually means, nor even the acknowledgement that the sources I removed were opinion pieces. The LA Times article, for instance, has "opinion" right there in the

1839: 1424:

Since the topic ban discussion, there have been no egregious examples of the sort of NOTFORUM behavior that sparked it. However, it should be noted that these displays were episodic to begin with, and it has been less than a month since the topic ban discussion.

972:

some weeks or months later is that he simply forgot about the extensive conversations that were had about these sources. That seems possible but unlikely to me, and I took it as evidence that, rather than merely having complex problems with sourcing, there was an

1528:

I trust I will be forgiven if my reply to the many accusations presented must be longer than I would wish; spending an entire Sunday afternoon defending myself is not my idea of a good time, and I doubt anyone reviewing these statements will enjoy it either.

1658:

this would be, or how intense the criticism might become, with inaccurate perceptions leading to charges of racism. Such charges have a chilling effect when it comes to encouraging full encyclopedic coverage of topics associated with race on Knowledge.

1485:

amenable to more individual analysis and discussion about how my own editing patterns have contributed to this situation. I do not pretend that my actions have been entirely non-contributory here, and indeed my postings to ANI recently were deliberately

837:

are at best sketchy, yet Apostle12 repeatedly claims without reservation that, e.g. Kate Coleman is a "respected journalist." Apostle12's apparent unwillingness to respect other editors' concerns on these points, and indeed his use of these sources at

1770: 1199:. the consensus there appeared to be that language should be included to make clear that these are allegations made by Pearson, and remain uncorroborated. I attempted to change the wording to reflect this, and it set off another round of 964:. The best AGFish explanation of placing the same assertions (that were at minimum highly contentious, and which there seemed to be at least a tentative consensus that they were not usable for statements of fact) that were removed from 1288:

not many people work on it to begin with. A single disruptive editor can thereby have an outsized effect on progress in that subject area. I have no idea whether that is a reason to consider additional ArbCom action or not. --

1280:), and that there are other examples of disruptive editing that he displays over and above NOTFORUM and a certain predilection for making what can charitably be described as racially insensitive remarks. But this is already 2206:

If Apostle12 does not return to editing before two months have elapsed: he will be indefinitely prohibited from editing any page relating to "race and politics", broadly construed; and this case will be un-suspended and

1862: 527:

to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; as such, they should never be changed. (In the case of lengthy statements, an excerpt only may be given here, in which case the full copy will be added to the

1571:

Following the ANI discussion, I took very seriously the discretionary sanctions warning I received from Sandstein that I need to be more careful about conducting myself in accord with the principles enunciated at

2214:

Apostle12 (and all of his accounts, if he has created one or more others at that time) may be indefinitely blocked by any uninvolved administrator if he violates the prohibitions in points 3 or 4 of this motion.

1154:(and a bit of an edit war, perhaps, though it's possible BLP applies) about the reliability of the source. (I and other editors had also questioned the reliability of other of Coleman's works.) This prompted a 2140: 1545:

note “Complaint has been re-posted twice and there appears to be nothing actionable. Editor advised to either drop it (preferable) or take it to a more appropriate venue. Sædontalk 05:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

72: 2027:@NE Ent: ANI threads can fail to achieve consensus for many reasons, only one of which is a substantial dispute over material fact that would prevent us from disposing of this case request summarily. 829:

Through multiple conversations on talk pages and multiple RSN discussions it has been established that sources he frequently uses (Kate Coleman, and in some respects Hugh Pearson) for information in

1679:

editors with whom I once had a dispute, just so they could pile on? Nevertheless, what Phoenix & Winslow has written constitutes an addendum to this complaint and demands a separate response.

2001:

Is Apostle12's editing problematic? If so, please provide a list of diffs illustrating the problematic behavior along with short explanations of what is problematic about each diff, if required.

999:

Is Apostle12's editing problematic? If so, please provide a list of diffs illustrating the problematic behavior along with short explanations of what is problematic about each diff, if required.

544: 67: 523:

Please do not edit this page unless you are an Arbitrator or Clerk, or are making yourself a party to this case. Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original

1756: 1303:

In the guide to arbitration, under "Motion" it says "(Arbitrators only)". I honestly have no idea whether a workable result, however the committee defines that, is possible via a motion.

1168: 61: 50: 984: 918: 906: 2055: 2036: 1638:

Berkeley during the period between 1966-1971. I identified this period as a time when black crime (especially violent crime), and levels of black incarceration, began to increase.

953:

The juxtaposition of this poor sourcing and IDHT with the commentary and NOTFORUM on racial matters gives the reasonable impression that Apostle12 is a POVPUSHer on racial topics,

1823:). The drafting arbitrator and case clerks have also been confirmed, and the case will be opened after 24 hours from the time of the fourth net vote for acceptance have elapsed. 1212:. However, the fact that there was extensive discussion about the nature of the allegation, to what extent it was permissible in the article, all of which Apostle12 took part in 2022: 1993: 1276:

So, to sum up, yes, I think that Apostle12's editing is problematic. I think a case could be made that the poor sourcing practices extend beyond the articles listed here (cf.

540: 533: 56: 45: 1912: 1533:(maybe forever) Wikibreak, and one more recent (4-24) request for arbitration enforcement that administrator Sandstein dismissed and suggested I not reply to because it was 1515: 1496: 1476: 1295: 884: 355: 2076: 1871: 1549:

I must say that this series of unremitting attacks on the part of UTCL, often sparked by the most minor editing disagreements, seems like a form of perpetual harassment.

873:

on this filing. It hadn't ever even occurred to me to do so, actually, because the filing was, in my view, about Apostle12's edits to race-and-politics-related articles.

2112: 2095: 1883: 895:, and it was considered non-actionable. My reading of the statement there was that these incidents fell outside the scope of "race and intelligence (broadly construed)" 1738: 1698: 555: 392: 224: 39: 532:—where any statements by uninvolved editors during the Requests phase will also be saved.) Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should be added to the 1927: 1793:), since he's been moderating that talk page for some time, and has been involved in many of Apostle12's noticeboards. I've left a note on his talk page. Thanks. 157: 1573: 846:

and RSN to be non-RS would be troubling enough, but if that were the only issue this would be more clearly a content dispute. When combined with his pattern of

1266:

I am concerned about the use of poorly sourced material, and over time Apostle12's use of this kind of poorly sourced material has followed a distinct pattern.

850:, spewing offensive and racist assertions on talk pages under the guise of "personal experiences" it seems abundantly clear to me that this is all of a piece. 1553: 386: 1969: 1947: 1667: 1407: 858:, whether by ignoring something, or by simply repeatedly asserting something, is a pattern I have seen time and time again in his edits and discussions. 1646:) that something has gone radically wrong, and I am committed to making sure that the story of the period from the 1960s to the present is fully told. 787: 350: 2188:

This will be my last submission. I have decided to place a "Retired" notice on my user page and scramble my password, thus tendering my resignation

382: 178: 170: 513: 2134: 874: 870: 680: 819: 597: 1779: 324: 1629:

UTCL has pursued this issue, claiming that I somehow did not get the point during the ANI discussion during early April. That is not true.

950:

As in NYB's reference, the standards for referencing on contentious or sensitive topics should be more strictly adhered to rather than less.

474: 1833: 1554:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=549490803#WP:NOTFORUM_at_White_privilege

815:

From my perspective, the carelessness of Apostle12's sourcing decisions and POVPUSH behavior (which I made a nuisance of myself over at a

174: 1191:

by an ip editor, which Apostle12 reverted. Because I had recently purchased the book that is the source for this allegation, I started a

927:

I can provide a more detailed response to MONGO's concerns below, complete with diffs if that would be useful, on or shortly after May 8.

507: 501: 344: 189: 167: 1237:

with the summary "restore sourced content". One of the sources he was restoring was an article which was the subject of a great deal of

1277: 745: 563: 425: 377: 315: 234: 162: 1523: 1403: 816: 1064: 340: 2237: 1393: 1367: 1155: 823: 529: 451: 320: 1815:

Arbitrator's note: After consulting my colleagues on the committee, I have confirmed to the clerks that this case should be named

1894: 1759: 1610: 591: 543:. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at 330: 310: 193: 495: 2007:

If the only issue is Apostle12's editing, is the matter suitable for summary disposition by motion, or is a full case required?

1005:

If the only issue is Apostle12's editing, is the matter suitable for summary disposition by motion, or is a full case required?

649: 335: 248: 229: 298: 2244: 697: 369: 260: 1768: 793:

Much of this may be TL;DR or more appropriate as evidence if a case is opened. See Summary in response to Carcharoth, below.

2263: 2210:

Apostle12 is directed to inform the Arbitration Committee if he returns to editing the English Knowledge using any account.

1138:

if anyone knew whether or not Newton and Cleaver were specifically mentioned in the Lumsden article, and he claimed he was

559: 293: 1260: 739: 524: 219: 148: 25: 2243:

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at

1418: 1072: 2161: 1917:

Awaiting statements, which should (among other things) address the question of whether we should topic-ban Apostle12.

1534: 1245:

suggested was not a permissible source in this case. Perhaps the most important thing about these particular edits to

554:

as needed, but the other content of this page should not be edited. Please raise any questions about this decision at

2122: 1443:

the topic ban discussion, are an indication that Apostle12 will remain a problematic editor. I believe this because:

1101:

The issue of poor sourcing practices I also feel is significant. I will focus on the most recent examples here, from

1432: 1429: 1234: 1221: 1139: 1135: 1130: 1126: 1088:

in no uncertain terms that this was unacceptable. This conversation is also relevant for the issue of poor sourcing.

1051: 2155: 643: 621: 615: 285: 125: 1755:

I think it is relevant to mention that User:UseTheCommandLine is currently involved in a dispute with myself on

1043: 822:), combined with his repeated, incredibly offensive comments about people of color on multiple talk pages (with 1776: 1774: 1772: 1611:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Black_Panther_Party#Coleman_is_not_a_reliable_source_for_statements_of_fact.2C_etc

1188: 1175: 1172: 1164: 1147: 1085: 1081: 782: 691: 609: 271: 214: 21: 2196:) and hearing this case in Apostle12's absence would serve no purpose. The committee therefore resolves that: 1802: 1357: 1340: 812:. My main concerns were initially content-based but it became clear to me that they were largely behavioral. 769: 603: 206: 1595:

For many months, during which time UTCL was actively editing, the article contained a paragraph that read:

1797: 1746: 1398: 1196: 757: 444: 256: 154: 1388: 1242: 1058:. This is part of a discussion (Lumsden "some party leaders") also notable for its sourcing issues, below. 936:

poor sourcing practices and IDHT, which can to edit warring and POVPUSH even on less controversial topics.

2179: 892: 891:

In response to Mathsci's point below, I did file a notice regarding the incidents I consider POVPUSH, at

763: 673: 585: 266: 184: 721: 2173: 2051: 2032: 2018: 1726: 1200: 930:

Briefly, though, the way I have chosen to view this broader issue is as the unfortunate confluence of:

661: 539:

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at

305: 1027:

As also detailed in the recent ANI posting about a longstanding pattern of NOTFORUM relating to race:

709: 1991: 751: 804:

Since then I have interacted with him on a number of articles pertaining to race politics -- mostly

1905: 777: 2004:

Does the broader topic area require an arbitration case, or is the only issue Apostle12's editing?

1238: 1002:

Does the broader topic area require an arbitration case, or is the only issue Apostle12's editing?

733: 667: 437: 1349:

and suspicions of sockpuppetry by Apostle12 that were not substantiated, and so are omitted here

1259:

pieces critical of Huey Newton, the Black Panthers, or the history of same.) In his most recent

957:. And this is further highlighted by the sensitive and contentious nature of the subject matter. 1150:

about a purported romantic relationship between Newton and a movie producer touched off a long

715: 580: 1721:

a "higher authority;" we simply worked it out. We still successfully collaborate editing the

826:) suggest to me that Apostle12 is not an editor that can be reasoned with or negotiated with. 2167: 2047: 2028: 2014: 1858: 1580:

despite administrator Sandstein’s finding that the edits UTCL objects to are not actionable.

1451:, above, with the apparent consensus that they are not to be used the way Apostle12 does here 1187:

concerns a purported deathbed confession about the murder of a police officer. A passage was

655: 144: 17: 2200:

The present arbitration case is suspended for two months (from the date this motion passes).

933:

racial attitudes on the part of Apostle12 whose expression is offensive to myself and others

2108: 2091: 2072: 1986: 703: 574: 1840:

Race and politics, Apostle12: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <4/0/2/3: -->

8: 2149: 1898: 1734: 1694: 1663: 1644:

White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era

1458: 1436: 1381: 1246: 1230: 1226: 1129:

and Apostle12's response to it. Much of that response was positive copyediting. However,

1106: 1055: 969: 961: 943: 839: 834: 809: 637: 100: 877:

added him or herself to the list of involved parties, and I'm not entirely sure why. --

2203:

If Apostle12 returns while this case is suspended, arbitration proceedings will resume.

1151: 847: 728: 685: 1125:

Lumsden "some party leaders": as referenced above, a discussion thread was sparked by

2234:

motion came into effect. These serve as the committee's final decision in this case.

1552:

That said, the UTCL-inspired discussion that took place at ANI during early April (

1481:

I can also volunteer the following, in case it makes a difference to the committee:

1019:(3) say whether this wider topic area is one that we need to examine in arbitration. 1854: 1617:

source material from both anti-Panther (Pearson) and pro-Panther (Austin) sources.

89: 1352: 2104: 2087: 2068: 1967: 1945: 1925: 1880: 1868: 1831: 1486: 1465:(where they had been originally discussed) which to me indicates tendentiousness. 1346: 1333: 1192: 960:

The final straw for me really was the placement of some of these poor sources on

911:

Further, I think I would disagree that Apostle12 is a Single-purpose account. --

798: 955:

irrespective of if that is his conscious intent or what his personal beliefs are

2144: 1730: 1690: 1659: 1462: 1448: 1377: 1281: 1251:

they occurred over a week after the ANI discussion which Newyorkbrad references

1215: 1209: 1184: 1102: 965: 855: 843: 830: 805: 632: 95: 1284:. I would be happy to provide additional evidence if that is needed, however. 409: 2257: 114: 2192:

Apostle12's conduct was a substantial part of the present arbitration case (

413: 899:

points repeatedly at ANI someone suggested i go to RFARB, so here I am. --

1601:

Shadow of the Panther: Huey Newton and the Price of Black Power in America

569: 1790: 84: 2067:

the request stage. Fuller evidence can be presented at the case stage.

1447:

these sources have been discussed in detail in DRN and RSN cases about

1167:

that i interpreted as an intention to disregard consensus, and which I

2225: 1016:(2) if he is then provide brief evidence demonstrating that he is, and 1809:

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

797:

My initial interactions with Apostle12 were regarding an edit war at

133: 1751:

I've never used ARBCOM before, so I hope I'm doing this correctly.

1960: 1938: 1918: 1824: 1635:

The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.

411: 109: 1879:

I think there is just too much here to handle by summary motion.

801:

concerning the use of mitigation language in the lead paragraph.

1716:

and highlight the rocky start Viriditas and I got off to on the

1574:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Bias and prejudice

1345:

there were additional ANI discussions and an SPI case regarding

1998:

I would welcome statements addressing the following questions:

414: 2231: 415: 2220:

Passed 7 to 0 with 1 abstention at 02:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC).

1158:

whose consensus was that this material was not permissible.

2184:

stated he is immediately retiring from editing Knowledge:

1013:(1) say whether Apostle12 is or isn't a problematic editor 556:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

551: 1454:

Apostle12 took part in the discussions when they occurred

2129:

No temporary injunction was passed during this case.

2103:. Still not convinced a motion would suffice here. 1457:Apostle12 added these sources and this language to 1067:

of NOTFORUM, from a discussion I was not a part of.

1241:which, again, Apostle12 took part in, and which a 2230:On 26 July 2013, the permanent provisions of the 1163:That prompted additional discussion, including a 2255: 550:Once the case is closed, editors may add to the 1782:dispute resolution and yet continues to do so. 445: 1278:Talk:1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning 564:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement 452: 438: 2135:Motion for suspension and closure of case 1767:UTCL has a long history of edit warring: 1080:And in light of these other discussions, 1895:Franklin child prostitution allegations 1845:Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other) 1044:"what every white man in America knows" 991:Response to additional ArbCom questions 562:, and report violations of remedies to 14: 2256: 2046:second choice is to accept as a case. 1576:, which Newyorkbrad reiterates below. 552:#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions 2245:Knowledge:Arbitration enforcement log 2238:Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions 2086:, rather than a case at this stage. 1959:to examine the disputants' conduct. 560:Knowledge talk:Arbitration Committee 225:Clarification and Amendment requests 1229:seem all the more like POVPUSH. At 31: 1568:intent” or my “personal beliefs.” 1328:Summary of noticeboard/DR history: 32: 2275: 1897:article P&W above refers to. 1712:Marie Paradox saw fit to go back 1366:pre-empted by an ANI discussion ( 1301:Response to comment by Carcharoth 2141:evidence submission to this case 132: 1642:research fellow Shelby Steele ( 1376:Sourcing issues and POVPUSH at 842:after they were established at 1541:last filing was closed with a 1428:It is also my contention that 1370:) and my taking of a wikibreak 788:Statement by UseTheCommandLine 13: 1: 1502:Response to suggestion by NW 862:mechanisms available to me. 484:on 20:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 356:Conflict of interest reports 7: 2264:Knowledge arbitration cases 2123:Temporary injunction (none) 1183:Another example, also from 1109:mainly for brevity's sake. 869:I actually did not include 558:, any general questions at 468:on 01:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC) 185:Search archived proceedings 10: 2280: 1208:That all is perhaps a bit 1084:seems more significant. I 1065:a fairly egregious example 1046:also from White privilege. 977:to disrupt or POVPUSH. -- 493:Watchlist all case pages: 230:Arbitrator motion requests 1035:NOTFORUM on racial topics 2113:08:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC) 2096:23:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC) 2077:13:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC) 2056:00:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC) 1970:17:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC) 1893:; I was involved in the 1884:07:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC) 1834:13:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC) 1739:01:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC) 1516:07:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC) 1497:10:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC) 1477:00:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC) 824:extensive ANI discussion 477:02:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC) 2037:13:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC) 2023:15:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC) 1994:09:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC) 1948:10:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC) 1928:08:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 1913:22:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC) 1872:21:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC) 1863:20:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC) 1699:18:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 1668:01:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 1296:05:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC) 1073:the most recent example 995:Questions by T.Canens: 985:20:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 919:08:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC) 907:08:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC) 885:07:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC) 2190: 1524:Statement by Apostle12 1332:Disruptive editing at 1171:about. This earned me 783:Preliminary statements 2186: 1867:Awaiting statements. 1778:and pestering admins 1747:Statement by Rgambord 1725:article, for example 1140:"working from memory" 1117:RS issues and POVPUSH 426:Track related changes 286:Arbitration Committee 126:Knowledge Arbitration 18:Knowledge:Arbitration 1798:Preliminary decision 1588:Here are those edits 1414:Proposed topic ban: 1225:two months later to 1193:talk page discussion 1009:Questions from AGK: 778:Requests for comment 235:Enforcement requests 163:Guide to arbitration 1459:Black Panther Party 1437:Black Panther Party 1382:Black Panther Party 1247:Black Panther Party 1231:Black Panther Party 1227:Black Panther Party 1107:Black Panther Party 1056:Black Panther Party 970:Black Panther Party 962:Black Panther Party 944:Black Panther Party 840:Black Panther Party 835:Black Panther Party 810:Black Panther Party 106:Drafting arbitrator 1311:no longer relevant 1195:and eventually an 545:/Proposed decision 257:Contentious topics 155:Arbitration policy 2194:Race and politics 1846: 1817:Race and politics 1626: 1625: 1324: 1323: 1273: 1272: 1235:a subsequent edit 1094: 1093: 581:UseTheCommandLine 520: 462: 461: 429: 397: 267:General sanctions 215:All open requests 145:About arbitration 118: 104: 93: 76: 68:Proposed decision 65: 54: 43: 2271: 2183: 1990: 1965: 1943: 1923: 1908: 1844: 1829: 1584: 1583: 1543:an administrator 1514: 1513: 1495: 1494: 1489:. Mea culpa. -- 1475: 1474: 1384:(oldest first): 1336:(oldest first): 1307: 1306: 1294: 1293: 1136:on the talk page 1113: 1112: 1063:This seems like 1031: 1030: 983: 982: 917: 916: 905: 904: 883: 882: 773: 746:deleted contribs 725: 698:deleted contribs 677: 650:deleted contribs 625: 598:deleted contribs 575:Involved parties 570:Case information 519: 518: 491: 454: 447: 440: 428: 423: 416: 395: 351:Clerk procedures 343: 301: 272:Editor sanctions 249:Active sanctions 207:Open proceedings 177: 136: 122: 121: 112: 98: 87: 70: 59: 48: 37: 2279: 2278: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2254: 2253: 2240: 2228: 2147: 2137: 2125: 1984: 1961: 1939: 1919: 1906: 1842: 1825: 1805: 1800: 1749: 1627: 1589: 1526: 1511: 1509: 1492: 1490: 1472: 1470: 1347:White privilege 1334:White privilege 1325: 1312: 1291: 1289: 1274: 1178:from Apostle12. 1118: 1095: 1036: 980: 978: 914: 912: 902: 900: 880: 878: 799:White privilege 790: 785: 780: 731: 683: 635: 583: 577: 572: 521: 494: 492: 485: 478: 458: 424: 418: 417: 412: 402: 401: 400: 389: 372: 362: 361: 360: 347: 339: 327: 302: 297: 288: 278: 277: 276: 251: 241: 240: 239: 209: 199: 196: 181: 173: 151: 120: 30: 29: 28: 12: 11: 5: 2277: 2267: 2266: 2251: 2239: 2236: 2227: 2226:Final decision 2224: 2223: 2222: 2212: 2211: 2208: 2204: 2201: 2136: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2124: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2040: 2039: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2005: 2002: 1996: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1951: 1950: 1931: 1930: 1915: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1865: 1841: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1812: 1811: 1804: 1801: 1799: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1748: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1706: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1672: 1624: 1623: 1606: 1605: 1591: 1590: 1587: 1582: 1535:not actionable 1525: 1522: 1467: 1466: 1463:Huey P. Newton 1455: 1452: 1449:Huey P. Newton 1422: 1421: 1412: 1411: 1401: 1396: 1391: 1378:Huey P. Newton 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1361: 1360: 1355: 1350: 1343: 1322: 1321: 1314: 1313: 1310: 1305: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1255: 1254: 1243:RSN discussion 1216:Huey P. Newton 1205: 1204: 1197:RSN discussion 1185:Huey P. Newton 1180: 1179: 1160: 1159: 1156:DRN discussion 1144: 1143: 1120: 1119: 1116: 1111: 1103:Huey P. Newton 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1077: 1076: 1069: 1068: 1060: 1059: 1048: 1047: 1038: 1037: 1034: 1029: 1021: 1020: 1017: 1014: 1007: 1006: 1003: 1000: 988: 987: 966:Huey P. Newton 958: 951: 948: 939: 938: 937: 934: 928: 924: 923: 922: 921: 896: 888: 887: 865: 844:Huey P. Newton 831:Huey P. Newton 808:and sometimes 806:Huey P. Newton 789: 786: 784: 781: 779: 776: 775: 774: 726: 678: 630: 576: 573: 571: 568: 490: 488: 480: 479: 471:Case suspended 469: 464: 460: 459: 457: 456: 449: 442: 434: 431: 430: 420: 419: 410: 408: 407: 404: 403: 399: 398: 390: 385: 380: 374: 373: 368: 367: 364: 363: 359: 358: 353: 348: 338: 333: 328: 323: 318: 313: 308: 303: 296: 290: 289: 284: 283: 280: 279: 275: 274: 269: 264: 253: 252: 247: 246: 243: 242: 238: 237: 232: 227: 222: 217: 211: 210: 205: 204: 201: 200: 198: 197: 192: 187: 182: 172: 165: 160: 152: 147: 141: 138: 137: 129: 128: 35:Main case page 33: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2276: 2265: 2262: 2261: 2259: 2252: 2249: 2248: 2246: 2235: 2233: 2221: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2209: 2205: 2202: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2195: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2178: 2175: 2172: 2169: 2166: 2163: 2160: 2157: 2154: 2151: 2146: 2142: 2130: 2127: 2126: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2065: 2064: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2013: 2012: 2006: 2003: 2000: 1999: 1997: 1995: 1992: 1989: 1988: 1982: 1979: 1978: 1971: 1968: 1966: 1964: 1958: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1949: 1946: 1944: 1942: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1929: 1926: 1924: 1922: 1916: 1914: 1911: 1909: 1902: 1901: 1896: 1892: 1889: 1885: 1882: 1878: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1870: 1866: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1835: 1832: 1830: 1828: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1813: 1810: 1807: 1806: 1792: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1780: 1777: 1775: 1773: 1771: 1769: 1763: 1762: 1760: 1758:, as well as 1757: 1752: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1670: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1645: 1639: 1636: 1630: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1612: 1602: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1593: 1592: 1586: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1575: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1555: 1550: 1547: 1544: 1538: 1536: 1530: 1521: 1518: 1517: 1505: 1503: 1499: 1498: 1488: 1482: 1479: 1478: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1453: 1450: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1431: 1426: 1420: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1409: 1405: 1402: 1400: 1397: 1395: 1392: 1390: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1383: 1379: 1369: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1359: 1356: 1354: 1351: 1348: 1344: 1342: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1335: 1330: 1329: 1320: 1316: 1315: 1309: 1308: 1304: 1302: 1298: 1297: 1285: 1283: 1279: 1267: 1262: 1257: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1233:he also made 1232: 1228: 1224: 1223: 1218: 1217: 1211: 1207: 1206: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1181: 1177: 1174: 1170: 1169:posted to ANI 1166: 1162: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1146: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1132: 1128: 1127:this addition 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1115: 1114: 1110: 1108: 1104: 1099: 1098:response is. 1087: 1083: 1079: 1078: 1074: 1071: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1050: 1049: 1045: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1033: 1032: 1028: 1025: 1018: 1015: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1004: 1001: 998: 997: 996: 993: 992: 986: 976: 971: 967: 963: 959: 956: 952: 949: 945: 940: 935: 932: 931: 929: 926: 925: 920: 910: 909: 908: 897: 894: 890: 889: 886: 876: 872: 868: 867: 866: 863: 859: 857: 851: 849: 845: 841: 836: 832: 827: 825: 821: 818: 813: 811: 807: 802: 800: 795: 794: 771: 768: 765: 762: 759: 756: 753: 750: 747: 744: 741: 738: 735: 730: 729:ArtifexMayhem 727: 723: 720: 717: 714: 711: 708: 705: 702: 699: 696: 693: 690: 687: 682: 679: 675: 672: 669: 666: 663: 660: 657: 654: 651: 648: 645: 642: 639: 634: 631: 629: 623: 620: 617: 614: 611: 608: 605: 602: 599: 596: 593: 590: 587: 582: 579: 578: 567: 565: 561: 557: 553: 548: 546: 542: 537: 535: 531: 526: 517: 516: 511: 510: 505: 504: 499: 498: 489: 486: 483: 476: 472: 467: 455: 450: 448: 443: 441: 436: 435: 433: 432: 427: 422: 421: 406: 405: 394: 391: 388: 384: 381: 379: 376: 375: 371: 366: 365: 357: 354: 352: 349: 346: 342: 337: 334: 332: 329: 326: 322: 319: 317: 314: 312: 309: 307: 304: 300: 295: 292: 291: 287: 282: 281: 273: 270: 268: 265: 262: 258: 255: 254: 250: 245: 244: 236: 233: 231: 228: 226: 223: 221: 220:Case requests 218: 216: 213: 212: 208: 203: 202: 195: 191: 188: 186: 183: 180: 176: 171: 169: 166: 164: 161: 159: 156: 153: 150: 146: 143: 142: 140: 139: 135: 131: 130: 127: 124: 123: 119: 116: 111: 107: 102: 97: 91: 86: 82: 78: 74: 69: 63: 58: 52: 47: 41: 36: 27: 23: 19: 2250: 2242: 2241: 2229: 2219: 2213: 2193: 2191: 2187: 2176: 2170: 2164: 2158: 2152: 2138: 2128: 2100: 2083: 1985: 1980: 1962: 1956: 1940: 1920: 1903: 1899: 1890: 1876: 1850: 1843: 1826: 1820: 1816: 1808: 1789:Apostle12, ( 1766: 1765: 1764: 1754: 1753: 1750: 1722: 1717: 1713: 1705: 1671: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1643: 1640: 1634: 1631: 1628: 1619: 1615: 1607: 1600: 1594: 1578: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1551: 1548: 1542: 1539: 1531: 1527: 1519: 1506: 1501: 1500: 1483: 1480: 1468: 1461:rather than 1440: 1427: 1423: 1413: 1375: 1331: 1327: 1326: 1319:apologies). 1317: 1300: 1299: 1286: 1275: 1265: 1250: 1220: 1213: 1100: 1096: 1026: 1022: 1008: 994: 990: 989: 974: 954: 864: 860: 852: 828: 814: 803: 796: 792: 791: 766: 760: 754: 748: 742: 736: 718: 712: 706: 700: 694: 688: 670: 664: 658: 652: 646: 640: 628:filing party 627: 618: 612: 606: 600: 594: 588: 549: 538: 522: 514: 508: 502: 496: 487: 481: 470: 465: 463: 105: 80: 79: 77: 34: 2247:, not here. 1855:Newyorkbrad 1803:Clerk notes 1791:User:TParis 1439:, occuring 1148:these edits 848:WP:NOTFORUM 482:Case Closed 466:Case Opened 190:Ban appeals 168:Noticeboard 81:Case clerks 2174:page moves 2105:Carcharoth 2088:Carcharoth 2069:Carcharoth 1881:Courcelles 1869:Courcelles 1239:discussion 1201:discussion 1173:additional 1152:discussion 820:ANI filing 764:block user 758:filter log 716:block user 710:filter log 668:block user 662:filter log 616:block user 610:filter log 396:(pre-2016) 383:Statistics 316:Procedures 2180:block log 2145:Apostle12 2048:T. Canens 2029:T. Canens 2015:T. Canens 1821:Apostle12 1731:Apostle12 1714:six years 1691:Apostle12 1660:Apostle12 1487:WP:POINTy 1222:this edit 1165:statement 1131:this edit 1086:responded 1082:this edit 770:block log 722:block log 674:block log 633:Apostle12 622:block log 541:/Workshop 536:subpage. 534:/Evidence 530:talk page 321:Elections 96:Callanecc 2258:Category 2156:contribs 1261:response 1249:is that 1219:, makes 1052:NOTFORUM 875:Rgambord 871:Rgambord 817:repeated 740:contribs 692:contribs 681:Rgambord 644:contribs 592:contribs 57:Workshop 46:Evidence 24:‎ | 22:Requests 20:‎ | 2207:closed. 2139:In his 2084:request 1633:called 1380:and/or 1210:WP:TLDR 1189:removed 856:WP:IDHT 525:request 393:Reports 331:History 311:Members 306:Contact 294:Discuss 158:(CU/OS) 2101:Accept 1987:Salvio 1981:Accept 1957:Accept 1891:Recuse 1877:Accept 1851:Recuse 1723:Hippie 1718:Hippie 1134:asked 975:intent 475:motion 336:Clerks 194:Report 94:& 85:Ks0stm 2232:above 2162:count 1819:(not 1441:after 1433:edits 1430:these 1408:again 1406:(and 1353:RfC/U 1176:scorn 1054:from 968:into 893:WP:AE 370:Audit 16:< 2168:logs 2150:talk 2109:talk 2092:talk 2073:talk 2052:talk 2033:talk 2019:talk 1907:Talk 1859:talk 1735:talk 1727:here 1695:talk 1664:talk 1537:. 1368:here 1282:TLDR 1105:and 947:URL. 833:and 752:logs 734:talk 704:logs 686:talk 656:logs 638:talk 604:logs 586:talk 387:Talk 378:Talk 345:Talk 325:Talk 179:Talk 149:Talk 115:Talk 101:Talk 90:Talk 73:Talk 62:Talk 51:Talk 40:Talk 26:Case 1963:AGK 1941:AGK 1921:AGK 1827:AGK 1520:|} 1469:-- 1435:to 1419:ANI 1404:ANI 1399:RSN 1394:DRN 1389:RSN 1358:DRN 1341:DRN 1214:at 473:by 261:Log 110:AGK 2260:: 2143:, 2111:) 2094:) 2075:) 2054:) 2035:) 2021:) 1983:. 1900:NW 1861:) 1853:. 1737:) 1729:. 1697:) 1666:) 1510:# 1491:# 1471:# 1290:# 979:# 913:# 901:# 879:# 626:, 566:. 547:. 512:, 506:, 500:, 108:: 83:: 66:— 55:— 44:— 2182:) 2177:· 2171:· 2165:· 2159:· 2153:· 2148:( 2107:( 2090:( 2071:( 2050:( 2031:( 2017:( 1910:) 1904:( 1857:( 1733:( 1693:( 1662:( 1512:_ 1493:_ 1473:_ 1410:) 1292:_ 1253:. 1203:. 1142:. 981:_ 915:_ 903:_ 881:_ 772:) 767:· 761:· 755:· 749:· 743:· 737:· 732:( 724:) 719:· 713:· 707:· 701:· 695:· 689:· 684:( 676:) 671:· 665:· 659:· 653:· 647:· 641:· 636:( 624:) 619:· 613:· 607:· 601:· 595:· 589:· 584:( 515:4 509:3 503:2 497:1 453:e 446:t 439:v 341:+ 299:+ 263:) 259:( 175:+ 117:) 113:( 103:) 99:( 92:) 88:( 75:) 71:( 64:) 60:( 53:) 49:( 42:) 38:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics - Knowledge

Index