Knowledge

:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment - Knowledge

Source 📝

6117:
articles about one side is only a fraction of what occurs on articles about the other. This situation is perpetuated as new good-faith editors trying to balance the content often face aggressive behavior such as strong CTOP messages from Selfstudier followed by inquiries how did they find this and that article, "previous accounts" questions from Nableezy, accusations of "gaming the system to achieve EC status" from Iskandar323 on noticeboards, and as we seen in the last month, unverified tag-teaming allegations from Levivich. Those who survive all of the above then find their user talk pages filled with allegations, insults and other kinds of personal attacks and aspersions. Even five edits in this topic area can provoke such reactions. WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS are ignored - they are applied only to others. RfCs, AfDs, and RMs are manipulated through mass bludgeoning. They blame others for edit warring - but this is exactly what they are doing. Based on my experience with these editors over several months, I am afraid it would be naive to think that simply limiting word count in discussions would solve the problem. Looking over their logs, many of these editors already have a long history of warnings and short-term topic bans, so something else must be done this time.
7346:, the 100 revision (in namespaces 0,1) cut off makes these results a particular way of looking at the topic area. Without the limit, the topic area looks a bit different. For example, from 2022-01-01 to the present there were 44739 distinct actors (excluding bots) that made at least 1 edit to a topic area article or talk page. 'Actor' rather than 'user' because that includes 23124 distinct unregistered IPs. And the total number of revisions to those 2 namespaces was 473212 in that period, which is considerably more than the sum of the PIA column in the stats. So, for me, this way of looking at events in the topic area with an edit count cutoff and a notion of dominant contributors presupposes things about the actual nature of the topic area. It divides contributions up in way that is great for pointing fingers in a partisan information war but may not reflect reality very well. From a single account 'contributor' perspective it seems to be the contributors with low edit counts that may have the largest impact on topic area (although it is impossible to really tell). I'll make some plots for the entire topic area over various periods to show who is doing the editing (in terms of account age) when I get a chance. 10286:
they feel a profound emotional attachment (again, understandably, but love of country is not coterminous with love of any one particular government and/or its worldviews). To respin the disputes that arise as an irremediable clash between nationalist POVs is nonsense, but that is the temptation here. And, if this goes to ARBPIA5, the outcome is predictable. There will be two parties identified (regulars and nationalists/socks), and a number from each will be sanctioned, for wikipedia must not give the impression, particularly under the pressures over the last year, of siding with one 'side' or t'other. And why have we got to this? Because an innonative reading, impeccably 'behaviouralist' now takes all reverts, regardless of the rationales, to be on the same footing, and any series of reverts by different editors, regardless of the talk page or the RS literature (the contexts), as evidence of mutual tag-teaming. of course, there will also be a further tightening of the screws on 'behaviour', since everything else is considered a 'content issue' where it is presumed there are a variety of POVs that are, in any case, not up to admins to read up on or make judgments about.
10055:
the default RS, you are not going to grasp anything there for encyclopedic ends. Who would be so stupid, if their intention was to 'create a toxic battleground', spend decades reading hundreds of books and scholarly articles, when they could simply do what hundreds of SPA and socks do, rack up 500 edits and then, without losing time opening a book, and if caught out, sock, resock, and resock again, in order to sock the 'regular' editors with their opinions, and try to provoke them so they may garner evidence for destroying them at AE?). There is no evidence here, none, as far as I can see, but no doubt some will think, ‘ah, but they’ll find the missing proof for these claims when Arbcom gets to work’. And why should it work on such an outburst of unproven grievances? As I noted on my page, there is a very simple test to find evidence for this hypothesis of a conspiracy (against Israel, that is the tacit innuendo in those complaints above)/bullishly dominating control over IP articles by a 'pro-Palestinian' faction that has putatively consolidated itself as the power to reckon with in the area. Use your wiki tools and elicit confirmation of this bias by examining
9170:(emphasis added) I supported coming here because I think AE is ill-suited to a multi-party sprawling request like this. I actually think האופה is the least important party here in most ways and if the thread had stayed constrained to them a rough consensus would have been found. Instead, the discussion ballooned to potential misconduct by multiple other editors. For me the editors whose conduct needs examining would be BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Nableezy, and Selfstudier and I think ArbCom should review, and hopefully endorse, the work SFR has been doing as an uninvolved administrator given the concerns at least one of the parties (Nableezy) has raised about that work. Additionally, I think Levivich has been promoting, in this and some other recent AE reports, claims of misconduct based on tagteaming/edit warring that I personally don't find convincing (even if the same conduct does show other misconduct I do find convincing, namely a battleground mentality) but which ArbCom is better positioned to examine both because it can do so comprehensively, rather than in a series of one-off AE requests, and because of the authority ArbCom has to 11580:
long-term tag-teaming, POV pushing and the ineffectiveness of current tools to stop this should be looked at. From my nearly 20 years' experience, the main issue has always been that there is a core group of 10-15 editors in this topic area (many of whom have been with us for well over a decade) who are primarily on Knowledge to push their POV – anyone can look at their contribution histories and see that their contributions are primarily adding things that make their side look good/the other look bad and deleting information to the contrary; in discussions such as RMs, RfCs or AfDs, their stances are easily predicted based on their editing history. A further issue is that for most of the last two decades the two sides have been seriously mismatched in terms of numbers and one side has been consistently able to push their POV through weight of numbers, either by long-term tag teaming or by swinging poorly-attended discussions (and in my view the 30/500 restriction has actively worsened this situation by giving the long-term problematic editors an advantage).
14618:. I would also welcome direct case requests or AE referrals if there are allegations that a particular editor is behaving tendentiously (ie, the sum of their contributions is disruptive even if no one diff in isolation is sanctionable) and AE admins are unable to reach a conclusion. And something that stood out to me from AHJ (and which I've been reminded of, reading some of the comments above about how knowledgeable many Wikipedians are on their chosen subject) was the analysis of sources; I didn't think it was ArbCom's place to be doing that analysis itself, but but it could be valuable to have an agreed baseline of what the academic literature says, which (aside from being useful in itself) would then support (or refute) allegations of source misrepresentation. One final thing we could do is avoid the use of news media and primary reporting in articles on current events (this could potentially be done by consensus, or ArbCom writ, or part of the suite of sanctions administrators have available and applied article by article). 10582:@Arkon. Whatever the outcome, I think this lengthy exchange of views, explorations of so many standard terms used to (mis)characterize what goes on in the putatively 'toxic' IP area, has been very useful. Instead of the intrinsic litigiousness of standard AE/ANI reports, this has been a productive (?hmm many will think TLDR perhaps) exploration in civilised dialogue, yeah with the odd edge of irritation or annoyance showing through, but that's picayune compared to the overall tone, of issues that we've never had quite the time to look into. The emergence of toolkit algorithmically generated evidence also was refreshing, an attempt, even if in my view, not quite as successful as one would like, to get a minimal empirical handle on what often is read as mere opinionizing. The rules of etiquette and strict topic focus all too often hinder discussions of what is really on editors' mind, before a community and its arbiters, and it is all to the good that we have been afforded this opportunity. 7068:
page, so I'm not sure where I'm going wrong. But regarding methodology, the including "all editors with more than 500 edits since 2022 who have made 50%+ of their edits in the ARBPIA topic area" will inevitably miss a lot. Perhaps it is unavoidable to some extent. It misses the contributions of AndresHerutJaim's socks for example (the cause of a previous ArbCom case about canvassing). By my count, their socks made 1927 revisions spread over 159 accounts since 2022 to articles and talk pages within the topic area (using the same definition of the topic area as BilledMammal). If you choose revisions since 2020 it's 3703, and since 2018 it's 6504, and I'm not sure any of the accounts would cross the 50% in topic area threshold. And that's just the identified accounts for one sock edit source. We have no idea what the success rate is for sock identification. And somewhat dishearteningly I can see several more (what I regard as) possible socks in the activity statistics.
10170:
bludgeoner, then recalling the earlier episode where they abused their admin tools and damaged my bona fides is more than fair. I was a newbie at that time (that shows in my remarks there), and was almost driven off by the arbitrary punitive measures made against me. I don't hold grudges because I made no formal complaint, which might have damaged you, and I have almost never had recourse, on principle, to making ANI/AE reports to settle disputes by getting someone who disagrees with me banned, a practice that is of chronic here, one used against me with unusual frequency. I exercise care in the words I use. 'atrocious' per Merriam-Webster means 'extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel: barbaric.' You're entitled to that view of me as someone displaying exceptional brutality and cruelty on wikipedia. But you should quietly ask yourself, because I don't report insults, how that squares with the content evidence of my creation of 1,000 plus articles as varied as
10766:. I had the distinct impression the line I quoted summed up (a) BM giving empirical evidence and (b) being attacked for doing so by several editors. My impression was that BM answered my solicitation for such evidence (on another page), came up with his charts and was immediately thanked by sean.hoyland and myself. Then Hoyland, Zero, with a professional competence in these things, questioned aspects of the chart, or the inferences BM drew from them as did SashiRolls. This was absolutely normal, consensual discussion. The only blip was Nableezy being upset at the way BM's chart distorted his comments. BM and Nableezy often collaborate and at times get annoyed at each other, but that is not 'multiple editors' getting at BM. What has been suggested is that his particular modelling of the data produces the kind of result he'd be comfortable with, and that is a point very frequently made of papers in population genetics and other fields. 10093:@User:BilledMammal. I'm sorry, but language and grammar are merciless in these things (and the fact that such niceties are missed so often is one reason reading ANI/AE discussions is, certainly for me, so painful -I was in part permabanned because one admin could not understand irony, though everyone else saw the amicable comedy of my, to him alone, 'aggressively' 'uncivil'/abusive remark). You are simply wrong. If you have played lawn bowls, then grasping whether the ball you are drawing has a wide or narrow bias is fundamental to mastering the art. The whole point of RSN deliberations, and you engage in them often, is to distinguish between narrow and wide bias in newspapers. A narrow bias doesn't imperil the general reliability of a source: a wide bias can lead to deprecation. I guess now, having told you you are flat-out wrong, I have now produced a diff that can be cited in just one more 5783:(calling them "fringe"). We call this adoption of the mainstream bias "neutral point of view." Everyone will always disagree with some parts of it, but it'll be different parts. Sure, I also think our ARBPIA articles are riddled with bias, but not the same parts that Hen Mazzig is talking about, and Arbcom isn't going to resolve that disagreement between us. We are not here because of bias in articles, and I don't think there is any chance that we are going to stick NPOV tags on thousands of articles, nor are we going to elect a body that can come up with a way to write a bias-free summary of the most complicated and controversial geopolitical dispute in history. Let's keep our expectations reasonable: we can kick people out who are causing a lot of trouble, and maybe find ways to reduce the amount of volunteer time wasted on unnecessary writing (cough), that's what we can try to do. 10604:
other. Sympathy when partisan is tribal, and modernity teaches us that, though Hillel the Elder put it superbly in his dictum:'What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn,' which we have now in the form, 'Do not do unto others what you would not have them do to you.' To empathize along ethnic lines is to sap the very principle that underwrites this as a human virtue. So, what befell Jewish israelis in the kibbutzim, and the fate of the hostages elicits the same pain as one should feel at what befalls Palestinians. I admit that there are very strong drifts in representation which retribalize our principles, demanding that we showcase the tragedy of Israeli hostages, each with a photo and lifestory, while the parallel hostage-taking of Palestinians ( of the 9,170 arrested roughly 4000 are in
7480:
pushing, it is editors who edit according to the best available sources and editors who edit on emotion and time-wasting tactics. And those things should not be treated as though they are opposing camps. Those editing according to our content policies against those editing contrary to them is not a POV-pushing battle. Number 57's complaints about this, as somebody who is informed on how editing goes here, have to my ears always rang hollow. Consensus was against their position on things like including language on the illegality of Israeli settlements in their articles, and so he has openly called those who supported including such a thing, including me, POV pushers. Im sorry he feels that way, Ive never really been aware of what I could do to ameliorate that impression of his, but Ill just state I disagree with the premise of his claim that
14611:
reasons I stood for ArbCom last year. It's likely we will end up holding it in some form but we need a clear scope and a clear question that ArbCom can answer. This is our most troublesome topic area and has already been through this process four times, so ArbCom may not have any tools left in its toolbox, having already created ARBECR out of whole new cloth. The Knowledge dispute is a microcosm of the real-world dispute and a baker's dozen Knowledge editors cannot resolve the entire Arab-Israeli conflict. On Knowledge, the topic heats and cools with the real-world conflict and we are currently in a very large flare up due to horrific real-world events. I am sympathetic to the view that we have reached the limits of what can be achieved with the open, collaborative model given the proliferation of sockpuppetry in the area.
6041:@Sean.hoyland thanks for the numbers, they are really informative! I will say, it is fairly obvious a giant influx of editors to the topic area happened recently as a result of the conflict (myself included), though obviously the analysis of such a large dataset to confirm or deny toxicity by a core group would go beyond just numbers. I think the pure mass of folks in the topic area is just a lot harder to govern around and regulate, especially with the contentiousness of the topic area. And as the conflict spreads beyond obviously ARBPIA pages to tangentially related pages, the regulations get murkier. I think if PIA5 does happen, a key issue is just how to govern and regulate en masse, as well as on the individual editor/cabal level, and how to handle PIA content on pages that aren't just pure PIA (see the 9321:
Arbitration Committee forum. Further, the sanctions being handed out are being done under Arbitration Committee authority, not community authority. As such under the Arbitration and Consensus policies, the Committee can do what it feels best including mandating that all appeals in this topic area are heard by it rather than AE. As to the substance of the SFR's suggestions, I'm not sure the committee wants to hear all appeals, but if it thinks SFR's idea is a good one I would suggest it limit itself to either or both of: appeals of recent sanctions (<3 or <6 months) and appeals stemming from an AE report (regardless of whether it is actioned by an inidivudal administrator or a rough consensus). I think giving uninvolved administrators the ability to use the tools available in
7238:, that table is interesting, but my challenge would be - what is the utility of an unfalsifiable label? Also, if I made that I would have pretty low credence in the labels because I don't know how to write an algorithm to reliably tell the difference between "a pro-Palestine point of view"/"a pro-Israel point of view" and a policy compliant source-based view. This is the tricky thing for me. There's the personal bias, plus a person's source sampling bias that limits what they can see, plus their personal interpretation of policies like due weight, plus what they personally identify as bias etc. and you can't just do a Fourier transform to decompose them. Sticking a label on editors strikes me as an understandable attempt to impose order on something more complex and chaotic. 10851:
behavior of a single editor. So I believe ARBCOM should look into this. In doing so, however, I encourage ARBCOM not to narrowly constrain which editors' behavior will be considered. AE is able to deal with the behavior of single editors. What ARBCOM needs to look at is whether the outcome of editors working together is actionably disruptive where any individual's actions in isolation may not be. I also encourage ARBCOM not to take a narrow view of what constitutes conduct. Mis-representing a source is, in my view, just as bad - and possibly worse for Knowledge's long-term credibility - than any civility issue. It shouldn't be ignored just because it is easier to police language, though I am in no way suggesting that the expectations for collegial language be ignored.
11284:
reflect serious real-world divides, new / inexperienced users and blatant new SPAs are going to constantly flow into the topic area and require experienced editors who are willing to take the time and effort to keep an eye on a vast number of pages in order to maintain some semblance of balance or even just basic compliance with policy. We aren't going to solve the underlying A/I conflict on Knowledge; the topic area is always going to be fraught. And the simple fact is that distinguishing between an experienced editor who eg. frequently reverts in a particular way because they're doing the necessary gruntwork of dealing with an endless tide of SPAs trying to blatantly add a particular bias an article, and an experienced editor who is performing
7300:
effect on the dynamics of the topic area, and most importantly they divide the community into sanctionable and unsanctionable classes. And remember, sockpuppets are not just accounts that makes hundreds edits from a single account and stick around, although there are plenty of those. The majority of sockpuppets make tens of edits in PIA and are gone. Most are probably not "discovered" or blocked at all. The vast majority of articles in the topic area are not EC protected so there is no barrier in place, just the vigilance of editors who spot and revert EC violations. Then, of course, that topic area monitoring and revert work will be counted as part of estimates of how much someone resembles an SPA, which is pretty funny.
7464:
emotions overtake their willingness to pretend that everybody here is editing in the best of faith and we're all one big happy community. And beyond that, as far as I am aware civility on Knowledge has never meant not swearing. And I personally find insulting my intelligence through making specious arguments to be much more uncivil than a "bullshit" said in exasperation. But I was not saying WP:CIV should not count in this topic area, Im just saying if somebody is being realistic about how editing between people who are involved in a conflict in which accusations of rape and genocide are happening in the real world they should understand it is not always going to be roses and butterflies.
16167:- merge discussions are processed in the same venue as deletion discussions. So there potentially is a chance that what is a merge discussion may soon turn out to have consensus in favour of deletion. You didn't intend to delete, but you did get involved in a deletion discussion after all because the final result was delete. And yes, the nom has no control over how the discussion goes. Blocking for violating TBan in this case would be unfair, but you will definitely find people who will assert he violated his TBan regardless. It doesn't matter if mergers/blanking-and-redirecting are not technically deletions. The matter is, that discussion may yield a delete result. 11457:
ones I received. I'm also not sure why it matters -- neither side should be receiving death threats, but nobody "wins" by being more oppressed. As to my lack of having been targeted for on-wiki vandalism by one side or the other, as Nishidani pointed out, my "presence is very rare in the IP area" so not only would I have less visibility over other people receiving threats, logically I'm not going to be the target of abuse from that area either. And, I was considerably less active in editing from 2012 until 2023, which certainly bears on why my User Talk was not subjected to those kinds of attacks. Thus I believe I'm just not a good fit for your metaphor.
10824:
contributions and all topic areas, I'm quite convinced that there would not be much of an encyclopedia. I realize that Arbcom tries to clinically separate content and conduct, but IMO one should not lose sight of the goal of the entire project. And while productive, good faith editors can be driven away from contributing due to battleground behavior and general nastiness, it's also true that they can be driven away by excessive rules and (the fear of) overzealous ban-hammers. I do believe that editors who actually work on creating an encyclopedia should be distinguished from people who just show up to revert or argue on talk pages. (
9512:
possibilities to me: the editor made up/manipulated evidence, the people accusing that editor of lying are casting personal attacks, or there is such bad faith among topic area editors that honest mistakes/normal editorial choices while summarizing information is seen as being done with malevolent intent. In theory ArbCom is best positioned to figure out which of these things is true in this and several other similar accusations. And if ArbCom decides they can't (or don't have capacity to stay on top of this kind of conduct during a case), I hope they consider an intermediary step until ArbCom would have the capacity to do this.
13530:'s point of view above... while this is clearly a hugely emotive and contentious topic area for many and of course there are numerous disputes, my from-a-distance perspective is that conduct is actually a lot better than you might expect. While many editors fall into one of two "camps", the WP principles of compromise, respecting others and objective analysis still seem to be present in many debates. I'd urge ArbCom to be extremely cautious about imposing too many editing restrictions or topic bans in this area, on either side of the debate, I think that would lead to less good coverage of the subject rather than more. 9881:. When a theory fails, those convinced of it invent another theory (Untouchables here) to account for why it was not accepted, etc.). The result here is a series of intemperate variations of a boilerplate meme chanted about the I/P area, which I have heard for a dozen years used of individual editors but now used of a group, first targeted by several off-wiki sites and now pushed as a reality which slipped past our monitoring for 20 years. And it is just an unsubstantiated opinion, esp. from editors I’ve almost never seen here, and, surprisingly seems to be getting some traction. 13416:. To be clear, I am not denying that contentious topics are likely to have more sockpuppetry or newer editors in the topic areas than a "tame" subject would. That does not, however, justify cherrypicking PAGs that support one side, and ignoring arguments to the contrary - and it especially does not justify bludgeoning discussions so that the closer has no choice but to find those arguments "stronger" simply because people either tire out of refuting the claims, tire out of pointing out the failures of the arguments made, or are threatened with administrative action by those who 10928:), led me to find the editing environment disturbingly toxic, and not due to some simple problem with a small number of easily identified editors. Rather, it felt like a fairly large number of experienced editors, together, were acting in a way inconsistent with a CTOP subject. That strikes me as something that AE is poorly equipped to deal with. And it fits exactly with the concept that ArbCom should accept cases where the community has tried, but been unsuccessful, to resolve. So I recommend that ArbCom accept this case, and do so with a large number of named parties. -- 11525:
administrator who is not themselves involved, but who wishes to push their finger on the scale of the matter, could simply "knock out" any other admin (or non-admin editor) as being "involved" with the only recourse being (if Motion #1 also goes through) an Arbitration appeal. That seems highly unlikely to reduce the amount of heat on the topic, and I don't see how it leads to the goal of encouraging outside voices. If there's a concern over specific administrators taking actions while being involved, I think that should be raised individually on a case-by-case basis.
14071:
accusation/disputed claim. This is the sort of situation where a closer, while acting in good faith, can create issues with a questionable close. In this case, editors had good reason to question the close of POVTITLE grounds. However, with a basically 50/50 split between editors who were happy/unhappy with the move the review was closed as no-consensus. I feel in cases like this if we can't endorse the close then the close needs to be reverted (perhaps for a panel close). Note that this isn't specifically a problem for this topic area.
13469:(outside obvious socks/SPAs/etc that AE can continue to handle), or resolve the issues in this topic area by some other means. As it stands, editors on the side with more experienced editors can continue to weaponize AE to remove editors they don't like from the topic area since AE admins feel obligated to continue reviewing reports with what ideally should be an impending case - and as they've said multiple times, AE isn't the right place nor equipped to handle reports regarding conduct that crosses over a plethora of editors. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | 11173:(Perhaps I'm posting here too much, but ArbCom's near-silence creates a vacuum.) ArbCom, don't get distracted by outside publications claiming bias in our content. It's special pleading, and ArbCom shouldn't end up with another Polish Holocaust case. We've got a problem, apparently, with a bottomless well of newish accounts that make life difficult for good-faith editors, which is something that AE should be able to handle. And I believe strongly that we have a problem with experienced editors who make it too difficult for AE to do its job. -- 14596:
that we probably should given that AE has done exactly what we told them they could and should do: refer cases to us. As much as I'm remiss to hold PIA5, it seems increasingly unavoidable. The world's most intractable problem continues to be our most intractable problem. Should this AE become PIA5 though? That's where I'm undecided and would be interested in more feedback on whether we can resolve the narrow origins of this AE report without also having to make it PIA5. It may benefit us to consider PIA5 independent of this AE request.
10943:(Added after some other editors have kindly said that they agree with me; I don't know if they will agree with what follows.) ArbCom should know that the problems with "the usual suspects" that cannot be handled by AE generally do not fall along the expected POV fault-lines of Israeli versus Palestinian POVs, or antisemitism or Islamophobia. (I'm sure there are POV pushers like that, but they can be handled at AE.) If anything, there's a divide between different lines of Jewish thought, with the most problematic editors favoring 7429:
looking at four editors in a vacuum in this, or any other topic where the temperature in the real world is beyond mildly warm, is all that productive. I’m well aware of the committees past rulings on standards of behavior, but I for one am unable to understand how anybody can think a topic like this, where the real world conflict it is covering contains accusations of ongoing crimes against humanity up to and including rape as a weapon of war, mass indiscriminate killings, and genocide is going to remain calm cool and collected.
9039:, simple cases of misbehavior of newish accounts are fairly easily handled, as I think my ~80 AE sanctions this year show. The issue arises when we're asked to look into tag-team or long-term edit warring, as we were in this case, and even cursory investigation shows that a large number of editors are involved. You can't have edit warring or tag teaming with just one party or one side. AE is not equipped to handle, or at least they're is no appetite to handle, multiple long-term edit wars involving large numbers of editors. 12520:, or try to push a POV over what reliable sources support. And definitely some of that has been happening here, and I encourage ArbCom to look at the behavior of individual editors in this topic area. But I don't think this stuff coming from established editors is a systemic issue over and above the inherent fact that the Israel/Palestine conflict just is a contentious topic. It's fine to not want to edit in a contentious topic area but I don't think that a topic area being intimidating to edit in is by itself an issue. 8955:. I've done my best to take care of all of the obvious cases that won't have to set aside a dozen hours of time to deal with, but much of the behavior is by editors with numerous prior warnings and sanctions but that topic banning, interaction banning, and blocking is not a simple matter. Most AE reports in the topic area involve behavior that is widespread among many parties, and picking out a single party for sanctioning and allowing other editors to continue the behavior isn't how enforcement should be working. 13541:. I'd like to know what I was supposed to do differently in that instance? Perhaps it could have instead been a "no consensus" close, but the effect of endorsing the RM close would have been the same. It's been long-established that consensus building on Knowledge takes place by viewing comments through the lens of policy, but equally closers almost always find consensus for the majority vote if there isn't a lot to choose between the strength of arguments. Bluntly, there isn't an objective policy that says 3528:. The issue with the previous motion is that Remedy 6-8 rely on the "primary articles" and "related content" distinction, and establish some special rules that are not found in the rest of the CTOP/ARBECR world. This motion would retain some of the guidance on the templates but broadly eliminate the formal differences in enforcement rules. One other option is to bring some of the rules from ARBPIA into the broader arbitration enforcement procedures. I think there is some merit in that idea — currently, all 10445:(38,036 edits). Another successful sock tagteaming operation since they did manage to change the name before being caught out. I don't know if it is proper to call this misrepresentation 'lying'. It is nonetheless the kind of error which can easily insinuate itself when one is applying to a massive data field algorithms that have no feel for context. Note that Icewhiz/User:Seggallion is missing from BilledMammal's chart unaccountably., comfortably slipping through the tool net despite 38,036 edits. 5137: 7449:, there was a similar argument, where one "side" was claimed to be the pro-Palestinian side, and the other the pro-Israel side. But that, like most of these disputes, was not true. One side was indeed pushing an identifiably nationalistic narrative identified with one "side" in the geopolitical conflict, the other was not. The two "sides" here have never been symmetrical here. As far as BilledMammal's highly subjective understanding of bludgeoning, he lists me as having bludgeoned 5367:. The criteria used for the database search can be seen as a (flawed, but useful) proxy for the latter. The former requires contextual analysis as to whether or not someone is simply posting the same point a bazillion times in response to different people; showing diffs in the same discussion where someone is repeating the same point over and over (and over) again across a multitude of comments would provide better evidence towards that point than the analysis currently does. — 6416:; for bludgeoning, I would suggest instead a rule that direct replies to !votes be disallowed, indirect replies and responses only in own sections as at AE. As for exclusion from !voting, I would go along with this provided that every editor that had made even one edit to an AI/IP article was similarly excluded (I assume that such excluded editors would still be permitted to open formal discussions? eg opening an RM is usually considered equivalent to a bolded !vote.) 10564:, and sometimes it may be quite disconcerting for those whose general information on the conflict comes from TV and mainstream newspapers to find that there is another, equally valid, perspective on events, and we must balance them for NPOV. There is absolutely no problem in finding massive coverage of events from a pro-Israeli perspective, but you have to frequently go to the scholarship to see the other side. And much of that scholarship comes from places like 10205:
unblock a sanctioned Israeli user after he talked to you privately (invisibly, without even examining the relevant pages where he broke 3R to verify his narrative) and (b) denied my own unblock request when, given the circumstances, you should have stayed out of this and left the decision to any other admin who was uninvolved. I gave all the relevant links, to allow editors to draw their own conclusions. Archaeologists of wiki disputes can judge for themselves.
6078:* regarding the "secret majority" theory proposed by some, I argue that folks use the idea that CTOP contentiousness is driven by a small group of editors to pursue a "burn the house down" strategy of removing/wounding an editor population they perceive to be ideologically biased in one direction. Sean.Hoyland has already produced statistics indicating that editor counts are diverse and that the area is contentious primarily because the topic is contentious. 7597:
this topic area outside of the AE request being referred here. The person who was brought to AE has not made a single response to any of this, but somehow we have a number of users rising up to demand topic bans be given out like candy on Halloween. I think there are any number of things that the committee can do in this topic area, hell should do in this topic area. I dont really see how many of them are at all related to what was referred to them here.
12961:, there is a consistent group of editors that repeatedly accuse a list of sources they have deemed to be "anti-Israel" while also defending-ad-bludgeon advocacy sources like the ADL and categorically defining Israeli news media as reliable. These discussions do not display the converse: there is no bloc of editors that rejects Israeli sources out of hand while categorically insisting that pro-Palestinian sources are reliable (for further evidence, see 9652:
case could also allow for an examination of the pieces only arbcom can handle because of their offwiki nature (including what was oversighted during this request). That said some kind of motions along the lines of what Harry offers could be worth a try, as could a narrower case that Aoidh proposes (though I think the odds of success are slimmer here because disruption truly is more widespread than just the "power users" who show up at places like AE).
9190:
a way to "punt" that decision, instead focusing on whether or not it agrees with Levivich's interpetation of tag-teaming/edit warring. I say this based on comments members of the 2019 committee (a 13-member committee which is the only one to have a bigger activity problem than this committee) have made around their inability to give PIA4 and Antisemitism the full attention they deserved. In the latter case this then blew up into a much bigger case (
11603:
topic area is dominated by a relatively small number of long-term editors who rarely break rules such as 3RR etc, but (as said above) are purely here to push their POV and support other members of their group in doing so. They have been allowed to do this for years – the question is whether the community sees this as perfectly fine, or whether it wants to do something about it (which IO think can only be achieved by a mass handout of topic bans).
7363:, I'm just counting revisions and excluding bots so it shouldn't change the top 20 counts. Or maybe I would get slightly different counts. I haven't actually checked. Should probably do that but I can't imagine it would be significantly different as we are doing roughly the same thing. What would be nice would be to see how many reverts are spent on enforcing ARBECR, but there is a lot of diversity in people's edit summaries making it tricky. 2932: 2904: 10985:
that being listed as a named party is not a predetermination of guilt, something that perhaps will be more important here than in many other cases. You have multiple AE admins telling you that a full case with multiple parties is needed, and they have given you a reasonable list of potential parties (including admins who are well-positioned to give useful evidence). This is not the time to get stuck on quasi-legalistic procedural details. --
5988:* There is benefits to having folks with bias on here, especially the most heaviest editors, doing major work. Bias is inherent to humanity and pretending otherwise is just an excuse to press the red ban button without considering consequences (or especially because they hate the current bias of Knowledge compared to their preferred bias). The way to deal with bias is using the principles we have, rules we can apply even handedly, 12545:
that "they're the POV pushers, our side is just correct" and that "users are allowed to have their own POV", with the latter suggesting that it's okay to let POV dictate editing and !voting instead of following policies and sources. Call it battleground, tag-teaming, CPUSH, whatever you like, but in my opinion it should be a major focus when considering whether the editors in this area are here to build a neutral encyclopedia.
7620:. You know what’s a problem in this topic area? People making things up and saying it with a straight face so that others believe them. Again, I would highly recommend that you all not take such absolutely bad faith "evidence" at face value. There are multiple examples in that table in which BM is straight up lying about an editors position. Oh, and guess who started that RM? The supposedly non-existent problem of socks. 6523:
This is good advice because there is utility in diluting POV edits, edit war participation etc. A few strategic edit warring edits in a sea of multi-topic edits will likely be treated differently than a few strategic edit warring edits by an account that resembles an SPA, even though they are the same. It may also devalue article intersection evidence between accounts and reduce the chance of a checkuser being approved.
11392:'s experience here echoes mine. The tendentiousness, bludgeoning, and sealioning behavior from these battleground editors makes it exhausting and frustrating for non-battleground editors to participate. In any event, I see the "usual suspects" attempting to downplay or deny that there's any dispute, in contrast to the uninvolved parties saying, essentially: "It's you: you're the problem." I think that's rather telling. 6855:...what are the answers? Nobody knows, but we know from the data that they are a constant presence, make thousands of edits, participate in many discussions and have a significant impact on the dynamics of the topic area (including the things often referred to as 'heat' and 'temperature' - slightly misleading terms because those are measurable quantities in the real world that are unreliable subjective guesses here). 9367:
singularly focused Wikipedian" divide (for instance SFR has pointed out that Levivich's definition of tag-teaming could apply to some of former group but is only being applied against the latter group). This complexity is why I repeat my concern about ArbCom accepting a case unless it feels it truly has the capacity/ability to do it just because a lot of people (me included) are saying the status quo isn't working.
13763:, if I see that editor A supported move B for an article about C, it feels a bit superficial for me to think, 'aha, editor A is a pro-C partisan' instead of thinking, 'I had better immerse myself in the relevant literature and see if I agree that the secondary sources support move B for topic C'. To the extent that POV pushing is the animating concern of this referral, it rather matters that we know what 12168:
violation of WP policy, and an apparent policy of assuming bad faith from anyone whom you believe you’ve sussed out to disagree with you go totally unpunished and be downright normalized—and it’s mostly coming from a handful of dominant editors. Something’s gotta give, and if that’s a rain of topic bans, then so be it. I see a few names listed that I believe do little more here than worsen the project.
8900:
consideration of whether the apparent trends are really unreasonable — what should we expect the data to look like if the topic is in good shape? Second, it requires consideration of what information is available but not represented in the data and whether it changes the picture. Neither of those two things have been done. (Critique of statistical experiments is one of my professional specialties.)
11354:
discussions on any attempt to balance it. And because events are moving quickly in the real world, this is a serious concern; there's constant new events that justify new articles, which often require fixes but which can't necessarily be summarily deleted. Beyond that, it's, again, not really aimed at the real problems here - revert-wars aren't the main issue (they're one of the things admins
14239:
what ArbCom should enact to help admin find solutions to editor conduct issues. In response to how to refer a case to AE: instead of a magical incantation suggested by SFR, an admin can use a bolded vote at the beginning of a statement (something like "Refer to ArbCom", in bold) or as was done here, an uninvolved admin can determine that action as the consensus of the admin conversation.
13432:, and ultimately through derailing any chance that the behavior is addressed. That is why this is back at ArbCom after what, 4 prior cases? And of course, many of the problematic experienced editors have already shown up to this request to bludgeon here with chants of "there is no war in Ba Sing Se" over, and over, and over again to try and deflect from and/or justify their own behavior. 11782:. I dabbled in editing within the topic area some months back, but quickly opted to mostly stay away - since December or so, my related editing has only been in the Current Events portal/ITNC and various admin/arbitration noticeboards. This pivot was due to the absurd levels of incivility, condescension, POV-pushing, bludgeoning, edit-warring, hypocrisy, and virtually every other type of 8712:
court). Meanwhile, no case has been made for PIA5. We have seen wild assertions without evidence, that's all, and it would be a mistake to take them at face value. Considering that there is a shooting war going on right now, ARBPIA is actually in better shape than one would expect. I've been editing in ARBPIA for over 22 years and for most of that time it was in worse shape than now.
7323:...absolutely. I would go as far as to say the entire pro-Israel vs pro-Palestine model is very likely to be the wrong model. It's a trap, sometimes used intentionally, sometimes used unintentionally, something that traps people into ways of thinking about solutions that cannot possibly produce effective solutions. Better models could be honest vs dishonest, Knowledge rules : --> 13456:. One need only look at the significant number of experienced editors who are not a part of the "in group" who've commented here that they avoid this topic area because they have no hope of participating constructively against the other experienced editors - whether they're working in coordination or simply independently being disruptive. As such, I see the only solution being 9022:, the tldr is the original complaint was more or less about tag team edit warring, looking into it I saw that it was, in my view, broadly similar to much of the behavior widespread in the topic area, and wasn't terribly interested in making one-off sanctions. It's incredibly widespread, as well as other disruptive behavior, and AE isn't the place to address topic-wide issues. 7221:
might be a stretch thinking about it). I think for many people it seems to be quite easy to mis-categorize pro-Knowledge as pro-Palestinian. Perhaps this follows naturally from the claim that the media, organizations, governments, academia (everyone?) etc. is biased against Israel, so following sources will make you look biased against Israel. It's all a bit self-referential.
8118:. I've manually re-reviewed all of Iskandar323's other !votes, and they appear accurate, but if you have any issues with them please let me know - although preferably on the talk page, to avoid requiring the Arb's to wade through the collaborative process of improving that table. If I refuse to change the table I think that would be when it is appropriate to raise here. 8846:(b) Overall, 975 days are included. This means that even the largest edit count, that of Selfstudier, is only 15 edits per day (in fact effectively less, guessing 9–10, as Selfstudier often makes consecutive small edits). My count at #16 in the list is only 2.5 edits per day, which is remarkably few given that my watchlist of length 8,687 includes most ARBPIA articles). 14455:. A case with a set number of named parties that led to this arriving at ARCA would allow us to more thoroughly examine those issues and determine if this is something specific to those editors that might require sanctions, or if there may be more general actions that can be taken, in which case we can do so with a more thorough examination of the facts via a case. - 6859:
are asymmetries in the costs of preparing and processing an SPI report vs creating a disposable account, which is a virtually frictionless process. These asymmetries, and there are many, seem to be very significant features of the topic area. Using disposable accounts appears to be a better strategy for the righteous advocate and it's not obvious how to change that.
13166:. All of these edits should have been uncontroversial. But I know that when I do the former (ie.removing "in Israel" from places which have been occupied by Israel since 1967) I can expect a tsunami of insults and threats, while when I do the latter (ie: placing Arab cities in Israel), I have *never* recieved any such reaction. Why this difference, I wonder?cheers, 10306:
oddly - my list has over a score, since Oct.7. That issue was what Levivich tried to address, and his reports somehow got transformed into assertions that they weren't the problem, the 'regulars' were, all based on hearsay circulating for at least a decade, hearsay drummed up by new off-wiki attack sites with a clear nationalist brief to go for wiki's IP jugular.
13845:: The recent motions are well-intentioned efforts to deal with the issues presented by this situation without dealing with the editors involved. While that approach is tempting and understandable, I believe that, as some have pointed out, that they might make things worse, promote tag-teaming and offsite canvassing, and constitute a failure to act if not worse. 10386:. As far as I can see, your statistics do not note a deterioration over time of editing in the IP area. They only indicate that roughly half of the cases brought there are IP related, and that AE has efficiently sanctioned a large number of the editors reported. I could make many other inferences but leave a proper analysis to those competent in these matters. 12260:) from appearing on BilledMammal's list. That said, and as others have already said on the talk page (or when it is was brought to ANI as an attack page), showing that people engaged in discussion, provided RS, debunked silly arguments, responded to sockpuppet provocation, etc. does not show that people "bludgeoned" anything. As the explanatory essay says: 14043:, and explicitly mark them as such to readers with an appropriate banner? To remove this banner, we could introduce more stringent criteria requiring a wider consensus, including input from uninvolved editors. Articles that fail to pass these reviews would remain marked as "potentially biased". It would also be easier to re-introduce a banner if needed. 14075:
committee to look not just at editor behavior but structural ways we can try to avoid these problem in the future. There are many good editors on both sides of this topic and even more who likely aren't on either side but who just want to do good work in this area. I think some rules based reforms vs finger pointing at editors might be helpful here.
8269:, I believe that 13, collectively making 75,383 edits to the topic area since 2022, generally align with a pro-Palestinian position. I believe two, collectively making 5,832 edits, generally align with a pro-Israeli position. The remaining five, collectively making 19,550 edits, are either neutral or have a position that I have been unable to determine: 9877:
reported over the last year, and invariably the cases were dismissed. They were frivolous, but ‘there is no smoke without fire’ psychological atmosphere created by this repetitive questioning of my policy-adherence and good faith, indeed, precisely because AE rejected these piddling reports, the claim emerges that editors like me are ‘untouchable’ (
11492:
a Marine, as well as not realizing I'd been out of the military for over a year at that point) categorically disqualified from participating in the Israel topic area; made the same argument about a British military admin; and then proceeded to imply that we were tag-team coordinating while admitting that you had no evidence whatsoever to make that
8811:. Levivich deconstructs this division better than I could, and I wholeheartedly endorse his analysis. In terms of disputes, the most common division is between those who uncritically accept Israeli official versions and those who don't. Being critical of Israeli propaganda is completely different from being uncritical of Palestinian propaganda. 16351:
intended to solve. If an editor edits unhelpfully about topic X but productively about adjacent topic Y, then in a doubtful case and all other things being equal, one might not want to construe a topic-ban on X to include Y. Of course, where the applicability of the topic ban is clear then it must be observed, unless and until it is modified.
332: 340: 8929:. This is a dreadful idea. Practically nobody attends these discussions without a pov. The effect will be that newcomers summoned on off-wiki groups, who usually come with a minimum of knowledge, will have greater rights than dedicated editors who are expert on the subject. Also, there will be endless argument over who is "involved". 6063:. All areas of Knowledge has "regulars" and regulars generally provide the most institutional wisdom to the project, rejection of "regulars" ability to vote would likely represent a repudiation of the current coverage of the conflict in favor of the implicit view by some that "secret majorities" have overrun the CTOP areas. For 6867:
subsets, see what happens. Have a closely guarded set of articles with all of the existing rules, any new remedies, any new entry barriers, checkusers for every editor active there etc., the strictest possible enforcement environment. Have another set that could be a land for the oppressed and mistreated ban evading victims of
3090:
conflict, broadly interpreted", and making conforming edits to the rest of the case. (We can keep the templates, but the definitions of primary articles and related content will no longer be necessary in defining the scope of the restrictions.) Doing so would resolve this request and simplify the language going forward. Best,
12541:
have, their behavior is the worst of any topic area on Knowledge. Everyone here knows which users I'm talking about and which sides they fall on, but we have to pretend we don't so as not to be accused of casting aspersions. I see an Arbcom case as the only way to turn this years-old "open secret" into something actionable.
11292:-ing innocent new editors, is often not obvious. Part of the reason an ArbCom case is needed is because the community and AE aren't equipped for that; but this also means it's important to approach the case with an eye towards the drive-by / SPA problem, at least as context for the behavior of parties to the case, and not 10512:'s political history of Tibet at 17; to specializing academically in the concepts of nationalist exceptionalism -all underdog stories and therefore a sense that any judgment must be grounded in universalist principles or logic. When I started reading wiki IP articles, Palestinian history was absent from most (so I rewrote 10079:, They are not valid evidence for what you claim for a very simple linguistic reason. 'Severe bias' and 'bias' are not interchangeable, the adjectival qualifier makes all the difference. All newspapers have bias, like humans. 'Severe bias' in a newspaper/organization is what makes it unacceptable, as distinct from others. 16147:
they believe is wrong with the article. But urging people to go towards a deletion discussion, or anything that would touch it, is something they should avoid as part of their sanctions. Again, they would be better off if instead of tagging, they actually found the sources, or told others they couldn't find any at all.
8793:
tables (example: only 17% of Selfstudier's edits this year were in mainspace, but who knows?). My greatest fear is that arbitrators will think that you are just a helpful provider of objective information when in fact you are one of the main area protagonists and your data must be critically examined with that in mind.
9671:(and anyone else watching) I think at this point there are no bad ideas. Part of my rationale for proposing the motions was to see if they sparked any better ideas. Separate cases might be worth thinking more about. How would we structure a general case about the topic area to avoid it becoming a mud-slinging contest? 12752:. I would like to see a case in which the most frequent participants in the area are scrutinized, and that this will be proposed as a principle to guide any and all remedies. The repeated insistence from frequent participants that only newbies and socks are the problem has further convinced me that this is necessary. 11091:(Although, in my case, it might not show what you expect now.) I'd suggest other editors, with more experience in the content area than I have, consider doing that, too. Arbs might want to click on those source links to check them for yourselves, but that's as far into source material as I expect you will need to go. 2953: 8772:, none of them started an RM nor (on a cursory scan) questioned the use of "massacre". But this tacit acceptance of the facts is absent from your analysis. This is just one example of how your raw data tends to misrepresent reality. A proper analysis would need to compare reliable sources against !voting patterns. 11221:, while I don't particularly appreciate being snidely labelled a pro-Israel complainer, I do appreciate an immediate example of "experienced editors . . turning the entire topic into even more of a WP:BATTLEGROUND than it needs to be". So—on balance, notwithstanding its intention—I thank you for your statement! 10472:. My instincts told me immediately that there was some echo in that voice I recognized from the past, and a few moments of thought prompted me to associate it with a prior editor, highly intelligent and articulate, very pro-Israel, but utterly unfamiliar with any of the scholarship. The name that popped up was 5907:. There are POV-fork type issues, but this is one of those topics where every time there is a question of how to categorize the conflict, it opens up the same exact battle lines of arguments in a million pages, even if they cover completely different aspects that may involve Israel/Palestine as one example. 13324:
furiously engages is necessarily disruptive. We should be careful not to draw a false equivalence between the two. Especially when one side focuses on policy based arguments, namely summarizing inclusively pro Israeli and Palestinian sources while other sides are pushing for singular/nationalist narratives.
10612:) is systematically ignored. To state that, given the disparity, is not to espouse a pro-Palestinian perspective. It is simply to insist that our civilization in its laws and ethical principles commends our sympathies to go out to whoever suffers, regardless of the mean divisions of politics and ethnicity. 8829:(academics at opposite ends of the pov spectrum). Incidentally, none of the articles directly related to the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel or the subsequent Israeli response appear among my 1,500 most-edited articles, and Talk pages come it at number 412. No wonder I failed my Pro-Palestinian Activism exam. 3706:: I guess the question is whether it'd be worth codifying this distinction for the other CTOP areas as well. We can go in the other direction and borrow some of this language for use in the broader enforcement procedures — ARBPIA is not particularly unique in the sense of being a broad topic area. Best, 6345:
now, suggesting that the only basis for said designation is the content of the replies (of editors and admins) in said case, which lacks a certain logic afaics. Which is not to say definitively that there should not be a case, just that it should have proper antecedents and not merely come about ad hoc.
14195:
It would be quite helpful to have your perspective here. I would also appreciate hearing further from the uninvolved admins as to what you'd like ArbCom to do — I see two buckets of possibilities: (1) Hold a full case or case-like structure to resolve the complex multiparty questions here, and/or (2)
13356:
On one hand, if this becomes PIA5, more people would have given commented (if they wished) and existing editors might have presented evidence differently. On the other hand, a lot of time is wasted going in circular questions about the correct forum, when many of the issues raised are the same. If it
13115:
Not to mention that some cats are the subject of off-wiki harassment and outing-attempts, while others are not. I cannot recall in all my years here that there has been a single attack-page aimed at the pro-Israeli editors, while there have been at least half a dozen attacking those editor not deemed
13050:
As for Number 57 view: "is a core group of 10-15 editors in this topic area (many of whom have been with us for well over a decade) who are primarily on Knowledge to push their POV I could also easily name such a group – but it would prabably be a totally different group from the one (I guess) Number
12540:
Given the pushback from regulars in this area, I'll add one more voice from someone who's only edited at the edge of the topic area and have felt dissuaded from contributing further. I can't say it better than Swatjester: "'It's you: you're the problem'". Whatever excuses the entrenched editors might
11491:
thank you for bringing up an example that I did not remember from nearly two decades ago of your atrocious behavior within this topic area, in which you became so infuriated that I denied an unblock request from you, that you went on a rant about how my military service in Iraq (miscategorizing me as
11055:
nature of the problem, in ways that contradict one another, and that cannot possibly all be true. If that means that ArbCom is having difficulty envisioning what such a sprawling case would consist of, and lead to, that reflects what a mess this is. But not knowing ahead of time what the outcome will
10850:
I saw several reports at AE that mentioned tag-teaming as a concern. I did not find anything actionable in the ones I investigated, but I agree with BK49 above that AE is less well-placed to investigate a sprawling multi-party dispute where the behavior of multiple editors may be of concern, than the
10480:
alluding to the possibility the editor had a prior account. Whatever the truth, that editor desisted from further editing IP articles. Go figure. But only deep editing experience will give one the kind of informal knowledge (often subjective, but not infrequently spot on, though never mentioned) that
10459:
This isn't some pleas for myself, but a note to explain something about why the widespread enmity against 'longterm editors' who, several seem to believe, should be TNT'd so that the area can be rebuilt effectively, is a simpleton fantasy that can do enormous damage if taken seriously. Apart from the
10305:
hell for the first decade of my working here, and I don't think growing senility accounts for my impression that over the last several years much of that heat has been significantly lowered, thanks to ARBPIA3. The only change I have witnessed is the sharp rise in newly registered accounts that behave
10300:
And yes, seconding Zero, I really would like to see a minimum of evidence that the place has deteriorated to the point of requiring executive re-examination. What evidence we have is that there has been a massive investment of editors, a great many new, creating and working hundreds of articles since
9297:
Thanks Z1720. Sounds like your reading is the same as what I had previously thought. So then I'm still confused about what your initial comment was suggesting - there was never any confusion (that I could see) among the uninvolved admins about what the rough consensus was at a given moment (even if I
9189:
I guess I should add one thing. If this ArbCom can't do the review of editor conduct well, and given that this is the committee with the biggest issues with activity among arbs of any 15-member arbcom in at least a decade it may decide it doesn't have the capacity to do this well, I'd suggest it find
8668:
Here is something that will improve the atmosphere of formal discussions (RMs, RfCs, AfDs, etc): Require everyone to stick to their own statement, regardless of how many times they add to it (like at AE). This will eliminate 90% of bludgeoning right away. For RfCs: one statement in the !votes section
8640:
If any restrictions are imposed on the area, they should apply to everyone and not to some arbitrary list like this one. One of the notable things about the I/P area in the past several months is the remarkable number of new and revived accounts that have joined in, mostly on one side of the equation
7596:
I am largely in agreement with ToBeFree here. If this is a referral of the AE thread then the committee should rule on that AE thread if that seems worthwhile. If a full case is warranted then it should be at WP:ARC, where somebody like me can present evidence on tendentious and disruptive editing in
7507:
about including that information in each article. And since then, you have repeatedly called myself and others POV-pushers for reasons I have not yet figured out. And you have, again, that entire time played up that a couple of pro-Israel users opposed your RFA. I dont know what is disingenuous about
7325:
person from editing in the topic area. Does anyone believe blocking the O.maximov and FourPi sock accounts will change anything when they probably already have alternative disposable accounts. Nothing can be done about personal bias. But plenty can be done about reducing dishonesty in the topic area.
7324:
personal preferences vs Knowledge rules < personal preferences. There are probably lots of better models. The objective function for PIA is poorly defined. If it is something like to maximize policy compliance and minimize disruption, how can we ever hope to achieve that if we can't even prevent a
6435:
I don't think the referral of this particular case and the inclusion of the first two items listed as identified disruption dealing with edit warring necessarily means that AE can't deal with such or didn't in this instance. Just because the experiment blew up the lab does not mean it was a bad thing
6393:
9: If someone insists, rather simplistically imo, on labeling myself, then a more appropriate label from my own perspective would be pro human rights/International law and the alleged pro-Palestinianism derives from my belief that the hr/il rights of Palestinians are breached far more frequently than
6100:
I think we have arrived at a point where editing in this area is not just a battleground environment but an ex-territory of the project. I recognize that I, too, took part in this in the past, not out of desire but because I felt I had no choice when I saw the consistent POV pushing and disregard for
6014:
I am not sure the same cabal of pro-Palestine/pro-Israeli editors is necessarily "crowding" out other editors? There are folks who loudly complain about exiting ARBPIA areas, especially on this section, but that isn't quite the same as actual stats to back that up. I'm actually fairly new-ish to this
5940:
A further issue is that for most of the last two decades the two sides have been seriously mismatched in terms of numbers and one side has been consistently able to push their POV through weight of numbers, either by long-term tag teaming or by swinging poorly-attended discussions (and in my view the
5811:
There seems to be constant RFCs and threads about the reliability of sourcing in this area. I know the current arbitration request is about long term edit warring, but there is also long-term campaigns in talk spaces to remove usage of certain sourcing. See the downgrading of the ADL, the current RFC
5611:
is part of Palestine. Maybe it's happened, but I've never seen anybody try that. AFAIK, there is nobody "on the other side" of the pro-Israeli POV-pushing with regards to the status of Jerusalem. There are just the people who say it's all Israel, and the people who say, no it's split in two parts and
5438:
behavior in the topic area, a filing at AE, ANI, ANEW, or some other noticeboard, should happen first, before an arbcom case. An arbcom case should only happen when (1) there are editors who want to present evidence to arbcom, and (2) community options have first been tried and failed (unless there's
2663:
An exemption is added so that the requirements of "General sanctions upon related content" are not applied to editor restrictions imposed under CTOP. This would be the closest to the current intent where editors could be restricted from related content based on and applying to all of their editing in
2307:
One place says that the "area of conflict" does not extend to userspace (which implies that it does extend to talkspace). ECR indicates that talkspace has some differences in restrictions compared to article space. Both these make sense and can be true at the same time. We definitely do not want the
2157:
However, I will note that the contradiction between the "topic area" as defined and what areas ECR do not allow for is present. And so in a different scenario I would say this user shouldn't have to eat a block that could then be escalated if there are future transgressions. However, given that there
16455:
initiating or participating in merge discussions: This rides the line, but I come out as a "yes this is in scope." A merge discussion has many of the same hallmarks that a deletion discussion does. A merge discussion may also result in the practical deletion of an article, because redirected content
15985:
A ban is not merely a request to avoid editing "unless they behave". The measure of a ban is that even if the editor were to make good or good-faith edits, permitting them to edit in those areas is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, to the page or to the project, that they
15820:
Personally, I think this is being blown out of proportion again. I have not suggested that anything be sent to AFD after the last go-round, where I was warned not to do that again. It's clear how "should this be taken to AFD?" can be seen as me trying to skirt the topic ban. The below-cited Weird Al
14613:
A case with a sprawling scope and no clear question that ArbCom can answer is likely to be an enormous time sink and end up producing little long-term benefit. Instead, I think SFR's suggestions have merit for maintaining some semblance of order, even if it means ArbCom playing a more proactive role
14595:
I find SFR's proposals to be exciting ideas and suggest that at a minimum we propose them as structural reforms in the area, and pronto. I think there's an immediate problem that needs to be solved: this AE report. Resolving it is our necessary goal. I'm not opposed to holding a case here, and think
14450:
A more effective route in handling this may be to have a case that focuses specifically on resolving the complex editor interaction issues that caused this to become an ARCA referral rather than jumping to a broader case that goes beyond those issues, or motions that do not address all of the issues
14428:
I'm open to SFR's suggestion that ArbCom handle the appeals. As to the word limit suggestion, it would at minimum have to be reworded before I'd support something like that. Short of possible scripts or off-wiki websites (most of which give inconsistent word count results), there's no easy way for a
14014:
The sources I previously posted, and which have since been redacted, reported that a group of editors had been coordinating using third-party tools (e.g. Discord) to fight “on the Knowledge front the information battle for truth, peace and justice.” According to the articles, their activity included
13809:
The discussion is useful less for the particulars of whether such a board is useful than it is for the cross-section of attitudes on display, which vary from concern to not giving a damn about civility. Note also that some of the most active I/P editors involved in this discussion participated there
13805:
More needs to be done to improve the civility of the I/P pages, because the current atmosphere in these pages is simply unacceptable. Editors and administrators both too often disregard that civility is not a suggestion, not a behavioral guideline, but is policy. Last month I proposed the revival of
13407:
This gets at the root cause of the issues in this (and likely other) contentious topics. Those editors with experience have "practice" in using PAGs in discussions - which is great as discussions should be based on how to apply our PAGs to specific disputes. However, their experience also means they
13334:
The other thing that remains unacceptable is the presentation by some editors in this ArbCom request and general discussions as POV pushing by two sides, when the reality is it is POV pushing versus critically summarizing the state of different reliable sources. Having a much stricter enforcement of
11898:
That's not even to mention the specific reasons why this case was primarily brought here (in my understanding), that being AE is mainly intended to be an A reporting B case forum. When the issue at hand is tag-teaming, multi-party edit warring, multi-party incivility, etc, AE's not too well-equipped
11728:
Huldra, I don't think it's appropriate to get into an argument about who has suffered the most abuse, particularly using a single metric like talkpage redactions – the fact is that no-one should receive any level of abuse for editing Knowledge. And also worth noting that I have also been impacted as
11628:
Re my views on 30/500 – my concern is that it is a deterrent to new editors entering the topic sphere, which is one of the issues preventing an equalisation in the number of POV pushers on each side (as I've said above, I would rather they were all topic banned, but if Knowledge is going to tolerate
11549:
That said, Jeske+Barkeep's suggestion of splitting this into topic area and editor conduct halves I think merits further examination. Depending on how those two groupings relate to each other (e.g. if findings from the topic area can inform whether editor conduct issues exist), that could be a clean
11283:
I also want to second Loki's statement below that much of the problem is drive-by new editors or SPAs with few edits elsewhere - a lot of the other comments here have basically said "this is all about a few bad editors"; I don't think that's correct. In topic areas like this, where the disputes here
11202:
than it needs to be, but also negatively affects the experiences and habits of newer editors who follow the combative, actively hostile methods of those they look up to. Editors of all sides appear to have an unspoken agreement that civility shouldn't really matter when discussing such controversial
9447:
is true. If no one else other than Levivich had replied, some quorum of admin would have been able to reach consensus on האופה. The fact that the replies that actually happened split the focus in a way that AE is ill-equipped to handle is why I ultimately (if reluctantly) agreed we should refer the
8792:
Your response to my request is what I expected and thanks for confirming my suspicion. You are refusing to present information that might shed factual light on the subject when it disturbs the point you want to make. Another example is your refusal to separate main space from talk space in the other
8689:
It's great to see someone present actual evidence. The number of distinct editors in I/P has remained essentially the same for the past 8 years until it suddenly jumped up at the start of the present war. I wonder, is there a simple way to show the same data without the articles specifically related
8647:
Some types of discussion such as a negotiation between two editors should not have a limit at all. Also, in general there is no way to define "a discussion" except in the case of formal discussions like RfCs. The main points of dispute are brought up repeatedly and don't have clear boundaries. This
8379:
If you - or anyone - disagree with any of these, then I think it would be helpful to discuss so that we can create a consensus list, although I would ask that the discussion be opened somewhere other than here. For the avoidance of doubt, this doesn't mean these editors are POV pushing. For example,
7896:
The purpose of RSN is to determine the reliability of sources, not the level of bias. There is no basis in policy to consider biased sources unreliable, and that means that editors attempting to argue that "source they don’t like" is more biased and thus less reliable than "source they like" are POV
7874:
I don’t consider the distinction relevant, because there is no basis in policy to consider sources unreliable due to bias, regardless of the level of bias. Tolerating editors making the assessment that source A is more biased than source B, and thus A is unreliable while B is not, is to tolerate POV
7643:
the use of massacre where all he opposed was your attempt at obfuscating that it was a school that was attacked. You do this constantly, you choose to portray comments in whatever light that makes it appear that your argument is intellectually consistent and honest when it is invariably not. I’ll be
7402:
The "dispute" as defined here is "accounts on Knowledge disagree about various things." In my case I have recently disagreed with a number of accounts about the history of Zionism. On the one hand, early zionists and historians of zionism describe it as a colonial project of settlement. On the other
7202:
Here's an idea for a fun project for someone to make something potentially pretty. Build a directed graph of the sock-related part of the ludicrously large Knowledge category graph and color code the nodes and/or edges for actors that have made PIA revisions (and/or other contentious areas) based on
7187:
And as tempted as I am to name names because I think AGF is counterproductive in PIA when dealing with replicating threat actors, I will just say that I can still see many accounts in the stats that I regard (based on technical data) as probable socks. Maybe someone will file SPIs at some point, but
6902:
It's true that there are instances that can be selected out of the large number of comments on talk pages and elsewhere to tell this story. Sometimes they will be sincere statements and other times they will be insincere manipulative statements by ban evading socks playing the victim in the hopes of
6874:
Are statements of the form "it's toxic disaster zone" true statements or just stories? It's not what I observe. It seems to have improved in some ways. What I have observed over time is what seems to be a gradual transition from things like edit warring as a solution, to talking and the use of tools
6858:
I think there's a bit of a failure to factor in the significance of socks. The existence of an effectively unsanctionable class changes many things in important ways (this is true in other systems too). There are asymmetries in the payoffs and penalties for socks vs non-socks in the wiki-game. There
6562:
This table lists the number of different editors and the number of revisions for talk pages in this 'topic area' for the last ten years or so. The number of revisions provides an upper limit on the number of editor interactions on talk pages. Obviously, the actual number of interactions will be much
6522:
Regarding a perceived "established/multi-topic interested Wikipedian" vs "less-established more and/or more singularly focused Wikipedian" divide, I'm not sure this tells you anything very useful. There is already training material teaching people how to resemble a multi-topic interested Wikipedian.
5704:
recent diffs of disruption by those parties, and links to prior discussions of that disruption that did not resolve it. I think instead of motions, it'd be better for arbcom to close this ARCA without any specific action now but with an invitation for editors to request arbcom's review by presenting
5683:
in under 500 words per person. Limiting talk page discussions to 500 words would be very counterproductive to building an encyclopedia, in any topic area, because it would prevent people from discussing anything in any serious depth. Many of us can't even comment on this month-long ARCA in under 500
5631:
kind of simple. Yes, there are also good-faith content disputes, as to be expected, but the disruption--the edit warring, the source misrepresentation, the POV-pushing--that's largely from socks. And the response to those socks is not POV-pushing from the other side. Following RS is not POV pushing.
5619:
There have been some names named on this page. I remember them participating in disputes about East Jerusalem and Palestinian origins, but I don't remember them ever trying to change an article to say that West Jerusalem was Palestinian, or Jews aren't from Israel. And I don't see any diffs of that.
5546:
made the "other people do it, too" argument and listed a bunch of other editors, and it went downhill from there, as those editors predictably defended themselves and the discussion focused on their conduct rather than HaOfa's (despite my attempts to refocus it). I agree with TBF that an AE referral
5276:
good faith editors from the topic area. In the event that a full case is opened, I agree that it is most appropriate to only have the individuals whose behavior is under examination to be considered as parties. But, before that list is finalized, we might want to have some space for the community to
2446:
If a change to the status of userspace is to be considered, I suggest that arbcom consider all CT topics and not just ARBPIA. Personally I don't understand why an editor should be forbidden from mentioning the topic in their own user space (unless they are actively disruptive there). For example, an
14610:
I apologise for the tardiness of my comments; I've been reading and thinking all along but I've had limited time to type out my thoughts, which requires a proper keyboard. I am reluctant to hold a PIA5, at least at this time and via this vehicle. I thought it was likely to come up and is one of the
13954:
parties in this and other controversial topic areas no matter what they are, in which the off-wiki fighting is intense and Knowledge is just one area in a wide-ranging conflict. Knowledge is not equipped to deal with such situations adequately. Hell we can't even keep the discussions civil. We have
13447:
list of parties - to the point that I would not feel it unreasonable for people like myself, whose editing in the area is limited to participation in a small number of discussions with a small number of comments. However, the root cause of these problems isn't the sockpuppetry (where it occurs), it
13330:
On a practical note, reducing the ability of individual editors to dominate a conversation by instituting either a limit on word count or percentage, would allow more voices to sustainably opine with succint policy based arguments without having to compete for eyeball attention and save clerks more
13040:
of Israels' supporters. It was their incessant rape- and murder- threats which brought about this policy. AFAIK, Number 57 has never been threatened with murder for editing wiki, or seeing his loved ones being raped (And I am happy -and relieved- he hasn't!), but I wish he would try to imagine how
12911:
A PIA5 case has the possibility to go completely FUBAR if it attempts to litigate the entirety of the topic area and regular editors in those areas. This is a stupidly contentious topic and I suspect if we looked at the complete records of every regular editor a well-meaning member of ArbCom could
12888:
The committee will have the power to delete, merge and rename articles by consensus within their own group, without having to go through the regular article deletion. merge or rename processes. Anyone can, of course, comment on the talk page and make suggestions. But only the committee can actually
12830:
I don't think word count limits would help. A bright-line rule against bludgeoning might help avoid lengthy discussions filled with redundancies, but that isn't the core issue. Enforcing behavioral policies more rigorously might help attract a few more neutral editors. The real solution would be to
12647:, replying more so to you because you've provided the strongest argument against my own and have convinced me to some degree. The most critical issue, in my opinion, is tag-teaming. Which regular editors in the area are working together to !vote lockstep, always in a way that favors the same cause? 12440:
A response to Bluethricecreamman's comments: NOTAVOTE (an essay, not a rule) is not really relevant; closes against the majority of views expressed only tend to occur when there is a clear right/wrong (e.g. alignment with a certain policy or guideline). In this topic area, most things are arguable,
12386:
that Badgering and Wikilawyering particularly scares off many that would like to approach the topic, so we're left with the same faces over and over again, and also the same problems. It is very rare in these interminable discussions that I see people give an iota. There is no end in sight, because
11884:
deal with that, in practice it's been reluctant to for one reason or another - many of the experienced editors in question often straddle a line of problematic behavior that AE has seemed unwilling to definitively bring down the hammer on (hence my WP:UNBLOCKABLE concerns mentioned above), and that
11650:
And re Nableezy's comment about me – disingenuous at best. For context, what I objected to was including the same paragraph of text about the legal status of Israeli settlements in the introduction of every single article on a settlement – my view was that everyone knows they are illegal and simply
11624:
A response to Bluethricecreamman's comments: NOTAVOTE (an essay, not a rule) is not really relevant; closes against the majority of views expressed only tend to occur when there is a clear right/wrong (e.g. alignment with a certain policy or guideline). In this topic area, most things are arguable,
11602:
Re LokiTheLiar's comment below that "a lot of the worst behavior is from new-ish users", I would say that is only partially correct. These users tend to be the worst in terms of edit warring and other more flagrant violations of Knowledge rules. However, IMO the real issue here is the fact that the
10969:
About what ToBeFree said, I suspect that the information that would be made available to ArbCom via the case request page would look incredibly similar to what you already have here, so it would just be a bureaucratic waste of time to start over from scratch. And as for any aspersions that everyone
10866:
If this weren't very clear from my statement above, I don't think this ought to be handled by motion. The issues here aren't simple; they need to be disentangled with care. If civility and edit-warring were the only problems, we wouldn't need ARBCOM. We need an evidence phase, and for ARBCOM to dig
10549:
Look at it from another set of angles. What is the proportion of Palestinian (zero) vs (pro-)Israeli/Jewish editors in the IP area, for example? Or what is the proportion of bias in the mainstream sources we almost invariable regard as core RS. E.g.'33,000 news articles from 1987-1993 and 2000-2005
10285:
A very large number of positions assumed to be contentious here are not so in that scholarly literature, where a large consensus on the historical realities exists. These however are relentlessly challenged by editors who don't care much for the ivory tower, but care deeply about a country to which
10059:
created since 7 October (SFR's starting point). Of the hundreds of editors active over them, show that a handful of the 'regulars' has bludgeoned, intimated, harassed, been uncivil across the board, and secured their 'pro-Pal POV'. If you can't then, all we have here is the appearance of blathering
10054:
Where is the empirical evidence for these outrageous spluttering caricatures of a very complex environment (The IP area is notorious for the huge academic industry of explanation that has grown up around it, and unless you read this material, and put aside using newspaper current events sourcing as
9783:
I understand that the list of participants is everyone who was involved in a particular AE discussion or who was mentioned in that discussion. My editing in the topic area is limited, with a limited number of articles on my watchlist. I don't intend on following this closely. If my participation is
9730:
I agree with Barkeep that this should be a full case. But Red-tailed hawk is right on his list of parties – this is a sprawling case where basically all of the regulars in the topic area have worked together to create a hostile battleground that AE hasn't been able to resolve. Not because of a lack
9651:
that there could be separate "topic area" and "editor conduct" cases and my suggestion of a delayed start to a case could be combined. So perhaps the topic area happens now and that could inform both tools (which might solve certain editor issues) and parties to a future editor conduct case. Either
9526:
Trypto: I think determining who should be party to an ArbCom case based on who happened to show up to an AE thread isn't the right way to determine a party list. The party list I gave might be too small but equally discouraging participation at AE because you might become party to a case when there
9466:
I absolutely think you should be able to present evidence about admin conduct in this topic area. Knowing the concerns you and some others had is why I included SFR in my list of potential parties. And I think it's reasonable to say something like "after that initial post by SFR there was no choice
9320:
Regarding Levivich's statement: even beyond what SFR pointed out (BANPOL is quoting Arbitration Procedures), I think Levivich operates under a fundamental misconception about AE. Levivich seems to view AE as a community forum, where as I feel it is, as the name of Arbitration Enforcment suggests an
9264:
no further action would have been needed as ArbCom (arbs/clerks) would do the rest of the steps? If so that is definitely easier than the answer I gave (close with a rough consensus to refer by an uninvolved admin, uninvolved admin files a case request here, and notifies all interested editors) and
8848:(c) The top 20 contributors made 23% of the edits. I don't know how to check this, but I'm guessing that in most areas of similar size the top 20 contributors make a larger fraction of edits than this. Without this information, it cannot be concluded that a small cabal of editors dominate the area. 8387:
As a general note, I think one of the issues with the topic area is that it is common for editors to refuse to acknowledge their own POV, while frequently insisting that the editors they disagree with have a POV. It's possible to manage a POV and edit neutrally, but only if one is able to recognize
7581:
This page is considerably more "toxic" than nearly any talk page in this topic area. Any number of people are making winking references to editors and claiming some misbehavior with absolutely zero evidence besides their vibes. Not to mention the way over the top comments by one admin. I cant say I
7142:
Again, hats off to BilledMammal for bring the receipts. Little time to look in detail right now and probably plenty to think about. But one quick comment on 'it demonstrates that the issue of sockpuppets is less significant than we believe.' The amount of sock activity is a difficult thing to image
5921:
TLDR; battleground fractures into dozens of talk pages that aren't necessarily pov-forks, same arguments pushed everywhere in each RFC. Better guidelines on how to be more succinct with RFCs on this topic, and how to discuss WP:ARBPIA topics on pages that aren't necessarily centered on ARBPIA would
5777:
may be true, but there is not widespread agreement on which way that bias runs. This widespread belief is not a problem that can be fixed, or that we can even try to fix. There will always be widespread belief that Knowledge articles are biased, just like there is widespread belief that the rest of
5599:
Does "pro-Israeli" mean pro-Netanyahu, or pro-the hundreds of thousands of Israelis marching in the streets protesting Netanyahu? Does "pro-Palestinian" mean pro-Fatah or pro-Hamas? And if the truth makes one side look good and the other look bad, does that mean it's "pro-" one side and "anti-" the
5107:
select IBANs, TBANs, individual anti-bludgeoning restrictions, and topic-wide restrictions on the length of posts people make in discussions within this topic area. However, because the discussion broadly turned into a set of complex and multi-party complaints regarding behavior of multiple editors
3684:
I think there's merit to the primary article distinction. This is a sprawling topic area; not on the scale of some contentious topics, but still broad. And there's a difference between the core set of articles that document the conflict and other articles that are not necessarily about the conflict
3089:
points A, B, and C establish the proper enforcement actions to be taken, without need for any reference to "primary articles" and "related content" — a distinction that few if any other cases maintain. I would therefore support a motion defining the "area of conflict" to simply be "the Arab-Israeli
2782:
I think it would be easy to make it clear when mentioning talk space we meant user talk space and are not forbidding edit requests when the specific sanction allows them. Surely we don't want non-extended-confirmed-editors to be able add material to their own userspace they cannot added elsewhere.
2198:
I am only "proposing" that this "technicality" which has not been identified by myself, be fixed up, I'm just initiating the paperwork, to the extent anyone thinks that it is required. What I want is that it not be available as a defense by non EC editors, currently two of them mentioning it, and I
16146:
Not necessarily, as tagging by itself does not automatically lead to deletion discussions and in fact articles may sometimes stay with notability tags for years without getting deleted. Adding a problem tag is not in general participating in deletion discussions. They can tell on the talkpage what
14487:
The reason this was referred here was because the interaction between a specific group of editors and any issues caused by this was deemed too complex for AE to examine and address. A proper examination is needed to adequately address any issues, and if we're going to make a decision based on this
14413:
To your first question, while I have a good idea of what these issues are based on the statements and preliminary examinations of some of the articles/talk pages, evidence that certain issues are substantially more common and disruptive than others would be helpful in determining the scope. To the
14238:
After reading the AE thread and the above statements, I think ArbCom will need to take some sort of action. I agree with L235 that I would like admins, both those involved in the AE and those that were not, to comment on whether it should be a full case or, if we are to resolve by motion, describe
13959:
at that. Administrators have failed. Arbcom has failed. We, the editors, have failed. We need to admit that we haven't done a good job of keeping these articles free of bias. We need to concede that in these subject areas we cannot prevent bias from creeping into and even overwhelming articles. We
13949:
sides of the controversies. That is certainly true with these articles. It is also true that these articles have the potential for bringing the project into disrepute. Is an article too pro-X? Is it too pro-Y? Is there canvassing by editors for X? Is there canvassing by editors for Y? Let's not be
13145:
say they have received death treaths, and I have no reason to disbelieve them, and I am very sorry they have done so, BUT: Do you deny that the threats against "the-not-so-pro-Israli"-editors is far greater than against the "pro-israeli" editors? After all, your talk-pages are blissfully clean of
13054:
I agree fully with Zero0000's asseccment: "There is a reason why many editors who enter the I/P area quickly decide that it is toxic and controlled by a cabal. It's because they come along armed with nothing except strong political opinions and a few newspaper articles, and don't like it when they
13032:
As for Number 57 view: "the 30/500 restriction has actively worsened this situation by giving the long-term problematic editors an advantage" As an editor who has been "credited" by off-wiki web-sites and blogs with bringing about this rule, I can say: "credit where credit is due", namely with the
12560:
style editing, even when they have high edit counts or several years of experience. This will always be a contentious topic, but it is possible to prioritize the sources over your own beliefs when editing in contentious topics. The current regulars have forced out anyone who might be willing to do
12215:
ArbCom should be aware that the table BilledMammal has offered as evidence above (Bludgeoning statistics) is deeply flawed. Efforts to encourage him to include a disclaimer noting that his "methodology" does not control for the presence of bludgeoning sockpuppets in discussions (for example) were
11676:
Nableezy, I had been calling people in the topic area POV pushers for years before the discussion you reference and my issues with you also started well before then as well. While I have been accused of bias, it has come from both sides, and that gives me reassurance that I must be doing something
11423:
While my user page has remained remarkably free of vandalism I have received death threats and threats to my family, specifically targeting me as a Jew, through Knowledge that were so bad that WMF Legal had to be involved at one point. I'm not the cat you're looking for; please keep me out of your
11347:
Motion 3, Involved participants: This would reward sockpuppetry and canvassing, and silence contributions from editors with the most knowledge of the topic and the underlying dispute. Beyond that it's just not practical - would every editor only get to weigh in on one RFC in the topic, ever, after
11311:
Going over the motions, I don't think that any of them are likely to help. The core problems in the topic area are sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and canvassing, coupled with the scale and intensity of the underlying real-world conflict, which inevitably spills over into editing and leads to knock-on
11144:
I really think that ArbCom has an obligation to deal with these problems via full cases, and not simply motions. But if the difficulties of creating a named parties list are getting in the way of a single, large case, then the idea posed by several other editors, of having one case about the topic
10999:
Responding now to Harry Mitchell's comment, I'm worried that ArbCom is starting to over-think this. Focus on conduct, not on which sources are definitive. Have an Evidence page. Editors will either provide evidence of misconduct, or they won't, and ArbCom can tell the difference. You've got enough
10904:
The motions being considered may provide useful administrative tools in some cases, but to my mind they do not touch the heart of the problem. We are at ARCA because the disputes are too involved for AE to separate good-faith content dispute from bad-faith editing. I don't see how we can reach any
10823:
I really don't want to be involved in this business, but while there is a lot of suboptimal behavior in this topic area, it amazes me some of what can be described as an "edit war" or sanctionable conduct. If these standards were enforced across the board to all editors regardless of their content
10603:
Good grief. What on earth has sympathizing with a 'side', presumably either collectively 'Israelis' or 'Palestinians' got to do with it. It's not a football match where people look on, 'rooting for' (that is extremely vulgar in Australia, where we say 'barrack') our side, and, in doing so, boo the
10411:
the IP area. What it does show is that several editors you would include under that description devote more than half, or indeed in a few cases, most of their attention to the topic area. Greek studies are 'dominated' by people who've mastered the topic- That doesn't mean they are 'domineering' as
10204:
That incident occurred 17 years ago, when I was new to wikipedia, and, faced with an inexplicable administrative punishment (technically) I made the inferences one can see. I wouldn't do that now. What you don't deny is the gravamen of those two incidents (a) you used your administrative tools to
9627:
My thinking is that if ArbCom feels like they have enough information to make a clear statement other than "we don't see a problem" they should just take action themselves rather than telling AE admin how to do it. I think the potential tools is a far better alternative to any statement they might
7582:
would be looking forward to a case, as to be blunt with you all ArbCom historically has focused on the surface issues of these topics and not the actual root causes, but either open a case or dont. That or aggressively clerk some of these statements. That is if we want "decorum" to apply here too.
7428:
My view is that if this is to be an arbitration case that it should be pretty wide, and not just the four editors Barkeep named. The tendentious editing, including obvious examples of canvassing and off-wiki coordination, in this topic area stretches well beyond those four names, and I don’t think
7377:
I don't think "restore faith in the project that many do not have, or have lost" is a valid objective. Policy compliance has no dependency at all on the amount of faith people out in the world have in it. The fact that there are plenty of easily manipulated people out there who can be persuaded to
7220:
Regarding labelling editors pro-this or pro-that, this is a useful shorthand for casual discussion, but for analysis labelling should really be deterministic/repeatable/based on a decision procedure etc. Also, if I had to apply a label to myself it would be pro-Knowledge (or maybe pro-human...that
7122:
I'll also add that in my view, a case that only includes parties who do not employ deception, who are not evading topic bans/blocks etc., is about as likely to succeed in producing good results as a study that only includes data from participants who are easy to access, while ignoring an important
7067:
for their evidence-based approach. This way, people can discuss methodology and evidence rather than assert things about the state of PIA. Now, I was a bit disappointed to only score 89% for the percentage edits in the topic area because it is supposed to 100%, or thereabouts as it says on my user
5884:
Going off of the suggestion from ScottishFR, for the limit of 500-1000 words, some of these RFC discussions go long. Instead of absolute limits that could unfairly limit discussion among the most passionate editors of the topic, would it be possible to go with proportional limits (no more than 500
5650:
So when you see some people argue that East Jerusalem is in Israel and Palestinians aren't from there, and another group saying that's not true, please don't label them "pro-Israeli" and "pro-Palestinian." The most efficient way to handle it is to look at the RS, figure out which side is following
5468:
I don't think the AEs I filed are particularly "complex" or "multi-party". I think they're straightforward, and each one can be judged on its merits without considering the actions of other parties. Of the 5 I filed, 1 ended in sanctions, 2 in warnings, no problems with those. The PeleYoetz one is
3014:
This should be changed in my opinion, and I am inclined to support the removal of the userspace exemption as edit requests should be sufficient to allow non-extended-confirmed editors to participate with minimal disruption in the area. The current state allows them to wait 30 days, make 500 purely
16468:
adding Notability tags to articles: I don't see this as an issue. While I have personal beliefs about tag bloat, and think they should be used more sparingly than we do, placing a tag is not a deletion or a discussion. While it might eventually prompt someone else to AfD the article, I see such a
15023:
Editors designated "involved" in the area of conflict may not register a bolded vote in formal discussions but may offer opinions and are encouraged to offer sources. Editors may designate themselves involved in the entire topic area or a subset of it, or may be designated by an uninvolved admin.
14568:
During their absence, the report became a discussion about general behavior of multiple users in the area, then expectably too much to handle at AE, and now we're here with multiple arbitrators indicating an interest in opening a case. What I personally don't entirely get is how all this happened
13545:
is a disallowed title, the closer of the original RM found consensus for that title, and many seasoned editors agreed. If Domeditrix and others think we should be evaluating discussions in a fundamentally different way from how we've historically done so, for example by not counting votes at all,
12747:
I appreciate that HJ Mitchell is doing what we elected him to do and trying to get solve the problem. With that said, I'm also not a fan of these proposals. They seem geared toward the "loud" disruption, when the accusations of "quiet" disruption are why it got referred to Arbcom. Just a few days
12544:
The habit of always !voting in a way that benefits the same nation is a problem, and it becomes obvious when someone uses one reasoning to come to one conclusion but then uses the opposite reasoning when it's the other side up for discussion. This is commonly answered with the contradictory ideas
12512:
I would also like to say that my assessment of the behavior of established editors is notably less negative than many other people here. I basically agree with nableezy: it's inherently a contentious topic area and so disagreements are common and will always be common. It's also unsurprising that
12191:
I think we are all looking at the wrong thing. We are discussing editor behavior, but we should be looking at the quality of the articles in the topic area. And, I think we can all agree, the articles are abysmal. They are bloated with polemics, they magnify ephemeral new items into international
11456:
I appreciate the words written in support. With regard to the question of whether I think the "not so Israeli" side receives more threats than the Israeli side -- I don't know. I'm not sure how I *could* know as I wouldn't be privy to threats received in private much like you weren't privy to the
11254:
to see (hence why so many cases focus on it), but if that was enough to resolve this then we wouldn't be at ArbCom. The root cause is battleground mentalities and civil POV-pushing; misrepresenting sources and taking inconsistent policy positions point much more directly to that problem. (And, of
11018:
This would be fine, but it doesn't do anything about the topic area in general, and I'm not convinced that AE can't handle that. Possibly not as drive-by allegations in a thread about another editor, but if a separate complaint is filed with clear evidence on each editor for admins to evaluate, I
10984:
Adding to that: Although numerous editors are asking where the evidence is, for starting a full case with multiple parties, the correct answer is that evidence will be presented, and critically evaluated for whether it is valid or not, on the Evidence page of the case. ArbCom should make it clear
10025:
Everyone here knows which users I'm talking about and which sides they fall on . . This will always be a contentious topic, but it is possible to prioritize the sources over your own beliefs when editing in contentious topics. The current regulars have forced out anyone who might be willing to do
9692:
the case) would be my most serious suggestion. In more of a brainstorming mode, somehow structure evidence slightly differently (post themes - source manipulation, edit warrning, etc and allow submissions for that them), you could do summary style again (would not recommend given how much time it
9220:
of referring need work, but I don't think AE admins need to be told to bold vote something in order to find consensus to refer. All 4 uninvolved admins - with 4 uninvolved admins being a lot of admins these days - agreed to refer, and all 4 were (as best as I can tell) clear about what each other
8966:
Any appeals of sanctions by editors previously warned or sanctioned in ARBPIA should be handled by Arbcom to take pressure off individual administrators. Arbcom discussions have clerks to handle word limits, aspersions, and other disruptive editing. Arbcom can simply vote on if the sanction was a
7444:
It seems highly likely that this is going to be accepted as a full case, but I do want to push back on some of the claims being bandied about here. There is this misconception that there are "pro-Israel" editors vs "pro-Palestinian" editors, and that is both not true and has never been true. Once
7299:
And being reported is not the same as being blocked. There are many "discovered" sockpuppets operating in the topic area right now. Many people in the topic area can "see" the socks like bright objects. They are part of the community of editors, they are major contributors, they have an important
6935:
PIA topic area - project membership (3019 articles). Articles that are members of both Wikiproject Israel and Palestine. This is the approach BilledMammal uses, so thanks for that. Neither of these methods capture every article that a person would say is in the topic area, they are both different
6344:
The difficulty is that following "referral", based on a case that was not even resolved, 4 editors were designated for investigation with no apparent basis or other case specified as reasons for such an investigation. If no-one else had replied in the referred case, none of us would be here right
5615:
Somebody tries to get Knowledge to say that Palestinians are not indigenous or native to Palestine. Pro-Israeli POV-pushing. The pro-Palestinian version of that would be somebody trying to get Knowledge to say that Jews are not indigenous or native to Israel (or Palestine, call it what you will).
5476:
There is nothing for arbcom to do here. People who are concerned about disruption in the topic area should raise it at one of the community noticeboards. A sprawling, unfocused case with lots of parties, is a terrible idea, as has been proven multiple times by past arbcoms, and this is especially
5146:
Additionally, as I can't find any prior examples of referrals by looking through the archive, I have tried to do my best here in light of the fact that this is a referral rather than a standard amendment request/appeal. Arbitrators should not hesitate to let me know if I have formatted this in an
14320:
Sorry that I did not answer your question sooner, as the ping was lost on my end. As the instructions are written, the admin that closes the AE discussion determines the consensus of admin who commented on the case. If the closing admin determines that the consensus is an ARCA referral or a case
12655:
Your definition of "behaving tendentiously" would be a huge step in the right direction, but we'd need to flesh it out in a way that might be impossible. I've raised the issue at AE before, but no one could provide an example of what diffs are necessary to demonstrate this. Even though—if we all
12492:
As an occasional participant in this topic area, I'd like to second Zero's suggestion that mass topic bans are not likely to be useful because a lot of the worst behavior is from new-ish users. ArbCom already got a taste of this earlier this year when it banned a bunch of pro-Israel meatpuppets.
12362:
on a scale that I've frankly not encountered anywhere else on Knowledge in my history of making active edits, though I accept I am far below the median in this discussion by this metric. This, in combination with a format for resolving disputes that often seems to favour the most mobilised side,
11353:
Motion 4, Enforced BRD: This would make editing in the topic area a glacial slog; it would also add a massive first-mover advantage to anyone who creates an article. Because the R in BRD can't be used to "uncreate" an article, someone could create a highly-biased article and then force extensive
11044:
able to handle it, and you and maybe some other Arbs are saying the opposite. Handing the problem back to AE with an admonition to do it better is what will do nothing about the topic area. From my limited experience, bringing a case about one editor at a time to AE results in walls of text that
10662:
I find that extraordinary, a wild caricature and misreading of several distinct reactions to BM’s chart. Perhaps that simply because I can't remember reading anything in a very long thread that might support it. Other than Nableezy’s use of the term ‘lying/dishonest’ – for which he said he would
10520:
could morph into the nationalism of modern Israel, In that sense, Palestinians are incidental, to a much broader point-of-view. And lastly, there was this vast disparity between the cusp of scholarship and mainstream reportage, and editors were basically drawing on the latter, which is no way to
10136:
and 'the usual suspects' (people like myself) might give the impression of a detached view by an experienced admin. Not quite true. You admitted 17 years ago that you used your admin tools to unblock an Israeli editor for a 3R infraction because, offline he contacted you and convinced you he was
8820:
BilledMammal invites me to describe my own pov. In the early days of WP when many editors had never heard of academic journals and very few of the best sources were online, I played a large part in making scholarly writing the gold standard in I/P topics. My philosophy is that articles should be
6116:
The feeling is that a bunch of 5-10 experienced editors have taken dominance over the area. Much of their edit histories show a focus on promoting one side's POV and discarding the other. Although some problematic editing occurs on both sides, it should be noted that the extent of POV editing on
5687:
Excluding "involved" participants - "Editors designated "involved" in the area of conflict" would be everyone who edits in ARBPIA. I'm not sure of the thinking behind putting restrictions on everybody who edits ARBPIA. There certainly isn't any evidence that everybody who edits ARBPIA is editing
16350:
I seem not to have been completely clear in my earlier comment. My point was not that editors should be free to ignore topic-bans if they are making (what they perceive as) beneficial edits. It is that the scope of a topic-ban in the first place should be keyed to the scope of the problem it is
15950:
deletion discussions; it's more nuanced than that (to be fair, is AE really set up for nuance?). Rather, that, in your metaphor, it's not whether content should be deleted, but whether it should live in the reader's eye or out of their sight. A merge is not a deletion, but that is not to say it
13463:
There are more than enough editors who, if those whose only response to disagreement is to turn up the heat are removed, would be willing to contribute in the topic area to keep the encyclopedia running. The result of this case will determine whether I myself will feel like my contributions are
12167:
It’s a small group of editors making this topic area hell for editors and a headache (I’d imagine) for administrators. I used to involve myself heavily in this topic area, and it’s the only such area where I’ve witnessed personal attacks, bullying, glaring dishonesty and hypocrisy in defense of
11579:
I edit around the edge of this topic area, focussing on Israeli politics and civil society, and have had the misfortune over the years to have ended up in disputes with editors pushing both anti-Israel and pro-Israel POV on articles where our paths corss. I very much welcome the suggestion that
11045:
include attempts to demonize the editor who first filed the AE report. After one such experience, I gave up on AE for this topic area, and I gave up on trying to edit in this topic area. (And I know better than to name names here on this request page, as opposed to on an eventual Evidence page.)
9876:
irrespective of contexts, so if I revert an unfactual or unsourced piece of WP:OR, I immediately am, like the abusive, often new, editor, engaged in a revert war and, if the abusive editor persists, anyone else who restores the accurate text is tagteaming with me. Crazy). I have been repeatedly
7479:
I dont want to get too caught up in what I think are opinions of people uninformed on both the actual editing in this topic area as well as being generally uninformed on what the sources actually support in this topic area. Ill just restate that this is not "pro-Israel" vs "pro-Palestinian" POV
7463:
reading of my initial comment, I dont mean to say that civility does not matter, of course it does. But I also think people need to keep in mind that human beings are emotional creatures and that this is a topic that anybody who is involved in the real world is going to have moments where those
6866:
be dealt with somewhat easily via SPI, but that would probably require significant changes to current norms about checkuser usage and evidence. What I would like to see, just out of interest, are experiments e.g. split the topic area up into article subsets, have different rule sets for the
5782:
has "neutral" in the title, but it redefines the word to mean something unique on Knowledge. NPOV doesn't mean free of bias, it means we adopt mainstream bias. We say in wikivoice what the mainstream says, we identify dissenting views that the mainstream deems significant, and ignore the others
5576:
If no one else other than Levivich had replied, some quorum of admin would have been able to reach consensus on האופה. The fact that the replies that actually happened split the focus in a way that AE is ill-equipped to handle is why I ultimately (if reluctantly) agreed we should refer the case
3051:
describes; the CT page describes what is and is not under the ECR restriction in a way that is entirely compatible with the wording of ECR. ECR covers the area of conflict, and userspace is not in area of conflict. However it can be as "technically correct" as possible, but if it's confusing or
2764:, I'm afraid I don't recall in any greater depth than my comments at the workshop, sorry. The userspace exception was suggested by Huldra and Zero0000, who made some comments re: user talk pages that on review, look like reasonable concerns; whether or not they're still applicable I can't say. ♠ 16135:
I don't have a horse in this race, but generally I'd say that if somebody's TBan says "broadly construed", they shouldn't test its boundaries. It is generally a bad idea whether it is broadly construed or not, because they already have drawn attention from admins, but particularly so with this
15845:
tag, as I am not using it for anything other than its intended purpose. Whatever happens to the article after I tag it is entirely in the hands of other editors, and as stated above, I am no longer trying to persuade others to send content to XFD. I have noticed that a couple articles I tagged
12788:. This often leads to situations where there's an apparent consensus which goes against (the natural or customary interpretation of) our content policies. The result is passionate edit warring, with one side righteously enforcing consensus, and the other righteously enforcing content policies. 9753:
i think it's pretty clear looking at the chart that the number of new editors spiked because of the war (given that it spiked last october). i don't think you can claim from that chart alone what the impact of the regulars has been; it'd be ludicrous to say that the temperature in this area is
9511:
I can appreciate and support Trypto's scope, though I'd suggest that a narrower party list is appropriate. I would also note that, today, we've had an editor present evidence right here about the topic area and multiple others accuse that editor of lying about the evidence. This suggests three
8899:
I'm sure BilledMammal's counts are more or less correct. Sean.hoyland is getting similar figures. What I object to is posting a mass of figures then claiming it proves things which it doesn't prove. Drawing conclusions from the data requires much more than a first impression. First it requires
8711:
I don't think ArbCom has an obligation to resolve the AE case. The fact is that there is nothing about it which AE could not handle perfectly well by itself. What you should do is send it back to AE (taking the cue from the practice of appellant courts sending cases back to the referring lower
8657:
why many editors who enter the I/P area quickly decide that it is toxic and controlled by a cabal. It's because they come along armed with nothing except strong political opinions and a few newspaper articles, and don't like it when they meet experienced editors familiar with the vast academic
5271:
Thank you for your comment. I think that a full case/case-like structure would be best, as that is the sort of thing that would allow for clear examination of the complex multi-party disputes that AE is not quite able to handle well. In my view, I don't think the topic-wide "please be brief in
2652:
A decision is added to the index explicitly allowing CTOP restrictions to apply to edits made in relation to related content anywhere on Knowledge to close the loophole currently exempting userspace completely. This would mean, however, that to be covered user talk pages would need to have the
15680:
believe that the topic ban included a merger request. I was not "testing the boundaries", and had not done anything like that, abiding in good faith for the last two years. I posted things on that article talk page. There I made a mistake concerning the attribution of a needless irrelevant
13468:
Since this ARCA has been opened, there has been at least two more AE requests related to this topic area. ArbCom would do good to actually state their intentions on this issue - either open a case (or voice your intention to do so more clearly) so that AE admins can focus on other topic areas
13323:
Enforcement in this area has been largely ineffective. The net result is a hostile/toxic environment. Remaining editors face a dilemma to either disengage (probably the healthier option) or furiously engage (also bringing the worst side of all parties involved). This does not mean someone who
8426:
I also think, Levivich, that you're too focused on the sock issue. It exists, although perhaps it is not as impactful as we previously believed, but socks aren't the only issue in the topic area. POV-pushing among established editors is also rife, and is far more impactful than POV-pushing by
7170:
Note: this statement of mine "obviously limited to only talking about logged blocked socks" is not really true. There is also the network of sock related categories that might contain accounts assigned to sockmasters that do not have log entries that I would capture or log entries at all. The
5547:
means Arbcom should review my report against HaOfa -- meaning, look at my conduct and HaOfa's conduct -- and complaints about other editors should be brought separately, with diffs not aspersions, and a showing that some other conduct dispute resolution was first tried. Because even if Arbcom
14074:
I would also suggest that within contentious topic areas it would be good to rule that POV neutrality is more important than ever. If Knowledge is seen to be taking sides it undermines the credibility of the whole project. It also is more likely to create fights etc. I would encourage the
13221:
say. And the scholars call it a genocide. I was once accused by a off-wiki website of "undermining the factual history of Israel on Knowledge by creating false documentation that shows nearly 400 Arab villages were allegedly depopulated by Jews and Israel." Well, guess what: even Israeli
10169:
re my putative 'atrocious behavior within this topic area'. You don't have to believe me when I say I don't hold grudges. But I have by all accounts a good memory. If someone out of the blue, whom I haven't seen around for 17 years, implies that I am one of the 'usual suspects', a sealioning
9366:
FWIW, I agree with the observations made by both Trypto and Nableezy that the "sides" here don't neatly align on pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian. Beyond the nuances they both have offered, I have seen a definite "established/multi-topic interested Wikipedian" vs "less-established more and/or more
8962:
As a sanction across the topic area, or added to the standard set of CTOP enforcement mechanisms available to administrators on a per editor or per discussion sanction, a 500 word limit in any discussion under 5000 words, and a 1000 word or 10% of the discussion limit, whichever is lower, on
8923:. This will be a gift to tag-teams, who will get 500 words per person. Also, this will prevent the most productive comments, which bring reliable sources and quote from them. This motion would effectively limit discussions to "you say, I say", when they should be "this reliable source says". 12854:
So long as we remain in the realm of editor behavioral change, we will get nowhere. What is required is structural change. In this topic area, we need to abandon the open consensual editing model that has been at the heart of Knowledge since its inception. Here is what I propose that we do:
10881:
I fully endorse what Zero has to say about academic sourcing, but I disagree with the conclusion. There are editors here who are engaging constructively, and editors who aren't: and to determine who is in which category ARBCOM really needs to examine the content and the sourcing editors are
10507:
on our emigration to Australia; to the unusual circumstances of having a father and mother each with a very odd, in a racist Australian world, tradition of sympathy for Zulus and aborigines; to having a Downie as our youngest sister, to an adolescent reading of Holocaust memoirs; to reading
5816:
about Al Jazeera, etc. The downgrading of the ADL, in particular, caused significant media coverage for barely much difference in the status quo of average Wikipedian (from my understanding, we already had significant warnings about using ADL with attribution only when speaking about Israel
11524:
With regard to the proposed motions: I don't have confidence that they're going to fix the problem, but they're all pretty harmless so why not try them..... except Motion #3. That one seems quite dangerous to me, actually when read in conjunction with Motion #1. It creates the risk that an
10666:
It would take a very long time to work one’s way through that chart. Tomorrow I will be travelling for a month, so I won't be participating in the Arbcom deliberations, if they take place. But in a quick check in the little time I've had, I found that BM’s conclusion that there were only 2
14645:
Trying something different to see if we can break the deadlock without spending months on a case. I think we can have concise community feedback on individual motions to help with readability. These are all without prejudice to a case, now or at a later date. I'm also open to other ideas.
13157:
To re-iterate: some of the worst abuse I have recieved is over removing "in Israel" from places which have been occupied by Israel since 1967. This should have been totally uncontroversial, but apparently isn't. Likewise, I sometimes have to undo edits which place Arab cities in Israel in
8036:
Bolded votes in the discussion were then automatically reviewed to determine whether they supported or opposed. This process is not perfect, and manual review was then used for some of the discussions of the most prolific editors. Please raise any identified misclassifications on the talk
5469:
still open and they just made their first comment there recently. I don't see any reason admins can't review that as with any other filing. If arbs want to review that filing instead of admins, seems like overkill, but OK. האופה hasn't edited since I filed the AE 8 days ago, so while arbs
7793:
My aim was to review a representative sample of discussions in the topic space, rather than providing a sample biased towards discussions that I was aware of. To do this, I limited the discussions to two clearly defined areas; talk pages in both the Israel and Palestine Wikiprojects, and
14321:
request, it is the closing admin's responsibility to post the request at the appropriate venue. Bolded !votes sometimes help the closing admin determine the consensus. I would not rely on the clerks to open cases at ARCA because I am not sure how closely the clerk team is monitoring AE.
2612:' requires that before CTOP, ECR and 1RR are applied to any page other than an article the enforcement templates have been added to that page which is "only when disruption creates a need for additional administrative tools" and that this can never happen on userpages or user talk pages. 15681:
personal attack that had been made on that page. I corrected that (struck it out and inserted the actual quote by a different editor) and apologized. I made a mistake, and I undertook striking out the comment and also publicizing my apology. Details and an explanation of that are on
14070:
page move. Part of this is the issue associated with very close/questionable closes being hard to change. This was an example where the !vote split was near 50/50 between the current title which reads as genocide is given, and the two alternatives which both made it clear this was an
5696:). I don't know whether Enforced BRD or Consensus Required is better, or if either are improvements over neither, but we do not have enough data to know. Let admins apply them to pages first, and see how they work out, before we consider applying either of them to the entire topic area. 5984:
It sounds like a few of folks are leaning towards massive topic bans against all participants... Regardless of how unlikely such a proposal is, I hate the idea of "cleaning the slate" and such a broad strokes approach is likely to cause more problems than it would theoretically solve:
5295:
I believe that it might be useful for some anti-bludgeoning sanction to incorporated into the discretionary sanctions available for administrators to dole out, but if so, I think it should look like one that the community has previously endorsed in a DS area. One such sanction is that
3052:
seemingly incompatible to reasonable editors (which seems to be the case) then it's not doing it's purpose and needs to be rewritten or amended for clarity. If we're going to be imposing these atypical rules for this topic area then they need to be accessible and easily understood. -
2783:
The purpose as I understand it of the 500 edits and 30 days is to enable them to learn our policies and guidelines and hopefully how to work constructively with others. I also think we don't want non-ecr users to use their talk space or the talk space of others to discuss the topic.
15164:
Where a recent edit within the area of conflict is reverted for a substantive reason, it may not be reinstated by any editor until a discussion on the talk page reaches a consensus. Reverts made solely to enforce the extended-confirmed requirement are excluded from this requirement.
15729:
initiated a MERGER proposal in 16 years of editing. Nor have I ever added Notability tags to articles. This has nothing to do with me or anything I did. I does not pertain to me and those accusations are irrelevant; you are being asked to fix something that ain't broke and didn't
12606: 12513:
many editors take editorial lines that lean towards one side or the other of the conflict: editors aren't required to have no POV, only articles are. None of this is that surprising to me for editing in a contentious topic area and I don't think that any of this per se is a problem.
9053:
Maybe this idea is wild, but how about anyone named in someone's evidence becomes a party? This isn't a court of law, and being a party doesn't mean there has to be findings or sanctions. Add that if you go over the standard word/diff limits you become a party and Bob's your uncle.
7504: 13491:. A full case, with evidence, should be opened. If after the full case, ArbCom still feels those motions are the best way to resolve this, well fine. But an ARCA is not the place to expect to be given all the evidence, so we will just end up with a case eventually. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | 5688:
disruptively or that excluding their voices would somehow benefit the topic area. Also, experience editing a topic area is not a bad thing. I'm having a hard time seeing the logic in replacing experienced editors with inexperienced editors and expecting that to lead to improvement.
3159: 13921:
We are here because of a widespread belief, both on and off-wiki, that these articles are biased. Let's tell the public: "In this subject area, neutrality is not a given. Enter at your own risk." I think that would restore faith in the project that many do not have, or have lost.
13755:, etc., and deciding how to note-vote ought to involve basing one's decision on what sources say. Without that context, it's presuming too much to look at information presented in this manner and conclude something about an editor's "pro"-ness of X or Y or what have you, which is 5674:
Word limits - Bludgeoning can't be determined by word count or comment count, those are indicators but not determinitive; any determination requires case-by-case analysis. Also, it's a fallacy to think that long discussions are always a problem. We can't decide whether to call it
12098:
be a problem in the area, nuke or not, but it's a problem that can be dealt with somewhat easily via SPI and sockpuppeteers having an almost comical tendency to accidentally out themselves. We shouldn't just put up with how much of a mess things currently are because there's the
7488:
say about this topic, thats their problem, not mine. Im aware of my reputation on certain websites, but in my entire time here my purpose has always been to bring the best sources I can find to an article and to base the content I write and the arguments I make on those sources.
8759:
to your table, and mark Iskandar323 as supporting "massacre" in the title. Sorry that it breaks the pattern. Readers should also note the selection bias in your table: even though many editors who supposedly only support "massacre" when the victims are Palestinians frequented
6503:
Why would a person on a righteous mission hand over control of which rules they have to follow to people hostile to their cause when they can simply use disposable accounts and pick and choose which rules to follow without having to concern themselves with the consequences of
2851: 11798:, as from both sides of the POV-war, there's a near-constant attitude of "my side is doing nothing wrong, if we just sanctioned the POV-pushers everything would be fine," rather than any introspection on the absolutely toxic environment created by nearly all participants. 10658:
Your three interpretations are (BM) lied, by falsifying the facts; (b) that multiple editors replied by making personal attacks; (c) that bad faith is so deep that honest mistakes/normal editorial choices in summarizing information are read between the lines as malevolent.
8532:
For you second point, I want to say I am tired of the incivility in this topic area. It drove me from it before, with the only reason I returned to it being the current conflict, and it is sufficiently bad that I believe as soon as the current conflict ends I will withdraw
5961:
I will also say the 30/500 restriction as a "worsening" of situation seems silly. I am not quite sure about the logical reasoning behind that assertion, though some other biased publications have attempted to use that to suggest that wikipedia "censors" certain viewpoints?
9410:
in this topic area. 2) To the extent that Levivich's version of what happened at AE is true, I don't think that argues against a case; it supports the idea that thetopic area needs to be examined, not just having a single complaint against a now inactive editor resolved.
3333: 7403:
hand, some wikipedia accounts really don't want the article here to describe it as such. Many of those accounts have turned out to be sockpuppets of previous accounts long banned from this area. I'd be shocked if the Peleyoetz account named in this report isn't one, too
6841:
be dealt with somewhat easily via SPI" (my bolding) is just not true. That's what the data shows, and we have a lot of data, at least for people who advocate for Israel, less so for people who advocate for Palestine (although they are also present). If you ask questions
11706:
information, unfortunately I have had numerous people wishing me death and other unpleasant things both on and off-wiki – most recently in June an IP left numerous edit summaries on articles saying I should be tortured, stabbed, beheaded, raped or "bullied to suicide".
3385:
talk page notice should be used on pages within the area of conflict. When only parts of a page fall within the area of conflict, if there is confusion about which content is considered related, the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisible
12926:
Those holding up progress by causing endless circular arguments on talk pages (I'm not going to say "bludgeoning" because people may look at BilledMammal's subpage which IMO has a wildly flawed methodology for assessing this). A lot of these people are, again, new-ish
8005:
I think it also addresses your concerns regarding the parties list; because it shows that the topic area is dominated by editors who generally align with a pro-Palestinian position, we would expect that such editors would make up the majority of a representative party
8383:
As for the utility, I think it helps us determine whether concerns such as those raised by Nishidani that the party list is unrepresentative, as well as concerns such as those raised by Number 57 that the topic area is dominated by editors holding a specific POV, are
8084:
In general, that table is intended to provide on overview of the issue in the topic area, for the purpose of helping the arb's determine scope and parties. While it will be useful in any case that is opened, and I see it as evidence of POV pushing, I don't believe it
6808:
If every editor currently active in the topic area were topic banned today, the topic area would be rapidly recolonized, probably within a matter of days or weeks. The pioneers would be more likely to come from subpopulations that do not think the prohibition against
13192:: "Once discovered, a sockpuppet account is automatically blocked" No, they are not. I am 100% sure that a Tombah-sock is active at present, but he is still unblocked. And Nocal works in the tech/computer-industry and knows every trick in the book to avoid detection. 11197:
I echo the comments of Tryptofish, Vanamonde93 and SFR. The topic area features a large number of experienced editors who have, whether consciously or not, decided to ignore CTOP protocols. This not only has the effect of turning the entire topic into even more of a
8430:
The "massacre" RM's demonstrate that well; we have editors consistently, based on their own POV, saying that massacre's are only perpetrated by one side - and when we review those discussions we find that those editors present contradictory arguments to support this
8482:
That’s a discussion about moving from a title using "massacre" (Re'im music festival massacre) to a title using "massacre" (Supernova music festival massacre) In other words, the "massacre" aspect isn’t being considered, which is why it isn’t included in the table:
11082:
I predict you'll end up finding that this has a lot less to do with POV than some editors are claiming. And you won't have to judge source material the way that it happened in the Polish Holocaust case. Personally, I expect to present some evidence in the form of:
10867:
into whether editors are editing within all the PAGs, not just the ones easy to assess. I also think it would be a mistake for ARBCOM to handle all the appeals. We shouldn't be spending the limited resource that is ARBCOM's time on appeals that aren't complicated.
5831:
In terms of reversion, the reversion limits are harder to understand in CTOP space, especially for more contentious arguments. A clarification of what the "base" article text is and what the contentious edit that is being reverted is would be useful. In my case on
2835: 15832:) after a clear consensus had been made to do so by other editors. If this is indeed too adjacent to my BLAR and/or XFD topic-bans for comfort, then I will cease doing it again until the topic ban is lifted (and not try to convince other editors to do it for me). 12574:
Not only do I agree with The Kip and Zanahary that a significant number of topic bans should be on the table, but such bans are the bare minimum of what's necessary. At this point, topic bans aren't a drastic last resort. They're the first step of a slow, painful
15701:. It is unwarranted and unnecessarily punitive; and is not reflective or proportionate of my conduct or intent. A new finding will unfairly suggest that I did something wrong meriting a new set of sanctions, and would prejudice any future request to remove the 12357:
space, any current event will draw large crowds), as is often the case when we see these types of issues. Instead, editors here are often incredibly experienced, incredibly knowledgeable of processes, and thus how to make a contentious change stick. This enables
7634:
I’m not jumping to anything, you have repeatedly misrepresented others views, you have repeatedly portrayed one discussion that was focused on one topic to support positions on unrelated topics they did not focus on. You did the same exact thing at AE, where you
16170:
Because if that interpretation is correct, then basically the editor can spam AfDs with "merge" or "redirect" instead of "delete" and get away scot free because "I cannot predict if the article is gonna be deleted, I just respect the boundaries not to argue for
15785:
my comments on that talk page, and annotated that they should be disregarded, because I had been "topic banned" from DELETION discussions So if there are those who need guidance, it's not me. They did not like my content, and are putting their 'thumbs on the
13404:(and sometimes uncivil) through attempting to deprecate sources that have a bias towards opinions they disagree with. This is but one example of the experienced editors blatantly admitting to ignoring PAGs when they disagree with the inevitable outcome of them. 12965:). We do occasionally see editors pop up who reject Israeli sources out of hand on talk pages (usually alongside US and potentially even European sources), but I don't see anyone named in this report that exhibits this behavior. Such editors are shown the door. 316:
Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including
16268: 13620:. Have one case to handle the editor conduct issues highlighted at the AE thread here (focusing on individuals) and then a second one to address the climate in the topic area writ large (focusing on policy changes to the topic). Trying to conflate the two a la 14176: 7484:. Since I know he means me, Ill just state that I do not edit Knowledge to push a POV. I edit Knowledge to try to make it so that article in this topic area are based on the balance of the best sources available. And if somebody does not like what the sources 6495:
I tend to agree with Ravpapa's assessment that we have probably "exceeded the limits of the possible with a cooperative open editing model, and we need to think of some other way to approach articles in this area". I have no idea what that would look like.
15994:
Your current remarks seem incompatible with policy. Indeed uou would seem to be allowing editing through a topic ban depending on who makes them and/or the nature of the edits. This is a seismic shift in policy. Apologies if I've misunderstood any subtext.
13504:
I'm going to presume the evidence posted by Amayorov was something that would be best suited as private evidence in an ArbCom case. This is even more reason that a case should be opened rather than trying to dispense with this by motion(s). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |
13357:
is possible to refactor/raise a prepared PIA5 instead of starting from scratch, I would support a separate venue. Everyone should have a fair chance to bring input, but for most editors (myself included) ARCA is incredibly confusing and bureaucratic. ~ 🦝
11341:
situation and just remove the people who are unable to stop themselves. Bludgeoning is a symptom of the real problem, not its cause. Also, it would make editing in the topic area even more stressful because you'd have to constantly keep track of your word
10667:‘pro-Israeli’ editors as opposed to 13 aligning with a ‘pro-Palestinian’ position hard to reconcile with evidence on his chart of which makes him the lowest (10%) IP contributor - though he is the most familiar name to me on that list, - when it includes 11966:
from both sides of the POV-war, there's a near-constant attitude of "my side is doing nothing wrong, if we just sanctioned the POV-pushers everything would be fine," rather than any introspection on the absolutely toxic environment created by nearly all
10360:. Just out of curiosity, if Arbcom opens a case, who are the editors whose behaviour is to be examined. The list given by Red-tailed hawk, or is it larger? I say that because there is a massive imbalance in the people singled out, according to the usual 8844:(a) The table combines talk page edits and article edits (BM: you should indicate that). The fraction of a user's edits that are in article space differs a lot and needs to be considered before judging an editor's habits, but this information is missing. 16391: 11094:
But the community expects ArbCom to solve the intractable problems that the community has failed to solve. ArbCom knows that this is one of them. To drop the ball on the basis that the request process wasn't good enough would be failing the community.
7803:
Finally, as I said on the analysis page, I am willing to rerun it with different configurations, including an expanded list of discussions. I am also working to implement the recommendations on the talk page, to make the data more accurate and useful.
12659:
Regarding the academic "baseline", I don't believe there is one on most aspects. The controversy and disagreement are inherent to the subject area, including academia and history studies. The standard to declare something as a baseline fact should be
7118:
An obvious sledgehammer partial solution to Step 2 is to just EC protect every article in the PIA topic area to disincentivize disposable non-EC account creation, but Step 1 should not happen in the first place and is clearly much harder to address.
2253:
Depends what you mean by edge case, if you mean that it isn't usually a problem, sure. However recently, I don't know quite how to put it, there has been a sort of assault on ECR, which you could, at a pinch, just call wikilawyering. See for example,
12195:
Will massive topic bans make the articles better? I doubt it. With the Middle East conflict, we have exceeded the limits of the possible with a cooperative open editing model, and we need to think of some other way to approach articles in this area.
11931:- see how some of those named in this case pretty much receive only logged warnings and/or minor things such as revert restrictions for substantial incivility, abuse of AE process, edit-warring, etc that would've gotten a newer user swiftly blocked. 10151:). When I read your first post here I remembered that contretemps. I never reported it as a misuse of admin tools, and I never hold grudges. But I do remember things, and took your generalization as coming from someone 'involved' in the topic area. 12858:
We recruit a committee of five to ten senior editors, who have never edited in the topic area, who have no identifiable bias, and who are equally unacceptable to both sides. Only members of this committee will be allowed to edit in the topic area.
11241:
I do urge ArbCom to particularly investigate the accusations of misrepresenting sources (an extremely serious one that takes time and effort to get to the bottom of) and of people taking inconsistent policy positions (a key component mentioned in
10259:
intractable, but not descriptively so, taking in both an Israel (semi-)official POV and the scholarship, to the end of achieving NPOV. To the contrary. We can draw on one of the richest WP:RS highbar resource bases existing, for the simple reason
9239:
so you're saying the answer I gave is incorrect? If so mark me as surprised but glad for your clarification. I will eagerly await to see if a rough consensus of other arbitrators agree with you and presuming they do adjust my actions accordingly.
10516:) - there was a bias to just an israeli narrative of Jewish traditions there. So 'pro-Pal' is risible. Indeed, if I have an intellectual challenge reflected in my work here, it is to read to the end of trying to grasp how the universalism of the 2447:
editor who is approaching 500 edits may develop some text in their sandbox for insertion into articles once EC is achieved — isn't that perfectly reasonable? An editor who abuses this allowance (say, by excessive pings) can be dealt with easily.
13913:
has come up with an intriguing solution below: label the articles in this and other contentious topic areas as biased and unbalanced by default, "explicitly mark them as such to readers with an appropriate banner," and so on. I agree insofar as
13565:
I'm not here to comment on the case but to draw attention to a blog by a probably banned editor concerning this case and attacking a number of the editors here, specifically Number 57, Nableezy, Nishidani, Huldra, Black Kite, Sean.hoyland and
12795:
edit war covered at AE is one example - there's an apparent consensus to state in wikivoice, in the first sentence, that Zionism is colonization. It's frankly very hard to see how such an unequivocal statement could comply with NPOV, given the
5691:
Enforced BRD - This is already something that can be imposed on talk pages, yet in my experience it has almost never been imposed on any talk page in ARBPIA (I can't think of a single example). We have one page that is under Consensus Required
13055:
meet experienced editors familiar with the vast academic literature. The small fraction of new editors who arrive with genuine knowledge of the topic have a much better time of it", I have met people with PhDs in the I/P-area, who knows far,
12346:, though that is not to say the same behavious doesn't occur across more than the two editors singled out in that diff. Though I have seen tendentious editing multiple times, I am very reticent to call it out, in part because such accusations 2343:
says what those restrictions are. I don't see any contradiction there, and it seems to me that changing "userspace" to "talkspace" in the former would remove article talk pages from the area of conflict and disable all the restrictions there.
2699: 11348:
which they're involved and can never contribute to another? How would this even work? We'd rapidly run out of people willing to respond to RFCs (non-sockpuppets, anyway. I guess it could serve as a honey-trap for them but it's not worth it.)
7044:. The distributions vary but younger accounts appear to dominate in the topic area in terms of revision counts, at least based on this small sample. It would be interesting to see what this distribution looks like for the entire topic area. 10010:
in my history of making active edits. . topic area where, as @ABHammad observes, Knowledge is out-of-step with a large number of the reliable sources that we rely on for other topics . . I find myself aligning with @The_Kip's suggestion of
6558:
I don't know what the 'topic area' is exactly, but thousands of article talk pages have one of the various topic area related templates informing people about the special rules. So, we can look at those and pretend it's the 'topic area' or
5198:
around that topic. For completeness's sake, I included everyone in this one. Going forward, there might be some norm/convention, but I figured that it was better to incorporate everyone rather than potentially leave someone relevant out. —
15332: 5454:, than almost any other topic area. Discussions about sources can't happen in 500-1000 words; the very notion is ridiculous. More to the point, any kind of topic-wide restriction would be a horrible, counterproductive overreach. The vast, 13482:
I see all motions being proposed as merely kicking the can down the road. The problems in this topic area are those like Levivich who have taken to making threats (as Barkeep points out) to other editors because they seem to feel they're
11500:. Are you *really* sure this is the example you want to bring up? You're making my point about "It's you: you're the problem" quite well for me. But sure, you never hold grudges... except for the one you've apparently held for 17 years. 8071:, as while you can argue you didn't support "massacre", I don't think you're arguing you opposed it? I've also manually reviewed all the others of yours, and they appear correct; if you disagree with any of the others, please let me know. 14581:, with a list of desired parties, evidence of disruptive behavior of each, evidence of prior dispute resolution attempts about each, and without a general unenforceable aspersion-casting "we need to remove everyone from the topic area". 14469:
That sounds an awful lot like "let everyone throw mud at the wall and see what sticks". The combination of that approach and ArbCom feeling pressured to be seen to be doing something has historically led to poor or ineffectual outcomes.
12464:". This is a repeating problem and is only leading to parties that are able to mobilise more effectively getting changes made. I'm not saying policy is being purposefully gamed here, but if it was, this is one way it might look. Tagging 11259:
urge people to present evidence to those things in the evidence phase, if it gets to that point, because ArbCom needs that - my past experience with cases like these is that both editors and ArbCom tend to focus on the "easy" aspects of
13229:
AFAIK: only pro-Israeli groups actively recruits wp-editors, they have done so for at least 15 years, they come to wp. with lots of opinions and zero knowledge of scholarly work. And are bitterly dissapointed when they cannot convince
11794:- they wholly disregard WP policies and prior warnings/sanctions, as most ARBPIA sanctions for experienced editors have effectively amounted to slaps on the wrist. I'd also like to specifically emphasize the point made by Swatjester of 8415:
The terms just means that the editor sympathizes with that side more than the other. Both positions are reasonable, and it doesn't mean they are anti-Palestinian/anti-Israeli, nor does it mean that there is a problem with those editors
3238:
While this would solve the confusion brought by the wording, it also further erodes the ways in which an editor can edit, despite there being no compelling evidence in this discussion of intractable disruption warranting this change. -
12264:. If there were any utility to a page which simply counts the number of times someone's signature appears on a page, I would ask him to rerun the data based on 18 comments in 4 discussions so that NoCal100 would appear in his list. -- 7670:
Including both editors switching their stance to conform to their POV (for example, supporting using massacre as a descriptive term only when Israelis were targeted, or only when Palestinians were targeted) and editors misrepresenting
16488:
I think that merge discussions are outside of the bounds of the topic ban, I would like to register my profound disappointment that both 7&6 and TPH seem to be unable to stop touching the general area of the notability of topics.
14640: 13569:
It also says "Only a technique called "semi-protection" (prohibiting people not logged in from editing) can stop crazy people from coming onto user pages and threatening editors. Huldra's Knowledge user pages are not semi-protected."
11899:
to deal with a case where A and B want to report C, D, and E, except A and B have also been engaging in the reported behavior themselves, and F probably was too but wasn't brought to the case until later due to a variety of reasons.
9812:"Blake Flayton, a vocal commentator on Jewish and Israeli issues, responded to the post, calling the changes “egregious” and urging someone with expertise to edit the page to reflect what he considers to be a more accurate portrayal" 5477:
true in the absence of any showing that the community is unable to handle this. The only thing worse would be a topic-wide sanction; please don't do that, I fear it would trigger a "constitutional crisis" and waste more editor time.
11067:
to handle the topic area, and on ways to solve those impediments". Use Red-tailed Hawk's parties list, and make clear that, because it's a long list, being on the list is not a presumption of wrongdoing. Then do these three things:
9548:
I feel like you're saying we disagree (for the 2nd time here) but I don't think we do? If BilledMammal is presenting misleading evidence that is important to know and act on, especially if that evidence is intentionally misleading.
7617:
Im not opposed to some move here, but incident is absurd. Israel was accused of a war crime here, every casualty was an unarmed civilian, and they were purposely targeted. Calling this an incident is even more POV than calling it a
7378:
believe something shouldn't have any impact on content decisions in my view. There are rules, we should just follow the rules, and people who don't like the result are free to whine about it and monetize the attention they receive.
6249:, shows the contrary, an influx of new editors in recent times. Difficult to be certain without more data but my sense is that the pattern will hold up for other articles as well. It is of course possible that both things are true. 9974:
at each other in every discussion; there's a level of toxicity that just makes me want to ignore the area entirely. This BATTLEGROUND issue is only compounded by the fact that virtually all of the culprits are WP:UNBLOCKABLE . . -
6377:
Then the next two on the list are RM's that I proposed and the result accorded with what I proposed. I will waste no more time with this, if anyone would like to accuse me of POV pushing based on such evidence, feel free to do so.
9387:
the absence of האופה is exactly why the referral is here. There became so many other editors conduct to consider - not just in tag teaming but in the AE thread itself - that it became beyond what AE can handle well in its format.
15328: 2816:
Is there a reason the proposed motion uses "broadly interpreted" instead of the standard "broadly construed"? Is there a difference in meaning we are supposed to infer, or are they one and the same for purposes of this motion? —
12651:
when they apply different rationales depending on which side benefits (articles making Israel look bad must always be deleted and making Palestine look bad must always be kept, or vise versa, even if they have the same merits).
5670:
Appeals only to arbcom - I don't see any evidence that appeals are a significant source of disruption in this topic area. Where are the links to 5-10 recent disruptive appeals? So I don't see any reason to change anything about
9221:
thought as opinions evolved, so it's not like it was a puzzle what was happening to the uninvolved admins and since other commenters gave feedback on whether or not to refer I don't think it was a puzzle to anyone else either.
8861:, Iskandar323 actually proposed two titles with "massacre" in them. I'll leave it for readers to decide whether or not this is irrelevant to the claim that Iskandar323 only supports "massacre" when the victims are Palestinian. 6026:
on large sections of the editor community who specialize on here... Unless it is certain that all of the project is absolutely unsalvageable or ARBIPA is somehow all a failure, I ask arbitrators to avoid granting such a power.
10663:
produce evidence if asked by ARBCOM, who are the multiple editors dismissing BM’s evidence as mendacious, as opposed to unconvincing, unfalsifiable, ergo to be interpreted rather than taken for granted as proof, of whatever?
3616:. I think there's a strong interest in standardization, so I would rather have separate up-or-down votes on those two things, and then it would seem logical for you to support both of those motions. Curious for your thoughts. 15542: 11000:
people telling you here that there are conduct problems that have overwhelmed AE that you can be confident that it won't just be a fishing expedition, but it would just result in ongoing disruption if ArbCom punts for now. --
10544:, I believe that 13, collectively making 75,383 edits to the topic area since 2022, generally align with a pro-Palestinian position. I believe two, collectively making 5,832 edits, generally align with a pro-Israeli position. 8982:
As for a party list, anyone who has made, been the subject of, or commented at any ARBPIA AE report since October 2023. The problem is widespread, and I think that is probably the most efficient way to generate a party list.
8528:
For your first point, I disagree that it sheds factual light. There is no useful information from someone supporting moving "massacre" to "massacre"; indeed, it is indistinguishable from someone opposing moving "massacre" to
5616:
I've seen that, but rarely. Much more common are people saying that both groups are native to the region. Those people aren't pro-Palestinian POV-pushers, they're just pro-truth; they're normal editors following the sources.
8196:
My sympathies lie more with Israel than with Palestine, although I try to recognize and account for any bias that introduces in my thinking - while editors are allowed to have a POV, I think the first step in ensuring their
3340: 15518: 8614: 3795: 1957: 16433:@SN, that is fair, I suppose my thinking is that merges are far enough removed from deletion (even though some content may be left out of the final product) that they would not fall under the "broadly construed" umbrella. 15324: 15316: 13400:- I am unsure if this has actually happened (and if it has whether it's happened in the Israel-Palestine subject area), but it only takes a quick look through contentious topics on RSN to see that editors are engaging in 13385:
The whole point of RSN deliberations, and you engage in them often, is to distinguish between narrow and wide bias in newspapers. A narrow bias doesn't imperil the general reliability of a source: a wide bias can lead to
12880:
The committee should look not only at individual articles, but at the corpus in its entirety, thinking creatively about the best way to present information. I give examples and suggest such structural changes in my essay
11629:
POV pushers in contentious topic areas, at least allow them to contribute in roughly equal numbers). I've been here nearly 20 years and the dominant personalities in this topic sphere have barely changed in the last ten.
13873:
2. Word limits: On the surface it seems to address the problem that we face of repetitive discussions and "IDONTHEARTHAT" bad faith hounding that can drag out discussions. But it is a process answer to a behavior issue.
13607:
is a major driver of the increased (mis)conduct in the area given its grossly outsized invocation at AE over the past ten months, and while I do agree that PIA5 is all but necessary at this point, I would handle it as a
8878:
I calculated the 23% figure using the total of 431,132 that BM gave elsewhere. Using your total of 473,212 it would be 21% unless your way of counting also changes the top 20 counts. Also, the top contribution was 3.1%.
3072: 7457:, where BM has some 73 comments there. I dont think that subpage is accurate either in its definition or its counting, and Id caution that evidence by editors who are highly involved not simply be accepted as accurate. 6113:, now defined as looking for the “colonization of land outside Europe”), in spite of substantial opposition. The current situation both scares away potential great editors and destroys our credibility and neutrality. 3395: 2811: 11019:
have confidence that credible complaints will result in action and vexatious ones will be rejected. But if admins would prefer to refer a complaint against a specific editor to ArbCom, I'd be happy to hear that case.
3024: 3399: 15103:
Ideally, the bold formatting has no effect anyway and it's all about the arguments. Restricting the use of formatting does not reduce (but perhaps increase) the amount of words people use to explain their position.
14046:
This approach would be less disruptive to the usual editing process, as the added rules would only relate to the article banner, while the content itself would continue to be edited according to the existing rules.
13821:
in contentious topic areas. If editors cannot show respect for other editors they should not be allowed to edit there. Administrators need to act and I believe that Arbcom has a responsibility in this area as well.
12945:
Based on my vantage point of having only really participated in I/P topics by way of RSN and AE discussions, I am perplexed by various assertions made in this clarification request. Reading through discussions like
3403: 13116:
pro-Israeli enough. And outing: apparently you will "help the state of Israel" if you make public my RN. Gosh, this cat had no idea that she was that important! Oh well, on the internet nobody knows you're a ......
12496:
Speaking of which, I'd also like to encourage ArbCom that, when it looks at editor behavior, to actually look at the behavior of every individual involved and not assume "both sides are at fault" without evidence.
8055:- euphemistic in the extreme, an "incident" in which an army kills 6 children and a cameraman, and all casualties are civilians? No source calls it an incident either. As far as sources calling it a massacre, well 3038: 2208: 14914:
Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussions, or on individual editors across all discussions, within the area of conflict. These word limits are designated as part of the
12815:, I don't know what is. Some editors argued that titles do not imply statements, effectively saying that POV names do not exist. Such arguments tend to be invoked selectively. The move received significant press ( 9956:(many of whom have been with us for well over a decade) who are primarily on Knowledge to push their POV . . for most of the last two decades the two sides have been seriously mismatched in terms of numbers and 5433:
Looking at the list of parties, those who have been sanctioned in this topic area have not been disruptive since their sanction, AFAIK. Most of the list have never been sanctioned. If there are concerns regarding
3791: 3116: 1953: 1902: 14380:
This isn't much of an update, but I don't want to give the impression that this matter isn't being considered. I've been following the statements here and I am convinced a case is needed. At the latest, once the
12819: 16181:
but only if it continues to be disruptive. If it is not disruptive but still a violation of TBan, then a warning should be enough, and a recommendation to do something else and just wait until the TBan expires.
15320: 15312: 11109:
I'm gratified that Barkeep49 agrees with my idea about the scope, but I want to caution against narrowing the parties list too much. Barkeep49's suggestion definitely leaves out editors who need to be examined.
8171:. As for the RM statistics, Seggallion only participated in one; if you like, I can try to group sockpuppets under their masters as I did at the activity statistics, but better to discuss that on the talk page. 15598:, the Arbitration Committee did not consider turning an article into a redirect to be a violation of the topic ban. I did not think any of these actions would have violated the ban. But now I am not certain. 13101:(and no: that isn't because our editing is that bad: some of the very worst abuse I have suffered was after I removed that the Western Wall was "In Israel" (It isn't, according to the International community.) 9497:, namely BilledMammal, Nableezy, and Selfstudier (and maybe also Levivich?). I think some of these allegations are stronger than others but those allegations are 100% part of why this case was referred to you. 7759:
Regarding ScottishFinnishRadish's word limit proposal, I don't think that will have the desired result. Editors are often required to review a wide array of sources, such as when attempting to determining if a
7406:. The abuse of sockpuppets is a powerful advantage at Knowledge, and wooden enforcement of teh rulz about conduct, ignorant of content and context, a powerful disincentive to being honest and straightforward. 6871:, for the disposable account fan, for people to edit war and advocate to their hearts content and stick a disclaimer on the articles for readers. Things like that would be interesting and possibly informative. 7836: 7644:
happy to substantiate that further if this gets to an evidence phase, but my point here was that arbs should not treat your evidence as anything other than a partisan and dishonest portrayal of what happened.
7265:
If you can't sanction or block a person, you can't solve problems. It's like sending the dishonest people to prisons without gates, then blaming the honest people who haven't been sent to prison for the crime
7000:
Many opinions about the topic area talk of a set of editors ('experienced editors', 'the regulars', 'battleground editors', 'the culprits', 'entrenched editors' etc.) who have worked together to some effect.
3557:). If it would be useful to import some language from Remedy 6-8, that could be on the table. But there may not be much appetite for doing so, in which case we can just adopt the motion as drafted here. Best, 2635:
There is also the potential that any restiction (e.g. topic ban or 0RR) imposed under contentious topics cannot apply in userspace or could an editor be restricted for an edit on a userpage or user talk page.
16371:
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
15890:
construed would, by implication, be a ban from that process specifically. But the fact that it is deliberately broader—i.e. more comprehensive—suggests that a less strict definition should be applied. And as
13877:
3. Excluding involved participants. Again, a process answer to an editor behavior issues. Not all involved editors are creating problems, tag-teaming and so on. This "throws out the baby with the bathwater."
10476:, with whom I engaged in at considerable length around 2016. But I had no, and do not have, and don't care to have, any proof that this intuition might be correct and indicate a dual account. What I did was 7800:
I am also aware, and prominently state in the analysis, that it is only an approximation - while most examples listed will be bludgeoning, exceptions will exist, including possibly the discussion you mention.
2262:
falls outside of the CT regime. We can drag this to ARCA if we have to, but just agreeing that the filer made a vexatious argument is easier." (I won't name them, since they don't want to be here, methinks).
1916: 9081:
I think there's already an enforced BRD sanction, but it only applies to the editor that first made the edit. This would be more effective in this topic, where the reverts are often between several editors.
8609:
I'm not sure why you think that I believe it is unrelated to disruption in the topic area. It is related, but it’s not in the scope of that table, which is focused on presenting information about individual
2542:
in support of the initiating side, but it is worth noting that WP:TBAN is intended to "forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive", while
14186:
and other users whose behavior is under consideration here (perhaps the editors listed under "Other editors whose behavior was directly mentioned in the AE thread", though even that list may be too long).
9116:, we don't know what's going to pass yet, so we don't know that any tools are being added to our toolbox. I think a clear statement from Arbcom about the topic area would be handy if they're going to punt. 7147:
If we just look at 2022 to present, obviously limited to only talking about logged blocked socks that made edits in PIA (with the caveat that we can't know the sock discover rate), we can see the following
5965: 2410: 2398: 2336: 2106: 1971: 14160: 3787: 3779: 1949: 1941: 7771:
Instead, I think a comment limit - perhaps ten comments per discussion - will be more effective at preventing the back-and-forth and repetition of points that causes discussions to expand unproductively.
3550:
This procedure applies to edits and pages in all namespaces. When considering whether edits fall within the scope of a contentious topic, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the
16519: 15308: 8576: 5885:
words or 10% of comments, whichever is greater?), or limits per week (500 words per week?) In addition, I have questions if such a limit would apply to single RFC threads, or to the whole topic at once.
16330:
I realize that the scope of a topic-ban can be viewed independently of any specific edits that might or might not violate it. Nonetheless, it might be relevant to ask whether there have been any actual
14633: 3685:
but the related disputes spill over. Ideally, editors should be able to work on articles about the culture and history of the region without big scary ArbCom notices, at least until there are problems.
3360: 14605: 14536: 7846: 6001:). Seeing a list of highly motivated folks in this topic area is not a sign necessarily they are always hogging the attention, so much as they provide much of the energy to keep Knowledge up to doate. 5130: 14590: 14527: 14382: 13448:
isn't those who ask others to respond to their PAG based arguments, it isn't even bludgeoning or incivility by "one side". The problem is that experienced editors here (as elsewhere on the internet)
6813:" applies to them. We know this because we have lots of data about how new highly motivated biased editors cross (or tunnel through) the EC barrier and what they do when they get into the topic area. 6805:
and editors who do not and therefore cannot be sanctioned effectively. Maybe a currently topic banned user in this discussion could talk openly about this reality. Their input could be very valuable.
5143:
The arbitration amendment template limits how many individual I can initially add, so I will shortly be adding the rest of the admin and non-admin participants to the list above in their own section.
4820: 11848:
some months ago for a different arb case. Some of the more active users noted on that chart are now TBANned, but it still serves as a solid chunk of data for the mass-scale POV-warring in the area.
10437:
to push 'massacre' (which is a reasonable preference anyway), what was going on won't be evident to the birds-eye perspective. The name-change was pushed by an old throwaway account by a NoCal sock
2968: 16493: 16483: 16375: 16136:
warning. Trying to wikilawyer your way through your TBan is pure FAFO behaviour, and they shouldn't be upset if the admins start cracking down. The answer to your questions IMHO is pretty obvious:
12831:
warn or sanction editors who repeatedly promote unreasonable or inconsistent interpretations of content policies, but of course that's difficult since such policy matters aren't black and white. —
10499:
As to the requested 'pro-Pal POV', that is inane language. I could give a long essay on the roots of my general outlook, from family tales of Irish dispossession (the genocidal consequences of (a)
14375: 14248: 13778:
And all that, the original request for enforcement is practically forgotten. Like, it's been two weeks. Seems like all that's left to do is dismiss in light of האופה not editing since the report.
13062:
As for Guerillero' wish for better cat-herding rules; I was thinking of something like: scratch another cat's face: 1 month's automatic topic-ban. Of course "scratch another cat's face" has to be
12849: 11145:
area and how it affects AE (but not getting ArbCom into reviewing source material!), followed by a second case focusing on editor conduct, might well be the most practical way to accomplish it. --
3269:'s idea; I'm open to them changing the motion text if I missed something. It's a simple and clear solution, and simplifying confusing conditions that have actually caused confusion is good to me. 16462:
proposing an article for deletion or contesting a proposed deletion: Clearly within scope for me. A ban from deletion wouldn't be very effective if someone could sidestep it by prodding articles.
16428: 14233: 10433:, of BilledMammal classifying you as a supporter of the term 'massacre' when you did no such thing, confirms my wariness about drawing any conclusions from broad statistical charts like that. In 3783: 3775: 2258:
and the comment by an admin there, "I wouldn't immediately understand "userspace" to apply to another user's talk page in this case – seems more like wikilawyering than anything else to say that
2209:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&curid=21090546&diff=1237149351&oldid=1236465052#Why_does_ARPBIA_allow_userspace_as_an_exception
1945: 1937: 13342:
These remedies would be easier to resolve than the (possible) allegations of tag-teaming and or gamification of Knowledge which will continue to be contested and or repeatedly brought here ~ 🦝
8917:. This gives more discretion to admins without good reason. A better idea would be to encourage AE to forward individual appeals to ArbCom if they think ArbCom is better equiped to handle them. 5124: 15857:
prodded a few articles without incident, and a prior inquiry as to whether this violated my topic ban had gone unanswered. I personally do not think de-prodding should be part of my topic ban.
15300: 11979:, et al. This complete lack of introspection/acknowledgement that "hey, maybe I'm part of the problem too" is exactly why many in the area, if not all its experienced users, deserve sanctions. 6953:
The bottom plot shows the same results scaled by article count. This result might suggest that the topic area is more attractive to editors than Knowledge in general. Didn't really expect that.
264: 12006:
I also want to make something very clear, just so my position on the area doesn't get grouped in by one side with the other side of editors here and at large (which may already be happening):
5899:
I think categorizing and various ontologies is also problematic and hard to determine, as is expected. See the issue with whether Israel is just accused of being an apartheid state, or also a
3754: 2479: 11959:
After further reading of comments here from multiple users on either side of the POV-war they either deny exists or insist it's mainly/only the other side that's toxic, I'd like to reiterate:
3248: 1874: 1869: 1862: 1857: 1852: 1847: 1842: 1837: 1832: 1827: 1822: 1817: 1812: 1807: 1802: 1797: 1792: 1787: 1782: 1777: 1770: 1765: 1760: 1755: 1750: 1745: 1740: 1735: 1730: 1069: 1064: 1057: 1052: 1047: 1042: 1037: 1032: 1027: 1022: 1017: 1012: 1007: 1002: 997: 992: 987: 982: 977: 972: 965: 960: 955: 950: 945: 940: 935: 930: 925: 12398:
people with specific viewpoints. As this is done off-site, it is hard to know the scale of the impact, but that should not prevent the implementation of measures to guard against this risk.
8552: 2232:
Many thanks for clarifying my inept proposal. For me, though, ECR should function like a tban, "any edits that relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict (broadly construed) anywhere on Knowledge"
14658: 12045:
Some previous and later commenters seem to think that my idea of "nuking the topic area" means only mass-TBANning the problematic people from the aforementioned side with more editors (see
9072: 4928: 3482: 1725: 1720: 1715: 1710: 1705: 1700: 1695: 1690: 1685: 1678: 1673: 1668: 1663: 1658: 1653: 1648: 1643: 1638: 1633: 1628: 1623: 1618: 1613: 1608: 1603: 1598: 1593: 1586: 1581: 1576: 1571: 1566: 1561: 1556: 1551: 1546: 1541: 1536: 1531: 1526: 1521: 1516: 1511: 1506: 1501: 1494: 1489: 1484: 1479: 1474: 1469: 1464: 1459: 1454: 1449: 1444: 1439: 1434: 1429: 1424: 1419: 1414: 1409: 1402: 1397: 1392: 1387: 1382: 1377: 1372: 1367: 1362: 1357: 1352: 1347: 1342: 1337: 1332: 1327: 1322: 1317: 1310: 1305: 1300: 1295: 1290: 1285: 1280: 1275: 1270: 920: 915: 910: 905: 900: 895: 890: 885: 880: 873: 868: 863: 858: 853: 848: 843: 838: 833: 828: 823: 818: 813: 808: 803: 798: 793: 788: 781: 776: 771: 766: 761: 756: 751: 746: 741: 736: 731: 726: 721: 716: 711: 706: 701: 696: 689: 684: 679: 674: 669: 664: 659: 654: 649: 644: 639: 634: 629: 624: 619: 614: 609: 604: 597: 592: 587: 582: 577: 572: 567: 562: 557: 552: 547: 542: 537: 532: 527: 522: 517: 512: 505: 500: 495: 490: 485: 480: 475: 470: 465: 16174:
This is why in my playbook "broadly construed" means "imagine any possible scenario in which an admin may potentially block you, even if they are not totally right, and stay away from it".
14366:
I agree that action from ArbCom is necessary, and having reviewed everything over the past couple of days, looks like it may need to be a full case based on the complexity of the issue. -
10460:
accrued area familiarity with its vivacious theatre of new editors who sound like oldtimers, and the RS literature one acquires, there is a dimension of experience, of what Polanyi called
7900:
Alone, not enough to warrant action - but it is another piece of evidence that adds to evidence like only supporting the use of "massacre" when the victims are from the side they support.
16072:
enough ambiguity here that I didn't call for sanctions at ANI nor did I go to AE. At the time I felt striking the offending comments and a "don't do that again" were sufficient. However,
11927:
the problem is those new-ish users are fairly easily dealt with via AE, if they haven't already violated ECR. On the contrary, AE has shown itself to be reluctant to heavily sanction any
11790:
discussion; there's a level of toxicity that just makes me want to ignore the area entirely. This BATTLEGROUND issue is only compounded by the fact that virtually all of the culprits are
6786:
It's quite difficult to reconcile calls to topic ban long term experienced users with things we know about the topic area. We know quite a lot. For example, we know the following things.
4765: 3771: 3029:
I just wanted to note that I am aware of and am watching this discussion, but I would like to look more into the reasoning/history behind the current wording before commenting further. -
1933: 1265: 1260: 1255: 1250: 1245: 1240: 1235: 1230: 1225: 460: 455: 450: 445: 440: 435: 430: 425: 420: 10550:
the article shows that anti-Palestinian bias persisted disproportionately in the NYT during both periods and, in fact, worsened from the First Intifada to the Second.' (Holly M Jackson,
10265:
The Israel-Palestine issue has a strong claim to be the most closely studied conflict on earth. 'Voluminous' does not even begin to capture the sheer quantity of the material about it'.(
7797:
This does mean I missed at least one discussion that I am aware of where I was too enthusiastic, but it also means I missed discussions where you were too enthusiastic - it balances out.
2528:, as userspace is traditionally given broad latitude too, it seems that WP:ECR and WP:UOWN should have their own jurisdiction, and on the balance WP:ECR should not be excessively broad. 2456: 2387:
The entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted; edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces
16504:
a DELETION discussion, and so far as I recall I had not even ventured into any other MERGER discussion in 2+ years. This was once; and only came up because I had edited this article.
5963: 1200: 395: 15660: 13487:. By resolving this without any sanctions against the editors making this topic area contentious, that is only going to give those editors more reason to continue their disruption and 9163:
Re:L25: I didn't support moving this here because I was looking for an ArbCom only remedy as I felt we had whatever options we wanted on the table per the Contentious topic procedures
8946: 7453:, but a, that isnt a formal discussion, and b. that is a back and forth with a handful of users. That isnt bludgeoning by any reasonable definition. They also somehow neglected to add 7087:
If there is a case, I think one of the things it could try to address is the following (often cyclical) property of the system, which appears to be quite common as far as I can tell.
2777: 2255: 2117: 15291: 12947: 12668:
and at worst maliciously misrepresenting. The people who insist that it's "correct vs incorrect" as opposed to "pro-Israel vs pro-Palestine" should be given additional scrutiny here.
8651:
Bludgeoning does not mean making a lot of edits. Replying to everyone who makes a contrary comment is bludgeoning, but repeatedly bringing new reliable sources is called good editing.
8090: 7832: 5947:
rule. There are RFCs where arguments on either side are heavily favored by numbers before an admin/uninvolved closer throws away votes that have reasoning that is logically rebutted.
1185: 380: 11362:
work, it only really functions when there's a solid status quo and no need to update it quickly, which isn't the case during an active fast-moving real-world conflict like this one.
7995:
I think it demonstrates that the issue of sockpuppets is less significant than we believe. In 2024, only one sockmaster is in the top 100 editors by edit count within the topic area.
5496:. Those of you who have done so may want to either strike your comments or add some diffs to support your allegations, before arbcom gets around to asking who the parties should be. 14679: 9350:
the Arbitation Committee will decide who the parties are. So it might be RTH's list, it might be a smaller group of that, or it could be part of that and others not included there.
9002: 7956:
What sort of information would be helpful in determining a scope? In addition, will parties be decided at this stage, or will parties be able to be added during the evidence phase?
12256:
Just for the record... after further research I have been able to determine that it was the decision to set the cutoff at 20 comments rather than at 18 which kept Kentucky Rain24 (
8547:
However, you ignore all of this, to focus on one of two that I haven't yet been able to address - and you use that failure to accuse me of manipulating the data to prevent it from
5397: 2581: 2277: 15706: 15016: 12568:
I agree with Ravpapa's points about low article quality, but these issues plague most current events articles (another area that could use cleanup, but it's not analogous to PIA).
7446: 5409:; emphasis mine) is that I had to submit it here rather than as a case request. If this is to change going forward, the instructions should probably be tweaked to clarify this. — 1121: 15872: 12958: 11655:
was disrupted by canvassing by pro-Israel editors who considered me to be a problem because I was doing things like removing articles on settlements from "in Israel" categories.
11192: 10227:
data we desperately need to as a work basis to get out of the suggestive/insinuating/subjective gossip mode often prevailing on wiki when it deliberates on core issues like this.
6875:
like RFCs etc. But the topic area is so large and complex with so many individual actors, and so many events, that it is difficult to make reliable general statements about it.
5805: 5492:
Just a heads up: if a case is opened, I will ask arbcom to name as parties and review the conduct of all the editors, admins and non-admins alike, who, on this page, are casting
5443: 3283:
I'm worried this motion fails to resolve what happens to Remedies 6-8, which rely on the distinction between primary articles and related content. See below for one alternative.
2566:
I think Remedy 9 repeal is possibly long overdue, it was written in 2015, and it only reminds the obvious that admins can use indefinite blocks, which is true even outside CTOP.
2296: 15717:, for a year, but which apparently are self renewing and perpetual). I've followed all of them. Asking for them to be removed is not something in my contemplation at this time. 11063:
I'm going to propose the case scope right here: "Ongoing disruption in the Israel-Palestine topic area, with a particular emphasis on factors that interfere with the ability of
9946:
makes it exhausting and frustrating for non-battleground editors to participate. In any event, I see the "usual suspects" attempting to downplay or deny that there's any dispute
6359:
8: Re BM's "evidence", the same case Nableezy refers to, BM characterizes my position as not expressing a stance on the use of the term massacre when I !voted against it! -: -->
5555:. Only HaOfa and I are relevant to this AE, and with HaOfa not editing since the filing, I don't think it's necessary or a good use of Arbcom's time to look at HaOfa's conduct. 5527:
sock puppets, and I rather strongly disagree that it's trivial and not worth concerning ourselves with, though of course I value my own time more than others value my time. :-P
5315:
good-faith editors who are entering the topic more than already occurs. That being said, making it available as a discretionary sanction that could be applied by an admin would
3763: 3407: 3344: 1925: 240: 216: 12962: 9152: 9137:
We've got a problem, apparently, with a bottomless well of newish accounts that make life difficult for good-faith editors, which is something that AE should be able to handle.
9125: 9108: 9091: 9063: 9048: 9031: 9014: 8644:
Imposing a limit on contributions that consists of a word limit or edit limit will cause delight to the tag teams, who will take full advantage of their combined greater limit.
5402:
A consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may refer an arbitration enforcement request to the Arbitration Committee for final decision through a
5163: 15561:) is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter." 15537:) is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter." 12800:
who take issue with the characterization. But it's difficult to enforce policies against a majority, and four editors have been brought to AE for attempts to do, with another
12709:
Administrators don't give a second thought to blocking or tbanning newbies, while they often shrink away from sanctioning entrenched editors who do much worse much more often.
5394:
If the closing admin determines that the consensus is an ARCA referral or a case request, it is the closing admin's responsibility to post the request at the appropriate venue
4874: 2830: 2405:
I'll also repeat (please answer): You seem to be proposing that "edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of
2081: 16036: 15178: 15037: 14936: 14811: 14711: 11366:
What we need are in-depth looks at individual editor conduct in order to catch sockpuppets / meatpuppets, identify canvassing, and remove civil POV-pushers. These things are
10951:, and some other editors (sometimes more crudely) finding such source material to be contrary to popular political opinion. In my experience, getting caught in the middle of 9718: 8992: 3427: 3186: 15277: 12025:
problematic pro-Israeli experienced editors are any less of a contributor to the toxicity, policy violations, et al in this area, or that they deserve any lesser sanctions?
10747:(sock) , to mention a few of the names I mostly recognize as coming under that kind of general category.But then, this kind of analysis is way out of my field of competence. 8636:
I object to being listed here. But now that I'm here, I'll say that I don't see any suggestions so far that would make an improvement to the I/P area. Here are some points:
7454: 5297: 3740: 16130: 16030: 15964: 13743:
page is on its own illuminating. Contributing to discussions about moving articles intersects with the policy on titling articles which includes all sort of guidance about
12535: 9403: 6067:, what would be defined as recent? editwars may take the form of months long warring, in which case which edit is a revert, and which is disputed becomes contested as well 14798:
All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 500 words per discussion.
14694:, an uninvolved administrator may require that appeals be heard only by the Arbitration Committee. In such cases, the committee will hear appeals at ARCA according to the 14557: 9862: 9613:
is any comment needed? They're giving new tools in response to the problems brought forward. Presumably the idea is that AE and individual admins start using those tools?
8858: 8756: 15815: 14089: 13587: 12441:
and therefore the number of attendees do swing discussion outcomes – while this isn't an issue as a one-off, when it is many discussions over many years, it is a problem.
12375:
observes, Knowledge is out-of-step with a large number of the reliable sources that we rely on for other topics across Knowledge. In my view, this amounts to an abuse of
11625:
and therefore the number of attendees do swing discussion outcomes – while this isn't an issue as a one-off, when it is many discussions over many years, it is a problem.
11230: 9322: 6490: 6202: 5977: 5931: 5879: 3077:
I think one issue with this is that the "primary articles" and "related content" distinction has proven to be less useful with time. When the case was first decided, the
16474:
At any rate, I wouldn't punish 7&6 or TPH for having been in merge discussions up to this point, since I do think it was arguable as to whether merges are in scope.
16008: 15933: 15828:. I have performed a couple merges since then, but these have been good-faith attempts to make sure at least some of the content makes it into the target article (e.g., 15745: 15689:
discussions; I recognize that there are those who allege that MERGE discussions are now included. While I disagree, I will simply implement that counsel in the future.
12353:
What makes this topic particularly tricky to deal with, however, is not that editors in this space are typically new to the site (although as I know from editing in the
9968:
absurd levels of incivility, condescension, POV-pushing, bludgeoning, edit-warring, hypocrisy, and virtually every other type of WP:BATTLEGROUND editing humanly possible
8566: 13560: 11809:, as I don't think starting from scratch could make things any worse than they currently are - that said, I understand that's a rather draconian/heavy-handed solution. 11212: 9778: 9475:. Selfstudier and I draw different conclusions about that statement we agree on and the Arbs can decide which conclusion they agree with as it's ultimately up to them. 6546:
It might be better to assign low credence, by default, to the accuracy of assessments of the state of the 'topic area', a complex system with thousands of moving parts.
6179:. Many of the editors here, including myself and several of the uninvolved administrators, were participants and the case revolved around behavior (and content) at the 6166: 6087: 6054: 6036: 5956: 5916: 5894: 5861: 5826: 2756: 13649: 6176: 15807: 15776: 13800: 13374: 13199:" Keeping entrenched editors to protect us from socks and newbies is like keeping cats to protect the mice from kittens" I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. 12901: 12862:
The committee will be charged with reviewing the entire corpus of Middle East articles, and making any editorial and structural changes that they see fit, including:
12010:
Are there more pro-Palestinian problematic experienced editors in the area than pro-Israeli ones? Yeah, I kinda feel like that's an objective fact at this point - as
9767: 7658: 15895:
argues, a border interpretation of deletion is anything that removes a page from the reader's eye, as merging, redirecting and incubating do (although it's only the
12955: 12548:
Contrary to what other statements here are arguing, I believe there are legitimate issues about editors who are only here to edit PIA. This is a strong indicator of
5644: 16325: 16191: 16125: 16096: 14125: 13730: 13418:
know they can be quick to take complaints to friends who are administrators or boards like AE without threat to themselves no matter what they did to fan the flames
12487: 12103:
that it could get worse, and anyways, I disagree that the hypothetical "it could get really bad" is worse than the current reality of "it's a toxic disaster zone."
12037:
whom I won't name. Hell, from the linked motion, part of the reasons one side is smaller in the first place is because many of the problematic users from that side
10786:
Don’t know what’s happening, but keep me out. If the argument is that I’m bias, true, but I try as hard as I can to be neutral, and I can provide examples of this.
10704: 9740: 9158: 8658:
literature. The small fraction of new editors who arrive with genuine knowledge of the topic have a much better time of it. All of this is exactly as it should be.
5422: 5380: 5332: 5290: 5257: 5230: 5212: 5189: 2575: 14452: 13648:
The Arab-Israeli conflict's Arbitration history well predates the first PIA case; PIA1 is simply the first time ArbCom turned its gaze on the situation as a whole
12387:
it seems the desired state of the articles in the topic area from one (or each) 'side' of this conflict will likely not be content until 'perfection' is achieved.
10926: 10481:
helps one to assess things, beyond the issue of RS etc. If my informal hunch had been true, what followed would never show up in a statistical analysis like BM's.
8555:
didn't clarify that - but not prioritizing your request is not the same as manipulating the data, and there is no justification for these assumptions of bad faith.
7157:
The average 'SPA-ness' is low (percentage of edits in PIA articles, talk, templates, categories, portal and draft namespaces). They do not generally resemble SPAs.
2282:
There is a small mismatch between the area of scope and ECR and perhaps arbcom wants to fix that. Perhaps it doesn't. I'm not sure why I am involved in this case.
163: 16156: 14785: 13813:
Civility simply is not taken seriously anymore anywhere in the project, is lackadaisically and usually not enforced at all, and is a sad memory in the I/P pages.
13681: 12906: 12774: 12742: 12639: 12600: 12462:
from a rough count, I see around 22 !votes endorsing the closure and 15 saying to overturn. I also don't see any kind of slam-dunk argument in the overturn !votes
12234:
I very rarely edit in this topic area and only looked into this table due to past experience with Billed Mammal and Kentucky Rain24 (NoCal100) working in concert
12210: 11384: 10920: 10477: 10056: 10008:
incredibly experienced, incredibly knowledgeable of processes, , , enable(s) Wikilawyering on a scale that I've frankly not encountered anywhere else on Knowledge
9836: 8648:
means that a limit on "discussions" will just produce a lot of arguments over whether something was part of the same discussion or part of a different discussion.
8631: 7482:
there is a core group of 10-15 editors in this topic area (many of whom have been with us for well over a decade) who are primarily on Knowledge to push their POV
7397: 5635:
The damage caused by these socks can be significant. The latest example of obvious-sock-but-we-can't-say-it-until-we-have-a-certain-amount-of-minimum-evidence is
2556: 2547:
is intended to "improve the editing atmosphere of an article or topic area", which applies here as WP:GS specifically includes "Extended confirmed restriction".
356:
If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use
15157: 14907: 14791: 13881:
4. "Enforced BRD" Another process answer to an editor behavior issue, and I don't believe that it would have any positive impact on the subject area whatosever.
13617: 13593: 12188:
Once an active editor in this topic area, I have for the last few years assiduously eschewed any involvement. But I would like, nonetheless to add this comment:
9283:
does what I wrote above accurately summarize your thinking? I want to make sure to know whether to adjust my actions for any future potential referrals. Thanks,
7936:
I've included all editors with more than 500 edits since 2022 who have made 50%+ of their edits in the ARBPIA topic area. Sub-5000-edit accounts are marked with
1099:
Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.
15867: 14120: 13635: 13317: 13267:
Seeing many comments that should be saved for the Arb case over the last few days. Is there some threshold that needs to be passed before this case is opened?
12401:
The more I read in this topic area, the more disheartened I become by the state of our collective actions as editors, and the more I find myself aligning with @
12314: 11574: 11236: 11040:
about fixing the topic area in general. Among the multiple impasses in the discussion here on this request page is that AE admins are telling ArbCom that AE is
10845: 10795: 9867: 7404: 6184: 2797:
I would rather not name this but recently rsn into another editor with the same issue, but others convinced him he was wrong, although apparently he was right.
1116:
Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
16140:
Yes, because merging will lead to at least some deletion of content - the nominated article may get deleted, some content during merger may be lost, and so on.
14920: 14691: 14285:
Your answer was "correct" because it gave one path to refer an AE case to ArbCom/ARCA. My comment above was to highlight a second path to get the same result.
14102:, which allows only uninvolved editors to vote. I believe this motion would greatly benefit sockpuppets and meatpuppets at the expense of experienced editors. 13613: 10561: 2567: 2548: 2227: 16419:
of a discussion); I am willing to be persuaded in either direction. PROD would definitely fall under the "broadly construed" of deletion discussions, though.
16197: 14061: 13980: 13900: 13513: 13499: 12940: 12916:
on us and find a spurious reason to ban them. No, my idea would be to concentrate on the three areas which appear to causing the most issues at the moment.
12779: 12162: 9831: 9801: 9258:
thanks for that clarification. I want to understand this second parth. Am I correct that you're saying that if the 4 uninvolved administrators had all bolded
8625: 8592: 8507: 8468: 8443: 8397: 8257: 8213: 8180: 8127: 8102: 8021: 7965: 7909: 7884: 7862: 7813: 7781: 7423: 7387: 7372: 7355: 7334: 7309: 7247: 7230: 7212: 7197: 7181: 7132: 7077: 7053: 6986: 6965: 6884: 6825: 6776: 6532: 6517: 6095: 5428: 2631:
which I suspect is intended to mean things defined above as 'related content' (not what is actually says which is pages not covered at all in the definition).
16041:
I felt that thirteen's posts were a clear-cut violation of a "broadly construed" TBan from deletion discussions, since that discussion was on whether or not
15024:
Designations by administrators may be appealed in the same way as sanctions. Designation is not a suggestion that an editor's contributions are problematic.
12413:
stated, it's not like we're protecting much of value here - this process has resulted in articles of fairly poor quality, a result of incessent pointscoring
12278: 12014:
or the aforementioned Swatjester have stated, just look at the number of experienced editors showing up to insist they're not the problem, everyone else is/"
10541: 9345: 8839: 8266: 7979: 7825:
There is a lot of POVPUSHING at RSN, but from what I've seen the issue is more common - and more effective - in the opposite direction from what you've seen.
5447: 106: 16360: 13975: 13937: 13860: 13837: 13579: 13521: 13477: 13327:
Cases are brought to ArbCom or ANI after obvious escalations, however what we need is stronger focus on preventive measures over enforcement after the fact.
12889:
edit. This proposal preserves the heart of the consensual editing model (though not strictly open), but eliminates the possibility for contentious editing.
12571:
BilledMammal's list does produce some of the most active editors, and while there's plausibly a strong correlation, it doesn't prove bludgeoning on its own.
12529: 12183: 11765: 10914: 10899: 10876: 7753: 7528:
that was a well advertised and well attended RFC a baker's dozen years ago. What level of consensus it was really has no bearing on anything at this point.
7096: 6425: 6403: 6387: 6371: 6354: 6331: 6313: 6287: 6258: 6240: 6218: 6205:. Editors named here continue to respond there. Although procedurally a separate AE case, it was filed contemporaneously with and is part and parcel of the 6196: 2474: 16366: 15098: 13664: 12749: 11203:
subject matter (e.g. nableezy's statement above). This is unacceptable. I strongly endorse implementing the actions outlined by SFR as immediate remedies.
11104: 11031: 10810:
Can someone explain to me what this is all about? Specifically, how is this AE related to the previously closed one? And what am I being asked to do here?
10132:. Surely you shouldn't take exception to a somewhat playful implication you were a 'cat'. Your presence is very rare in the IP area and your remarks about 9578: 6575:
How many are hostile, toxic, combative, tendentiousness, condescending, bludgeoning, hypocritical, bullying, glaringly dishonest etc. and how many are not?
6148:, just two days after blaming another editor for being a sock solely based on some shared topics of interest with a blocked editor who had 72,000(!) edits 5680: 5244:
Please see my comment above, and my exchange with Levivich for an explanation as to why you are listed under the category of "Involved AE participants". —
16344: 14549: 14155: 13795: 12984: 12506: 12481: 12306: 12268: 11568: 11518: 11475: 11442: 11182: 11168: 11154: 11139: 11119: 11056:
be is a feature, not a bug, because obviously you shouldn't prejudge the case. Let the community give you evidence. And this is one case where you should
11009: 10994: 10979: 10964: 10818: 10149: 9710: 9683: 9078:
Motion 3 is interesting, but it has to be clear if it is or is not a sanction, and if it should be applied to all regulars, or just over-engaged regulars.
8434:(Nishidani, I do have more to say in regards to your comments - I'm not ignoring the questions/statements you made - but I don't have time at the moment) 7853:
Considering that policy doesn't provide any support for considering a source unreliable on grounds of bias, I find this example particularly problematic.
6430: 2806: 2792: 2272: 2241: 2220: 2186: 2169: 16304: 15752: 15269: 14673: 14408: 13736: 12951: 12339: 12274: 10552:
New York Times distorts the Palestinian struggle: A case study of anti-Palestinian bias in US news coverage of the First and Second Palestinian Intifadas
10400: 9574: 8873: 8787: 8750: 8727: 8617: 8584: 8541: 8499: 8460: 8435: 8389: 8249: 8205: 8172: 8119: 8094: 8013: 7957: 7901: 7876: 7854: 7842: 7805: 7773: 7745: 7235: 7064: 6485: 5512: 5338: 4368: 3697: 2772: 15252: 15010: 13366: 13262: 12935: 12250: 11749: 11723: 11697: 11671: 11645: 11619: 11543: 11410: 11305: 10937: 10860: 10779: 10621: 10591: 10577: 10530: 10490: 10454: 10421: 10395: 10373: 10349: 10315: 10295: 10236: 10214: 10195: 10160: 10124: 10106: 10088: 9661: 9637: 9622: 9604: 9590: 9558: 9536: 9521: 9506: 9484: 9457: 9438: 9420: 9397: 9376: 9359: 9338: 9307: 9292: 9274: 9249: 9230: 9213: 9203: 9183: 8833: 8551:. I admit, I don't consider it a priority (although I have already spent some time on it), as I don't see what useful information it would provide, and 7418: 5195: 5055: 3815: 2748: 2721: 13380: 12426: 11337:, so this is the one suggestion here that is at least aimed at what I'd consider the real problem... but it would probably be better to treat it as a 10642: 10430: 10076: 9566: 5302:
no more than two comments per discussion per day, except replies (of reasonable length) to questions or very brief clarifications of their own comments
16442: 15151: 14901: 14497: 14482: 14030: 13707: 13464:
welcomed in the topic area and that I won't have to spend time fighting bludgeoning from another side with no hopes of having my points ever refuted.
13351: 12920:
Sub-5000-edit accounts which are basically SPAs on the PIA area, some of which will inevitably be socks but even if they're not are equally disruptive
11596: 11379: 11277: 10925:
I generally avoid editing in this topic area, and my involvement in it has been fairly minimal. But the one instance when I did get involved with it (
10756: 10069: 8941: 8904: 8883: 8865: 8852: 8815: 8797: 8776: 8740: 8716: 8694: 8673: 8662: 7927:
Sub-5000-edit accounts which are basically SPAs on the PIA area, some of which will inevitably be socks but even if they're not are equally disruptive
7575: 7551: 7537: 7517: 7498: 7473: 6470:
and do something about it then they are the last people who should feel qualified to perform some kind of grand "source analysis" for the topic area.
6160: 5792: 5765: 5592: 2688: 2291: 15122: 13652: 13256: 9140: 8537: 7392: 5309:
500 word limit in any discussion under 5000 words, and a 1000 word or 10% of the discussion limit, whichever is lower, on discussions over 5000 words
3732: 16320: 16282: 14414:
second question, I'd like to see parties decided on case creation, with parties added in the evidence phase only with compelling reason to do so. -
14084: 14056: 14008: 12976: 12844: 12178: 12156: 12122: 11998: 11950: 11918: 11867: 11678: 9701:
points out recently so there might be other ideas to glean from reading those (and reading what the arbcom at the time wrote about them privately).
7726: 7653: 7629: 7606: 7591: 7438: 6794:
policy in PIA. It's largely unenforceable for a variety of practical, wiki-cultural and technical reasons. We all know this. There have always been
6126: 6008:
The precedent of massive topic bans without careful assessment of the reasoning why leads to dangerous precedents for other future content disputes.
5714: 5660: 5607:
is part of Israel. That's called pro-Israeli POV-pushing. The pro-Palestinian version of that would be somebody trying to get Knowledge to say that
5564: 5536: 5505: 5486: 2451: 2440: 2421: 2377: 2348: 2315: 313:
Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
15113: 14515: 14264:(in a humourous context that I chuckled at), and referrals to ArbCom from AE have not been common, I wanted to make sure there was clarification. 14261: 11159:
In response to the question about how to avoid making the topic-area case into a mudslinging contest, limit the named parties only to AE admins. --
10712: 8641:
and many with scant knowledge of the subject. Quite a lot of the disputes arise because of them, not because of the people likely to comment at AE.
6569:
How many of these talk page interactions are consistent with the sweeping negative assessments of the state of the topic area and how many are not?
6149: 3507: 3278: 14872: 13555: 13175: 13129: 13110: 13085: 13079: 12205: 12076: 11828: 10112: 6479: 6224: 3642: 3597: 3583: 3323: 3309: 13699:
This figure does not count the (incomplete) Archive 339, nor does it count any unarchived threads at Enforcement, including the one referred here
13661: 13088: 12676: 10805: 10407:
Sean Hoyland’s remarks on your page. That is an excellent tabulation. I don't think it demonstrates anything of the sort, that 'pro-Pal' editors
9773: 9426: 3953: 2436:
If arbcom wish to undo the exclusion of userspace from the ARBPIA topic area, that's their decision, but your proposal does much more than that.
15723:
indefinitely, irrespective of any 'clarification' or not. I do not need the hassle. The point has been made, understood and put into practice.
14464: 14438: 14423: 14401: 14351: 14330: 14308: 14294: 14273: 13307: 13291: 13245: 13016: 11885:
Arbcom may be more open to conclusively dealing with. As a result of AE's apparent higher threshold needed for experienced editors, things like
10840: 8821:
based on the best sources available, regardless of which other sources technically pass RS. No editor other than me openly avoids citing either
8233: 6790:
It isn't possible to topic ban or block a person and prevent them from editing in the topic area. Why? Because it isn't possible to enforce the
6449: 3905: 3061: 15951:
doesn't appear that different to the WP:READER, who, whatever we dress the discussion up as, will not be able to see material they once could.
13094: 12565:
I like ScottishFinnishRaddish's suggestion that everyone who participated in an ARBPIA AE discussion since last October be considered involved.
12228: 10813: 8736:
you have granted yourself the right to classify other editors as "pro-Israel" and "pro-Palestinian". Please tell us how you classify yourself.
8419:
All it does is help us understand the dynamics of the topic area, and is particularly helpful in understanding the background to comments like
8232:
There are some editors who do subscribe to that position - but there are also editors who subscribe to the position that the opposite is true,
7698: 6810: 3675: 57: 13546:
then they need to run that by the community and get some sort of procedural update in place so we know exactly how to assess these things.  —
13276: 12825: 12797: 10655:
Translation: Billed Mammal presented a very abstract set of charts, and multiple editors stated that BM was lying about the evidence in them.
9471:
for a lot of other people to reply which is why that thread sprawled and PeleYoetz" didn't. But I stand by my agreeing with Selfstudier that
8380:
while I feel it's obvious where Vice regent's sympathies lie, I've been very impressed by their ability to put them aside to comply with NPOV.
6928:
I've tried to have a look at this using 3 datasets, two approximations of the 'topic area' and a set of randomly selected Knowledge articles.
5579:
I think the "first admin comment" link above disproves this. Look at who replied and who didn't before that first comment was made. It wasn't
5311:
topic-wide in a blanket fashion; I feel like this sort of thing would serve as a trap to good-faith newcomers who are verbose, and we needn't
3151: 16084:, specifically referencing this same "broadly construed" language, so I'm now not sure that "don't do that again" hasn't already been said. ― 15412: 15346: 15285: 13596:(April 2024 - present), of 75 threads (discounting the two duplicates) 38 of them are PIA-related. And of 94 threads from Oct. 2023 (and the 10676: 10412:
the rumour-mill here is suggesting. Perhaps I'll have other observations later (here because I won't be participating in any Arbcome process)
8958:
If Arbcom does wish to avoid a full case or "punt", as Barkeep puts it, there are a couple actions they can take to help out in the interim.
6015:
topic area, and admins have been kind enough to help shepherd, provide useful guidance, and prevent my early exit (voluntary or involuntary).
5273: 5086:
The inability of the tools available at AE to adequately handle disruption that involves a large number of parties over long periods of time.
1207: 402: 15789: 15602: 13725: 12382:
The consensus process has broken down because too many experienced editors seem to have no interest in finding any consensus. I agree with @
11328:
Motion 1, Appeals only to ArbCom doesn't really address any of the core problems; it isn't like revolving-door appeals are the problem here.
8951:
There is a broad array of disruptive editing, POV pushing, long term edit wars, bludgeoning, incivility, and it all basically comes down to
8421:
I say that because there is a massive imbalance in the people singled out, according to the usual perceptions of the IP area's POV-stand-off
16307:. Participating in any AfD would be an unambiguous violation of their topic bans, contrary to your hypothetical reasoning that would allow 15509: 14182:
Thank you to the AE admins for submitting this referral. As a procedural note I would suggest that we limit the parties to this request to
14135: 13621: 12882: 12686:. That's not to say it's not a huge problem, but the current focus is established users, and there are factors that make this more urgent: 10568:
and diaspora Jewish scholars (many also Zionist). 'Pro-Palestinian' implies 'anti-Israel' and that is why the term is totally unacceptable.
9165:
A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any restriction from the standard set and
8733: 7930: 7701:
for an assessment of the extent of the problem. For technical reasons, it is currently limited to discussions on article talk pages and at
7450: 2514:
The answer would depend on whether arbitrators intended WP:ECR A(1) to overrule or uphold WP:PIA 4(B), if there is an answer, we are done.
1164: 14687: 14577:. If we aren't able to evaluate a single party's conduct, we aren't able to hear a case either. And if we are, a case can be requested at 14429:
reasonable person to tell if an editor has contributed a given percentage of a discussion, especially if they're using a mobile device. -
1110: 15460: 13379:
I haven't wanted to comment here because I feel that others are saying what I would have to say. But I feel it needs to be stressed that
12712:
Any administrator with the resolve to take action (or even mention the possibility) is hounded and abused by the user's tag-team buddies.
5800: 4784: 14621:
Tl;dr: we need to do something, and we should welcome new ideas but a sprawling ARBPIA5 is unlikely to resolve anything satisfactorily.
12236: 8690:
to the war? Removing articles created from Oct 7, 2023 onwards might be a good approximation. Don't spend time on it unless it is easy.
6899:
How true are statements about editors being scared away from the topic area by a toxic environment created by entrenched editors etc.?
5272:
discussions" provision will be enough, as it isn't going to remedy the long-term edit warring/tag teaming, nor the civility issues that
3125:: I would assume the two terms should be viewed identically. Further thoughts forthcoming — currently discussing among ourselves. Best, 2174: 13870:
1. Appeals only to Arbcom: I see some merit to this. It can prevent bludgeoning of administrators who venture into the subject area.
13712:
Speaking of the AE request about האופה, there's also the AE request about PeleYoetz which was closed as moot because of this referral (
12192:
crises that change the course of history, they are often so full or quotes and counterquotes that they are practically unintelligible.
11652: 7092: 6845:"How many sock accounts are currently active in the topic area, or outside the area (to gain EC or access to wiki-mail for canvassing)" 6798:
in PIA and there is apparently very little that can be done about it. They are part of the community of editors in PIA, like it or not.
6508:
Answers like "It's against the rules", "It's dishonest", "It's hypocritical", "They will be discovered and blocked" are wrong answers.
6146: 6140: 4536: 4145: 15821:
examples were on August 13, and the formal notification was not until the 26th, after which I have not done anything like that again.
13452:, and via strength in numbers can continue to make systemic bias worse, silence opposition/alternative points of view, and ultimately 12391: 11893:
cross multiple lines to receive anything more than a logged warning that is almost always disregarded by the receiver in the long run.
9814:. When we are faced with this sort of off-wiki canvassing is it any surprise that there's some level of disruption to the topic area? 16024: 16002: 15958: 15927: 15910: 13034: 11320:
issues; all of these are difficult to resolve in a single sweeping motion. But several of these are likely to actually make problems
6932:
PIA topic area - template presence (3734 articles). Articles with one of the ARBPIA/contentious topics templates on their talk pages.
5900: 5551:
open a case, who will the parties be, and how will Arbcom decide? It requires someone presenting some evidence... in other words, an
4947: 4796: 4385: 4193: 62: 15853:
I have not prodded any articles since the topic ban, since I assumed doing so would constitute a violation of the topic ban. I have
15606: 13757:
implicitly assuming editors are contributing to those move discussions based on something like whims rather than on sources and PAGs
12690:
The opinions of less established accounts are taken less seriously in discussions relative to more experienced users (this probably
12047:
there's a near-constant attitude of "my side is doing nothing wrong, if we just sanctioned the POV-pushers everything would be fine
7640: 6977:. I guess many editors might be flowing upstream from the new post-Oct 7 extensions to the topic area to update pre-Oct 7 articles. 15672:
discussions entered a long time ago (2 years+), and have been in full avoidance and compliance. I admit that I edited a request to
13667: 11889:, bludgeoning, weaponization of process, less "blatant" incivility, and so on are difficult to definitively sanction - you have to 10338: 6228: 4814: 4802: 4241: 4049: 3947: 3379: 2143: 2002: 1168: 5666:
Like others, I appreciate the attempt to move this to conclusion with some motions, but I disagree with all of SFR's suggestions:
5108:
over long periods of time, a consensus was reached among administrators to refer the broader dispute to the arbitration committee.
3899: 2960: 2598: 2591: 16102: 15625: 15621: 15617: 15260:, I've added "within the area of conflict" above to avoid any possible impression of the motion applying to all edits wiki-wide. 13807: 13655: 4790: 4289: 3588:
I do like this motion as is already! Thanks for creating it; I hadn't noticed the need for adjusting the other remedies as well.
3369: 16239: 9595:
I think SFR's AA3 motion would be counter productive - a real "the beatings will continue until morale improves" type of thing.
8388:
and acknowledge that POV - the frequent failure, on both sides, to do so is why we have a POV pushing issue in this topic area.
2376:
The current topic areas under this restriction are listed as having the "extended confirmed restriction" in the table of active
2304:
I don't see any contradiction between "userspace" in "area of conflict" and "talkspace" at ECR. They serve different purposes.
15829: 15534: 15498: 15406: 14695: 13760: 13740: 13658: 10947:-compliant scholarly work by largely-Jewish academics, but doing so with a massive-scale disregard for the ArbCom principle of 8909: 7973: 7095:
makes a sequence of edits (that may or may not be noticed and result in people having to spend time creating and processing an
4892: 4808: 4632: 4584: 4488: 1103: 280: 16057:'d (noting that the section for BLAR contains a "see also" hatnote linking to the deletion policy's section on redirections). 15643: 12472:
here as it would be rude not to, given I've mentioned one of their closes. For full disclosure, I opposed the original close.
10137:
justified in breaking the rule. You didn't even check to see if his wild offline claims (presumably about me) were correct. (
6143: 3929: 15613: 15503: 12822: 10277: 9872:
I object to being hauled into this artificial mess (caused by an innovation in reading that defines all reverts as identical
9845:
may have the effect of increasing the amount of off-wiki canvassing and use of socks that already occurs in this topic area.
7612: 7272: 7143:
and quantify, a bit like corruption, black markets, Advanced Persistent Threat group activity, but we can see some features.
6318:
6: Apart from myself, and given the number of times they are mentioned, I think we should specify just which editors are the
6133: 6101:
policies and consensus. There’s probably a reason why Knowledge is now maybe the only mainstream source to use terms such as
5217:
I do acknowledge that I left out several individuals whose behavior was directly mentioned, and I will fix that issue now. —
4729: 4680: 4433: 4337: 4001: 3856: 2413:
be changed to "edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of
11051:
I can appreciate that ArbCom must find it baffling that so many editors on this request page are asserting things about the
6132:
Much of what I was discussing is unfolding as we speak. Take a look at this discussion in an article recently created by an
5640: 5007: 3917: 16335:
with the affected editors' participation in the disputed types of discussions, other than the mere fact of their doing so.
15595: 15558: 15454: 14569:
without a single statement from the single reported editor, and why ArbCom's task in this situation isn't to evaluate only
14109: 13217:, I don't know what is." That is the problem; you think you know "the Truth", but you obviously haven't read what genocide 5080:
The widespread nature of edit warring, battleground mentality, and POV pushing within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area.
4904: 344:
of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a
7203:
something, revision count, rev date, SPA-ness etc. I imagine the PIA related part of the sock graph would be quite small.
2609: 2602: 15647: 15363: 13538: 12720:. Keeping entrenched editors to protect us from socks and newbies is like keeping cats to protect the mice from kittens. 12319:
I am relatively new to this topic area on Knowledge, though I have read around the topic offline over a number of years.
8536:
Both your points, but especially the second, are emblematic of that incivility. A dozen requests have been made of me at
8265:
I think we can also ensure it is accurate through a collaborative process. For example, looking at the top 20 editors at
7103: 4952: 4922: 4910: 4741: 4530: 4139: 4097: 81: 16300: 15172:
For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
15089:
While I understand the intention behind this, in practice I don't think this would improve anything in the CTOP area. -
15031:
For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
14930:
For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
14916: 14805:
For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
14705:
For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
14130:
I'd like to request the admins below kindly consider "moderated discussion" as a way to achieve consensus, and consider
12706:
AE can't address coordinated action nearly as well as it can address individual problem users (which is why we're here).
7708:
In response to the comment by SashiRolls, only three listings (out of 109) were significantly impacted by sock puppets:
3421:
For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
3180:
For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
2095: 16296: 16081: 15676:
from and about an article that I had extensively edited into another geographically-relate article. At the time, I did
15629: 14131: 13970: 13932: 13895: 13855: 13832: 13713: 10255:
It is not an intractable problem on wikipedia, despite incessant rumour-mongering. It is, an enduring premise of mine,
7768:
is, and a word limit will impede this. This will in turn worsen one of the other issues in the topic area, POV pushing.
7041: 6995: 6795: 5348: 5017: 4898: 4759: 4747: 4379: 4187: 2622:
edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace
2259: 15682: 14664:
Just noting that I have seen these motions and am considering them along with all of the feedback from the community.
12694:
be the case, but that just means it's all the more important that experienced users are above reproach on POV issues).
7508:
my statement, I didnt even say anything about you besides that you have repeatedly called me a POV pusher since then.
13791: 7163: 6974: 6943: 6893: 6549: 6109:(read the lead) with its own voice. Many disputed changes like this have been introduced through edit warring (check 5521:
were to sock puppets ... The impact of sock puppets on this issue is trivial and not worth concerning ourselves with.
4916: 4735: 4235: 4043: 1996: 142: 7505:
Knowledge:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive. Legality of Israeli settlements
5027: 4972: 3390:. Once added by any editor, any marking, template, or editnotice may be removed only by an uninvolved administrator. 16480: 14602: 10404: 9628:
pass in lieu of a case (as opposed to at the end of a case where I think such statements can be genuinely useful).
8151: 7287: 7277: 4997: 4977: 4753: 4283: 3971: 2616:
Unless thought through extensively, there is a potential contradiction between what is defined as related content:
16269:
WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Proposed decision#TenPoundHammer topic banned (1)
13420:. Funnily enough, when one of these editors has their conduct called out, the others tend to show up and bludgeon 11872:
I'd also like to say I politely disagree with Tryptofish's assessment of the main area of conflict; while that is
8491:
Can you clarify your point about the other articles? I don’t fully understand the argument you are trying to make.
7663:
There are a significant number of issues in this topic area that it is likely only ARBCOM can address, including:
5941:
30/500 restriction has actively worsened this situation by giving the long-term problematic editors an advantage).
5319:
cause the same issue with more or less auto-biting good-faith editors new to the area, and might be reasonable. —
4982: 4962: 3977: 3923: 16225: 16106: 14015:
publishing how-to videos, organizing edits, and compiling lists of "work in progress" pages they aimed to modify.
13026: 12137:. Good-faith ideas that I appreciate, but not sure if they'd fully deal with the core issues of the ARBPIA area. 11744: 11718: 11692: 11666: 11640: 11614: 11591: 11060:
skip the workshop. Perhaps the evidence will end up surprising you. If so, again, that's a feature and not a bug.
10500: 9807: 9148: 9121: 9104: 9087: 9059: 9044: 9027: 9010: 8988: 6136:
who appears to be an expert in security studies. Iskandar323 opens a technical move without any prior discussion
4987: 4838: 4778: 4626: 4578: 4482: 2740: 2713: 2680: 2045: 49: 15651: 15436: 13162: 12030: 11496:
and that it was unlikely to be true anyway, before accusing me of "partisan" and "political" motivations, while
10708: 10465: 7008:
One place to look might be in the relationship between account age and revisions to see who's doing the editing.
5473:
review it, I see it as moot, and I don't think reviewing it would be a good use of anyone's time at this point.
5442:
Limiting everyone in the topic area to 500-1000 words is a terrible idea. This topic area has more sources (see
5037: 5032: 5022: 5012: 3965: 1890: 1085: 16534: 15430: 14923:. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions. 13159: 12839: 11729:
a result of removing "in Israel" from Israeli settlements (when I removed them all from "in Israel" categories
11651:
saying it is an Israeli settlement makes that clear. And for those who have been here long enough to remember,
10970:
should just be removed from the topic area, that's what the Evidence phase of a case is supposed to correct. --
9988:
and a headache (I’d imagine) for administrators. I used to involve myself heavily in this topic area, and it’s
8971:
discussions at appeals, and put those decisions in the hands of the people the community elected to make them.
8579:. If you can provide me a couple of topic areas of similar size to ARBPIA, I can address both your request and 5904: 5833: 5756:. This is an example of why "outside voices" aren't necessarily better than the voices of experienced editors. 5042: 5002: 4992: 4957: 4942: 4674: 4427: 4331: 3995: 3959: 3850: 2462: 2308:"area of conflict" to exclude talkspace, because then the ECR restrictions on talkspace would not apply to it. 359: 21: 15484: 15424: 14565: 13430:
calling into questions the motives of editors who are simply trying to remove bad behavior from the topic area
12516:
I do think it's a problem when editors edit war, or cross the bounds of civility, or bludgeon discussions, or
10138: 8935:. This could work if "substantive reason" requires a talk page explanation and not just a brief edit summary. 6361:
Oppose Incident is a euphemistic whitewash for what occurred. Would support 2008 killings in Bureij or similar
5062:
thread has closed with instructions to refer the dispute to the full arbitration committee for final decision.
3911: 3822:
thread has closed with instructions to refer the dispute to the full arbitration committee for final decision.
16217: 16018: 15996: 15952: 15921: 15904: 15139:
This may need some workshopping but the idea is to prioritise outside voices over the so-called "regulars".
13676: 13630: 12656:
choose not to insult each other's intelligence—it's public knowledge who the most prominent tag-teamers are.
8166: 7615:
because I opposed "incident" as euphemistic for the murder of 7 civilians, including 6 children. When I said
4967: 4850: 4560: 4169: 3552: 2503:
the intended request is likely "remove exception of userspace" instead of "change userspace to talkspace" in
2057: 71: 16456:
is not always worth saving. The broad scope of the restriction favors including otherwise borderline topics.
15657:
I would like the Arbitration Committee to clarify which actions are allowed under the topic ban. Thank you.
15472: 9928:
than it needs to be, but also negatively affects the experiences and habits of newer editors who follow the
9697:
way and I think it accomplished the goal you're concerned about here) I haven't reread the past split case @
8544:, and I have spent a considerable amount of time addressing those requests, including two of three you made. 7262:
It is the kind of error that contributes to the long-term inability to resolve the issues in the topic area.
5967: 5778:
the media is biased, because it's true, because all people are biased to various degrees, it's inescapable.
5623:
So the disruption on Knowledge is not pro-Israeli vs. pro-Palestinian; it's not that kind of simple. But it
4409: 4217: 3081:
had not been established. (In fact, the ARBPIA 500/30 restriction is what eventually led to the adoption of
15478: 15418: 15357: 13067: 12801: 11786:
editing humanly possible, from a core group of editors that perennially show up to scream at each other in
11226: 11208: 10829: 9425:
One more note: if ArbCom does decide to just adjudicate the AE report for האופה it should also adjudicate
6278:
I'm not saying that, I'm saying that there has been an influx of new editors regardless of the temperature.
6083: 6072: 6050: 6032: 5973: 5952: 5927: 5912: 5890: 5875: 5857: 5822: 5077:
Long-term tag-team edit warring by several groups of individuals with the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area.
4868: 4856: 4548: 4265: 4157: 4091: 4073: 3941: 2857:
Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing.
2769: 2075: 2063: 2026: 1193: 388: 16143:
Yes, because it is participation in said discussions, whether contesting PRODs or nominating for deletion.
15939:@7&6=13: I know I am "implicated". That's why I upper-cased "involved" in my section header *facepalm* 15693:
given up entirely editing of DELETION discussions, and will now avoid all MERGE discussions in the future.
11358:
easily spot and deal with.) I'm not a fan of enforced BRD in the best of times, but to the extent that it
6302:
Where is the empirical evidence for these outrageous spluttering caricatures of a very complex environment
5450:
for an idea of how many academic books have been published just in the last five years), and more sources
5357:
Editors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion
5074:
Long-term slow-motion edit warring by a number of individuals within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area.
4397: 4313: 4205: 3893: 16539: 16061: 10791: 9731:
of authority, but because of the complexity of the case combined with the standard unblockables problem.
9167:
any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.
7686:. This drives editors away from the topic area, worsening issues with POV pushing and stealth canvassing. 6246: 4844: 4656: 4608: 4554: 4512: 4253: 4163: 4061: 3535: 2051: 2014: 14138:. This is unavoidable given the volume of scholarship involved. But it was largely kept out of the RfC ( 13164: 13007:
alternative solution: better cat-herders, or better cat-herding rules, are apparently not on the table,
11550:
way of approaching at least part of this. It's at least the most workable suggestion I've seen thusfar.
10000:
a culture of bludgeoning, tag teaming and tendentious editing, particularly of the Righting Great Wrongs
7171:
labelling of socks is a bit spotty turning it into a bit of a treasure hunt. But I was too lazy to look.
5643:; they go back two weeks. Look at how much of other editor's time they wasted on talk pages. Just their 4704: 4457: 4361: 4301: 4025: 3880: 16512: 16292: 16117: 16088: 15800: 15769: 15738: 15543:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing#TenPoundHammer topic banned (1)
15528: 15466: 15400: 14229: 14201: 12335: 9763: 9736: 9610: 9144: 9117: 9100: 9083: 9055: 9040: 9023: 9006: 8984: 8486:
discussions that proposed moving an article to or away from a title containing "massacre" were reviewed
5059: 4886: 4862: 4773: 4644: 4596: 4500: 4403: 4211: 3819: 3801: 3728: 3638: 3579: 3305: 3147: 3112: 2627:'General sanctions upon related content' says it applies to related content but then redefines this is 2069: 15387: 14142:) itself. The RfC itself was orderly. And finally, it was closed by a panel with a detailed rationale. 12033:) - I support coming down on them as hard as I do the former group, including more than a few editors 11730: 9212:
your "magical incantation" comment confuses me. Where did SFR say it was confusing how to refer? I've
8089:
POV pushing by itself; additional analysis of the comments and !votes made is required, such as I did
6801:
Topic bans don't solve problems. They split the PIA community into 2 classes, editors who comply with
5612:
it's supposed to be an international zone. That second group isn't "pro-Palestinian," just pro-truth.
4692: 4445: 4349: 4121: 4013: 3868: 16204: 16187: 16152: 15519:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing#7&6=thirteen topic banned
13099: 13037: 12768: 12736: 12633: 12594: 10720: 9329:
potentially be productive to stem issues without doing a full case and thus is perhaps worth trying.
9099:, I mean any guidance at all. Absent a case I want to know what Arbcom wants to see for enforcement. 6552:
of the structure you are talking about. What is the likelihood that sweeping statements are accurate?
5705:
specific evidence (at ARCA or ARC) of recent disruption that hasn't been addressed by the community.
5439:
private evidence involved). Because these criteria are not met, the case request should be declined.
5416: 5398:
Knowledge:Contentious topics#Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee
5374: 5326: 5284: 5251: 5224: 5206: 5183: 5157: 5118: 4723: 4542: 4259: 4151: 4067: 2931: 2903: 2824: 2571: 2552: 2020: 15567:
The two topic bans say the editors are "topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed".
15375: 15341:
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
14342:
You are correct: since the request is coming from AE, it would go through ARCA, not a case request.
13950:
naive or sanguine. Canvassing is the elephant in the room. There is canvassing, without a doubt, by
13226:
agreee that it was Jewish military groups/IDF that stood for the vast majority of the depopulation.
13097: 11370:, which is why they haven't been done yet, but sweeping from-above solutions aren't a substitute. -- 10608:, i.e. held without trial, lawyers or due process, and probably without a skerrick of evidence like 9990:
the only such area where I’ve witnessed personal attacks, bullying, glaring dishonesty and hypocrisy
9527:
is no accusation you've done anything wrong isn't going to help this topic area either, in my view.
9172:
interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct
8967:
reasonable exercise of administrator discretion. This would hopefully cut down significantly on 0.3
5740:, all by accounts new to the topic area, at the same time as high-profile off-wiki commentary, e.g. 5461:
Removing appeals to the community is not something arbcom can do, as that would require a change to
5069:
Throughout the discussion among administrators at AE, several sources of disruption were identified:
4109: 3827:
Lists of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
16208: 16065: 15850:
get redirected or AFD'd by others, but in none of these cases did I make a suggestion of doing so.
15552: 15448: 14115: 13671: 13625: 13526:
I don't have a huge amount to say about the general question here, although I do gravitate towards
13091: 12129:
Don't really think I can come up with anything new to add w/r/t the proposals, so I'll just second
11806: 10605: 10554: 10381: 9698: 7409:
No matter. This unfocused, throw everything at the wall and see what sticks request, is a bad idea.
6463: 4391: 4307: 4199: 2729:
might remember more about the discussion and thinking behind this and my statement in general too.
2517:
If arbitrators did not consider it at all, the strongest argument for the initiating side would be
2199:
suspect more inbound if left unresolved. If there is another way to clean it up, I'm all ears. And
1978:
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
203: 67: 13945:: Yes, one can argue that all articles in controversial subject areas will be viewed as biased by 12664:. People who assert academic consensus on a subjective controversial topic are at best victims of 12231:, but as a quick roll-over of that link shows, he is controlling what page visitors are aware of. 10115:
I'd never seen this data before, because I don't know how to consult files that log stuff on wiki.
8229:; while some individual sources are biased, I also think a lot of the criticism of Israel is fair. 6139:, Selfstudier casts aspersions on other editors who joined the discussion and disagreed with them 14204: 14139: 14039:
Would it be useful to treat all articles on specific contentious topics as biased and unbalanced
13787: 12871:
drastically trimming down articles of marginal importance that have become bloated with polemics.
12449: 12445: 12343: 11775: 11222: 11204: 10473: 9921: 8968: 8456: 7636: 7460: 6811:
systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view
6440:
seems reasonable, which everyone could have and maybe should have accepted and walked away from.
6079: 6068: 6046: 6028: 5969: 5948: 5923: 5908: 5886: 5871: 5853: 5818: 5737: 5733: 5729: 5725: 5721: 5700:
This has been open for almost a month, and yet nobody has yet posted a specific list of parties,
5543: 5104: 5100: 5096: 5092: 4650: 4602: 4524: 4506: 4247: 4133: 4055: 3936: 3352:
For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" is the
2765: 2726: 2008: 14574: 14570: 14561: 14190: 14183: 12227:
Prior to my comments on the talk page there was no methodology section. Now, BM has added some
10905:
sort of resolution here without a thorough examination of the conduct of the principal parties.
10700: 9325:
to moderate discussions (not just RfCs) may or may not work, but would feel like something that
6394:
those of Israelis, in particular Jewish Israelis. And guess what, I can source that, with ease.
3888: 2601:' applies CTOP, ECR and 1RR applies to all other pages except userpages and user talk pages if ' 2465:
I did a couple of days ago is a useful test. Is the revert valid or invalid under the remedies?
2371:" So now, we ask, what is the "topic area" in the case of ARBPIA? That sentence has a footnote: 16046: 15977: 13985:
No sure if this has been raised already, but there is evidence circulating online of potential
13966: 13928: 13891: 13851: 13828: 13772: 13510: 13496: 13474: 13393: 12517: 12409:, and it's hard to imagine whatever fills this void being worse than what is already here. As @ 12406: 12246:
of BilledMammal's edits to mainspace have been reverted, which might be worth looking into. --
11783: 11317: 11199: 10787: 10680: 10504: 8952: 8621: 8588: 8503: 8464: 8439: 8393: 8253: 8209: 8176: 8123: 8098: 8017: 7961: 7905: 7880: 7858: 7809: 7777: 7749: 7383: 7368: 7351: 7330: 7305: 7243: 7226: 7208: 7193: 7177: 7128: 7073: 7049: 6982: 6961: 6924:
A proportionally lower number of unique editors in the topic area than in Knowledge in general.
6880: 6821: 6772: 6528: 6513: 6436:
to try. Seemed like a reasonable request and a result of you need more evidence to demonstrate
5342: 4698: 4451: 4373: 4355: 4295: 4181: 4019: 3874: 2470: 16500:
Sorry to see you have "profound disappointment." But I was within the prior rule as this was
11130:
I'm very skeptical that the proposed motions will have a positive effect on the topic area. --
8201:
is aligned with NPOV is for them to recognize that POV, as it allows them to try to manage it.
16506: 16356: 16340: 15892: 15794: 15763: 15757: 15732: 15662: 15524: 15395: 15247: 15146: 15005: 14896: 14780: 14653: 14628: 14477: 14144: 13768: 13576: 13484: 13417: 12525: 12502: 12298: 12288:
This was determined by calculating changes to PIA made by those Billed Mammal listed in red,
12221: 11928: 11791: 11026: 10910: 10895: 10872: 10856: 10434: 9885: 9759: 9732: 9678: 7734:
The impact of sock puppets on this issue is trivial and not worth concerning ourselves with.
7719: 7712: 6421: 6399: 6383: 6367: 6350: 6327: 6309: 6283: 6266: 6254: 6236: 6214: 6192: 5849: 5837: 5518: 5352: 4881: 4638: 4590: 4494: 4229: 4037: 3692: 3353: 2803: 2789: 2744: 2717: 2684: 2268: 2237: 2216: 2182: 2165: 1990: 353:
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
17: 12049:
yet again), thereby artificially enforcing "neutrality" by simply evening the numbers. That
6458:, these knowledgeable Wikipedians, who exactly are they? If you are thinking of those often 2160:
To be clear, my opinion is that ECR, being later, should take precedence but that's just me.
16415:
tags, as it is a maintenance tag and not necessarily a discussion (though potentially the
16183: 16148: 15381: 14337: 13429: 13189: 12932: 12753: 12721: 12618: 12579: 12477: 12422: 12217: 12132: 11843: 11556: 11531: 11506: 11463: 11430: 11398: 11178: 11164: 11150: 11135: 11115: 11100: 11048:
I agree with you that AE can handle stuff like sockfarms and newish accounts that POV-push.
11005: 10990: 10975: 10960: 10933: 10716: 10201: 10166: 10129: 10018: 9935: 8974: 8145: 7765: 7525: 7414: 6042: 5493: 5410: 5368: 5320: 5278: 5245: 5218: 5200: 5177: 5151: 5112: 4718: 4686: 4439: 4343: 4277: 4115: 4007: 3862: 3748: 3122: 2969:
Knowledge:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict § General sanctions upon related content
2818: 2256:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Emdosis
1144: 15860:
tl;dr: Just like the last time I got brought here, I feel this is much ado about nothing.
14392:
that the scope is important, though I'm not committed to any particular scope just yet. -
13331:
time when closing a discussion. More clerks would be motivated to join in too potentially.
10441:
subsequently blocked on 21 July 2023. His view was supported by a suspected Icewhiz sock,
8: 16409: 16050: 16042: 15839: 15636: 15584: 15548: 15443: 14388:
is posted I intend to make this issue my primary focus as much as possible. I agree with
14104: 13748: 13425: 13362: 13347: 12923:
Those attempting to weaponise AE by bringing multiple threads against ideological enemies
12376: 11739: 11713: 11687: 11661: 11635: 11609: 11586: 11493: 11375: 11301: 11273: 10775: 10752: 10617: 10587: 10573: 10565: 10526: 10486: 10450: 10417: 10391: 10369: 10345: 10311: 10291: 10232: 10210: 10191: 10156: 10120: 10102: 10084: 10065: 9706: 9657: 9633: 9618: 9600: 9586: 9554: 9532: 9517: 9502: 9480: 9453: 9434: 9416: 9393: 9372: 9355: 9334: 9303: 9288: 9270: 9245: 9226: 9199: 9179: 8963:
discussions over 5000 words. This should be done immediately, even if a case is accepted.
8227:
the media, organizations, governments, academia (everyone?) etc. is biased against Israel
7847:
argued that bias wasn't sufficient reason to change it's status from "generally reliable"
5989: 5867: 4832: 4620: 4572: 4476: 3003: 2981: 2736: 2709: 2676: 2664:
the topic area regardless of whether pages have the enforcement templates on them or not.
2594:' applies CTOP, ECR and 1RR to all articles broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. 2287: 2039: 15899:
that 13 is TB from; a restriction on editing the articles themselves would hopefully be
8262:
I disagree that the label is unfalsifiable; evidence can be provided for and against it.
6462:
some greater knowledge or ability in this topic area, then oh boy do you have it wrong.
6151:. I can only guess how this editor feels right now and how long they will stay with us. 5091:
Several suggestions were floated by administrators during the discussion, including the
3495: 2888: 2646:"(i.e. pages not otherwise related to the area of conflict)" is replaced with "(see ])". 367:
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
209: 39: 16438: 16424: 16316: 16278: 15369: 15265: 15109: 14698:. A rough consensus of arbitrators will be required to overturn or amend the sanction. 14669: 14586: 14523: 14080: 14052: 14026: 14004: 13488: 13401: 12876:
rewriting main articles to present conflicting views in a concise and intelligible way.
12614: 12610: 12549: 12354: 12323: 11497: 11313: 11285: 11243: 9847: 9816: 9786: 7646: 7622: 7599: 7584: 7568: 7544: 7530: 7510: 7491: 7466: 7431: 6156: 6122: 6011:
The precedent of retroactive punishments for areas of conflict is a dangerous precedent
5944: 5788: 5761: 5710: 5656: 5588: 5560: 5532: 5501: 5482: 4668: 4519: 4421: 4325: 4128: 4103: 3989: 3844: 3593: 3478: 3319: 3274: 3020: 2401:
that edits in userspace are not in the ARBPIA "topic area". Where is the contradiction?
2107:
Knowledge:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Definition of the "area of conflict"
1972:
Knowledge:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Definition of the "area of conflict"
1127: 31: 12866:
deleting duplicate articles about the same topic, or merging articles closely related.
12716:
To stretch the cat analogy that's been raised, we're trying to build a home for mice.
10250:
The world's mostmost intractable problem continues to be our most intractable problem.
6022:
I think pressing a mass TBAN on this topic area would be somewhat equivalent to doing
5083:
The ineffectiveness of previous warnings within the topic area to stop the disruption.
2859:
These notes were last updated by an automatic check at 18:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
2369:
The Committee may apply the "extended confirmed restriction" to specified topic areas.
16253: 15668:
I acknowledge that I am aware of this discussion. I am aware of the topic ban from
13990: 13986: 13961: 13923: 13886: 13846: 13823: 13764: 13752: 13551: 13506: 13492: 13470: 13336: 13214: 12897: 12812: 12665: 12557: 12327: 12201: 12145: 12111: 12085: 12065: 12011: 11987: 11939: 11907: 11886: 11856: 11817: 10767: 10688: 10598:
The terms just means that the editor sympathizes with that side more than the other.
10469: 10274: 10220: 10183: 10141: 10039: 9926:
experienced editors . . turning the entire topic into even more of a WP:BATTLEGROUND
9407: 8765: 8684: 8220: 8160: 8154:) is included in the activity statistics; they're grouped as one of Icewhiz's socks: 7990: 7682:
Occasional lapses are forgivable, but it has become common for editors to ignore the
7379: 7364: 7347: 7326: 7301: 7239: 7222: 7204: 7189: 7173: 7124: 7069: 7045: 6978: 6957: 6876: 6817: 6768: 6524: 6509: 6106: 5770: 5749: 5741: 5176:
As should be more obvious now, it's everyone who contributed to the AE discussion. —
4176: 3387: 2518: 2466: 1124:. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page: 13414:
further their point of view and ensure Knowledge reflects what they think is "right"
10023:
entrenched editors . . . their behavior is the worst of any topic area on Knowledge.
9688:
ArbCom commits to not sanctioning editor conduct in such a case (except for conduct
8049:
With that said, I don't believe #3 is as incorrect as you make out; your !vote was:
7970:
Regarding the prevalence of issues in the topic area, the following may be helpful:
7011:
Is it mostly these older accounts, or newer accounts, or something more complicated?
5277:
identify that sort of behavior—perhaps the section for statements in this thread? —
3007: 2985: 2417:". Why does that make any sense? You want to remove talkspace from the topic area?? 16352: 16336: 16014: 15971: 15351: 15257: 15241: 15140: 14999: 14890: 14774: 14647: 14622: 14545:: I invented ECP, so I am 100% with rule changes to make the cat herding easier -- 14471: 14445: 14260:
A bold vote isn't necessary, but it is an option. Since the question came up at AE
14223: 14099: 14020:"Knowledge is not just an online encyclopedia. It’s a battleground for narratives." 13779: 13643: 13604: 13571: 13458:
the indefinite removal (topic ban - not warning) of any and all experienced editors
13389: 13241: 13171: 13125: 13106: 13075: 13012: 12644: 12521: 12518:
bring your opponents to drama boards to try to get them removed from the topic area
12498: 12395: 12390:
We have been too slow to act here. It has been public knowledge for some time that
12359: 11924: 11020: 10906: 10891: 10887: 10883: 10868: 10852: 10825: 10740: 10736: 10732: 10438: 10044:
the indefinite removal (topic ban - not warning) of any and all experienced editors
9748: 9672: 9647:
As ArbCom considers an appropriate response I'll throw out a potentially bad idea.
9473:
If no-one else had replied in the referred case, none of us would be here right now
9445:
If no-one else had replied in the referred case, none of us would be here right now
9068: 9036: 8761: 8076: 7111: 6475: 6455: 6445: 6417: 6395: 6379: 6363: 6346: 6323: 6305: 6279: 6250: 6232: 6210: 6188: 5462: 4224: 4085: 4032: 3722: 3703: 3686: 3663: 3659: 3632: 3613: 3609: 3573: 3299: 3167: 3141: 3106: 3086: 3082: 3078: 3048: 2974: 2916: 2798: 2784: 2533: 2487: 2431: 2382:" So we click on that link and find a big table. ARBPIA is near the end. It says: 2358: 2340: 2326: 2264: 2233: 2212: 2202: 2178: 2161: 1985: 1910: 1159: 1149: 12931:
Also, per Rosguill below. That particular shambles of an RfC is quite revealing.
12322:
I would like to echo the points of many editors above, that there is a culture of
11796:
I see the "usual suspects" attempting to downplay or deny that there's any dispute
9915: 9073:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3#Administrators encouraged
8081:
You're right, corrected. Please let me know if there are other misclassifications.
7321:
A proper analysis would need to compare reliable sources against !voting patterns.
6851:"How many revisions to articles, talk pages, RfCs, RSN etc. are by sock accounts?" 5720:
Meanwhile... here's some actual disruption in the topic area, going on right now:
2954:
Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b): Arbitrator views and discussion
2363:
The contradiction you claim to exist actually does not exist. Let's start at ECR:
16490: 16475: 16229: 16221: 15240:
A version of this that admins can impose on individual articles might also work.
15119: 15094: 14868: 14597: 14546: 14533: 14493: 14460: 14434: 14419: 14397: 14389: 14371: 14347: 14326: 14304: 14290: 14269: 14244: 13814: 13597: 13534: 13303: 13287: 13272: 13142: 12717: 12473: 12418: 12303: 12265: 12247: 11779: 11771: 11551: 11526: 11501: 11458: 11425: 11393: 11389: 11261: 11174: 11160: 11146: 11131: 11111: 11096: 11015: 11001: 10986: 10971: 10956: 10929: 10744: 10696: 10509: 10461: 10442: 10242: 10144: 10094: 9995: 9899: 9132: 8769: 8706: 8601: 8141: 8042:
Immediately jumping to accusations that an editor is "lying" is not aligned with
7920: 7410: 5870:) or incidental tag-team editwarring should be treated similarly would be useful 5817:
Palestine, the change in status quo hardly meant much more than a media circus).
4272: 3671: 3503: 3244: 3069: 3057: 3034: 2620:
The 'Definition of the "area of conflict"' decision says that related content is
2339:
defines which pages and edits are subject to editing restrictions in ARBPIA, and
2248: 1154: 1118:
There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section.
15685:, and I will not repeat them here. I had no intent to violate the TOPIC BAN on 10643:
today, we've had an editor present evidence right here about the topic area and
9648: 5056:
WP:CTOP#Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee
3816:
WP:CTOP#Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee
2959:
At the moment, "userspace" (including user pages, user talk pages and subpages,
2411:
WP:Contentious_topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Definition of the "area_of_conflict"
2399:
WP:Contentious_topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Definition of the "area_of_conflict"
2158:
was other conduct leading to a topic ban that factor doesn't seem to apply here.
233: 16243: 16054: 16017:
Well, I think you made up in opacity what you lacked in clarity. Thank though!
15980:
on a previous committee, 'banned means baned', absolutely in line with WP:TBAN:
15825: 14614:
than it's used to and hearing appeals of CTOP sanctions or acting as AE admins
14573:'s conduct and close the original AE report with or without a sanction against 14488:
request, a more fully informed decision is going to be a more effective one. -
14315: 14280: 14255: 13771:. Otherwise we're just going by feel and will have every chance of producing a 13756: 13744: 13721: 13449: 13358: 13343: 13253: 13233: 13138: 12673:
avoid the use of news media and primary reporting in articles on current events
12434: 12364: 12347: 12331: 12091: 11976: 11734: 11708: 11682: 11656: 11630: 11604: 11581: 11486: 11371: 11338: 11297: 11289: 11269: 11218: 10948: 10771: 10763: 10748: 10684: 10668: 10649: 10635: 10613: 10609: 10583: 10569: 10522: 10482: 10446: 10413: 10387: 10365: 10357: 10341: 10307: 10287: 10228: 10206: 10187: 10179: 10152: 10116: 10098: 10080: 10061: 9958:
one side has been consistently able to push their POV through weight of numbers
9949: 9878: 9702: 9668: 9653: 9629: 9614: 9596: 9582: 9550: 9543: 9528: 9513: 9498: 9476: 9449: 9430: 9412: 9389: 9368: 9351: 9330: 9299: 9284: 9266: 9241: 9222: 9195: 9175: 9113: 9096: 8894: 8450: 8410: 8244: 8136: 8000: 7891: 7869: 7281: 7107: 6868: 6802: 6791: 6339: 6296: 5845: 5841: 5779: 5608: 5604: 5571: 5404: 5312: 4827: 4615: 4567: 4471: 3529: 2996: 2761: 2731: 2704: 2671: 2539: 2525: 2283: 2131: 2034: 1134: 345: 251: 227: 8495: 7035:
25th, 50th and 75th percentiles are marked along with the average account age.
6245:
4.Several editors suggest that editors are scared off by a toxic environment.
2331:
So a messy argument on some user's talk page is what counts as an explanation?
1886: 1081: 328:
Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
16528: 16434: 16420: 16312: 16274: 16257: 16249: 16164: 15883: 15714: 15710: 15261: 15105: 14665: 14582: 14578: 14519: 14150: 14076: 14067: 14048: 14022: 14000: 13942: 13910: 13783: 13542: 13457: 13453: 13413: 13210: 13206: 13151: 13147: 12969: 12832: 12816: 12808: 12675:
is something of a pet cause of mine in general (that I've elaborated upon in
12553: 12383: 12372: 12257: 12172: 11972: 11836:
With regards to the core group/"usual suspects" claim, I'd also like to link
11247: 10728: 10692: 10551: 10426: 10043: 10029: 9981: 9570: 9463: 9191: 9019: 8998: 8938: 8901: 8880: 8862: 8849: 8830: 8826: 8812: 8794: 8773: 8737: 8713: 8691: 8670: 8659: 8514: 8477: 8406: 8191: 8109: 8043: 8028: 7983: 7820: 7788: 7761: 7702: 7683: 7611:
Again, BilledMammals "evidence" is dishonest. He claims I supported massacre
7360: 7339: 7316: 6970: 6409: 6152: 6142:, Nableezy asks the opening editor on their page if it's their first account 6118: 6102: 6023: 5813: 5784: 5757: 5706: 5676: 5652: 5584: 5556: 5552: 5528: 5497: 5478: 5239: 5171: 4663: 4416: 4320: 3984: 3839: 3589: 3525: 3474: 3315: 3270: 3044: 3016: 2508: 2504: 2498: 2448: 2437: 2418: 2345: 2312: 2193: 2150: 2138: 2123: 1139: 16101:
Regarding TPH (which I was unaware of their recent merge proposals before),
12242: 11876:
dispute in the area, and as they say, a particularly nasty one, I think the
10146: 9960:, either by long-term tag teaming or by swinging poorly-attended discussions 9298:
was asking for some time for a bit to see if we could avoid this referral).
7025:
Producing histograms showing the number of revisions vs account age in days
6910:
Look for changes in the number of unique editors in the topic area over time
2492:
pointed it to me, I believe I can provide some clarity for the arbitrators.
2155:
Not only. See Barkeep49 statement at the relevant AE complaint (still open)
13960:
need to say that loud and clear, without being mealy-mouthed or equivocal.
13547: 13252:
Try clarifying the first few lines. I obviously got the wrong impression.
12893: 12467: 12455: 12410: 12402: 12296:
My mentioning this in the methodology section bothered BM, who immediately
12197: 12138: 12104: 12058: 11980: 11932: 11900: 11849: 11810: 11265: 11064: 10944: 10724: 10171: 9963: 8204:
I think it would also be helpful if you told us how you classify yourself?
8156: 6830: 6563:
less, but at least there are some numbers rather than stories and feelings.
5866:
Additional clarification on whether coordinated tag-team editwarring (i.e.
3015:
ARBPIA-related edits to their sandbox and then move that to the mainspace.
2544: 2524:
I'm arguing in favor of the opposing side, the strongest argument would be
14198:
Maybe even everyone is limited to 500-1000 words in any ARBPIA discussion.
13567: 13426:
deflecting focus on to the editor making the report or those supporting it
12302:
as being a datum apparently unrelated to disruption in the topic area. --
10271:
Enemies and Neighbours: Arabs and Jews in Palestine and Israel, 1917-2017,
8859:
Talk:Re'im_music_festival_massacre/Archive_2#Requested_move_8_October_2023
6466:, blatant and obvious. If members of the committee can't see it happening 5136: 16289:
merge discussions are processed in the same venue as deletion discussions
16075: 14542: 13527: 13237: 13167: 13121: 13102: 13071: 13008: 12683: 11703: 11451: 11418: 10834: 10672: 7503:
Thats what I meant Number 57, you objected to the consensus developed at
7291: 7188:
it is unlikely to be me because the cost/benefit makes it too expensive.
6471: 6441: 5998: 5848:) had been placed in text for long while (and therefore should remain by 5636: 4080: 16397:
Merge discussions are not deletion discussions; they are discussions of
16113:
should similarly be seen as a clear-cut, possibly egregious violation. ―
14177:
Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral): Arbitrator views and discussion
13624:
is just going to be a bigger timesink than just doing them separately. —
13059:
less about the history of the area, than some of my fellow wiki-editors.
12609:
provided by Nableezy: a reminder that WikiProjects cannot enforce their
7032:
To keep things visually simple the bin size for account age is 365 days.
6950:
The top plot shows the unique editor count over time for the 3 datasets.
6137: 5684:
words; how would we ever decide "Gaza genocide" in under 500 words each?
3350:("Definition of the 'area of conflict'") is amended to read as follows: 1891: 1086: 15090: 14864: 14514:
I was hoping when I first joined ArbCom that we would not need to hold
14489: 14456: 14430: 14415: 14393: 14367: 14343: 14322: 14300: 14286: 14265: 14240: 13533:
Anyway, I'm primarily commenting here because I was mentioned above by
13381:
some editors are continuing to blatantly ignore policies and guidelines
13299: 13283: 13268: 12405:'s suggestion of nuking the topic area with mass topic bans. This is a 11880:
issue is indeed the Israeli vs Palestinian POV-warring. While AE could
11296:"who are the bad people we can make go away in order to solve this." -- 10133: 9941: 9280: 9255: 9236: 9209: 8822: 7951: 5775:
widespread belief, both on and off-wiki, that these articles are biased
5753: 5745: 5387: 3667: 3605: 3499: 3240: 3053: 3030: 2852:
Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b): Implementation notes
2695: 16177:
That said, I agree with NYB below that we should punish participation
14066:
I'm not active in this area but I do see some serious issues with the
11246:, which is rarely enforced) as well as the battleground / aspersion / 11086:"Brief quote from a source." (). "What an editor put on the page." (). 9381:
ToBeFree: I think the fact that the thread sprawled in the way it did
9143:
that new(ish) accounts misbehaving are taken care of fairly promptly.
8559: 8522: 16382:
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
15697:
However, extending this TOPIC BAN for a new and additional period is
14217: 14209: 14167:
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
13717: 13096:, while others have managed to get by with hardly a single scratch; 12285:
sockpuppets have made more changes to PIA than any single named user.
11498:
repeatedly threatening to quit the project if you didn't get your way
10266: 10175: 9725: 8580: 8064:
You oppose the move, and you make arguments in support of "massacre".
5266: 3716: 3708: 3653: 3626: 3618: 3612:, the more appropriate way to do so would be by amending the text at 3567: 3559: 3293: 3285: 3266: 3135: 3127: 3100: 3092: 2842:
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
2563: 2521:, as the broadest possible thing would be no exception to userspace. 16392:
Conduct in deletion-related editing: Arbitrator views and discussion
12885:, which I wrote 15 years ago but is just as relevant today as then. 11837: 9784:
desired at any point please ping me, presuming the case goes ahead.
9493:
HJ Mithcell: I think there are in the AE thread referring this here
6183:
article and this same subject matter is a part of the current case,
4466:
Other editors whose behavior was directly mentioned in the AE thread
1903:
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)
204:
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)
16214:
Merging or redirecting (0% merge, nothing copied) is not deletion.
15577:
proposing an article for deletion or contesting a proposed deletion
11803:
I strongly endorse both an Arbcom case and SFR's suggested remedies
10517: 8056: 5997:
Many topic areas have specialized folks who do important work (see
1888: 1083: 12990:
PROBLEM: the cat-herding admins cannot manage herding all the cats
12750:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Presumption of coordination
9402:
1) I want to make sure that ArbCom is aware of the highly related
14863:
I don't think an automatic 500 word limit would be beneficial. -
12792: 12700:
ECR makes it easy to see who's acting in bad faith via EC gaming.
12697:
ECR significantly increases the investment to create sockpuppets.
12679:), and such avoidance will almost always produce better results. 9977:
I openly endorse nuking the topic area's userbase via mass TBANs.
6917:
If the claim is true, you might expect to see a couple of things
6413: 6180: 6110: 5693: 2639:
To avoid the confusion and contradiction created I suggest that:
2507:, and the opposing side would be "add exception of userspace" to 16291:
is not accurate in this case and many others. As recommended by
12786:
the two sides have been seriously mismatched in terms of numbers
11807:
I openly endorse nuking the topic area's userbase via mass TBANs
9986:
a small group of editors making this topic area hell for editors
7558:
Is it really acceptable for an admin to be saying on this board
6973:, removing topic area articles created from Oct 7, 2023 onwards 6412:
is useful and one such is currently operating to good effect at
5679:" in a brief discussion. We can't analyze the number of RSes in 2643:"with the exception of userspace" is removed from the definition 1122:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests
12703:
Once discovered, a sockpuppet account is automatically blocked.
10560:
There is an extensive literature on this, not well covered in
10513: 8349:
Neutral or have a position that I have been unable to determine
7542:
I could collapse this section and point to Rosguill's instead.
7253:
Once discovered, a sockpuppet account is automatically blocked.
6572:
How many comply with policy and guidelines and how many do not?
6177:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive336#Nishidani
2971:. This leads to the following result, which is confusing to me: 1109:
Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail
9495:
allegations that a particular editor is behaving tendentiously
9075:
to let us know what the committee wants done would be helpful.
8457:
I’m using the second definition of "sympathise", not the first
7828:
For example, looking at two of the discussions you've listed:
7727:
Talk:2024 Nuseirat rescue operation#Requested move 9 June 2024
7106:
uses this to justify creating a disposable account, violating
6906:
One way to see whether editors being scared away could be to
6272:
it'd be ludicrous to say that the temperature in this area is
5943:
this seems disingenuous to suggest this, especially given the
3334:
Motion: Repealing primary articles/related content distinction
2917:
Motion: Repealing primary articles/related content distinction
2836:
Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b): Clerk notes
1892: 1087: 277: 176: 136: 124: 78: 13383:
even in this request which concerns such behaviors. To quote
13282:
Closing in on two weeks since I commented the above, sheesh.
11268:, ignoring the underlying causes or more complex aspects.) -- 11250:
issues mentioned above. The edit-warring is important and is
8577:
the other request that so far I've been unable to comply with
8046:, and is emblematic of the civility issues in the topic area. 7455:
Knowledge:Requests for comment/Gaza Health Ministry qualifier
5844:
when a contentious edit (which probably should be removed by
2177:, the same technicality being referred to by another editor. 1106:
may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
15755:(who is implicated here) who posted the irrelevant personal 13185:
Some comments after reading some of the other comment here:
10890:
come to mind - where ARBCOM needed to do something similar.
3608:: I would consider that if we want to exempt userspace from 1120:
Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at
15695:
You don't need to clarify or change the rule on my account.
14641:
Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral): Arbitrator motions
11681:, which I'm not sure either of us would agree is the case. 9970:, from a core group of editors that perennially show up to 7689:
The only way the topic area can be fixed is by fixing this.
6499:
I would like to know the answer to the following question
2495:
I think there is an error in the request as pointed out by
2126:(Idk if it is worth changing both to link to namespace 1). 15278:
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing
10301:
Oct.7. Personal experience is risible as evidence, but it
7269:
Being "discovered" is not the same as being reported e.g.
6837:
Unfortunately, I think the statement "it's a problem that
3741:
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)
2629:(i.e. pages not otherwise related to the area of conflict) 252:
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing
228:
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)
13539:
my close of the move review for the Gaza genocide article
10770:
works everywhere, but in no way implies duplicity.* Best
10464:
that is wiped out by such bulldozing. Let me illustrate.
5901:
Talk:Herrenvolk_democracy#Inclusion_of_Israel_in_imagebox
3160:
Motion: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)
2889:
Motion: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)
15886:" has a pretty strict meaning on Knowledge. A topic ban 14134:
as a good example. The pre-RfC discussion involved some
13236:: I have given no such advice!!!!! Quite the opposite! 8613:
If you want to present evidence about grouped actors, I
16252:
with this blanking, its contents can be recovered from
13117: 11770:
Not to sound repetitive, but I'll echo the comments of
8114:
To avoid dispute, I've switched #22 for Iskandar323 to
8067:
However, to avoid dispute, I have changed that cell to
6848:"How has the number of sock accounts varied over time?" 6542:
This is for all the people making sweeping statements.
6145:, and Sean Hoyland accused the creator of being a sock 5647:
go back one month. Who has time to check all of those?
3170:
topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as
16405:
content should stay. I am somewhat on the fence about
16303:
is not an AfD. Neither of the restricted users edited
15493:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
13388:
This flat out contradicts the applicable PAG pages of
12057:
of the problematic editors be banned, POV be damned.
11333:
Motion 2a / 2b, Word limits: Bludgeoning is certainly
9265:
so I will happily take advantage of it going forward.
7014:
Is some kind of evidence of article ownership visible?
5542:
The way my report against HaOfa "sprawled" is because
5196:
WT:Arbitration/Requests#Template for referrals from AE
5103:, or 0RR restrictions on large numbers of individuals 4937:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
2090:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
16267:
The omission of PROD was mentioned by arbitrators at
15612:
TenPoundHammer has started proposed merges including
12371:
be a factor, has resulted in a topic area where, as @
9894:
have worked together to create a hostile battleground
3524:
Posting for discussion, per internal disucssion with
2990:
Any edits in namespace 2 ("User") or 3 ("User talk").
2301:
Can we have this request actually explained, please?
16240:
WP:Redirect#Redirects that replace previous articles
16049:, therefore potentially resulting in the content of 14161:
Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral): Clerk notes
14095: 14018:
As one published material that I referenced put it,
13806:
an intermediary civility board at the Village Pump.
13443:
discussion. I support this case being opened with a
9427:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#PeleYoetz
8498:, when I answered the equivalent question from you) 5681:
Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate
2977:'s extended-confirmed restriction does not apply to: 309:
of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
15601:I created this clarification request after reading 13810:and aired their views on the subject of civility. 13084:Also, some cats have been more attacked than most, 13066:defined ;/, I didn' think I scratched a cat's face 10036:
have been seriously mismatched in terms of numbers.
9429:which was closed as moot after this ARCA referral. 9071:, if you're trying to avoid a case, something like 8542:
User talk:BilledMammal/ARBPIA discussion statistics
8225:Personally, I don't subscribe to the position that 7925:I've attempted to address your request to identify 6247:
this example for the Zionism article (Sean.hoyland)
6185:
6 Levivich diffs refer (in the last two statements)
3538:; this contentious topics procedure applies to all 3534:Unless otherwise specified, contentious topics are 2999:' extended-confirmed restriction does not apply to: 14564:/ HaOfa, 2024-08-11, 20:50 UTC. The reported user 13600:) to this past March, 41 of them are PIA related. 12784:Number 57's point gets at the heart of the issue: 12613:on articles. Conclusions reached by a WikiProject 10562:Media coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 7837:argued that it was unreliable due to "severe bias" 7451:Talk:Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing#MEMRI quote 5992:to correctly attribute which side says what, etc. 5581:the replies that actually happened split the focus 5194:@Levivich: There's currently a discussion over at 2484:This amendment request came to my attention after 8538:User talk:BilledMammal/ARBPIA activity statistics 8238:Generally, I don't think we're mischaracterizing 5627:editors who follow RS vs. a bunch of socks; it's 16526: 16376:Conduct in deletion-related editing: Clerk notes 15574:initiating or participating in merge discussions 13918:topic area is concerned. Others, I do not know. 8248:by Thebiguglyalien, and my RM table, is useful. 7138:Replicators (socks) - the gift that keeps giving 6796:plenty of accounts evading topic bans and blocks 3166:For the purposes of editing restrictions in the 15514:I request clarification on these two remedies: 14094:I wasn't intending to comment, but then I read 12718:We've known the dangers of cats for a long time 8571:Edits made since 2022 to article and talk space 8288:Generally align with a pro-Palestinian position 8242:, but if you want something more solid I think 7982:, regarding the prevalence of sock puppets and 6921:The number of unique editors reducing over time 6913:Compare the topic area to the rest of Knowledge 3172:the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted. 2207:has now raised the question indirectly as well 15609:to a merge discussion violated the topic ban. 13460:who have, even just once, turned the heat up. 12959:a recent discussion of general Israeli sources 9954:core group of 10-15 editors in this topic area 7344:The top 20 contributors made 23% of the edits. 5351:) regarding the bludgeoning. I would point to 333:Click here to file a request for clarification 13154:, after nearly 20 years each for both of you. 10223:. Thanks Sean. That is precisely the kind of 10097:suit to be filed against me in the future:):( 9914:in a way inconsistent with a CTOP subject.' ( 8669:and one statement in the Discussion section. 5458:majority of editors are doing nothing wrong. 1201: 396: 322:To file a clarification or amendment request: 15986:may not edit at all, even if the edits seem 15835:I don't see anything wrong with placing the 15761:that I called out at the merger discussion. 14998:Proposed. Per SFR. To mitigate bludgeoning. 12892:It is a huge task. I am not volunteering. -- 12883:User:Ravpapa/The Politicization of Knowledge 7104:Biased non-extendedconfirmed probable-sock B 5836:, there are still questions of how to apply 5603:Somebody tries to get Knowledge to say that 3363:is amended by appending the following text: 1165:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification 16305:WP:Articles for deletion/Bent's Camp Resort 15751:As a point of clarification, I note it was 15118:There is no register of whom is involved -- 14196:Remedies that only ArbCom can impose (e.g. 13995: 12299:deleted the mention of these 15,802 changes 10645:multiple others accuse that editor of lying 8494:(Also, I would appreciate an answer to the 8335:Generally align with a pro-Israeli position 7942:; sock puppets and masters are marked with 7294:was also "discovered" as a sock months ago. 5651:the RS, and then checkuser the other side. 3043:I don't see any contradiction between what 2144:The discussion here refers (at the bottom) 16449:I'll tackle these in the order presented: 16301:Talk:Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)#Merge Proposal 14518:, but it is starting to sound inevitable. 13025:And then we have cat-herders who likes to 12993:Solution: slaughter all the cats (<- I 12827:, etc), damaging Knowledge's credibility. 12662:overwhelming agreement in reliable sources 12224:enticing several editors into responding. 10013:nuking the topic area with mass topic bans 9906:. . it felt like a fairly large number of 9758:than it was the day before the war began. 7562:to an editor? And to have the gall to say 6936:subsets of a larger set, but it's a start. 6555:Here are some numbers and some questions. 5131:Statement by Red-tailed hawk (AE referral) 3809:Clauses to which an amendment is requested 3068:Is this a real problem or an edge case? -- 1966:Clauses to which an amendment is requested 1208: 1194: 403: 389: 341:Click here to file a request for amendment 16469:link as truly too tenuous to be in scope. 11036:What I'm trying to convince ArbCom to do 9888:this is a sprawling case where basically 8840:this contributions table by Billed Mammal 7976:, regarding the prevalence of POV pushing 6304:+1, I would indeed like to see the data. 6276:than it was the day before the war began. 2812:Statement by Red-tailed hawk (Definition) 287:No arbitrator motions are currently open. 132:Currently, no arbitration cases are open. 12850:Suggestion for Radical Change by Ravpapa 9944:behavior from these battleground editors 8059:was in the article until it was removed. 336:of an arbitration decision or procedure. 295:Requests for clarification and amendment 15946:actually saying that merge discussions 14921:Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic 14692:Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic 14299:Support accepting this as a full case. 13735:Without the context, I'm not convinced 13450:tend to gravitate towards the same side 10882:discussing. There are previous cases - 9837:Comments on the motions (TarnishedPath) 8234:that they are biased against Palestine. 7725:12 replies out of 34 by Selfstudier at 7718:15 replies out of 45 by Selfstudier at 7123:subpopulation that is harder to reach. 6464:Here is some "source misrepresentation" 3542:broadly related to a topic, as well as 2702:regarding the exemption for userspace. 14: 16527: 15830:List of Nitty Gritty Dirt Band members 15642:tag to a number of articles including 13993:by bad-faith editors from both sides. 13761:User:BilledMammal/ARBPIA_RM_statistics 13741:User:BilledMammal/ARBPIA_RM_statistics 11929:heavily-experienced, long-term editors 9565:I want to bring to ArbCom's attention 9001:, that part of BANPOL is just quoting 7284:was "discovered" as a sock months ago. 7022:Selecting 35 fairly prominent articles 2610:General sanctions upon related content 2603:General sanctions upon related content 2311:Or maybe I missed the point entirely. 16287:Szmenderowiecki, your statement that 13753:exception of non-neutral common names 13396:. However, Nishidani is correct that 13070:, but that cat apparently disagreed! 12682:I see the sockpuppetry issue to be a 12262:Participating fully isn't a bad thing 9992:in defense of violation of WP policy. 9808:this article at Jewish News Syndicate 6903:getting perceived opponents blocked. 1111:directly to the Arbitration Committee 15882:Yes, I think I agree. It's because " 7711:26 replies out of 59 by Levivich at 6975:doesn't seem to make much difference 5517:26 replies out of 59 by Levivich at 5337:I have read through the analysis by 3532:says about scoping is one sentence ( 2599:Definition of the "area of conflict" 2592:Definition of the "area of conflict" 2337:Definition of the "area of conflict" 180:Clarification and Amendment requests 16271:, but it was not added explicitly. 16045:should or shouldn't be merged into 15302:Conduct in deletion-related editing 15248: 15147: 15006: 14897: 14781: 14654: 14629: 14478: 13716:), so that should be reviewed too. 13398:a wide bias can lead to deprecation 12240:. This is also why I learned that 11027: 9930:combative, actively hostile methods 9896:that AE hasn't been able to resolve 9679: 8606:Because it’s data, not methodology. 6171:1.There is another relevant recent 5049:Information about amendment request 3693: 2967:to the ARBPIA area as described at 2101:Information about amendment request 107:Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke 27: 15189:Support votes needed for majority 15048:Support votes needed for majority 14947:Support votes needed for majority 14822:Support votes needed for majority 14722:Support votes needed for majority 14132:Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion 12963:the recent Electronic Intifada RfC 12294:list of sockpuppets in that table. 12018:"/their behavior is justified/etc. 11677:right. I was once even accused of 10111:And Huldra thanks indeed for that 10048:even just once, turned the heat up 9940:tendentiousness, bludgeoning, and 8947:Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish 8575:(c) - This is actually similar to 5903:. Allegations of just genocide or 5583:, it was the first admin comment. 3438:Support votes needed for majority 3197:Support votes needed for majority 28: 16551: 16060:Given that the discussion was at 14532:We probably need to hold PIA5. -- 13603:I get the sense that the ongoing 12273:It is worth noting that the data 10540:looking at the top 20 editors at 7736:Added 01:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 7093:Biased extendedconfirmed editor A 7018:I've tried to look at this by... 5938:Regarding Number57's assessment, 5298:which was imposed on NewImpartial 15942:@Primefac. I don't think anyone 15607:7&6=thirteen's contributions 14680:Motion 1: Appeals only to ArbCom 14136:very lengthy analysis of sources 14096:#Motion 3: Involved participants 13439:to have more heat than light in 13161:others do so rutinely as well, 12216:rebuffed. As a single example, 8915:Motion 1: Appeals only to ArbCom 8240:pro-Knowledge as pro-Palestinian 7029:for each article and talk page. 6782:Being realistic/know your limits 5600:other, or is it just the truth? 5365:simply dominating by pure volume 5135: 2930: 2902: 15873:Statement by INVOLVED Seriality 15719:Nevertheless, I will implement 15017:Motion 3: Involved participants 11193:Statement by AirshipJungleman29 10557:Volume 17, Issue 1 pp. 116-135) 10468:posed by an unfamiliar editor, 10364:of the IP area's POV-stand-off. 10057:the list of 100 new IP articles 10042::I see the only solution being 9843:Motion 3: Involved participants 9005:, it can be changed by Arbcom. 8927:Motion 3: Involved participants 8549:disturb the point want to make 7059:Using evidence-based approaches 6939:Random sample (15000 articles). 6862:Certainly, it's a problem that 6045:talk page RFC for an example)? 5806:Statement by Bluethricecreamman 3380:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement 2929: 2901: 2393:" (my emphasis) So in fact ECR 2389:with the exception of userspace 2378:Arbitration Committee sanctions 16520:18:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 16494:12:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 16484:20:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 16361:15:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 16321:04:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 16256:, as the article has not been 16226:WP:Deletion policy#Redirection 16192:10:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 16031:11:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 16009:10:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 15916:17:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 15270:22:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 15253:21:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 15152:21:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 15123:10:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 15114:22:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 15099:18:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 15011:21:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 14902:21:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 14873:15:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 14786:21:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 14674:12:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 14659:21:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 14498:20:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 14483:20:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 14465:19:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 14439:00:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 14156:15:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 14121:13:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 14085:12:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 14057:11:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 14031:20:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 14009:01:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 13976:13:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 13938:22:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 13901:20:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 13866:Specific views on the motions: 13861:13:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 13838:23:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 13817:needs to be strictly enforced 13693: 13514:06:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 13500:00:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 13478:01:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 13308:05:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 12775:17:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 12392:Discord servers are being used 12222:Talk:Zionism#Colonial project? 12157:23:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 12082:Also, with all due respect to 11805:. I will openly disclose that 11569:21:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 11544:00:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 11380:05:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 11183:18:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 11169:21:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 11155:21:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 11140:21:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 10915:20:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 10435:the example where you are said 9863:03:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 9832:13:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 9711:21:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 9684:21:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 9662:20:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 9638:01:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 9623:00:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 9605:00:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 9153:18:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 9126:00:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 9109:00:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 9092:22:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 8942:07:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 7720:Talk:Zionism#Colonial project? 7713:Talk:Zionism#Colonial project? 7388:04:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 6426:14:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 6088:21:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 5905:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples 5834:Genocide of indigenous peoples 5793:05:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5766:20:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 5715:20:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 5519:Talk:Zionism#Colonial project? 5097:imposition of 0RR restrictions 5060:recent Arbitration Enforcement 3820:recent Arbitration Enforcement 3666:to avoid further confusion. - 3546:that are related to the topic. 3370:ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice 3079:extended confirmed restriction 2653:enforcement templates on them. 346:contentious topics restriction 13: 1: 16443:19:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 16429:18:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 16345:15:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 16283:04:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 16157:17:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 16126:14:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 16097:13:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 16037:Statement by GhostOfDanGurney 15965:18:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 15934:13:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 15868:20:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 15824:I was also topic-banned from 15808:12:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 15777:16:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 15746:12:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 15570:Does this topic ban include: 15292:05:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 14688:contentious topic restriction 14634:19:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 13796:16:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 13726:09:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 13682:22:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 13489:"civil" POV pushing behaviors 13435:A contentious topic does not 13292:21:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 13257:00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 13246:00:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 12743:21:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 12342:illustrated this excellently 12307:12:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 12016:there is no war in Ba Sing Se 11120:23:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 11105:22:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 11032:22:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 11010:21:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 10796:09:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 10780:16:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 10757:03:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 10622:22:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 10592:22:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 10578:21:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 10531:20:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 10491:16:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 10455:12:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 10422:10:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 10060:highly personalized grudges. 9908:experienced editors, together 9719:Statement by Theleekycauldron 9591:20:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 9559:14:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 9537:23:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 9522:23:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 9507:21:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 9360:15:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 9064:00:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 9049:13:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 8905:15:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 8884:14:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 8866:09:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 8853:07:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 8834:06:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 8816:06:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 8798:04:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 8777:04:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 8741:14:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 8626:12:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 8615:again encourage you to do so. 8593:08:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 8508:04:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 8469:22:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 8444:22:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 8398:16:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 8258:15:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 8214:14:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 8181:14:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 8128:14:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 8103:14:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 8022:05:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 7654:14:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 7630:11:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 7373:14:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 7356:13:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 7335:04:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 7310:03:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 7248:16:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 7231:15:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 7213:11:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 7198:08:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 7182:10:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 7133:02:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 7027:at the time the edit was made 6480:21:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 6404:16:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 6388:14:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 6372:12:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 5661:21:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 5095:to multiple individuals, the 3733:16:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 2111:Change userspace to talkspace 16293:WP:Merging#Proposing a merge 16131:Statement by Szmenderowiecki 16119:"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16111:"Either merge it or AFD it." 16090:"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16082:"only warning" in March 2023 15725:For what it's worth, I have 13594:current group of AE archives 12536:Statement by Thebiguglyalien 10521:write anything encyclopedic. 9966:: This pivot was due to the 9806:Not sure if anyone has seen 7762:viewpoint is in the majority 7699:ARBPIA discussion statistics 6203:This one as well (PeleYoetz) 5307:I would hesitate to apply a 2480:Statement by Sir Kenneth Kho 324:(you must use this format!) 7: 16367:Statement by {other-editor} 16297:WP:Proposed article mergers 16062:Talk:Mamie Lake (Wisconsin) 15816:Statement by TenPoundHammer 15605:, where editors found that 14919:of restrictions within the 14606:20:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC) 14591:23:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 14550:06:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC) 14537:18:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 14528:12:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 14424:20:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 14402:03:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 14376:23:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC) 14352:15:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC) 14331:18:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 14309:16:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 14295:15:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC) 14274:15:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC) 14249:14:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC) 14234:18:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 14090:Statement by starship.paint 13636:17:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC) 13588:Statement by Jéské Couriano 13580:14:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 13556:10:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 13367:17:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 13352:22:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC) 13339:would clean up discussions. 13277:20:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC) 13176:22:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 13130:23:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC) 13111:22:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC) 13080:20:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC) 13017:18:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 12977:14:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 12956:a recent discussion of +972 12936:14:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 12902:05:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 12845:01:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 12640:23:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 12601:22:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 12530:19:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 12507:16:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 12482:22:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC) 12427:11:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 12269:02:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 12251:11:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 12206:05:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 12179:23:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC) 12123:23:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 12077:23:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 11999:18:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 11951:18:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 11919:00:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 11868:22:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC) 11829:22:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC) 11750:23:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 11724:00:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 11698:00:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 11679:being a friend of Nishidani 11672:23:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 11646:20:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 11620:19:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 11597:19:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC) 11519:16:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 11476:23:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 11443:03:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 11411:18:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC) 11306:18:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 11278:18:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC) 11231:13:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 11213:12:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC) 10995:18:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 10980:20:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC) 10965:23:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC) 10955:can be quite unpleasant. -- 10938:21:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC) 10900:15:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC) 10877:21:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC) 10861:17:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC) 10841:01:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC) 10396:19:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC) 10374:21:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 10350:14:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 10316:10:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 10296:21:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC) 10237:16:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC) 10215:19:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 10196:16:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 10161:09:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 10125:01:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 10107:01:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 10089:13:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC) 10070:10:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 10015:. This is a WP:BATTLEGROUND 9802:22:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 9768:09:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 9741:20:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 9485:18:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 9458:17:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 9439:17:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 9421:15:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 9398:00:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC) 9377:16:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 9339:15:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC) 9308:00:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC) 9293:16:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 9275:15:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC) 9250:15:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC) 9231:14:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC) 9204:20:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 9184:19:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 9032:00:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC) 9015:15:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC) 8993:12:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC) 8732:In several places, such as 8717:04:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 8695:01:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC) 8674:09:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 8663:11:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC) 7966:12:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 7910:01:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 7885:23:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC) 7863:10:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC) 7814:22:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 7782:13:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC) 7754:09:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC) 7607:14:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC) 7592:17:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 7576:16:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 7552:16:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 7538:23:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 7518:23:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 7499:23:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 7474:16:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 7439:01:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC) 7419:13:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC) 7078:18:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 7054:15:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 6987:08:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC) 6966:15:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC) 6885:02:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC) 6826:04:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 6777:16:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 6533:18:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 6518:15:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 6450:17:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC) 6355:17:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 6332:17:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC) 6314:10:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 6288:10:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 6259:09:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 6241:22:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC) 6223:3.In the interim, avoiding 6219:12:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC) 6197:22:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 6161:08:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC) 6127:09:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 6055:16:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 6037:23:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 5978:20:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 5957:19:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 5932:17:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 5917:17:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 5895:19:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 5880:19:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 5862:19:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 5827:18:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 5593:17:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 5565:01:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC) 5537:01:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 5506:16:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 5487:14:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC) 5423:23:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 5381:23:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 5359:as pointing at two things: 5333:00:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 5291:19:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 5258:11:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 5231:18:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 5213:18:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 5190:17:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 5164:17:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 5125:17:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 3765:Palestine-Israel articles 4 3755:17:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 3698:21:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC) 3676:01:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 3643:00:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 3598:19:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 3584:19:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 3508:07:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC) 3483:20:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 3409:Palestine-Israel articles 4 3346:Palestine-Israel articles 4 3324:19:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 3310:19:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 3279:14:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 3249:07:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC) 3152:18:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 3117:01:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC) 2831:18:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 2576:23:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 1927:Palestine-Israel articles 4 1183:Clarification and Amendment 378:Clarification and Amendment 10: 16556: 16218:WP:Deletion policy#Merging 15903:broad an interpretation). 12220:made about 48 comments on 11288:-pushing themselves while 10503:(b) and the effect of the 9779:Statement by TarnishedPath 9443:Selfstudier: I agree that 8496:question I asked you above 7931:ARBPIA activity statistics 7258:This statement is false. 6486:Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS 5465:, which arbcom cannot do. 5452:that contradict each other 5363:in replies to others, and 3062:18:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC) 2807:18:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC) 2793:12:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC) 2773:02:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC) 2586:My understanding is that" 2273:17:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC) 1884: 1179: 1079: 374: 29: 16401:content should live, not 15792:so the record is clear. 15297:Case or decision affected 14696:community review standard 14098:as originally written by 13801:Statement by Figureofnine 13749:neutrally naming articles 13394:WP:NPOV § Bias in sources 13375:Statement by berchanhimez 12952:the recent Al-Jazeera RfC 12348:add more fuel to the fire 10721:User:The Mountain of Eden 10555:Media, War & Conflict 9932:of those they look up to. 8977:, who came up with this.) 7659:Statement by BilledMammal 7566:are making things toxic? 7154:They made a lot of edits. 7004:Can we see this effect? 6491:Statement by Sean.hoyland 5773:'s comment that there is 5645:last 1000 mainspace edits 3760:Case or decision affected 3658:I would support amending 3073:18:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC) 3039:02:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC) 3025:11:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC) 3008:RMs are not edit requests 2986:RMs are not edit requests 2749:07:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC) 2722:07:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC) 2689:07:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC) 2557:16:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC) 2475:12:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC) 2457:Statement by Sean.hoyland 2452:04:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC) 2441:12:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC) 2422:11:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC) 2349:02:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC) 2316:15:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 2292:14:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 2242:17:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC) 2221:12:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC) 2187:10:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC) 2170:08:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC) 1922:Case or decision affected 1917:13:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 1097:This is not a discussion. 301:Use this page to request 197: 194: 191: 188: 156: 153: 99: 96: 93: 90: 16326:Statement by Newyorkbrad 16234:Alternatives to deletion 16232:) are subsections under 16107:Talk:"Weird Al" Yankovic 15249:Penny for your thoughts? 15148:Penny for your thoughts? 15007:Penny for your thoughts? 14898:Penny for your thoughts? 14782:Penny for your thoughts? 14655:Penny for your thoughts? 14630:Penny for your thoughts? 14479:Penny for your thoughts? 14126:Statement by Vice_regent 13765:perspective is expressed 13731:Statement by Hydrangeans 13612:matter to this, akin to 13561:Statement by Doug Weller 13537:, seemingly criticising 12615:are recognized as essays 12488:Statement by LokiTheLiar 12021:Does that mean that the 11028:Penny for your thoughts? 10727:(63%) low editaccount; 10606:administrative detention 9902:the editing environment 9680:Penny for your thoughts? 8033:As I said on that page: 7560:your atrocious behaviour 7393:Statement by Iskandar323 7063:I would like to commend 6167:Statement by Selfstudier 5361:overly repeating oneself 4713:Referring administrators 3833:Involved AE participants 3694:Penny for your thoughts? 2778:Statement by Doug Weller 2624:(that is, not articles). 2118:Statement by Selfstudier 16295:(information page) and 16207:) and content removal ( 16066:Talk:Bent's Camp Resort 15707:WP:DELETION DISCUSSIONS 15705:2-year-old topic bans ( 15699:not justified or needed 13769:highest quality sources 12907:Statement by Black Kite 12748:ago, Arbcom reaffirmed 12367:expressly stating this 12281:show conclusively that 12211:Statement by SashiRolls 12041:got themselves TBANned. 12035:in this very discussion 11385:Statement by Swatjester 10921:Statement by Tryptofish 10719:(56%, NoCal100 sock); 10707:(76%, low edit count); 10466:I had a note on my page 8910:Comments on the motions 8838:Some quick comments on 7984:single purpose accounts 7398:Statement by Dan Murphy 5544:the first admin comment 5400:'s relevant part (i.e. 16047:Mamie Lake (Wisconsin) 15992: 15918: 15596:this Amendment request 15158:Motion 4: Enforced BRD 14908:Motion 2b: Word limits 14792:Motion 2a: Word limits 13454:control the topic area 13318:Statement by Shushugah 13298:lol. But not really. 12671:Encouraging people to 12446:History repeats itself 12334:, particularly of the 12315:Statement by Domedtrix 11575:Statement by Number 57 11237:Statement by Aquillion 10846:Statement by Vanamonde 10806:Statement by DMH223344 10711:(89% low edit count); 10703:(43% low edit count); 10691:(70%, low edit count); 10681:User:Personisinsterest 10653: 10600: 10546: 10282: 10252: 9868:Statement by Nishidani 9774:Statement by PeleYoetz 9579:this ongoing AE report 9159:Statement by Barkeep49 8933:Motion 4: Enforced BRD 8921:Motion 2a: Word limits 8488: 8061: 8039: 7114:, to revert the edits. 3356:, broadly interpreted. 2582:Statement by Callanecc 2278:Statement by Barkeep49 139:Recently closed cases 16535:Knowledge arbitration 16309:the editor spam AfDs 16242:(guideline, shortcut 16198:Statement by Flatscan 16068:, I do think there's 15983: 15880: 15758:argumentum ad hominem 15663:User:7&6=thirteen 15235:Arbitrator discussion 15134:Arbitrator discussion 14993:Arbitrator discussion 14884:Arbitrator discussion 14768:Arbitrator discussion 14566:has not edited since. 14453:in that AE discussion 14202:ScottishFinnishRadish 14062:Statement by Springee 13981:Statement by Amayorov 13424:discussion - through 13001:support this option!) 12941:Statement by Rosguill 12798:long list of scholars 12780:Statement by xDanielx 12336:Righting Great Wrongs 12163:Statement by Zanahary 11223:~~ AirshipJungleman29 11205:~~ AirshipJungleman29 10814:Statement by M.Bitton 10687:(39% banned from IP); 10640: 10596: 10538: 10263: 10248: 9611:ScottishFinnishRadish 9145:ScottishFinnishRadish 9118:ScottishFinnishRadish 9101:ScottishFinnishRadish 9084:ScottishFinnishRadish 9056:ScottishFinnishRadish 9041:ScottishFinnishRadish 9024:ScottishFinnishRadish 9007:ScottishFinnishRadish 9003:Arbitration procedure 8985:ScottishFinnishRadish 8632:Statement by Zero0000 8484: 8050: 8034: 7424:Statement by Nableezy 6096:Statement by ABHammad 5429:Statement by Levivich 5405:request for amendment 5008:ScottishFinnishRadish 4774:ScottishFinnishRadish 3519:Arbitrator discussion 3354:Arab-Israeli conflict 3260:Arbitrator discussion 2297:Statement by Zero0000 360:Arbitration CA notice 50:Arbitration Committee 18:Knowledge:Arbitration 14384:Historical elections 13999:Here’s one example. 13522:Statement by Amakuru 13190:User:Thebiguglyalien 12379:for political ends. 12184:Statement by Ravpapa 11766:Statement by The Kip 10717:User:Kentucky Rain24 9841:To me it seems that 7729:were to sock puppets 7722:were to sock puppets 7715:were to sock puppets 7042:Here are the results 6944:Here are the results 6833:, regarding socks, 6550:This is a small part 6408:10: Enforced BRD or 6043:Herrenvolk_democracy 5093:issuance of warnings 4770:(referral initiator) 3548:) and one footnote ( 3544:parts of other pages 3265:I hope this matches 2961:"all of these pages" 164:Historical elections 15603:this ANI discussion 15510:Statement by Cunard 15182: 15041: 14940: 14889:Proposed. Per SFR. 14815: 14773:Proposed. Per SFR. 14715: 14558:enforcement request 13745:using a common name 13485:immune to sanctions 13213:. If that isn't a 13041:he would have felt. 12985:Statement by Huldra 12807:Another example is 12332:tendentious editing 11424:metaphors, thanks. 10819:Statement by Buidhe 10675:(53% permabanned); 10647:about the evidence. 10542:activity statistics 10501:Cromwell's conquest 9924::a large number of 9904:disturbingly toxic, 9890:all of the regulars 8455:You misunderstand; 8267:activity statistics 7980:Activity statistics 6538:A plea for humility 6431:Statement by fiveby 6322:. Just so we know. 5523:26 replies were to 3431: 3375:editnotice and the 3190: 16540:Knowledge requests 16205:WP:Deletion policy 16109:in which they say 16103:this given example 16051:Bent's Camp Resort 16043:Bent's Camp Resort 15790:Related discussion 15177: 15036: 14935: 14810: 14710: 14556:There has been an 13263:Statement by Arkon 12948:the recent ADL RfC 12811:. If that isn't a 12460:. The rationale? " 11776:AirshipJungleman29 10723:(low edit count); 10715:, low edit count; 10474:Monochrome Monitor 10075:Billed Mammal. Re 9922:AirshipJungleman29 9892:in the topic area 9810:which states that 9649:Jeske's suggestion 8300:CarmenEsparzaAmoux 7676:Stealth canvassing 7461:AirshipJungleman29 7255:- Thebiguglyalien 6231:would be as well. 6225:this sort of thing 6080:Bluethricecreamman 6069:Bluethricecreamman 6047:Bluethricecreamman 6029:Bluethricecreamman 5970:Bluethricecreamman 5949:Bluethricecreamman 5924:Bluethricecreamman 5922:be wonderful too. 5909:Bluethricecreamman 5887:Bluethricecreamman 5872:Bluethricecreamman 5854:Bluethricecreamman 5819:Bluethricecreamman 5801:Statement by האופה 5641:last 1000 contribs 5101:select individuals 4953:Bluethricecreamman 3937:Bluethricecreamman 3426: 3185: 2997:contentious topics 2727:Premeditated Chaos 2538:nicely pointed to 281:Arbitrator motions 114:16 September 2024 16248:If other editors 16209:WP:Editing policy 15753:SerialNumber54129 15336: 15305:arbitration case 15217: 15216: 15076: 15075: 14975: 14974: 14850: 14849: 14750: 14749: 14386:Proposed decision 14216: 14037:A naive proposal: 13974: 13936: 13907:Biased by default 13899: 13859: 13836: 13708:Statement by RAN1 13402:civil POV pushing 12933:Black Kite (talk) 12666:confirmation bias 12377:Knowledge's voice 12154: 12120: 12074: 11996: 11948: 11916: 11887:civil POV-pushing 11865: 11826: 11567: 11542: 11517: 11474: 11441: 11409: 11077:Focus on conduct. 11074:Focus on conduct. 11071:Focus on conduct. 10788:Personisinsterest 10768:Confirmation bias 10735:(57% few edits); 10689:User:Mistamystery 10278:978-0-241-00443-2 10221:User:Sean.hoyland 10184:Irvin Leigh Matus 10077:this set of diffs 8892: 8785: 8766:Kfar Aza massacre 8748: 8725: 8704: 8682: 8655:There is a reason 8373: 8372: 7737: 7639:that Iskandar323 7172: 7151:There were a lot. 6766: 6765: 6207:related AE thread 6173:related AE thread 6107:Israeli apartheid 3802:related AE thread 3799: 3768:arbitration case 3715: 3625: 3566: 3536:broadly construed 3494:Per my reasoning 3466: 3465: 3292: 3225: 3224: 3134: 3099: 3002:Edit requests in 2980:Edit requests in 2943: 2942: 2698:: See discussion 2429: 2356: 2324: 1961: 1930:arbitration case 1898: 1897: 1880: 1879: 1093: 1092: 1075: 1074: 274: 273: 270:8 September 2024 260: 173: 172: 121: 120: 16547: 16518: 16508:7&6=thirteen 16414: 16408: 16299:(process page), 16124: 16120: 16095: 16091: 16079: 15975: 15865: 15863:Ten Pound Hammer 15844: 15838: 15806: 15796:7&6=thirteen 15781:Meanwhile, they 15775: 15765:7&6=thirteen 15744: 15734:7&6=thirteen 15641: 15635: 15590:tags to articles 15589: 15583: 15525:7&6=thirteen 15499:7&6=thirteen 15488: 15461:deleted contribs 15440: 15413:deleted contribs 15396:7&6=thirteen 15391: 15364:deleted contribs 15306: 15250: 15183: 15176: 15173: 15149: 15042: 15035: 15032: 15008: 14941: 14934: 14931: 14899: 14816: 14809: 14806: 14783: 14716: 14709: 14706: 14686:When imposing a 14656: 14631: 14480: 14449: 14412: 14341: 14319: 14284: 14259: 14214: 14194: 14140:WP:RFC/Jerusalem 14112: 14107: 13998: 13997: 13964: 13926: 13889: 13849: 13826: 13700: 13697: 13679: 13647: 13633: 13622:The Omnibus Case 13605:Israel-Hamas war 13574: 13051:57 has in mind, 12997:cats, and would 12912:probably go all 12835: 12771: 12765: 12762: 12759: 12756: 12739: 12733: 12730: 12727: 12724: 12636: 12630: 12627: 12624: 12621: 12597: 12591: 12588: 12585: 12582: 12471: 12459: 12452:is confirmed by 12450:contentious move 12438: 12301: 12295: 12263: 12177: 12171: 12155: 12153: 12150: 12143: 12136: 12121: 12119: 12116: 12109: 12089: 12075: 12073: 12070: 12063: 11997: 11995: 11992: 11985: 11949: 11947: 11944: 11937: 11917: 11915: 11912: 11905: 11866: 11864: 11861: 11854: 11847: 11827: 11825: 11822: 11815: 11747: 11742: 11737: 11721: 11716: 11711: 11695: 11690: 11685: 11669: 11664: 11659: 11643: 11638: 11633: 11617: 11612: 11607: 11594: 11589: 11584: 11566: 11564: 11563: 11560: 11554: 11541: 11539: 11538: 11535: 11529: 11516: 11514: 11513: 11510: 11504: 11490: 11473: 11471: 11470: 11467: 11461: 11455: 11440: 11438: 11437: 11434: 11428: 11422: 11408: 11406: 11405: 11402: 11396: 11029: 10837: 10741:User:Izzy Borden 10739:low edit count; 10737:User:Onlineone22 10733:User:Greyshark09 10505:the great famine 10439:User:Izzy Borden 9886:theleekycauldron 9760:theleekycauldron 9752: 9733:theleekycauldron 9729: 9681: 9547: 9349: 9323:Iranian politics 9214:raised the issue 8978: 8898: 8890: 8877: 8791: 8783: 8754: 8746: 8731: 8723: 8710: 8702: 8688: 8680: 8605: 8553:your explanation 8518: 8481: 8454: 8414: 8280:Extended content 8276: 8275: 8247: 8224: 8195: 8170: 8140: 8117: 8113: 8080: 8070: 8032: 8004: 7994: 7955: 7940: 7924: 7895: 7873: 7845:the same editor 7824: 7792: 7735: 7649: 7625: 7602: 7587: 7571: 7547: 7533: 7513: 7494: 7469: 7459:Also, regarding 7445:upon a time, in 7434: 7169: 6583: 6582: 6438:tag team editing 6343: 6300: 6270: 6267:Theleekycauldron 5639:. Look at their 5515:'s comment that 5419: 5413: 5408: 5396:, my reading of 5392:With respect to 5391: 5377: 5371: 5329: 5323: 5310: 5287: 5281: 5274:have driven away 5270: 5254: 5248: 5243: 5227: 5221: 5209: 5203: 5186: 5180: 5175: 5160: 5154: 5139: 5121: 5115: 5018:Theleekycauldron 4932: 4882:Theleekycauldron 4878: 4824: 4769: 4708: 4681:deleted contribs 4660: 4633:deleted contribs 4612: 4585:deleted contribs 4564: 4537:deleted contribs 4516: 4489:deleted contribs 4461: 4434:deleted contribs 4413: 4386:deleted contribs 4365: 4338:deleted contribs 4317: 4290:deleted contribs 4269: 4242:deleted contribs 4221: 4194:deleted contribs 4173: 4146:deleted contribs 4125: 4098:deleted contribs 4077: 4050:deleted contribs 4029: 4002:deleted contribs 3981: 3954:deleted contribs 3933: 3906:deleted contribs 3884: 3857:deleted contribs 3769: 3713: 3695: 3657: 3623: 3564: 3553:topic ban policy 3432: 3425: 3422: 3384: 3378: 3374: 3368: 3290: 3191: 3184: 3181: 3132: 3097: 2934: 2933: 2906: 2905: 2862: 2861: 2827: 2821: 2801: 2787: 2757:Statement by PMC 2630: 2623: 2537: 2502: 2491: 2435: 2427: 2362: 2354: 2330: 2322: 2252: 2231: 2206: 2197: 2154: 2142: 2135: 2085: 2030: 2003:deleted contribs 1931: 1893: 1222: 1221: 1210: 1203: 1196: 1177: 1176: 1119: 1098: 1088: 417: 416: 405: 398: 391: 372: 371: 363: 343: 335: 323: 298: 297: 259: 256: 186: 185: 151: 150: 146: 88: 87: 42: 16555: 16554: 16550: 16549: 16548: 16546: 16545: 16544: 16525: 16524: 16505: 16412: 16406: 16394: 16378: 16369: 16328: 16211:) are distinct. 16203:Page deletion ( 16200: 16184:Szmenderowiecki 16149:Szmenderowiecki 16133: 16118: 16114: 16089: 16085: 16073: 16039: 15969: 15919: 15875: 15861: 15842: 15836: 15818: 15793: 15762: 15731: 15691:Indeed, I have 15666: 15639: 15633: 15587: 15581: 15512: 15446: 15398: 15349: 15280: 15171: 15168: 15167: 15160: 15030: 15027: 15026: 15019: 14929: 14926: 14925: 14910: 14804: 14801: 14800: 14794: 14704: 14701: 14700: 14682: 14643: 14443: 14406: 14390:User:Black Kite 14338:Red-tailed hawk 14335: 14313: 14278: 14253: 14188: 14179: 14163: 14154: 14128: 14110: 14105: 14092: 14064: 13994: 13983: 13909:? I think that 13803: 13733: 13710: 13705: 13704: 13703: 13698: 13694: 13677: 13641: 13631: 13590: 13572: 13563: 13524: 13377: 13320: 13265: 13143:User:Swatjester 12987: 12968: 12943: 12909: 12852: 12842: 12833: 12782: 12769: 12763: 12760: 12757: 12754: 12737: 12731: 12728: 12725: 12722: 12634: 12628: 12625: 12622: 12619: 12611:local consensus 12605:In response to 12595: 12589: 12586: 12583: 12580: 12538: 12490: 12465: 12453: 12432: 12407:WP:BATTLEGROUND 12317: 12297: 12289: 12261: 12218:Kentucky Rain24 12213: 12186: 12175: 12169: 12165: 12152: 12146: 12139: 12133:Thebiguglyalien 12130: 12118: 12112: 12105: 12083: 12072: 12066: 12059: 12053:- mine is that 11994: 11988: 11981: 11946: 11940: 11933: 11914: 11908: 11901: 11863: 11857: 11850: 11844:Thebiguglyalien 11841: 11824: 11818: 11811: 11784:WP:BATTLEGROUND 11768: 11745: 11740: 11735: 11719: 11714: 11709: 11693: 11688: 11683: 11667: 11662: 11657: 11641: 11636: 11631: 11615: 11610: 11605: 11592: 11587: 11582: 11577: 11561: 11558: 11557: 11552: 11536: 11533: 11532: 11527: 11511: 11508: 11507: 11502: 11484: 11468: 11465: 11464: 11459: 11449: 11435: 11432: 11431: 11426: 11416: 11403: 11400: 11399: 11394: 11387: 11318:WP:BATTLEGROUND 11239: 11200:WP:BATTLEGROUND 11195: 10923: 10848: 10835: 10821: 10816: 10808: 10745:User:Seggallion 10697:User:Eladkarmel 10510:Tsepon Shakabpa 10462:tacit knowledge 10443:User:Seggallion 10429:. The instance 10243:User:CaptainEek 10019:Thebiguglyalien 10002:variety. , , , 9870: 9839: 9781: 9776: 9746: 9723: 9721: 9693:took but it is 9541: 9343: 9261:refer to Arbcom 9161: 8975:Red-tailed hawk 8972: 8953:WP:BATTLEGROUND 8949: 8912: 8889: 8871: 8809:pro-Palestinian 8782: 8770:Alumim massacre 8762:Be'eri massacre 8745: 8722: 8701: 8679: 8634: 8599: 8512: 8475: 8448: 8404: 8374: 8281: 8243: 8218: 8189: 8155: 8134: 8115: 8107: 8074: 8068: 8026: 7998: 7988: 7949: 7938: 7918: 7889: 7867: 7818: 7786: 7661: 7647: 7623: 7600: 7585: 7569: 7545: 7531: 7526:Thebiguglyalien 7511: 7492: 7467: 7447:a land far away 7432: 7426: 7400: 7395: 6594:talk_revisions 6504:non-compliance? 6493: 6488: 6433: 6337: 6294: 6264: 6169: 6098: 5808: 5803: 5431: 5421: 5417: 5412:Red-tailed hawk 5411: 5401: 5385: 5379: 5375: 5370:Red-tailed hawk 5369: 5331: 5327: 5322:Red-tailed hawk 5321: 5308: 5289: 5285: 5280:Red-tailed hawk 5279: 5264: 5256: 5252: 5247:Red-tailed hawk 5246: 5237: 5229: 5225: 5220:Red-tailed hawk 5219: 5211: 5207: 5202:Red-tailed hawk 5201: 5188: 5184: 5179:Red-tailed hawk 5178: 5169: 5162: 5158: 5153:Red-tailed hawk 5152: 5147:unexpected way. 5133: 5123: 5119: 5114:Red-tailed hawk 5113: 4884: 4830: 4776: 4721: 4719:Red-tailed hawk 4666: 4618: 4570: 4522: 4474: 4419: 4371: 4323: 4275: 4227: 4179: 4131: 4083: 4035: 3987: 3939: 3891: 3842: 3749:Red-tailed hawk 3743: 3651: 3420: 3417: 3416: 3382: 3376: 3372: 3366: 3336: 3179: 3176: 3175: 3162: 3123:Red-tailed hawk 2965:related content 2956: 2880:Support needed 2854: 2838: 2829: 2825: 2820:Red-tailed hawk 2819: 2814: 2799: 2785: 2780: 2759: 2628: 2621: 2584: 2568:Sir Kenneth Kho 2549:Sir Kenneth Kho 2531: 2496: 2485: 2482: 2459: 2426: 2353: 2321: 2299: 2280: 2246: 2228:Sir Kenneth Kho 2225: 2200: 2191: 2148: 2136: 2129: 2120: 2037: 1988: 1905: 1900: 1899: 1894: 1889: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1188: 1174: 1173: 1117: 1102:Arbitrators or 1096: 1094: 1089: 1084: 411: 410: 409: 383: 362:|SECTIONTITLE}} 357: 339: 331: 321: 296: 293: 292: 291: 290: 289: 284: 283: 276: 275: 257: 246:17 August 2024 183: 182: 175: 174: 148: 147: 140: 135: 134: 129: 128: 123: 122: 85: 84: 77: 63:purge this page 53: 46: 45: 38: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 16553: 16543: 16542: 16537: 16523: 16522: 16497: 16496: 16486: 16472: 16471: 16470: 16463: 16457: 16447: 16446: 16445: 16393: 16390: 16389: 16388: 16385: 16384: 16377: 16374: 16368: 16365: 16364: 16363: 16327: 16324: 16265: 16264: 16263: 16262: 16237: 16212: 16199: 16196: 16195: 16194: 16175: 16172: 16168: 16160: 16159: 16144: 16141: 16132: 16129: 16038: 16035: 16034: 16033: 15982: 15981: 15967: 15940: 15879: 15874: 15871: 15817: 15814: 15813: 15812: 15811: 15810: 15787: 15724: 15718: 15696: 15690: 15665: 15659: 15632:and added the 15592: 15591: 15578: 15575: 15565: 15564: 15563: 15562: 15549:TenPoundHammer 15540: 15539: 15538: 15511: 15508: 15507: 15506: 15504:TenPoundHammer 15501: 15490: 15489: 15444:TenPoundHammer 15441: 15393: 15338: 15337: 15298: 15279: 15276: 15275: 15274: 15273: 15272: 15237: 15236: 15232: 15231: 15227: 15226: 15222: 15221: 15215: 15214: 15211: 15207: 15206: 15203: 15199: 15198: 15195: 15191: 15190: 15187: 15175: 15174: 15162: 15161: 15159: 15156: 15155: 15154: 15136: 15135: 15131: 15130: 15126: 15125: 15116: 15101: 15086: 15085: 15081: 15080: 15074: 15073: 15070: 15066: 15065: 15062: 15058: 15057: 15054: 15050: 15049: 15046: 15034: 15033: 15021: 15020: 15018: 15015: 15014: 15013: 14995: 14994: 14990: 14989: 14985: 14984: 14980: 14979: 14973: 14972: 14969: 14965: 14964: 14961: 14957: 14956: 14953: 14949: 14948: 14945: 14933: 14932: 14912: 14911: 14909: 14906: 14905: 14904: 14886: 14885: 14881: 14880: 14876: 14875: 14860: 14859: 14855: 14854: 14848: 14847: 14844: 14840: 14839: 14836: 14832: 14831: 14828: 14824: 14823: 14820: 14808: 14807: 14796: 14795: 14793: 14790: 14789: 14788: 14770: 14769: 14765: 14764: 14760: 14759: 14755: 14754: 14748: 14747: 14744: 14740: 14739: 14736: 14732: 14731: 14728: 14724: 14723: 14720: 14708: 14707: 14684: 14683: 14681: 14678: 14677: 14676: 14642: 14639: 14638: 14637: 14608: 14593: 14554: 14553: 14552: 14530: 14512: 14511: 14510: 14509: 14508: 14507: 14506: 14505: 14504: 14503: 14502: 14501: 14500: 14364: 14363: 14362: 14361: 14360: 14359: 14358: 14357: 14356: 14355: 14354: 14236: 14178: 14175: 14174: 14173: 14170: 14169: 14162: 14159: 14148: 14127: 14124: 14091: 14088: 14063: 14060: 14034: 14033: 14016: 13982: 13979: 13904: 13903: 13868: 13867: 13802: 13799: 13732: 13729: 13709: 13706: 13702: 13701: 13691: 13690: 13686: 13685: 13684: 13673:Jéské Couriano 13627:Jéské Couriano 13598:Re'im massacre 13592:Looking at my 13589: 13586: 13584: 13562: 13559: 13523: 13520: 13519: 13518: 13517: 13516: 13480: 13412:using PAGs to 13376: 13373: 13372: 13371: 13370: 13369: 13340: 13332: 13328: 13325: 13319: 13316: 13315: 13314: 13313: 13312: 13311: 13310: 13264: 13261: 13260: 13259: 13249: 13248: 13234:User:Jehochman 13231: 13227: 13203: 13202: 13201: 13200: 13194: 13193: 13183: 13182: 13181: 13180: 13179: 13178: 13155: 13139:User:Number 57 13133: 13132: 13113: 13082: 13060: 13052: 13045: 13044: 13043: 13042: 13030: 13020: 13019: 13005: 13004:Problem solved 13002: 12991: 12986: 12983: 12981: 12966: 12942: 12939: 12929: 12928: 12924: 12921: 12908: 12905: 12878: 12877: 12873: 12872: 12868: 12867: 12851: 12848: 12838: 12781: 12778: 12714: 12713: 12710: 12707: 12704: 12701: 12698: 12695: 12577: 12576: 12572: 12569: 12566: 12537: 12534: 12533: 12532: 12514: 12489: 12486: 12485: 12484: 12443: 12316: 12313: 12312: 12311: 12310: 12309: 12286: 12277:has assembled 12229:clarifications 12212: 12209: 12185: 12182: 12164: 12161: 12160: 12159: 12126: 12125: 12051:is not my view 12043: 12042: 12019: 12004: 12003: 12002: 12001: 11970: 11961: 11960: 11956: 11955: 11954: 11953: 11895: 11894: 11870: 11792:WP:UNBLOCKABLE 11767: 11764: 11763: 11762: 11761: 11760: 11759: 11758: 11757: 11756: 11755: 11754: 11753: 11752: 11626: 11576: 11573: 11572: 11571: 11522: 11521: 11482: 11481: 11480: 11479: 11478: 11386: 11383: 11364: 11363: 11350: 11349: 11344: 11343: 11330: 11329: 11324:, not better. 11309: 11308: 11238: 11235: 11234: 11233: 11194: 11191: 11190: 11189: 11188: 11187: 11186: 11185: 11157: 11142: 11128: 11127: 11126: 11125: 11124: 11123: 11122: 11092: 11089: 11088: 11087: 11080: 11079: 11078: 11075: 11072: 11061: 11049: 11046: 10997: 10982: 10922: 10919: 10918: 10917: 10902: 10879: 10847: 10844: 10820: 10817: 10815: 10812: 10807: 10804: 10803: 10802: 10801: 10800: 10799: 10798: 10713:User:Wagtail66 10685:User:Dovidroth 10669:User:Marokwitz 10639: 10638: 10631: 10630: 10629: 10628: 10627: 10626: 10625: 10624: 10610:Khalida Jarrar 10601: 10558: 10547: 10536: 10535:Billed Mammal. 10533: 10494: 10493: 10457: 10424: 10398: 10383:Jéské Couriano 10377: 10376: 10353: 10352: 10335: 10334: 10333: 10332: 10331: 10330: 10329: 10328: 10327: 10326: 10325: 10324: 10323: 10322: 10321: 10320: 10319: 10318: 10283: 10261: 10253: 10246: 10052: 10051: 10037: 10027: 10016: 9993: 9979: 9961: 9947: 9933: 9919: 9897: 9869: 9866: 9838: 9835: 9780: 9777: 9775: 9772: 9771: 9770: 9757: 9720: 9717: 9716: 9715: 9714: 9713: 9699:Jéské Couriano 9645: 9644: 9643: 9642: 9641: 9640: 9593: 9563: 9562: 9561: 9539: 9509: 9491: 9490: 9489: 9488: 9487: 9441: 9423: 9379: 9364: 9363: 9362: 9318: 9317: 9316: 9315: 9314: 9313: 9312: 9311: 9310: 9206: 9160: 9157: 9156: 9155: 9130: 9129: 9128: 9094: 9079: 9076: 9066: 9051: 9034: 9017: 8980: 8979: 8964: 8948: 8945: 8911: 8908: 8887: 8886: 8847: 8845: 8843: 8801: 8800: 8720: 8719: 8698: 8697: 8666: 8665: 8652: 8649: 8645: 8642: 8633: 8630: 8629: 8628: 8611: 8607: 8597: 8596: 8595: 8573: 8563: 8556: 8545: 8534: 8530: 8526: 8519: 8492: 8489: 8473: 8472: 8471: 8432: 8428: 8424: 8417: 8416:contributions. 8402: 8401: 8400: 8385: 8381: 8371: 8370: 8369: 8368: 8365: 8362: 8359: 8356: 8346: 8345: 8342: 8332: 8331: 8328: 8325: 8322: 8319: 8316: 8313: 8310: 8307: 8304: 8301: 8298: 8295: 8283: 8282: 8279: 8274: 8273: 8272: 8271: 8270: 8263: 8236: 8230: 8216: 8202: 8187: 8186: 8185: 8184: 8183: 8132: 8131: 8130: 8082: 8072: 8065: 8062: 8047: 8040: 8011: 8010: 8009: 8008: 8007: 7996: 7977: 7947: 7934: 7916: 7915: 7914: 7913: 7912: 7898: 7851: 7850: 7849: 7843:Al Jazeera RFC 7839: 7826: 7816: 7801: 7798: 7795: 7784: 7769: 7743: 7742: 7741: 7740: 7739: 7738: 7732: 7731: 7730: 7723: 7716: 7692: 7691: 7690: 7687: 7677: 7674: 7673: 7672: 7660: 7657: 7579: 7578: 7556: 7555: 7554: 7522: 7521: 7520: 7477: 7425: 7422: 7399: 7396: 7394: 7391: 7313: 7312: 7297: 7296: 7295: 7285: 7282:User:O.maximov 7275: 7267: 7263: 7185: 7184: 7161: 7160: 7159: 7158: 7155: 7152: 7116: 7115: 7100: 7039: 7038: 7037: 7036: 7033: 7023: 7016: 7015: 7012: 7009: 6955: 6954: 6951: 6941: 6940: 6937: 6933: 6926: 6925: 6922: 6915: 6914: 6911: 6853: 6852: 6849: 6846: 6843: 6815: 6814: 6806: 6799: 6764: 6763: 6760: 6757: 6754: 6750: 6749: 6746: 6743: 6740: 6736: 6735: 6732: 6729: 6726: 6722: 6721: 6718: 6715: 6712: 6708: 6707: 6704: 6701: 6698: 6694: 6693: 6690: 6687: 6684: 6680: 6679: 6676: 6673: 6670: 6666: 6665: 6662: 6659: 6656: 6652: 6651: 6648: 6645: 6642: 6638: 6637: 6634: 6631: 6628: 6624: 6623: 6620: 6617: 6614: 6610: 6609: 6606: 6603: 6600: 6596: 6595: 6592: 6589: 6586: 6581: 6580: 6579: 6578: 6577: 6576: 6573: 6570: 6564: 6560: 6553: 6547: 6506: 6505: 6492: 6489: 6487: 6484: 6483: 6482: 6432: 6429: 6391: 6390: 6291: 6290: 6275: 6168: 6165: 6164: 6163: 6097: 6094: 6093: 6092: 6091: 6090: 6057: 6039: 6020: 6019: 6018: 6017: 6016: 6012: 6009: 6005: 6004: 6003: 6002: 5982: 5981: 5980: 5936: 5935: 5934: 5897: 5882: 5864: 5850:WP:NOCONSENSUS 5838:WP:NOCONSENSUS 5829: 5807: 5804: 5802: 5799: 5798: 5797: 5796: 5795: 5698: 5697: 5689: 5685: 5672: 5664: 5609:West Jerusalem 5605:East Jerusalem 5597: 5596: 5595: 5540: 5509: 5490: 5430: 5427: 5426: 5425: 5415: 5383: 5373: 5353:WP:ARBBLUDGEON 5335: 5325: 5305: 5293: 5283: 5262: 5261: 5260: 5250: 5235: 5234: 5233: 5223: 5205: 5182: 5156: 5132: 5129: 5128: 5127: 5117: 5109: 5089: 5088: 5087: 5084: 5081: 5078: 5075: 5071: 5070: 5064: 5063: 5051: 5050: 5046: 5045: 5040: 5035: 5030: 5025: 5020: 5015: 5010: 5005: 5000: 4995: 4990: 4985: 4980: 4975: 4970: 4965: 4960: 4955: 4950: 4945: 4939: 4938: 4934: 4933: 4879: 4825: 4771: 4715: 4714: 4710: 4709: 4661: 4613: 4565: 4517: 4468: 4467: 4463: 4462: 4414: 4366: 4318: 4270: 4222: 4174: 4126: 4078: 4030: 3982: 3934: 3886: 3885:(AE initiator) 3836: 3835: 3830: 3828: 3824: 3823: 3811: 3810: 3806: 3805: 3761: 3742: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3646: 3645: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3521: 3520: 3516: 3515: 3511: 3510: 3491: 3490: 3486: 3485: 3471: 3470: 3464: 3463: 3460: 3456: 3455: 3452: 3448: 3447: 3444: 3440: 3439: 3436: 3424: 3423: 3338: 3337: 3335: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3262: 3261: 3257: 3256: 3252: 3251: 3235: 3234: 3230: 3229: 3223: 3222: 3219: 3215: 3214: 3211: 3207: 3206: 3203: 3199: 3198: 3195: 3183: 3182: 3164: 3163: 3161: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3075: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3047:says and what 3027: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2988: 2955: 2952: 2950: 2948: 2947: 2941: 2940: 2938: 2935: 2928: 2925: 2922: 2919: 2913: 2912: 2910: 2907: 2900: 2897: 2894: 2891: 2885: 2884: 2881: 2878: 2875: 2872: 2869: 2866: 2853: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2845: 2844: 2837: 2834: 2823: 2813: 2810: 2779: 2776: 2758: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2647: 2644: 2633: 2632: 2625: 2614: 2613: 2606: 2595: 2583: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2481: 2478: 2458: 2455: 2444: 2403: 2402: 2383: 2372: 2333: 2332: 2298: 2295: 2279: 2276: 2119: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2103: 2102: 2098: 2097: 2092: 2091: 2087: 2086: 2032: 1982: 1981: 1979: 1975: 1974: 1968: 1967: 1963: 1962: 1923: 1904: 1901: 1896: 1895: 1887: 1885: 1882: 1881: 1878: 1877: 1872: 1866: 1865: 1860: 1855: 1850: 1845: 1840: 1835: 1830: 1825: 1820: 1815: 1810: 1805: 1800: 1795: 1790: 1785: 1780: 1774: 1773: 1768: 1763: 1758: 1753: 1748: 1743: 1738: 1733: 1728: 1723: 1718: 1713: 1708: 1703: 1698: 1693: 1688: 1682: 1681: 1676: 1671: 1666: 1661: 1656: 1651: 1646: 1641: 1636: 1631: 1626: 1621: 1616: 1611: 1606: 1601: 1596: 1590: 1589: 1584: 1579: 1574: 1569: 1564: 1559: 1554: 1549: 1544: 1539: 1534: 1529: 1524: 1519: 1514: 1509: 1504: 1498: 1497: 1492: 1487: 1482: 1477: 1472: 1467: 1462: 1457: 1452: 1447: 1442: 1437: 1432: 1427: 1422: 1417: 1412: 1406: 1405: 1400: 1395: 1390: 1385: 1380: 1375: 1370: 1365: 1360: 1355: 1350: 1345: 1340: 1335: 1330: 1325: 1320: 1314: 1313: 1308: 1303: 1298: 1293: 1288: 1283: 1278: 1273: 1268: 1263: 1258: 1253: 1248: 1243: 1238: 1233: 1228: 1218: 1217: 1213: 1212: 1205: 1198: 1190: 1189: 1181: 1180: 1175: 1172: 1171: 1162: 1157: 1152: 1147: 1145:WP:A/R/C&A 1142: 1137: 1131: 1126: 1091: 1090: 1082: 1080: 1077: 1076: 1073: 1072: 1067: 1061: 1060: 1055: 1050: 1045: 1040: 1035: 1030: 1025: 1020: 1015: 1010: 1005: 1000: 995: 990: 985: 980: 975: 969: 968: 963: 958: 953: 948: 943: 938: 933: 928: 923: 918: 913: 908: 903: 898: 893: 888: 883: 877: 876: 871: 866: 861: 856: 851: 846: 841: 836: 831: 826: 821: 816: 811: 806: 801: 796: 791: 785: 784: 779: 774: 769: 764: 759: 754: 749: 744: 739: 734: 729: 724: 719: 714: 709: 704: 699: 693: 692: 687: 682: 677: 672: 667: 662: 657: 652: 647: 642: 637: 632: 627: 622: 617: 612: 607: 601: 600: 595: 590: 585: 580: 575: 570: 565: 560: 555: 550: 545: 540: 535: 530: 525: 520: 515: 509: 508: 503: 498: 493: 488: 483: 478: 473: 468: 463: 458: 453: 448: 443: 438: 433: 428: 423: 413: 412: 408: 407: 400: 393: 385: 384: 376: 375: 370: 369: 368: 365: 354: 351: 350: 349: 337: 319: 318: 314: 299: 294: 285: 279: 278: 272: 271: 268: 261: 254: 248: 247: 244: 237: 230: 224: 223: 220: 213: 206: 200: 199: 196: 193: 190: 184: 178: 177: 171: 170: 167: 159: 158: 155: 149: 138: 137: 130: 126: 125: 119: 118: 115: 112: 110: 102: 101: 98: 95: 92: 86: 80: 79: 76: 75: 65: 60: 58:recent changes 54: 48: 47: 44: 43: 35: 30: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 16552: 16541: 16538: 16536: 16533: 16532: 16530: 16521: 16516: 16515: 16510: 16509: 16503: 16499: 16498: 16495: 16492: 16487: 16485: 16482: 16479: 16478: 16473: 16467: 16464: 16461: 16458: 16454: 16451: 16450: 16448: 16444: 16440: 16436: 16432: 16431: 16430: 16426: 16422: 16418: 16411: 16404: 16400: 16396: 16395: 16387: 16386: 16383: 16380: 16379: 16373: 16362: 16358: 16354: 16349: 16348: 16347: 16346: 16342: 16338: 16334: 16323: 16322: 16318: 16314: 16310: 16306: 16302: 16298: 16294: 16290: 16285: 16284: 16280: 16276: 16272: 16270: 16261: 16259: 16255: 16251: 16245: 16241: 16238: 16235: 16231: 16227: 16223: 16219: 16216: 16215: 16213: 16210: 16206: 16202: 16201: 16193: 16189: 16185: 16180: 16176: 16173: 16169: 16166: 16162: 16161: 16158: 16154: 16150: 16145: 16142: 16139: 16138: 16137: 16128: 16127: 16123: 16122: 16121: 16112: 16108: 16104: 16099: 16098: 16094: 16093: 16092: 16083: 16080:gave them an 16077: 16071: 16067: 16063: 16058: 16056: 16052: 16048: 16044: 16032: 16029: 16028: 16027: 16022: 16021: 16016: 16013: 16012: 16011: 16010: 16007: 16006: 16005: 16000: 15999: 15991: 15989: 15979: 15973: 15968: 15966: 15963: 15962: 15961: 15956: 15955: 15949: 15945: 15941: 15938: 15937: 15936: 15935: 15932: 15931: 15930: 15925: 15924: 15917: 15915: 15914: 15913: 15908: 15907: 15902: 15898: 15894: 15889: 15885: 15878: 15870: 15869: 15864: 15858: 15856: 15851: 15849: 15841: 15833: 15831: 15827: 15822: 15809: 15804: 15803: 15798: 15797: 15791: 15788: 15784: 15780: 15779: 15778: 15773: 15772: 15767: 15766: 15760: 15759: 15754: 15750: 15749: 15748: 15747: 15742: 15741: 15736: 15735: 15728: 15722: 15716: 15712: 15708: 15704: 15700: 15694: 15688: 15684: 15679: 15675: 15671: 15664: 15661:Statement by 15658: 15655: 15653: 15649: 15645: 15638: 15631: 15627: 15623: 15619: 15615: 15610: 15608: 15604: 15599: 15597: 15586: 15579: 15576: 15573: 15572: 15571: 15568: 15560: 15557: 15554: 15550: 15546: 15545: 15544: 15541: 15536: 15533: 15530: 15526: 15522: 15521: 15520: 15517: 15516: 15515: 15505: 15502: 15500: 15497: 15496: 15495: 15494: 15486: 15483: 15480: 15477: 15474: 15471: 15468: 15465: 15462: 15459: 15456: 15453: 15450: 15445: 15442: 15438: 15435: 15432: 15429: 15426: 15423: 15420: 15417: 15414: 15411: 15408: 15405: 15402: 15397: 15394: 15389: 15386: 15383: 15380: 15377: 15374: 15371: 15368: 15365: 15362: 15359: 15356: 15353: 15348: 15345: 15344: 15343: 15342: 15334: 15330: 15326: 15322: 15318: 15314: 15310: 15304: 15303: 15299: 15296: 15295: 15294: 15293: 15290: 15287: 15284: 15271: 15267: 15263: 15259: 15256: 15255: 15254: 15251: 15245: 15244: 15239: 15238: 15234: 15233: 15229: 15228: 15224: 15223: 15219: 15218: 15212: 15209: 15208: 15204: 15201: 15200: 15196: 15193: 15192: 15188: 15185: 15184: 15180: 15170: 15169: 15166: 15153: 15150: 15144: 15143: 15138: 15137: 15133: 15132: 15128: 15127: 15124: 15121: 15117: 15115: 15111: 15107: 15102: 15100: 15096: 15092: 15088: 15087: 15083: 15082: 15078: 15077: 15071: 15068: 15067: 15063: 15060: 15059: 15055: 15052: 15051: 15047: 15044: 15043: 15039: 15029: 15028: 15025: 15012: 15009: 15003: 15002: 14997: 14996: 14992: 14991: 14987: 14986: 14982: 14981: 14977: 14976: 14970: 14967: 14966: 14962: 14959: 14958: 14954: 14951: 14950: 14946: 14943: 14942: 14938: 14928: 14927: 14924: 14922: 14918: 14903: 14900: 14894: 14893: 14888: 14887: 14883: 14882: 14878: 14877: 14874: 14870: 14866: 14862: 14861: 14857: 14856: 14852: 14851: 14845: 14842: 14841: 14837: 14834: 14833: 14829: 14826: 14825: 14821: 14818: 14817: 14813: 14803: 14802: 14799: 14787: 14784: 14778: 14777: 14772: 14771: 14767: 14766: 14762: 14761: 14757: 14756: 14752: 14751: 14745: 14742: 14741: 14737: 14734: 14733: 14729: 14726: 14725: 14721: 14718: 14717: 14713: 14703: 14702: 14699: 14697: 14693: 14689: 14675: 14671: 14667: 14663: 14662: 14661: 14660: 14657: 14651: 14650: 14636: 14635: 14632: 14626: 14625: 14619: 14617: 14609: 14607: 14604: 14601: 14600: 14594: 14592: 14588: 14584: 14580: 14576: 14572: 14567: 14563: 14559: 14555: 14551: 14548: 14544: 14540: 14539: 14538: 14535: 14531: 14529: 14525: 14521: 14517: 14513: 14499: 14495: 14491: 14486: 14485: 14484: 14481: 14475: 14474: 14468: 14467: 14466: 14462: 14458: 14454: 14447: 14442: 14441: 14440: 14436: 14432: 14427: 14426: 14425: 14421: 14417: 14410: 14405: 14404: 14403: 14399: 14395: 14391: 14387: 14385: 14379: 14378: 14377: 14373: 14369: 14365: 14353: 14349: 14345: 14339: 14334: 14333: 14332: 14328: 14324: 14317: 14312: 14311: 14310: 14306: 14302: 14298: 14297: 14296: 14292: 14288: 14282: 14277: 14276: 14275: 14271: 14267: 14263: 14257: 14252: 14251: 14250: 14246: 14242: 14237: 14235: 14231: 14228: 14225: 14222: 14219: 14212: 14211: 14206: 14203: 14199: 14192: 14185: 14181: 14180: 14172: 14171: 14168: 14165: 14164: 14158: 14157: 14152: 14147: 14146: 14141: 14137: 14133: 14123: 14122: 14119: 14117: 14113: 14108: 14101: 14097: 14087: 14086: 14082: 14078: 14072: 14069: 14068:Gaza Genocide 14059: 14058: 14054: 14050: 14044: 14042: 14038: 14032: 14028: 14024: 14021: 14017: 14013: 14012: 14011: 14010: 14006: 14002: 13992: 13991:WP:CANVASSing 13988: 13987:WP:TAGTEAMing 13978: 13977: 13972: 13968: 13963: 13958: 13953: 13948: 13944: 13940: 13939: 13934: 13930: 13925: 13919: 13917: 13912: 13908: 13902: 13897: 13893: 13888: 13884: 13883: 13882: 13879: 13875: 13871: 13865: 13864: 13863: 13862: 13857: 13853: 13848: 13844: 13840: 13839: 13834: 13830: 13825: 13820: 13816: 13811: 13808: 13798: 13797: 13793: 13789: 13785: 13781: 13776: 13774: 13773:false balance 13770: 13766: 13762: 13759:. Looking at 13758: 13754: 13750: 13746: 13742: 13738: 13728: 13727: 13723: 13719: 13715: 13696: 13692: 13689: 13683: 13680: 13675: 13674: 13669: 13666: 13663: 13660: 13657: 13654: 13651: 13645: 13640: 13639: 13638: 13637: 13634: 13629: 13628: 13623: 13619: 13615: 13611: 13606: 13601: 13599: 13595: 13585: 13582: 13581: 13578: 13575: 13568: 13558: 13557: 13553: 13549: 13544: 13543:Gaza genocide 13540: 13536: 13531: 13529: 13515: 13512: 13508: 13503: 13502: 13501: 13498: 13494: 13490: 13486: 13481: 13479: 13476: 13472: 13467: 13466: 13465: 13461: 13459: 13455: 13451: 13446: 13445:wide reaching 13442: 13438: 13433: 13431: 13427: 13423: 13419: 13415: 13411: 13405: 13403: 13399: 13395: 13391: 13387: 13382: 13368: 13364: 13360: 13355: 13354: 13353: 13349: 13345: 13341: 13338: 13333: 13329: 13326: 13322: 13321: 13309: 13305: 13301: 13297: 13296: 13295: 13294: 13293: 13289: 13285: 13281: 13280: 13279: 13278: 13274: 13270: 13258: 13255: 13251: 13250: 13247: 13243: 13239: 13235: 13232: 13228: 13225: 13220: 13216: 13212: 13211:Gaza genocide 13208: 13207:User:xDanielx 13205: 13204: 13198: 13197: 13196: 13195: 13191: 13188: 13187: 13186: 13177: 13173: 13169: 13165: 13163: 13160: 13156: 13153: 13152:Knowledge:RD3 13149: 13148:Knowledge:RD2 13144: 13140: 13137: 13136: 13135: 13134: 13131: 13127: 13123: 13119: 13114: 13112: 13108: 13104: 13100: 13098: 13095: 13092: 13089: 13086: 13083: 13081: 13077: 13073: 13069: 13065: 13061: 13058: 13053: 13049: 13048: 13047: 13046: 13039: 13036: 13031: 13028: 13027:play as a cat 13024: 13023: 13022: 13021: 13018: 13014: 13010: 13006: 13003: 13000: 12996: 12992: 12989: 12988: 12982: 12979: 12978: 12975: 12974: 12973: 12964: 12960: 12957: 12953: 12949: 12938: 12937: 12934: 12925: 12922: 12919: 12918: 12917: 12915: 12904: 12903: 12899: 12895: 12890: 12886: 12884: 12875: 12874: 12870: 12869: 12865: 12864: 12863: 12860: 12856: 12847: 12846: 12841: 12836: 12828: 12826: 12823: 12820: 12817: 12814: 12810: 12809:Gaza genocide 12805: 12803: 12799: 12794: 12789: 12787: 12777: 12776: 12772: 12766: 12751: 12745: 12744: 12740: 12734: 12719: 12711: 12708: 12705: 12702: 12699: 12696: 12693: 12689: 12688: 12687: 12685: 12680: 12678: 12674: 12669: 12667: 12663: 12657: 12653: 12650: 12646: 12642: 12641: 12637: 12631: 12616: 12612: 12608: 12603: 12602: 12598: 12592: 12573: 12570: 12567: 12564: 12563: 12562: 12559: 12555: 12551: 12546: 12542: 12531: 12527: 12523: 12519: 12515: 12511: 12510: 12509: 12508: 12504: 12500: 12494: 12483: 12479: 12475: 12469: 12463: 12457: 12451: 12447: 12444: 12442: 12436: 12431: 12430: 12429: 12428: 12424: 12420: 12416: 12412: 12408: 12404: 12399: 12397: 12393: 12388: 12385: 12380: 12378: 12374: 12370: 12366: 12361: 12360:Wikilawyering 12356: 12351: 12349: 12345: 12341: 12337: 12333: 12329: 12325: 12320: 12308: 12305: 12300: 12293: 12287: 12284: 12280: 12276: 12272: 12271: 12270: 12267: 12259: 12255: 12254: 12253: 12252: 12249: 12245: 12244: 12239: 12238: 12232: 12230: 12225: 12223: 12219: 12208: 12207: 12203: 12199: 12193: 12189: 12181: 12180: 12174: 12158: 12151: 12149: 12144: 12142: 12134: 12128: 12127: 12124: 12117: 12115: 12110: 12108: 12102: 12097: 12093: 12087: 12081: 12080: 12079: 12078: 12071: 12069: 12064: 12062: 12056: 12052: 12048: 12040: 12036: 12032: 12031:case in point 12028: 12024: 12020: 12017: 12013: 12009: 12008: 12007: 12000: 11993: 11991: 11986: 11984: 11978: 11974: 11971: 11969: 11968: 11967:participants. 11963: 11962: 11958: 11957: 11952: 11945: 11943: 11938: 11936: 11930: 11926: 11922: 11921: 11920: 11913: 11911: 11906: 11904: 11897: 11896: 11892: 11888: 11883: 11879: 11875: 11871: 11869: 11862: 11860: 11855: 11853: 11845: 11839: 11835: 11834: 11833: 11832: 11831: 11830: 11823: 11821: 11816: 11814: 11808: 11804: 11799: 11797: 11793: 11789: 11785: 11781: 11777: 11773: 11751: 11748: 11743: 11738: 11732: 11727: 11726: 11725: 11722: 11717: 11712: 11705: 11701: 11700: 11699: 11696: 11691: 11686: 11680: 11675: 11674: 11673: 11670: 11665: 11660: 11654: 11649: 11648: 11647: 11644: 11639: 11634: 11627: 11623: 11622: 11621: 11618: 11613: 11608: 11601: 11600: 11599: 11598: 11595: 11590: 11585: 11570: 11565: 11555: 11548: 11547: 11546: 11545: 11540: 11530: 11520: 11515: 11505: 11499: 11495: 11488: 11483: 11477: 11472: 11462: 11453: 11448: 11447: 11446: 11445: 11444: 11439: 11429: 11420: 11415: 11414: 11413: 11412: 11407: 11397: 11391: 11382: 11381: 11377: 11373: 11369: 11361: 11357: 11352: 11351: 11346: 11345: 11340: 11336: 11332: 11331: 11327: 11326: 11325: 11323: 11319: 11315: 11307: 11303: 11299: 11295: 11291: 11287: 11282: 11281: 11280: 11279: 11275: 11271: 11267: 11263: 11258: 11253: 11249: 11245: 11232: 11228: 11224: 11220: 11217: 11216: 11215: 11214: 11210: 11206: 11201: 11184: 11180: 11176: 11172: 11171: 11170: 11166: 11162: 11158: 11156: 11152: 11148: 11143: 11141: 11137: 11133: 11129: 11121: 11117: 11113: 11108: 11107: 11106: 11102: 11098: 11093: 11090: 11085: 11084: 11081: 11076: 11073: 11070: 11069: 11066: 11062: 11059: 11054: 11050: 11047: 11043: 11039: 11035: 11034: 11033: 11030: 11024: 11023: 11017: 11013: 11012: 11011: 11007: 11003: 10998: 10996: 10992: 10988: 10983: 10981: 10977: 10973: 10968: 10967: 10966: 10962: 10958: 10954: 10950: 10946: 10942: 10941: 10940: 10939: 10935: 10931: 10927: 10916: 10912: 10908: 10903: 10901: 10897: 10893: 10889: 10885: 10880: 10878: 10874: 10870: 10865: 10864: 10863: 10862: 10858: 10854: 10843: 10842: 10839: 10838: 10831: 10827: 10811: 10797: 10793: 10789: 10785: 10784: 10783: 10782: 10781: 10777: 10773: 10769: 10765: 10761: 10760: 10759: 10758: 10754: 10750: 10746: 10742: 10738: 10734: 10730: 10729:User:Bolter21 10726: 10722: 10718: 10714: 10710: 10709:User:טבעת-זרם 10706: 10702: 10698: 10694: 10693:User:XDanielx 10690: 10686: 10682: 10678: 10674: 10670: 10664: 10660: 10656: 10652: 10651: 10648: 10646: 10637: 10633: 10632: 10623: 10619: 10615: 10611: 10607: 10602: 10599: 10595: 10594: 10593: 10589: 10585: 10581: 10580: 10579: 10575: 10571: 10567: 10563: 10559: 10556: 10553: 10548: 10545: 10543: 10537: 10534: 10532: 10528: 10524: 10519: 10515: 10511: 10506: 10502: 10498: 10497: 10496: 10495: 10492: 10488: 10484: 10479: 10475: 10471: 10467: 10463: 10458: 10456: 10452: 10448: 10444: 10440: 10436: 10432: 10428: 10425: 10423: 10419: 10415: 10410: 10406: 10403:BilledMammal 10402: 10399: 10397: 10393: 10389: 10385: 10384: 10379: 10378: 10375: 10371: 10367: 10363: 10359: 10355: 10354: 10351: 10347: 10343: 10340: 10339:Finally, this 10337: 10336: 10317: 10313: 10309: 10304: 10299: 10298: 10297: 10293: 10289: 10284: 10281: 10279: 10276: 10272: 10268: 10262: 10258: 10254: 10251: 10247: 10244: 10240: 10239: 10238: 10234: 10230: 10226: 10222: 10218: 10217: 10216: 10212: 10208: 10203: 10199: 10198: 10197: 10193: 10189: 10185: 10181: 10180:Joseph's Tomb 10177: 10173: 10168: 10164: 10163: 10162: 10158: 10154: 10150: 10147: 10145: 10142: 10139: 10135: 10131: 10128: 10127: 10126: 10122: 10118: 10114: 10110: 10109: 10108: 10104: 10100: 10096: 10092: 10091: 10090: 10086: 10082: 10078: 10074: 10073: 10072: 10071: 10067: 10063: 10058: 10049: 10045: 10041: 10038: 10035: 10031: 10028: 10024: 10020: 10017: 10014: 10009: 10005: 10001: 9997: 9994: 9991: 9987: 9983: 9980: 9978: 9973: 9969: 9965: 9962: 9959: 9955: 9952:: there is a 9951: 9948: 9945: 9943: 9937: 9934: 9931: 9927: 9923: 9920: 9917: 9916:See this note 9913: 9909: 9905: 9901: 9898: 9895: 9891: 9887: 9884: 9883: 9882: 9880: 9879:Occam's razor 9875: 9874:behaviourally 9865: 9864: 9861: 9860: 9859: 9856: 9853: 9850: 9844: 9834: 9833: 9830: 9829: 9828: 9825: 9822: 9819: 9813: 9809: 9804: 9803: 9800: 9799: 9798: 9795: 9792: 9789: 9769: 9765: 9761: 9755: 9750: 9745: 9744: 9743: 9742: 9738: 9734: 9727: 9712: 9708: 9704: 9700: 9696: 9691: 9687: 9686: 9685: 9682: 9676: 9675: 9670: 9666: 9665: 9664: 9663: 9659: 9655: 9650: 9639: 9635: 9631: 9626: 9625: 9624: 9620: 9616: 9612: 9608: 9607: 9606: 9602: 9598: 9594: 9592: 9588: 9584: 9580: 9576: 9572: 9568: 9564: 9560: 9556: 9552: 9545: 9540: 9538: 9534: 9530: 9525: 9524: 9523: 9519: 9515: 9510: 9508: 9504: 9500: 9496: 9492: 9486: 9482: 9478: 9474: 9470: 9465: 9461: 9460: 9459: 9455: 9451: 9446: 9442: 9440: 9436: 9432: 9428: 9424: 9422: 9418: 9414: 9409: 9405: 9401: 9400: 9399: 9395: 9391: 9386: 9385: 9380: 9378: 9374: 9370: 9365: 9361: 9357: 9353: 9347: 9342: 9341: 9340: 9336: 9332: 9328: 9324: 9319: 9309: 9305: 9301: 9296: 9295: 9294: 9290: 9286: 9282: 9278: 9277: 9276: 9272: 9268: 9263: 9262: 9257: 9253: 9252: 9251: 9247: 9243: 9238: 9234: 9233: 9232: 9228: 9224: 9219: 9215: 9211: 9207: 9205: 9201: 9197: 9193: 9188: 9187: 9186: 9185: 9181: 9177: 9173: 9169: 9168: 9154: 9150: 9146: 9142: 9138: 9134: 9131: 9127: 9123: 9119: 9115: 9112: 9111: 9110: 9106: 9102: 9098: 9095: 9093: 9089: 9085: 9080: 9077: 9074: 9070: 9067: 9065: 9061: 9057: 9052: 9050: 9046: 9042: 9038: 9035: 9033: 9029: 9025: 9021: 9018: 9016: 9012: 9008: 9004: 9000: 8997: 8996: 8995: 8994: 8990: 8986: 8976: 8970: 8965: 8961: 8960: 8959: 8956: 8954: 8944: 8943: 8940: 8936: 8934: 8930: 8928: 8924: 8922: 8918: 8916: 8907: 8906: 8903: 8896: 8885: 8882: 8875: 8870: 8869: 8868: 8867: 8864: 8860: 8855: 8854: 8851: 8841: 8836: 8835: 8832: 8828: 8827:Ephraim Karsh 8824: 8818: 8817: 8814: 8810: 8806: 8799: 8796: 8789: 8781: 8780: 8779: 8778: 8775: 8771: 8767: 8763: 8758: 8752: 8743: 8742: 8739: 8735: 8729: 8718: 8715: 8708: 8700: 8699: 8696: 8693: 8686: 8678: 8677: 8676: 8675: 8672: 8664: 8661: 8656: 8653: 8650: 8646: 8643: 8639: 8638: 8637: 8627: 8623: 8619: 8616: 8612: 8608: 8603: 8598: 8594: 8590: 8586: 8582: 8578: 8574: 8572: 8568: 8564: 8561: 8557: 8554: 8550: 8546: 8543: 8539: 8535: 8531: 8527: 8524: 8520: 8516: 8511: 8510: 8509: 8505: 8501: 8497: 8493: 8490: 8487: 8479: 8474: 8470: 8466: 8462: 8458: 8452: 8447: 8446: 8445: 8441: 8437: 8433: 8429: 8425: 8422: 8418: 8412: 8408: 8403: 8399: 8395: 8391: 8386: 8382: 8378: 8377: 8376: 8375: 8366: 8363: 8360: 8357: 8354: 8353: 8352: 8350: 8343: 8340: 8339: 8338: 8336: 8330:IOHANNVSVERVS 8329: 8326: 8323: 8320: 8317: 8314: 8311: 8308: 8305: 8302: 8299: 8296: 8293: 8292: 8291: 8289: 8285: 8284: 8278: 8277: 8268: 8264: 8261: 8260: 8259: 8255: 8251: 8246: 8241: 8237: 8235: 8231: 8228: 8222: 8217: 8215: 8211: 8207: 8203: 8200: 8193: 8188: 8182: 8178: 8174: 8168: 8165: 8162: 8158: 8153: 8150: 8147: 8143: 8138: 8133: 8129: 8125: 8121: 8111: 8106: 8105: 8104: 8100: 8096: 8092: 8088: 8083: 8078: 8073: 8066: 8063: 8060: 8058: 8054: 8048: 8045: 8041: 8038: 8030: 8025: 8024: 8023: 8019: 8015: 8012: 8002: 7997: 7992: 7987: 7986: 7985: 7981: 7978: 7975: 7974:RM statistics 7972: 7971: 7969: 7968: 7967: 7963: 7959: 7953: 7948: 7945: 7941: 7935: 7932: 7928: 7922: 7917: 7911: 7907: 7903: 7899: 7893: 7888: 7887: 7886: 7882: 7878: 7871: 7866: 7865: 7864: 7860: 7856: 7852: 7848: 7844: 7840: 7838: 7834: 7830: 7829: 7827: 7822: 7817: 7815: 7811: 7807: 7802: 7799: 7796: 7790: 7785: 7783: 7779: 7775: 7770: 7767: 7766:WP:COMMONNAME 7763: 7758: 7757: 7756: 7755: 7751: 7747: 7733: 7728: 7724: 7721: 7717: 7714: 7710: 7709: 7707: 7706: 7704: 7700: 7696: 7695: 7693: 7688: 7685: 7684:fourth pillar 7681: 7680: 7678: 7675: 7669: 7668: 7666: 7665: 7664: 7656: 7655: 7651: 7650: 7642: 7638: 7632: 7631: 7627: 7626: 7619: 7614: 7609: 7608: 7604: 7603: 7594: 7593: 7589: 7588: 7577: 7573: 7572: 7565: 7561: 7557: 7553: 7549: 7548: 7541: 7540: 7539: 7535: 7534: 7527: 7523: 7519: 7515: 7514: 7506: 7502: 7501: 7500: 7496: 7495: 7487: 7483: 7478: 7476: 7475: 7471: 7470: 7462: 7456: 7452: 7448: 7443: 7442: 7441: 7440: 7436: 7435: 7421: 7420: 7416: 7412: 7407: 7405: 7390: 7389: 7385: 7381: 7375: 7374: 7370: 7366: 7362: 7358: 7357: 7353: 7349: 7345: 7341: 7337: 7336: 7332: 7328: 7322: 7318: 7311: 7307: 7303: 7298: 7293: 7289: 7286: 7283: 7279: 7276: 7274: 7271: 7270: 7268: 7264: 7261: 7260: 7259: 7256: 7254: 7250: 7249: 7245: 7241: 7237: 7233: 7232: 7228: 7224: 7219: 7215: 7214: 7210: 7206: 7200: 7199: 7195: 7191: 7183: 7179: 7175: 7168: 7167: 7166: 7165: 7156: 7153: 7150: 7149: 7146: 7145: 7144: 7140: 7139: 7135: 7134: 7130: 7126: 7120: 7113: 7109: 7105: 7101: 7098: 7094: 7090: 7089: 7088: 7085: 7084: 7080: 7079: 7075: 7071: 7066: 7061: 7060: 7056: 7055: 7051: 7047: 7043: 7034: 7031: 7030: 7028: 7024: 7021: 7020: 7019: 7013: 7010: 7007: 7006: 7005: 7002: 6998: 6997: 6993: 6992:Meme check #2 6989: 6988: 6984: 6980: 6976: 6972: 6968: 6967: 6963: 6959: 6952: 6949: 6948: 6947: 6945: 6938: 6934: 6931: 6930: 6929: 6923: 6920: 6919: 6918: 6912: 6909: 6908: 6907: 6904: 6900: 6897: 6895: 6891: 6890:Meme check #1 6887: 6886: 6882: 6878: 6872: 6870: 6865: 6860: 6856: 6850: 6847: 6844: 6840: 6836: 6835: 6834: 6832: 6828: 6827: 6823: 6819: 6812: 6807: 6804: 6800: 6797: 6793: 6789: 6788: 6787: 6784: 6783: 6779: 6778: 6774: 6770: 6761: 6758: 6755: 6752: 6751: 6747: 6744: 6741: 6738: 6737: 6733: 6730: 6727: 6724: 6723: 6719: 6716: 6713: 6710: 6709: 6705: 6702: 6699: 6696: 6695: 6691: 6688: 6685: 6682: 6681: 6677: 6674: 6671: 6668: 6667: 6663: 6660: 6657: 6654: 6653: 6649: 6646: 6643: 6640: 6639: 6635: 6632: 6629: 6626: 6625: 6621: 6618: 6615: 6612: 6611: 6607: 6604: 6601: 6598: 6597: 6593: 6590: 6587: 6585: 6584: 6574: 6571: 6568: 6567: 6565: 6561: 6557: 6556: 6554: 6551: 6548: 6545: 6544: 6543: 6540: 6539: 6535: 6534: 6530: 6526: 6520: 6519: 6515: 6511: 6502: 6501: 6500: 6497: 6481: 6477: 6473: 6469: 6465: 6461: 6457: 6454: 6453: 6452: 6451: 6447: 6443: 6439: 6428: 6427: 6423: 6419: 6415: 6411: 6406: 6405: 6401: 6397: 6389: 6385: 6381: 6376: 6375: 6374: 6373: 6369: 6365: 6362: 6357: 6356: 6352: 6348: 6341: 6334: 6333: 6329: 6325: 6321: 6316: 6315: 6311: 6307: 6303: 6298: 6289: 6285: 6281: 6277: 6273: 6268: 6263: 6262: 6261: 6260: 6256: 6252: 6248: 6243: 6242: 6238: 6234: 6230: 6226: 6221: 6220: 6216: 6212: 6208: 6204: 6199: 6198: 6194: 6190: 6186: 6182: 6178: 6174: 6162: 6158: 6154: 6150: 6147: 6144: 6141: 6138: 6135: 6131: 6130: 6129: 6128: 6124: 6120: 6114: 6112: 6108: 6104: 6103:Gaza genocide 6089: 6085: 6081: 6077: 6076: 6074: 6070: 6066: 6062: 6058: 6056: 6052: 6048: 6044: 6040: 6038: 6034: 6030: 6025: 6021: 6013: 6010: 6007: 6006: 6000: 5996: 5995: 5994: 5993: 5991: 5987: 5986: 5983: 5979: 5975: 5971: 5968: 5966: 5964: 5960: 5959: 5958: 5954: 5950: 5946: 5942: 5937: 5933: 5929: 5925: 5920: 5919: 5918: 5914: 5910: 5906: 5902: 5898: 5896: 5892: 5888: 5883: 5881: 5877: 5873: 5869: 5865: 5863: 5859: 5855: 5851: 5847: 5843: 5839: 5835: 5830: 5828: 5824: 5820: 5815: 5810: 5809: 5794: 5790: 5786: 5781: 5776: 5772: 5769: 5768: 5767: 5763: 5759: 5755: 5751: 5747: 5743: 5739: 5735: 5731: 5727: 5723: 5719: 5718: 5717: 5716: 5712: 5708: 5703: 5695: 5690: 5686: 5682: 5678: 5677:Gaza genocide 5673: 5669: 5668: 5667: 5663: 5662: 5658: 5654: 5648: 5646: 5642: 5638: 5633: 5630: 5626: 5621: 5617: 5613: 5610: 5606: 5601: 5594: 5590: 5586: 5582: 5578: 5573: 5569: 5568: 5567: 5566: 5562: 5558: 5554: 5550: 5545: 5539: 5538: 5534: 5530: 5526: 5522: 5520: 5514: 5508: 5507: 5503: 5499: 5495: 5494:WP:ASPERSIONS 5489: 5488: 5484: 5480: 5474: 5472: 5466: 5464: 5459: 5457: 5453: 5449: 5445: 5440: 5437: 5424: 5420: 5414: 5407: 5406: 5399: 5395: 5389: 5384: 5382: 5378: 5372: 5366: 5362: 5358: 5354: 5350: 5347: 5344: 5340: 5336: 5334: 5330: 5324: 5318: 5314: 5306: 5303: 5299: 5294: 5292: 5288: 5282: 5275: 5268: 5263: 5259: 5255: 5249: 5241: 5236: 5232: 5228: 5222: 5216: 5215: 5214: 5210: 5204: 5197: 5193: 5192: 5191: 5187: 5181: 5173: 5168: 5167: 5166: 5165: 5161: 5155: 5148: 5144: 5142: 5138: 5126: 5122: 5116: 5110: 5106: 5102: 5098: 5094: 5090: 5085: 5082: 5079: 5076: 5073: 5072: 5068: 5067: 5066: 5065: 5061: 5057: 5053: 5052: 5048: 5047: 5044: 5041: 5039: 5036: 5034: 5031: 5029: 5028:TarnishedPath 5026: 5024: 5021: 5019: 5016: 5014: 5011: 5009: 5006: 5004: 5001: 4999: 4996: 4994: 4991: 4989: 4986: 4984: 4981: 4979: 4976: 4974: 4973:IOHANNVSVERVS 4971: 4969: 4966: 4964: 4961: 4959: 4956: 4954: 4951: 4949: 4946: 4944: 4941: 4940: 4936: 4935: 4930: 4927: 4924: 4921: 4918: 4915: 4912: 4909: 4906: 4903: 4900: 4897: 4894: 4891: 4888: 4883: 4880: 4876: 4873: 4870: 4867: 4864: 4861: 4858: 4855: 4852: 4849: 4846: 4843: 4840: 4837: 4834: 4829: 4826: 4822: 4819: 4816: 4813: 4810: 4807: 4804: 4801: 4798: 4795: 4792: 4789: 4786: 4783: 4780: 4775: 4772: 4767: 4764: 4761: 4758: 4755: 4752: 4749: 4746: 4743: 4740: 4737: 4734: 4731: 4728: 4725: 4720: 4717: 4716: 4712: 4711: 4706: 4703: 4700: 4697: 4694: 4691: 4688: 4685: 4682: 4679: 4676: 4673: 4670: 4665: 4662: 4658: 4655: 4652: 4649: 4646: 4643: 4640: 4637: 4634: 4631: 4628: 4625: 4622: 4617: 4614: 4610: 4607: 4604: 4601: 4598: 4595: 4592: 4589: 4586: 4583: 4580: 4577: 4574: 4569: 4566: 4562: 4559: 4556: 4553: 4550: 4547: 4544: 4541: 4538: 4535: 4532: 4529: 4526: 4521: 4520:TarnishedPath 4518: 4514: 4511: 4508: 4505: 4502: 4499: 4496: 4493: 4490: 4487: 4484: 4481: 4478: 4473: 4470: 4469: 4465: 4464: 4459: 4456: 4453: 4450: 4447: 4444: 4441: 4438: 4435: 4432: 4429: 4426: 4423: 4418: 4415: 4411: 4408: 4405: 4402: 4399: 4396: 4393: 4390: 4387: 4384: 4381: 4378: 4375: 4370: 4367: 4363: 4360: 4357: 4354: 4351: 4348: 4345: 4342: 4339: 4336: 4333: 4330: 4327: 4322: 4319: 4315: 4312: 4309: 4306: 4303: 4300: 4297: 4294: 4291: 4288: 4285: 4282: 4279: 4274: 4271: 4267: 4264: 4261: 4258: 4255: 4252: 4249: 4246: 4243: 4240: 4237: 4234: 4231: 4226: 4223: 4219: 4216: 4213: 4210: 4207: 4204: 4201: 4198: 4195: 4192: 4189: 4186: 4183: 4178: 4175: 4171: 4168: 4165: 4162: 4159: 4156: 4153: 4150: 4147: 4144: 4141: 4138: 4135: 4130: 4129:IOHANNVSVERVS 4127: 4123: 4120: 4117: 4114: 4111: 4108: 4105: 4102: 4099: 4096: 4093: 4090: 4087: 4082: 4079: 4075: 4072: 4069: 4066: 4063: 4060: 4057: 4054: 4051: 4048: 4045: 4042: 4039: 4034: 4031: 4027: 4024: 4021: 4018: 4015: 4012: 4009: 4006: 4003: 4000: 3997: 3994: 3991: 3986: 3983: 3979: 3976: 3973: 3970: 3967: 3964: 3961: 3958: 3955: 3952: 3949: 3946: 3943: 3938: 3935: 3931: 3928: 3925: 3922: 3919: 3916: 3913: 3910: 3907: 3904: 3901: 3898: 3895: 3890: 3887: 3882: 3879: 3876: 3873: 3870: 3867: 3864: 3861: 3858: 3855: 3852: 3849: 3846: 3841: 3838: 3837: 3834: 3831: 3829: 3826: 3825: 3821: 3817: 3813: 3812: 3808: 3807: 3803: 3797: 3793: 3789: 3785: 3781: 3777: 3773: 3767: 3766: 3762: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3756: 3753: 3750: 3747: 3734: 3730: 3727: 3724: 3721: 3718: 3711: 3710: 3705: 3701: 3700: 3699: 3696: 3690: 3689: 3683: 3682: 3677: 3673: 3669: 3665: 3661: 3655: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3644: 3640: 3637: 3634: 3631: 3628: 3621: 3620: 3615: 3611: 3607: 3603: 3599: 3595: 3591: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3581: 3578: 3575: 3572: 3569: 3562: 3561: 3556: 3554: 3547: 3545: 3541: 3537: 3531: 3527: 3523: 3522: 3518: 3517: 3513: 3512: 3509: 3505: 3501: 3497: 3493: 3492: 3488: 3487: 3484: 3480: 3476: 3473: 3472: 3468: 3467: 3461: 3458: 3457: 3453: 3450: 3449: 3445: 3442: 3441: 3437: 3434: 3433: 3429: 3419: 3418: 3415: 3414: 3413:are repealed. 3412: 3410: 3405: 3401: 3397: 3392: 3391: 3389: 3381: 3371: 3362: 3358: 3357: 3355: 3349: 3347: 3342: 3325: 3321: 3317: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3307: 3304: 3301: 3298: 3295: 3288: 3287: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3276: 3272: 3268: 3264: 3263: 3259: 3258: 3254: 3253: 3250: 3246: 3242: 3237: 3236: 3232: 3231: 3227: 3226: 3220: 3217: 3216: 3212: 3209: 3208: 3204: 3201: 3200: 3196: 3193: 3192: 3188: 3178: 3177: 3174: 3173: 3169: 3153: 3149: 3146: 3143: 3140: 3137: 3130: 3129: 3124: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3114: 3111: 3108: 3105: 3102: 3095: 3094: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3076: 3074: 3071: 3067: 3063: 3059: 3055: 3050: 3046: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3036: 3032: 3028: 3026: 3022: 3018: 3009: 3005: 3001: 3000: 2998: 2994: 2989: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2978: 2976: 2973: 2972: 2970: 2966: 2962: 2958: 2957: 2951: 2945: 2944: 2939: 2936: 2926: 2923: 2920: 2918: 2915: 2914: 2911: 2908: 2898: 2895: 2892: 2890: 2887: 2886: 2882: 2879: 2876: 2873: 2870: 2867: 2864: 2863: 2860: 2858: 2847: 2846: 2843: 2840: 2839: 2833: 2832: 2828: 2822: 2809: 2808: 2805: 2802: 2795: 2794: 2791: 2788: 2775: 2774: 2771: 2767: 2763: 2750: 2746: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2733: 2728: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2719: 2715: 2711: 2707: 2706: 2701: 2697: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2673: 2662: 2661: 2659: 2658: 2651: 2650: 2649:Then either: 2648: 2645: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2637: 2626: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2611: 2607: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2593: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2554: 2550: 2546: 2541: 2535: 2529: 2527: 2522: 2520: 2515: 2512: 2510: 2506: 2500: 2493: 2489: 2477: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2454: 2453: 2450: 2443: 2442: 2439: 2433: 2424: 2423: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2408: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2390: 2384: 2381: 2379: 2373: 2370: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2360: 2351: 2350: 2347: 2342: 2338: 2335:As I see it, 2328: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2314: 2309: 2305: 2302: 2294: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2275: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2261: 2257: 2250: 2244: 2243: 2239: 2235: 2229: 2223: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2204: 2195: 2189: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2171: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2152: 2146: 2145: 2140: 2133: 2127: 2125: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2105: 2104: 2100: 2099: 2096: 2094: 2093: 2089: 2088: 2083: 2080: 2077: 2074: 2071: 2068: 2065: 2062: 2059: 2056: 2053: 2050: 2047: 2044: 2041: 2036: 2033: 2028: 2025: 2022: 2019: 2016: 2013: 2010: 2007: 2004: 2001: 1998: 1995: 1992: 1987: 1984: 1983: 1980: 1977: 1976: 1973: 1970: 1969: 1965: 1964: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1929: 1928: 1924: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1915: 1912: 1909: 1883: 1876: 1873: 1871: 1868: 1867: 1864: 1861: 1859: 1856: 1854: 1851: 1849: 1846: 1844: 1841: 1839: 1836: 1834: 1831: 1829: 1826: 1824: 1821: 1819: 1816: 1814: 1811: 1809: 1806: 1804: 1801: 1799: 1796: 1794: 1791: 1789: 1786: 1784: 1781: 1779: 1776: 1775: 1772: 1769: 1767: 1764: 1762: 1759: 1757: 1754: 1752: 1749: 1747: 1744: 1742: 1739: 1737: 1734: 1732: 1729: 1727: 1724: 1722: 1719: 1717: 1714: 1712: 1709: 1707: 1704: 1702: 1699: 1697: 1694: 1692: 1689: 1687: 1684: 1683: 1680: 1677: 1675: 1672: 1670: 1667: 1665: 1662: 1660: 1657: 1655: 1652: 1650: 1647: 1645: 1642: 1640: 1637: 1635: 1632: 1630: 1627: 1625: 1622: 1620: 1617: 1615: 1612: 1610: 1607: 1605: 1602: 1600: 1597: 1595: 1592: 1591: 1588: 1585: 1583: 1580: 1578: 1575: 1573: 1570: 1568: 1565: 1563: 1560: 1558: 1555: 1553: 1550: 1548: 1545: 1543: 1540: 1538: 1535: 1533: 1530: 1528: 1525: 1523: 1520: 1518: 1515: 1513: 1510: 1508: 1505: 1503: 1500: 1499: 1496: 1493: 1491: 1488: 1486: 1483: 1481: 1478: 1476: 1473: 1471: 1468: 1466: 1463: 1461: 1458: 1456: 1453: 1451: 1448: 1446: 1443: 1441: 1438: 1436: 1433: 1431: 1428: 1426: 1423: 1421: 1418: 1416: 1413: 1411: 1408: 1407: 1404: 1401: 1399: 1396: 1394: 1391: 1389: 1386: 1384: 1381: 1379: 1376: 1374: 1371: 1369: 1366: 1364: 1361: 1359: 1356: 1354: 1351: 1349: 1346: 1344: 1341: 1339: 1336: 1334: 1331: 1329: 1326: 1324: 1321: 1319: 1316: 1315: 1312: 1309: 1307: 1304: 1302: 1299: 1297: 1294: 1292: 1289: 1287: 1284: 1282: 1279: 1277: 1274: 1272: 1269: 1267: 1264: 1262: 1259: 1257: 1254: 1252: 1249: 1247: 1244: 1242: 1239: 1237: 1234: 1232: 1229: 1227: 1224: 1223: 1220: 1219: 1211: 1206: 1204: 1199: 1197: 1192: 1191: 1187: 1184: 1178: 1170: 1169:.../Amendment 1166: 1163: 1161: 1158: 1156: 1153: 1151: 1148: 1146: 1143: 1141: 1138: 1136: 1133: 1132: 1129: 1125: 1123: 1114: 1112: 1107: 1105: 1100: 1078: 1071: 1068: 1066: 1063: 1062: 1059: 1056: 1054: 1051: 1049: 1046: 1044: 1041: 1039: 1036: 1034: 1031: 1029: 1026: 1024: 1021: 1019: 1016: 1014: 1011: 1009: 1006: 1004: 1001: 999: 996: 994: 991: 989: 986: 984: 981: 979: 976: 974: 971: 970: 967: 964: 962: 959: 957: 954: 952: 949: 947: 944: 942: 939: 937: 934: 932: 929: 927: 924: 922: 919: 917: 914: 912: 909: 907: 904: 902: 899: 897: 894: 892: 889: 887: 884: 882: 879: 878: 875: 872: 870: 867: 865: 862: 860: 857: 855: 852: 850: 847: 845: 842: 840: 837: 835: 832: 830: 827: 825: 822: 820: 817: 815: 812: 810: 807: 805: 802: 800: 797: 795: 792: 790: 787: 786: 783: 780: 778: 775: 773: 770: 768: 765: 763: 760: 758: 755: 753: 750: 748: 745: 743: 740: 738: 735: 733: 730: 728: 725: 723: 720: 718: 715: 713: 710: 708: 705: 703: 700: 698: 695: 694: 691: 688: 686: 683: 681: 678: 676: 673: 671: 668: 666: 663: 661: 658: 656: 653: 651: 648: 646: 643: 641: 638: 636: 633: 631: 628: 626: 623: 621: 618: 616: 613: 611: 608: 606: 603: 602: 599: 596: 594: 591: 589: 586: 584: 581: 579: 576: 574: 571: 569: 566: 564: 561: 559: 556: 554: 551: 549: 546: 544: 541: 539: 536: 534: 531: 529: 526: 524: 521: 519: 516: 514: 511: 510: 507: 504: 502: 499: 497: 494: 492: 489: 487: 484: 482: 479: 477: 474: 472: 469: 467: 464: 462: 459: 457: 454: 452: 449: 447: 444: 442: 439: 437: 434: 432: 429: 427: 424: 422: 419: 418: 415: 414: 406: 401: 399: 394: 392: 387: 386: 382: 379: 373: 366: 361: 355: 352: 347: 342: 338: 334: 330: 329: 327: 326: 325: 315: 312: 311: 310: 308: 304: 303:clarification 288: 282: 269: 266: 262: 255: 253: 250: 249: 245: 242: 238: 236: 235: 231: 229: 226: 225: 222:26 July 2024 221: 218: 214: 212: 211: 207: 205: 202: 201: 189:Request name 187: 181: 168: 166: 165: 161: 160: 152: 144: 133: 116: 113: 111: 109: 108: 104: 103: 91:Request name 89: 83: 82:Case requests 74:this template 73: 69: 66: 64: 61: 59: 56: 55: 51: 41: 37: 36: 33: 23: 19: 16513: 16507: 16501: 16476: 16465: 16459: 16452: 16416: 16402: 16398: 16381: 16370: 16332: 16329: 16308: 16288: 16286: 16273: 16266: 16254:page history 16247: 16233: 16178: 16163:Replying to 16134: 16116: 16115: 16110: 16100: 16087: 16086: 16069: 16059: 16040: 16025: 16023: 16020:SerialNumber 16019: 16003: 16001: 15998:SerialNumber 15997: 15993: 15987: 15984: 15959: 15957: 15954:SerialNumber 15953: 15947: 15943: 15928: 15926: 15923:SerialNumber 15922: 15920: 15911: 15909: 15906:SerialNumber 15905: 15900: 15896: 15887: 15881: 15876: 15862: 15859: 15854: 15852: 15847: 15834: 15823: 15819: 15801: 15795: 15782: 15770: 15764: 15756: 15739: 15733: 15726: 15720: 15702: 15698: 15692: 15686: 15683:my talk page 15677: 15673: 15669: 15667: 15656: 15611: 15600: 15593: 15569: 15566: 15555: 15531: 15513: 15492: 15491: 15481: 15475: 15469: 15463: 15457: 15451: 15433: 15427: 15421: 15415: 15409: 15403: 15384: 15378: 15372: 15366: 15360: 15354: 15340: 15339: 15301: 15288: 15283:Initiated by 15282: 15281: 15242: 15186:Abstentions 15163: 15141: 15045:Abstentions 15022: 15000: 14944:Abstentions 14917:standard set 14913: 14891: 14819:Abstentions 14797: 14775: 14719:Abstentions 14685: 14648: 14644: 14623: 14620: 14615: 14612: 14598: 14472: 14409:BilledMammal 14383: 14226: 14220: 14208: 14197: 14166: 14143: 14129: 14103: 14093: 14073: 14065: 14045: 14040: 14036: 14035: 14019: 13984: 13962:Figureofnine 13956: 13951: 13946: 13941: 13924:Figureofnine 13920: 13915: 13906: 13905: 13887:Figureofnine 13880: 13876: 13872: 13869: 13847:Figureofnine 13842: 13841: 13824:Figureofnine 13818: 13812: 13804: 13777: 13737:BilledMammal 13734: 13711: 13695: 13687: 13672: 13626: 13609: 13602: 13591: 13583: 13564: 13532: 13525: 13462: 13444: 13440: 13436: 13434: 13421: 13409: 13408:are good at 13406: 13397: 13386:deprecation. 13384: 13378: 13266: 13223: 13218: 13184: 13063: 13056: 12998: 12994: 12980: 12971: 12970: 12944: 12930: 12913: 12910: 12891: 12887: 12879: 12861: 12857: 12853: 12829: 12806: 12790: 12785: 12783: 12746: 12715: 12691: 12681: 12672: 12670: 12661: 12658: 12654: 12648: 12643: 12604: 12578: 12547: 12543: 12539: 12495: 12491: 12461: 12439: 12417:articles. -- 12414: 12400: 12389: 12381: 12368: 12352: 12340:BilledMammal 12321: 12318: 12291: 12282: 12275:BilledMammal 12241: 12235: 12233: 12226: 12214: 12194: 12190: 12187: 12166: 12147: 12140: 12113: 12106: 12100: 12095: 12086:Sean.hoyland 12067: 12060: 12054: 12050: 12046: 12044: 12038: 12034: 12026: 12022: 12015: 12012:berchanhimez 12005: 11989: 11982: 11965: 11964: 11941: 11934: 11909: 11902: 11890: 11881: 11877: 11873: 11858: 11851: 11840:gathered by 11819: 11812: 11802: 11800: 11795: 11787: 11769: 11731:back in 2007 11578: 11523: 11388: 11367: 11365: 11359: 11355: 11334: 11321: 11310: 11293: 11256: 11251: 11240: 11196: 11057: 11052: 11041: 11037: 11021: 10952: 10924: 10849: 10833: 10822: 10809: 10725:User:Afdshah 10665: 10661: 10657: 10654: 10644: 10641: 10597: 10539: 10470:Annette Maon 10408: 10401:BilledMammal 10382: 10361: 10302: 10273:Penguin UK. 10270: 10264: 10256: 10249: 10245:. You write: 10224: 10172:Kaifeng Jews 10053: 10047: 10040:berchanhimez 10033: 10022: 10012: 10007: 10003: 9999: 9989: 9985: 9976: 9971: 9967: 9957: 9953: 9939: 9929: 9925: 9911: 9907: 9903: 9893: 9889: 9873: 9871: 9857: 9854: 9851: 9848: 9846: 9842: 9840: 9826: 9823: 9820: 9817: 9815: 9811: 9805: 9796: 9793: 9790: 9787: 9785: 9782: 9722: 9694: 9689: 9673: 9646: 9575:BilledMammal 9567:this message 9494: 9472: 9468: 9444: 9406:about RTH's 9383: 9382: 9326: 9260: 9259: 9217: 9171: 9166: 9164: 9162: 9139:You can see 9136: 8981: 8973:(Hat tip to 8957: 8950: 8937: 8932: 8931: 8926: 8925: 8920: 8919: 8914: 8913: 8888: 8874:Sean.Hoyland 8856: 8837: 8819: 8808: 8804: 8802: 8788:BilledMammal 8751:BilledMammal 8744: 8728:BilledMammal 8721: 8685:Sean.hoyland 8667: 8654: 8635: 8618:BilledMammal 8585:BilledMammal 8570: 8560:this comment 8548: 8523:this comment 8500:BilledMammal 8485: 8461:BilledMammal 8436:BilledMammal 8420: 8390:BilledMammal 8358:Wafflefrites 8348: 8347: 8344:BilledMammal 8334: 8333: 8312:Onceinawhile 8287: 8286: 8250:BilledMammal 8239: 8226: 8221:Sean.hoyland 8206:BilledMammal 8198: 8173:BilledMammal 8163: 8148: 8120:BilledMammal 8095:BilledMammal 8086: 8052: 8051: 8035: 8014:BilledMammal 7991:Sean.hoyland 7958:BilledMammal 7943: 7937: 7926: 7902:BilledMammal 7877:BilledMammal 7855:BilledMammal 7806:BilledMammal 7774:BilledMammal 7764:or what the 7746:BilledMammal 7744: 7694:Bludgeoning 7667:POV pushing 7662: 7645: 7633: 7621: 7616: 7610: 7598: 7595: 7583: 7580: 7567: 7563: 7559: 7543: 7529: 7509: 7490: 7485: 7481: 7465: 7458: 7430: 7427: 7408: 7401: 7380:Sean.hoyland 7376: 7365:Sean.hoyland 7359: 7348:Sean.hoyland 7343: 7342:, regarding 7338: 7327:Sean.hoyland 7320: 7314: 7302:Sean.hoyland 7257: 7252: 7251: 7240:Sean.hoyland 7236:BilledMammel 7234: 7223:Sean.hoyland 7217: 7216: 7205:Sean.hoyland 7201: 7190:Sean.hoyland 7186: 7174:Sean.hoyland 7162: 7141: 7137: 7136: 7125:Sean.hoyland 7121: 7117: 7086: 7083:PIA dynamics 7082: 7081: 7070:Sean.hoyland 7065:BilledMammal 7062: 7058: 7057: 7046:Sean.hoyland 7040: 7026: 7017: 7003: 6999: 6991: 6990: 6979:Sean.hoyland 6969: 6958:Sean.hoyland 6956: 6942: 6927: 6916: 6905: 6901: 6898: 6889: 6888: 6877:Sean.hoyland 6873: 6863: 6861: 6857: 6854: 6838: 6829: 6818:Sean.hoyland 6816: 6785: 6781: 6780: 6769:Sean.hoyland 6767: 6591:actor_count 6559:thereabouts. 6541: 6537: 6536: 6525:Sean.hoyland 6521: 6510:Sean.hoyland 6507: 6498: 6494: 6467: 6459: 6437: 6434: 6407: 6392: 6360: 6358: 6335: 6319: 6317: 6301: 6292: 6271: 6244: 6222: 6206: 6200: 6172: 6170: 6115: 6099: 6064: 6060: 5990:WP:WIKIVOICE 5939: 5868:WP:CANVASSED 5774: 5771:Figureofnine 5701: 5699: 5665: 5649: 5634: 5628: 5624: 5622: 5618: 5614: 5602: 5598: 5580: 5575: 5548: 5541: 5524: 5516: 5513:BilledMammal 5510: 5491: 5475: 5470: 5467: 5460: 5455: 5451: 5441: 5435: 5432: 5403: 5393: 5364: 5360: 5356: 5345: 5339:BilledMammal 5316: 5301: 5149: 5145: 5140: 5134: 5105:coupled with 5054:Pursuant to 4998:BilledMammal 4978:Sean.hoyland 4925: 4919: 4913: 4907: 4901: 4895: 4889: 4871: 4865: 4859: 4853: 4847: 4841: 4835: 4817: 4811: 4805: 4799: 4793: 4787: 4781: 4762: 4756: 4750: 4744: 4738: 4732: 4726: 4701: 4695: 4689: 4683: 4677: 4671: 4653: 4647: 4641: 4635: 4629: 4623: 4605: 4599: 4593: 4587: 4581: 4575: 4557: 4551: 4545: 4539: 4533: 4527: 4509: 4503: 4497: 4491: 4485: 4479: 4454: 4448: 4442: 4436: 4430: 4424: 4406: 4400: 4394: 4388: 4382: 4376: 4369:BilledMammal 4358: 4352: 4346: 4340: 4334: 4328: 4310: 4304: 4298: 4292: 4286: 4280: 4262: 4256: 4250: 4244: 4238: 4232: 4214: 4208: 4202: 4196: 4190: 4184: 4177:Sean.hoyland 4166: 4160: 4154: 4148: 4142: 4136: 4118: 4112: 4106: 4100: 4094: 4088: 4070: 4064: 4058: 4052: 4046: 4040: 4022: 4016: 4010: 4004: 3998: 3992: 3974: 3968: 3962: 3956: 3950: 3944: 3926: 3920: 3914: 3908: 3902: 3896: 3877: 3871: 3865: 3859: 3853: 3847: 3832: 3814:Pursuant to 3764: 3751: 3746:Initiated by 3745: 3744: 3725: 3719: 3707: 3687: 3635: 3629: 3617: 3576: 3570: 3558: 3549: 3543: 3539: 3533: 3435:Abstentions 3408: 3394: 3393: 3364: 3359: 3351: 3345: 3339: 3302: 3296: 3284: 3194:Abstentions 3171: 3165: 3144: 3138: 3126: 3109: 3103: 3091: 3006:1 ("Talk"); 2984:1 ("Talk"); 2964: 2963:) is (only) 2949: 2865:Motion name 2856: 2855: 2841: 2815: 2796: 2781: 2760: 2730: 2703: 2670: 2669: 2638: 2634: 2615: 2585: 2530: 2523: 2516: 2513: 2494: 2483: 2467:Sean.hoyland 2460: 2445: 2425: 2414: 2406: 2404: 2394: 2388: 2386: 2375: 2368: 2352: 2334: 2310: 2306: 2303: 2300: 2281: 2245: 2224: 2190: 2173: 2156: 2147: 2128: 2121: 2078: 2072: 2066: 2060: 2054: 2048: 2042: 2023: 2017: 2011: 2005: 1999: 1993: 1926: 1913: 1908:Initiated by 1907: 1906: 1182: 1115: 1108: 1101: 1095: 377: 320: 306: 302: 300: 286: 232: 208: 179: 169:13 Sep 2024 162: 131: 105: 16353:Newyorkbrad 16337:Newyorkbrad 15972:Newyorkbrad 15392:(initiator) 15258:HJ Mitchell 15243:HJ Mitchell 15142:HJ Mitchell 15001:HJ Mitchell 14892:HJ Mitchell 14776:HJ Mitchell 14649:HJ Mitchell 14624:HJ Mitchell 14473:HJ Mitchell 14446:HJ Mitchell 14100:HJ Mitchell 13780:Hydrangeans 13644:HJ Mitchell 13573:Doug Weller 13511:talk to me! 13497:talk to me! 13475:talk to me! 13158:"Palestine" 13029:, at times, 12684:red herring 12645:HJ Mitchell 12550:WP:ACTIVIST 12355:WP:FOOTBALL 12328:tag teaming 12324:bludgeoning 12290:which is a 11925:LokiTheLiar 11314:WP:CIVILPOV 11286:WP:CIVILPOV 11244:WP:CIVILPOV 11022:HJ Mitchell 10907:Vanamonde93 10892:Vanamonde93 10869:Vanamonde93 10853:Vanamonde93 10677:User:Drsmoo 10673:User:Tombah 10431:you provide 10362:perceptions 10257:politically 9766:• she/her) 9749:Selfstudier 9739:• she/her) 9674:HJ Mitchell 9448:case here. 9408:INVOLVEMENT 9069:HJ Mitchell 9037:HJ Mitchell 8805:pro-Israeli 8803:Concerning 8755:Please add 8529:"massacre". 8364:IvanScrooge 8327:Vice regent 8318:Durranistan 8303:Makeandtoss 8297:Iskandar323 8294:Selfstudier 8077:Selfstudier 7679:Incivility 7292:User:FourPi 6994:TLDR -: --> 6892:TLDR -: --> 6566:Questions: 6456:HJ Mitchell 6418:Selfstudier 6396:Selfstudier 6380:Selfstudier 6364:Selfstudier 6347:Selfstudier 6324:Selfstudier 6306:Selfstudier 6280:Selfstudier 6251:Selfstudier 6233:Selfstudier 6211:Selfstudier 6189:Selfstudier 6059:Comment on 5999:Pareto rule 5945:WP:NOTAVOTE 4983:Iskandar323 4963:Selfstudier 4905:protections 4851:protections 4797:protections 4742:protections 4225:Iskandar323 4033:Selfstudier 3704:HJ Mitchell 3688:HJ Mitchell 3662:to reflect 2800:Doug Weller 2786:Doug Weller 2597:#2 in the ' 2590:#1 in the ' 2534:Selfstudier 2488:Doug Weller 2463:this revert 2432:Selfstudier 2359:Selfstudier 2327:Selfstudier 2265:Selfstudier 2234:Selfstudier 2213:Selfstudier 2203:Doug Weller 2179:Selfstudier 2162:Selfstudier 2058:protections 2031:(initiator) 1986:Selfstudier 1911:Selfstudier 364:to do this. 52:proceedings 16529:Categories 16491:Guerillero 16477:CaptainEek 16410:notability 16228:(shortcut 16220:(shortcut 15840:notability 15721:my promise 15637:Notability 15585:Notability 15479:block user 15473:filter log 15431:block user 15425:filter log 15382:block user 15376:filter log 15262:~ ToBeFree 15181:reference 15120:Guerillero 15106:~ ToBeFree 15040:reference 14939:reference 14814:reference 14714:reference 14690:under the 14599:CaptainEek 14583:~ ToBeFree 14547:Guerillero 14534:Guerillero 14041:by default 13996:(Redacted) 13819:especially 13662:individual 13535:Domeditrix 13428:, through 13361:(he/him • 13346:(he/him • 13337:WP:SOAPBOX 13215:WP:POVNAME 12813:WP:POVNAME 12802:threatened 12649:Especially 12558:WP:NOTHERE 12474:Domeditrix 12419:Domeditrix 12338:variety. @ 12304:SashiRolls 12266:SashiRolls 12248:SashiRolls 12027:Not at all 11838:this chart 11801:In short, 11780:Swatjester 11772:Tryptofish 11390:Tryptofish 11255:course, I 11175:Tryptofish 11161:Tryptofish 11147:Tryptofish 11132:Tryptofish 11112:Tryptofish 11097:Tryptofish 11016:Tryptofish 11002:Tryptofish 10987:Tryptofish 10972:Tryptofish 10957:Tryptofish 10930:Tryptofish 10705:User:רמרום 10701:User:האופה 10202:Swatjester 10167:Swatjester 10134:sealioning 10130:Swatjester 10046:who have, 9996:Domeditrix 9942:sealioning 9936:Swatjester 9900:Tryptofish 9346:‌Nishidani 9133:Tryptofish 8823:Ilan Pappe 8707:CaptainEek 8602:SashiRolls 8558:Regarding 8521:Regarding 8431:disparity. 8361:Borgenland 8355:Chomik1129 8324:Ali Ahwazi 8245:this table 8142:Seggallion 7921:Black Kite 7835:an editor 7411:Dan Murphy 7315:Regarding 5754:Hen Mazzig 5746:Brianna Wu 5099:on either 4988:Dan Murphy 4917:page moves 4863:page moves 4809:page moves 4754:page moves 4699:block user 4693:filter log 4651:block user 4645:filter log 4603:block user 4597:filter log 4555:block user 4549:filter log 4507:block user 4501:filter log 4452:block user 4446:filter log 4404:block user 4398:filter log 4356:block user 4350:filter log 4308:block user 4302:filter log 4273:Dan Murphy 4260:block user 4254:filter log 4212:block user 4206:filter log 4164:block user 4158:filter log 4116:block user 4110:filter log 4068:block user 4062:filter log 4020:block user 4014:filter log 3972:block user 3966:filter log 3924:block user 3918:filter log 3875:block user 3869:filter log 3590:~ ToBeFree 3475:~ ToBeFree 3430:reference 3316:~ ToBeFree 3271:~ ToBeFree 3189:reference 3070:Guerillero 3017:~ ToBeFree 2995:All other 2605:' applies. 2519:WP:BROADLY 2249:Guerillero 2070:page moves 2021:block user 2015:filter log 265:orig. case 241:orig. case 217:orig. case 154:Case name 143:Past cases 127:Open cases 97:Initiated 16171:deletion" 15485:block log 15437:block log 15388:block log 14316:Barkeep49 14281:Barkeep49 14256:Barkeep49 14207:). Best, 14153:on reply) 13751:with the 13566:Rosguill. 13390:WP:BIASED 13359:Shushugah 13344:Shushugah 13254:Jehochman 12927:accounts. 12435:Number 57 12396:WP:CANVAS 12369:shouldn't 12101:potential 11882:in theory 11494:aspersion 11487:Nishidani 11372:Aquillion 11335:happening 11298:Aquillion 11270:Aquillion 11219:Nishidani 10888:WP:ARBGWE 10884:WP:ARBIRP 10772:Nishidani 10749:Nishidani 10743:, sock); 10650:Barkeep49 10614:Nishidani 10584:Nishidani 10570:Nishidani 10523:Nishidani 10483:Nishidani 10447:Nishidani 10414:Nishidani 10388:Nishidani 10366:Nishidani 10342:Nishidani 10308:Nishidani 10288:Nishidani 10267:Ian Black 10229:Nishidani 10225:empirical 10207:Nishidani 10188:Nishidani 10176:Gadubanud 10153:Nishidani 10117:Nishidani 10099:Nishidani 10081:Nishidani 10062:Nishidani 10034:two sides 10026:this. . . 9998:there is 9950:Number 57 9703:Barkeep49 9669:Barkeep49 9654:Barkeep49 9630:Barkeep49 9615:Barkeep49 9597:Barkeep49 9583:Barkeep49 9551:Barkeep49 9544:Nishidani 9529:Barkeep49 9514:Barkeep49 9499:Barkeep49 9477:Barkeep49 9450:Barkeep49 9431:Barkeep49 9413:Barkeep49 9404:AN thread 9390:Barkeep49 9369:Barkeep49 9352:Barkeep49 9331:Barkeep49 9300:Barkeep49 9285:Barkeep49 9267:Barkeep49 9242:Barkeep49 9223:Barkeep49 9218:mechanics 9216:that the 9196:Barkeep49 9176:Barkeep49 9114:Barkeep49 9097:Barkeep49 8895:Barkeep49 8565:(a) - It 8451:Nishidani 8411:Nishidani 8384:accurate. 8309:Nishidani 8137:Nishidani 8001:Nishidani 7892:Nishidani 7875:pushing. 7870:Nishidani 7641:supported 7288:Exhibit C 7278:Exhibit B 7273:Exhibit A 7112:WP:ARBECR 7102:Step 2 - 7091:Step 1 - 6996:more data 6894:some data 6340:Barkeep49 6297:Nishidani 6134:EC editor 5572:Barkeep49 5525:confirmed 5463:WP:BANPOL 5038:DMH223344 5033:Nishidani 5023:PeleYoetz 5013:Barkeep49 4911:deletions 4857:deletions 4828:Barkeep49 4803:deletions 4748:deletions 4705:block log 4657:block log 4616:DMH223344 4609:block log 4568:Nishidani 4561:block log 4513:block log 4472:PeleYoetz 4458:block log 4410:block log 4362:block log 4314:block log 4266:block log 4218:block log 4170:block log 4122:block log 4074:block log 4026:block log 3978:block log 3930:block log 3881:block log 3664:WP:CT/A-I 3660:WP:ARBECR 3614:WP:ARBECR 3610:WP:ARBECR 3087:WP:ARBECR 3083:WP:ARBECR 3049:WP:CT/A-I 3004:namespace 2982:namespace 2975:WP:ARBPIA 2762:Callanecc 2732:Callanecc 2705:Callanecc 2672:Callanecc 2415:talkspace 2407:userspace 2341:WP:ARBECR 2284:Barkeep49 2260:this edit 2132:Barkeep49 2122:To match 2064:deletions 2035:Barkeep49 2027:block log 1160:WP:A/R/CA 1150:WP:A/R/CL 1128:Shortcuts 307:amendment 16435:Primefac 16421:Primefac 16333:problems 16313:Flatscan 16275:Flatscan 16250:disagree 16230:WP:ATD-R 16222:WP:ATD-M 16165:Flatscan 16064:and not 15978:you said 15888:narrowly 15884:deletion 15687:DELETION 15670:DELETION 15559:contribs 15535:contribs 15455:contribs 15407:contribs 15358:contribs 15179:Majority 15038:Majority 14937:Majority 14812:Majority 14712:Majority 14666:Primefac 14560:against 14520:Primefac 14205:suggests 14149:(Please 14106:starship 14077:Springee 14049:Amayorov 14023:Amayorov 14001:Amayorov 13971:contribs 13943:Levivich 13933:contribs 13911:Amayorov 13896:contribs 13856:contribs 13833:contribs 13815:WP:CIVIL 13610:separate 13224:scholars 13219:scholars 13209:: "...s 13064:minutely 13038:unhinged 12972:Rosguill 12967:signed, 12834:xDanielx 12677:an essay 12607:the link 12384:Zanahary 12373:ABHammad 12363:despite 12258:NoCal100 12173:Zanahary 11704:Huldra's 11262:WP:CIVIL 10518:haskalah 10427:Nableezy 10409:dominate 10405:I second 10095:WP:CIVIL 10030:xDanielx 9982:Zanahary 9571:Levivich 9464:Levivich 9020:ToBeFree 8999:Levivich 8515:Zero0000 8478:Zero0000 8407:Levivich 8367:Arminden 8321:Zero0000 8306:Nableezy 8192:Zero0000 8169:) (×6) 8167:contribs 8152:contribs 8110:Nableezy 8029:Nableezy 7897:pushing. 7821:Rosguill 7789:Nableezy 7671:sources. 7648:nableezy 7624:nableezy 7618:massacre 7601:nableezy 7586:nableezy 7570:nableezy 7546:nableezy 7532:nableezy 7512:nableezy 7493:nableezy 7486:actually 7468:nableezy 7433:nableezy 7361:Zero0000 7340:Zero0000 7317:Zero0000 7164:See plot 6971:Zero0000 6460:claiming 6320:regulars 6153:ABHammad 6119:ABHammad 6065:Motion 4 6061:Motion 3 5785:Levivich 5758:Levivich 5707:Levivich 5671:appeals. 5653:Levivich 5585:Levivich 5557:Levivich 5529:Levivich 5498:Levivich 5479:Levivich 5436:anyone's 5349:contribs 5240:Zero0000 5172:Levivich 5043:M.Bitton 5003:Zero0000 4993:Nableezy 4958:ABHammad 4943:Levivich 4893:contribs 4839:contribs 4785:contribs 4730:contribs 4675:contribs 4664:M.Bitton 4627:contribs 4579:contribs 4531:contribs 4483:contribs 4428:contribs 4417:Zero0000 4380:contribs 4332:contribs 4321:Nableezy 4284:contribs 4236:contribs 4188:contribs 4140:contribs 4092:contribs 4044:contribs 3996:contribs 3985:ABHammad 3948:contribs 3900:contribs 3851:contribs 3840:Levivich 3526:ToBeFree 3428:Majority 3404:Remedy 8 3400:Remedy 7 3396:Remedy 6 3361:Remedy 5 3341:Remedy 4 3314:Thanks! 3187:Majority 3085:.) Now, 2877:Passing 2874:Abstain 2868:Support 2741:contribs 2714:contribs 2681:contribs 2499:Zero0000 2194:Zero0000 2151:Zero0000 2139:Zero0000 2046:contribs 1997:contribs 1186:archives 1155:WP:A/R/A 381:archives 358:{{subst: 192:Motions 94:Motions 32:Shortcut 22:Requests 20:‎ | 16258:deleted 16244:WP:BLAR 15897:process 15877:Quote: 15826:WP:BLAR 15786:scale.' 15730:happen. 15580:adding 15230:Abstain 15220:Support 15129:Abstain 15079:Support 14988:Abstain 14978:Support 14879:Abstain 14853:Support 14763:Abstain 14753:Support 14616:en banc 14516:WP:PIA5 13843:Motions 13784:she/her 13767:by the 13665:editors 13659:hitting 13548:Amakuru 13230:others. 12914:Portals 12894:Ravpapa 12793:Zionism 12575:remedy. 12468:Joe Roe 12456:Amakuru 12411:Ravpapa 12403:The_Kip 12365:WP:VOTE 12292:partial 12198:Ravpapa 12092:WP:SOCK 12039:already 11977:WP:BRIE 11339:WP:ROPE 11290:WP:BITE 10949:WP:BRIE 10764:Barkeep 10731:(69%); 10699:(43%), 10683:(49%); 10679:(48%); 10671:(72%); 10636:Barkeep 10358:Barkeep 10004:editors 9984:: It’s 9964:The Kip 9910:, were 9384:despite 8893:editor 8807:versus 8786:editor 8757:this RM 8749:editor 8726:editor 8705:editor 8683:editor 8610:actors. 8315:Irtapil 8199:editing 8157:Icewhiz 7841:At the 7833:ADL RFC 7831:At the 7637:claimed 7108:WP:SOCK 7097:AE case 6869:WP:SOCK 6842:like... 6831:The Kip 6803:WP:SOCK 6792:WP:SOCK 6414:Zionism 6181:Zionism 6111:Zionism 5846:WP:ONUS 5842:WP:ONUS 5780:WP:NPOV 5694:Zionism 5313:WP:BITE 3530:WP:CTOP 3514:Abstain 3469:Support 3406:of the 3388:comment 3343:of the 3255:Abstain 3228:Support 2871:Oppose 2540:WP:TBAN 2526:WP:UOWN 2430:editor 2357:editor 2325:editor 2175:And now 1135:WP:ARCA 198:Posted 157:Closed 72:discuss 40:WP:ARCA 16224:) and 16179:per se 16076:Tamzin 16053:being 15783:struck 15715:WP:DYK 15713:, and 15711:WP:ARS 15650:, and 15628:, and 15624:, and 15347:Cunard 15286:Cunard 15225:Oppose 15084:Oppose 14983:Oppose 14858:Oppose 14758:Oppose 14579:WP:ARC 14543:Huldra 14210:KevinL 14111:.paint 13957:failed 13650:rather 13528:Buidhe 13238:Huldra 13168:Huldra 13122:Huldra 13103:Huldra 13072:Huldra 13009:Huldra 12692:should 12561:this. 12554:WP:SPA 12415:within 12096:always 11973:WP:RGW 11778:, and 11736:Number 11710:Number 11684:Number 11658:Number 11653:my RfA 11632:Number 11606:Number 11583:Number 11562:Jester 11537:Jester 11512:Jester 11469:Jester 11452:Huldra 11436:Jester 11419:Huldra 11404:Jester 11342:count. 11248:WP:AGF 10836:buidhe 10695:(89%); 10514:Hebron 10260:that:- 10032:: the 10006:here 9972:scream 9912:acting 9690:during 9577:about 9192:WP:HJP 8969:tomats 8533:again. 8427:socks. 8341:Tombah 8087:proves 8053:Oppose 8044:WP:AGF 7564:others 7218:Labels 6762:59678 6748:52636 6734:19716 6720:21711 6706:14908 6692:15812 6678:23643 6664:21463 6650:18541 6636:23195 6622:23773 6608:17754 6472:fiveby 6442:fiveby 6410:WP:CRP 6024:WP:TNT 5814:WP:RSN 5750:X post 5742:X post 5738:revert 5734:revert 5730:revert 5726:revert 5722:revert 5637:FourPi 5553:WP:ARC 5418:(nest) 5376:(nest) 5328:(nest) 5286:(nest) 5253:(nest) 5226:(nest) 5208:(nest) 5185:(nest) 5159:(nest) 5120:(nest) 4968:fiveby 4923:rights 4899:blocks 4869:rights 4845:blocks 4815:rights 4791:blocks 4760:rights 4736:blocks 4081:fiveby 3709:KevinL 3619:KevinL 3560:KevinL 3489:Oppose 3402:, and 3286:KevinL 3233:Oppose 3168:ARBPIA 3128:KevinL 3093:KevinL 3045:WP:ECR 2883:Notes 2826:(nest) 2770:(talk) 2509:WP:ECR 2505:WP:PIA 2461:Maybe 2395:agrees 2124:WP:ECR 2076:rights 2052:blocks 1140:WP:ARA 1104:Clerks 317:bans). 234:Motion 210:Motion 117:3/0/0 100:Votes 16417:start 16399:where 16026:54129 16004:54129 15960:54129 15929:54129 15912:54129 15727:never 15703:three 15674:MERGE 15091:Aoidh 14865:Aoidh 14575:האופה 14571:האופה 14562:האופה 14490:Aoidh 14457:Aoidh 14431:Aoidh 14416:Aoidh 14394:Aoidh 14368:Aoidh 14344:Z1720 14323:Z1720 14301:Z1720 14287:Z1720 14266:Z1720 14241:Z1720 14191:האופה 14184:האופה 13792:edits 13688:Notes 13678:v^_^v 13632:v^_^v 13300:Arkon 13284:Arkon 13269:Arkon 12999:never 12764:alien 12732:alien 12629:alien 12590:alien 12283:known 12094:will 11891:badly 11788:every 11322:worse 11266:WP:EW 11065:WP:AE 10945:WP:RS 10478:reply 10280:p.8 ) 10182:and 9938:;The 9756:lower 9569:from 9327:could 9281:Z1720 9256:Z1720 9237:Z1720 9210:Z1720 8581:NebYs 8037:page. 8006:list. 7952:Aoidh 7929:with 7266:rate. 6864:could 6759:6287 6756:2024 6745:6778 6742:2023 6731:2464 6728:2022 6717:2755 6714:2021 6703:2110 6700:2020 6689:1907 6686:2019 6675:2184 6672:2018 6661:2091 6658:2017 6647:1848 6644:2016 6633:2167 6630:2015 6619:2483 6616:2014 6605:2096 6602:2013 6588:year 6274:lower 5577:here. 5471:could 5388:Z1720 5300:, of 5141:Note: 4948:האופה 3889:האופה 3668:Aoidh 3606:Aoidh 3540:pages 3500:Aoidh 3496:above 3241:Aoidh 3054:Aoidh 3031:Aoidh 2946:Notes 2696:Aoidh 2545:WP:GS 2409:" at 2397:with 195:Case 16:< 16439:talk 16425:talk 16357:talk 16341:talk 16317:talk 16279:talk 16188:talk 16153:talk 16070:just 16055:BLAR 15988:good 15893:GoDG 15553:talk 15529:talk 15467:logs 15449:talk 15419:logs 15401:talk 15370:logs 15352:talk 15266:talk 15210:4–5 15202:2–3 15194:0–1 15110:talk 15095:talk 15069:4–5 15061:2–3 15053:0–1 14968:4–5 14960:2–3 14952:0–1 14869:talk 14843:4–5 14835:2–3 14827:0–1 14743:4–5 14735:2–3 14727:0–1 14670:talk 14587:talk 14524:talk 14494:talk 14461:talk 14435:talk 14420:talk 14398:talk 14372:talk 14348:talk 14327:talk 14305:talk 14291:talk 14270:talk 14262:here 14245:talk 14218:L235 14151:ping 14081:talk 14053:talk 14027:talk 14005:talk 13989:and 13967:talk 13947:both 13929:talk 13916:this 13892:talk 13852:talk 13829:talk 13788:talk 13722:talk 13718:RAN1 13714:diff 13668:only 13656:just 13653:than 13577:talk 13552:talk 13437:need 13422:that 13392:and 13363:talk 13348:talk 13304:talk 13288:talk 13273:talk 13242:talk 13172:talk 13150:and 13141:and 13126:talk 13107:talk 13076:talk 13068:here 13035:more 13013:talk 12995:love 12898:talk 12791:The 12770:talk 12761:ugly 12738:talk 12729:ugly 12635:talk 12626:ugly 12596:talk 12587:ugly 12526:talk 12522:Loki 12503:talk 12499:Loki 12478:talk 12448:. A 12423:talk 12344:here 12330:and 12279:here 12237:here 12202:talk 12023:many 11878:main 11702:For 11559:SWAT 11534:SWAT 11509:SWAT 11466:SWAT 11433:SWAT 11401:SWAT 11376:talk 11368:hard 11360:does 11302:talk 11294:just 11274:talk 11264:and 11257:also 11252:easy 11227:talk 11209:talk 11179:talk 11165:talk 11151:talk 11136:talk 11116:talk 11101:talk 11053:real 11006:talk 10991:talk 10976:talk 10961:talk 10953:that 10934:talk 10911:talk 10896:talk 10886:and 10873:talk 10857:talk 10792:talk 10776:talk 10753:talk 10618:talk 10588:talk 10574:talk 10527:talk 10487:talk 10451:talk 10418:talk 10392:talk 10370:talk 10346:talk 10312:talk 10292:talk 10275:ISBN 10233:talk 10211:talk 10192:talk 10157:talk 10121:talk 10113:link 10103:talk 10085:talk 10066:talk 10021:the 9858:Path 9827:Path 9797:Path 9764:talk 9737:talk 9726:L235 9707:talk 9658:talk 9634:talk 9619:talk 9601:talk 9587:talk 9555:talk 9533:talk 9518:talk 9503:talk 9481:talk 9454:talk 9435:talk 9417:talk 9394:talk 9373:talk 9356:talk 9335:talk 9304:talk 9289:talk 9271:talk 9246:talk 9227:talk 9200:talk 9180:talk 9149:talk 9141:here 9122:talk 9105:talk 9088:talk 9060:talk 9045:talk 9028:talk 9011:talk 8989:talk 8939:Zero 8902:Zero 8881:Zero 8863:Zero 8850:Zero 8831:Zero 8813:Zero 8795:Zero 8774:Zero 8768:and 8738:Zero 8734:here 8714:Zero 8692:Zero 8671:Zero 8660:Zero 8622:talk 8589:talk 8567:does 8540:and 8504:talk 8465:talk 8440:talk 8409:and 8394:talk 8254:talk 8210:talk 8177:talk 8161:talk 8146:talk 8124:talk 8099:talk 8091:here 8057:this 8018:talk 7962:talk 7944:bold 7906:talk 7881:talk 7859:talk 7810:talk 7794:RSN. 7778:talk 7750:talk 7697:See 7613:here 7415:talk 7384:talk 7369:talk 7352:talk 7331:talk 7306:talk 7244:talk 7227:talk 7209:talk 7194:talk 7178:talk 7129:talk 7110:and 7074:talk 7050:talk 6983:talk 6962:talk 6881:talk 6822:talk 6773:talk 6529:talk 6514:talk 6476:zero 6446:zero 6422:talk 6400:talk 6384:talk 6368:talk 6351:talk 6328:talk 6310:talk 6284:talk 6255:talk 6237:talk 6229:this 6215:talk 6193:talk 6157:talk 6123:talk 6105:and 6084:talk 6073:talk 6051:talk 6033:talk 5974:talk 5953:talk 5928:talk 5913:talk 5891:talk 5876:talk 5858:talk 5823:talk 5789:talk 5762:talk 5711:talk 5657:talk 5629:that 5589:talk 5561:talk 5549:does 5533:talk 5511:Re: 5502:talk 5483:talk 5456:vast 5448:here 5444:here 5343:talk 5267:L235 5058:, a 4887:talk 4833:talk 4779:talk 4724:talk 4687:logs 4669:talk 4639:logs 4621:talk 4591:logs 4573:talk 4543:logs 4525:talk 4495:logs 4477:talk 4440:logs 4422:talk 4392:logs 4374:talk 4344:logs 4326:talk 4296:logs 4278:talk 4248:logs 4230:talk 4200:logs 4182:talk 4152:logs 4134:talk 4104:logs 4086:talk 4056:logs 4038:talk 4008:logs 3990:talk 3960:logs 3942:talk 3912:logs 3894:talk 3863:logs 3845:talk 3818:, a 3800:and 3717:L235 3672:talk 3654:L235 3627:L235 3594:talk 3568:L235 3504:talk 3498:. - 3479:talk 3459:4–5 3451:2–3 3443:0–1 3411:case 3365:The 3348:case 3320:talk 3294:L235 3275:talk 3267:L235 3245:talk 3218:4–5 3210:2–3 3202:0–1 3136:L235 3101:L235 3058:talk 3035:talk 3021:talk 2804:talk 2790:talk 2745:logs 2737:talk 2718:logs 2710:talk 2700:here 2685:logs 2677:talk 2572:talk 2564:L235 2553:talk 2471:talk 2449:Zero 2438:Zero 2419:Zero 2346:Zero 2313:Zero 2288:talk 2269:talk 2238:talk 2217:talk 2183:talk 2166:talk 2040:talk 2009:logs 1991:talk 1167:and 258:none 68:view 16502:not 16460:Yes 16453:Yes 16246:): 16105:at 15976:As 15948:are 15901:too 15866:• 15848:did 15678:not 15594:In 15327:) ( 15319:) ( 15311:) ( 14215:aka 14200:as 14116:RUN 13952:all 13885:--- 13739:'s 13670:. — 13618:AP2 13614:COL 13441:any 13120:, 13118:dog 13057:far 12758:big 12755:The 12726:big 12723:The 12623:big 12620:The 12584:big 12581:The 12394:to 12243:18% 12148:Kip 12141:The 12114:Kip 12107:The 12068:Kip 12061:The 12055:all 11990:Kip 11983:The 11942:Kip 11935:The 11910:Kip 11903:The 11859:Kip 11852:The 11820:Kip 11813:The 11733:). 11356:can 11058:not 11042:not 10566:TAU 10303:was 9855:hed 9852:nis 9849:Tar 9824:hed 9821:nis 9818:Tar 9794:hed 9791:nis 9788:Tar 9573:to 9469:but 9194:). 8857:At 8825:or 8116:- 8069:- 7703:RSN 7652:- 7628:- 7605:- 7590:- 7574:- 7550:- 7536:- 7516:- 7497:- 7472:- 7437:- 7319:'s 6946:. 6839:can 6753:11 6739:10 6468:now 6336:7: 6227:or 5852:). 5840:vs 5812:in 5752:by 5744:by 5702:and 5446:or 5355:'s 5317:not 4929:RfA 4875:RfA 4821:RfA 4766:RfA 3790:) ( 3782:) ( 3774:) ( 3714:aka 3624:aka 3565:aka 3291:aka 3133:aka 3098:aka 2766:PMC 2660:OR 2082:RfA 1952:) ( 1944:) ( 1936:) ( 1875:128 1870:127 1863:126 1858:125 1853:124 1848:123 1843:122 1838:121 1833:120 1828:119 1823:118 1818:117 1813:116 1808:115 1803:114 1798:113 1793:112 1788:111 1783:110 1778:109 1771:108 1766:107 1761:106 1756:105 1751:104 1746:103 1741:102 1736:101 1731:100 1070:128 1065:127 1058:126 1053:125 1048:124 1043:123 1038:122 1033:121 1028:120 1023:119 1018:118 1013:117 1008:116 1003:115 998:114 993:113 988:112 983:111 978:110 973:109 966:108 961:107 956:106 951:105 946:104 941:103 936:102 931:101 926:100 305:or 70:or 16531:: 16489:-- 16466:No 16441:) 16427:) 16413:}} 16407:{{ 16403:if 16359:) 16343:) 16319:) 16311:. 16281:) 16190:) 16155:) 15944:is 15855:de 15843:}} 15837:{{ 15709:, 15654:. 15646:, 15640:}} 15634:{{ 15620:, 15616:, 15588:}} 15582:{{ 15329:pd 15313:ev 15289:at 15268:) 15246:| 15213:3 15205:4 15197:5 15145:| 15112:) 15097:) 15072:3 15064:4 15056:5 15004:| 14971:3 14963:4 14955:5 14895:| 14871:) 14846:3 14838:4 14830:5 14779:| 14746:3 14738:4 14730:5 14672:) 14652:| 14627:| 14589:) 14526:) 14496:) 14476:| 14463:) 14437:) 14422:) 14400:) 14374:) 14350:) 14329:) 14307:) 14293:) 14272:) 14247:) 14232:) 14145:VR 14083:) 14055:) 14029:) 14007:) 13969:• 13931:• 13894:• 13854:• 13831:• 13794:) 13790:| 13786:| 13747:, 13724:) 13554:) 13509:| 13507:me 13495:| 13493:me 13473:| 13471:me 13410:ab 13365:) 13350:) 13306:) 13290:) 13275:) 13244:) 13174:) 13128:) 13109:) 13087:, 13078:) 13015:) 12954:, 12950:, 12900:) 12843:\ 12824:, 12821:, 12818:, 12804:. 12773:) 12741:) 12638:) 12617:. 12599:) 12528:) 12505:) 12480:) 12425:) 12350:. 12326:, 12204:) 12196:-- 12090:- 11975:, 11774:, 11378:) 11316:/ 11304:) 11276:) 11229:) 11211:) 11181:) 11167:) 11153:) 11138:) 11118:) 11110:-- 11103:) 11095:-- 11038:is 11025:| 11008:) 10993:) 10978:) 10963:) 10936:) 10913:) 10898:) 10875:) 10859:) 10832:) 10828:· 10794:) 10778:) 10762:@* 10755:) 10620:) 10590:) 10576:) 10529:) 10489:) 10453:) 10420:) 10394:) 10372:) 10348:) 10314:) 10294:) 10269:, 10235:) 10213:) 10194:) 10178:, 10174:, 10159:) 10148:, 10143:, 10123:) 10105:) 10087:) 10068:) 9709:) 9677:| 9660:) 9636:) 9621:) 9603:) 9589:) 9581:. 9557:) 9535:) 9520:) 9505:) 9483:) 9456:) 9437:) 9419:) 9396:) 9375:) 9358:) 9337:) 9306:) 9291:) 9273:) 9248:) 9229:) 9202:) 9182:) 9174:. 9151:) 9135:, 9124:) 9107:) 9090:) 9062:) 9047:) 9030:) 9013:) 8991:) 8891:To 8784:To 8764:, 8747:To 8724:To 8703:To 8681:To 8624:) 8591:) 8583:. 8569:; 8506:) 8467:) 8459:. 8442:) 8396:) 8351:: 8337:: 8290:: 8256:) 8212:) 8179:) 8126:) 8101:) 8093:. 8020:) 7964:) 7908:) 7883:) 7861:) 7812:) 7780:) 7752:) 7705:. 7417:) 7386:) 7371:) 7354:) 7333:) 7308:) 7290:, 7280:, 7246:) 7229:) 7211:) 7196:) 7180:) 7131:) 7076:) 7052:) 6985:) 6964:) 6896:. 6883:) 6824:) 6775:) 6725:9 6711:8 6697:7 6683:6 6669:5 6655:4 6641:3 6627:2 6613:1 6599:0 6531:) 6516:) 6478:) 6448:) 6424:) 6402:) 6386:) 6370:) 6353:) 6330:) 6312:) 6293:5. 6286:) 6257:) 6239:) 6217:) 6209:. 6201:2. 6195:) 6175:, 6159:) 6125:) 6086:) 6075:) 6053:) 6035:) 5976:) 5955:) 5930:) 5915:) 5893:) 5878:) 5860:) 5825:) 5791:) 5764:) 5748:, 5736:, 5732:, 5728:, 5724:, 5713:) 5659:) 5625:is 5591:) 5574:: 5563:) 5535:) 5504:) 5485:) 5150:— 5111:— 3792:pd 3776:ev 3752:at 3731:) 3691:| 3674:) 3641:) 3596:) 3582:) 3506:) 3481:) 3462:3 3454:4 3446:5 3398:, 3383:}} 3377:{{ 3373:}} 3367:{{ 3322:) 3308:) 3277:) 3247:) 3221:3 3213:4 3205:5 3150:) 3115:) 3060:) 3037:) 3023:) 2937:4 2927:0 2924:1 2921:1 2909:5 2899:0 2896:1 2893:0 2768:♠ 2747:) 2743:• 2739:• 2720:) 2716:• 2712:• 2687:) 2683:• 2679:• 2574:) 2555:) 2511:. 2473:) 2428:To 2355:To 2323:To 2290:) 2271:) 2240:) 2219:) 2211:? 2185:) 2168:) 1954:pd 1938:ev 1914:at 1726:99 1721:98 1716:97 1711:96 1706:95 1701:94 1696:93 1691:92 1686:91 1679:90 1674:89 1669:88 1664:87 1659:86 1654:85 1649:84 1644:83 1639:82 1634:81 1629:80 1624:79 1619:78 1614:77 1609:76 1604:75 1599:74 1594:73 1587:72 1582:71 1577:70 1572:69 1567:68 1562:67 1557:66 1552:65 1547:64 1542:63 1537:62 1532:61 1527:60 1522:59 1517:58 1512:57 1507:56 1502:55 1495:54 1490:53 1485:52 1480:51 1475:50 1470:49 1465:48 1460:47 1455:46 1450:45 1445:44 1440:43 1435:42 1430:41 1425:40 1420:39 1415:38 1410:37 1403:36 1398:35 1393:34 1388:33 1383:32 1378:31 1373:30 1368:29 1363:28 1358:27 1353:26 1348:25 1343:24 1338:23 1333:22 1328:21 1323:20 1318:19 1311:18 1306:17 1301:16 1296:15 1291:14 1286:13 1281:12 1276:11 1271:10 1130:: 1113:. 921:99 916:98 911:97 906:96 901:95 896:94 891:93 886:92 881:91 874:90 869:89 864:88 859:87 854:86 849:85 844:84 839:83 834:82 829:81 824:80 819:79 814:78 809:77 804:76 799:75 794:74 789:73 782:72 777:71 772:70 767:69 762:68 757:67 752:66 747:65 742:64 737:63 732:62 727:61 722:60 717:59 712:58 707:57 702:56 697:55 690:54 685:53 680:52 675:51 670:50 665:49 660:48 655:47 650:46 645:45 640:44 635:43 630:42 625:41 620:40 615:39 610:38 605:37 598:36 593:35 588:34 583:33 578:32 573:31 568:30 563:29 558:28 553:27 548:26 543:25 538:24 533:23 528:22 523:21 518:20 513:19 506:18 501:17 496:16 491:15 486:14 481:13 476:12 471:11 466:10 348:). 267:) 243:) 219:) 16517:) 16514:☎ 16511:( 16481:⚓ 16437:( 16423:( 16355:( 16339:( 16315:( 16277:( 16260:. 16236:. 16186:( 16151:( 16078:: 16074:@ 16015:​ 15990:. 15974:: 15970:@ 15805:) 15802:☎ 15799:( 15774:) 15771:☎ 15768:( 15743:) 15740:☎ 15737:( 15652:3 15648:2 15644:1 15630:5 15626:4 15622:3 15618:2 15614:1 15556:· 15551:( 15547:" 15532:· 15527:( 15523:" 15487:) 15482:· 15476:· 15470:· 15464:· 15458:· 15452:· 15447:( 15439:) 15434:· 15428:· 15422:· 15416:· 15410:· 15404:· 15399:( 15390:) 15385:· 15379:· 15373:· 15367:· 15361:· 15355:· 15350:( 15335:) 15333:t 15331:/ 15325:t 15323:/ 15321:w 15317:t 15315:/ 15309:t 15307:( 15264:( 15108:( 15093:( 14867:( 14668:( 14603:⚓ 14585:( 14541:@ 14522:( 14492:( 14459:( 14448:: 14444:@ 14433:( 14418:( 14411:: 14407:@ 14396:( 14370:( 14346:( 14340:: 14336:@ 14325:( 14318:: 14314:@ 14303:( 14289:( 14283:: 14279:@ 14268:( 14258:: 14254:@ 14243:( 14230:c 14227:· 14224:t 14221:· 14213:( 14193:: 14189:@ 14118:) 14114:( 14079:( 14051:( 14025:( 14003:( 13973:) 13965:( 13935:) 13927:( 13898:) 13890:( 13858:) 13850:( 13835:) 13827:( 13782:( 13775:. 13720:( 13646:: 13642:@ 13616:/ 13550:( 13302:( 13286:( 13271:( 13240:( 13170:( 13124:( 13105:( 13093:, 13090:, 13074:( 13011:( 12896:( 12840:C 12837:/ 12767:( 12735:( 12632:( 12593:( 12556:/ 12552:/ 12524:( 12501:( 12476:( 12470:: 12466:@ 12458:: 12454:@ 12437:: 12433:@ 12421:( 12200:( 12176:꧂ 12170:꧁ 12135:: 12131:@ 12088:: 12084:@ 12029:( 11923:@ 11874:a 11846:: 11842:@ 11746:7 11741:5 11720:7 11715:5 11694:7 11689:5 11668:7 11663:5 11642:7 11637:5 11616:7 11611:5 11593:7 11588:5 11553:⇒ 11528:⇒ 11503:⇒ 11489:: 11485:@ 11460:⇒ 11454:: 11450:@ 11427:⇒ 11421:: 11417:@ 11395:⇒ 11374:( 11300:( 11272:( 11225:( 11207:( 11177:( 11163:( 11149:( 11134:( 11114:( 11099:( 11014:@ 11004:( 10989:( 10974:( 10959:( 10932:( 10909:( 10894:( 10871:( 10855:( 10830:c 10826:t 10790:( 10774:( 10751:( 10634:@ 10616:( 10586:( 10572:( 10525:( 10485:( 10449:( 10416:( 10390:( 10380:@ 10368:( 10356:@ 10344:( 10310:( 10290:( 10241:@ 10231:( 10219:@ 10209:( 10200:@ 10190:( 10186:. 10165:@ 10155:( 10140:, 10119:( 10101:( 10083:( 10064:( 10050:. 9918:) 9762:( 9751:: 9747:@ 9735:( 9728:: 9724:@ 9705:( 9695:a 9667:@ 9656:( 9632:( 9617:( 9609:@ 9599:( 9585:( 9553:( 9546:: 9542:@ 9531:( 9516:( 9501:( 9479:( 9462:@ 9452:( 9433:( 9415:( 9392:( 9371:( 9354:( 9348:: 9344:@ 9333:( 9302:( 9287:( 9279:@ 9269:( 9254:@ 9244:( 9235:@ 9225:( 9208:@ 9198:( 9178:( 9147:( 9120:( 9103:( 9086:( 9058:( 9043:( 9026:( 9009:( 8987:( 8897:: 8876:: 8872:@ 8842:. 8790:: 8753:: 8730:: 8709:: 8687:: 8620:( 8604:: 8600:@ 8587:( 8562:: 8525:: 8517:: 8513:@ 8502:( 8480:: 8476:@ 8463:( 8453:: 8449:@ 8438:( 8423:. 8413:: 8405:@ 8392:( 8252:( 8223:: 8219:@ 8208:( 8194:: 8190:@ 8175:( 8164:· 8159:( 8149:· 8144:( 8139:: 8135:@ 8122:( 8112:: 8108:@ 8097:( 8079:: 8075:@ 8031:: 8027:@ 8016:( 8003:: 7999:@ 7993:: 7989:@ 7960:( 7954:: 7950:@ 7946:. 7939:* 7933:. 7923:: 7919:@ 7904:( 7894:: 7890:@ 7879:( 7872:: 7868:@ 7857:( 7823:: 7819:@ 7808:( 7791:: 7787:@ 7776:( 7748:( 7524:@ 7413:( 7382:( 7367:( 7350:( 7329:( 7304:( 7242:( 7225:( 7207:( 7192:( 7176:( 7127:( 7099:) 7072:( 7048:( 6981:( 6960:( 6879:( 6820:( 6809:" 6771:( 6527:( 6512:( 6474:( 6444:( 6420:( 6398:( 6382:( 6366:( 6349:( 6342:: 6338:@ 6326:( 6308:( 6299:: 6295:@ 6282:( 6269:: 6265:@ 6253:( 6235:( 6213:( 6191:( 6187:. 6155:( 6121:( 6082:( 6071:( 6049:( 6031:( 5972:( 5951:( 5926:( 5911:( 5889:( 5874:( 5856:( 5821:( 5787:( 5760:( 5709:( 5692:( 5675:" 5655:( 5587:( 5570:@ 5559:( 5531:( 5500:( 5481:( 5390:: 5386:@ 5346:· 5341:( 5304:. 5269:: 5265:@ 5242:: 5238:@ 5174:: 5170:@ 4931:) 4926:· 4920:· 4914:· 4908:· 4902:· 4896:· 4890:· 4885:( 4877:) 4872:· 4866:· 4860:· 4854:· 4848:· 4842:· 4836:· 4831:( 4823:) 4818:· 4812:· 4806:· 4800:· 4794:· 4788:· 4782:· 4777:( 4768:) 4763:· 4757:· 4751:· 4745:· 4739:· 4733:· 4727:· 4722:( 4707:) 4702:· 4696:· 4690:· 4684:· 4678:· 4672:· 4667:( 4659:) 4654:· 4648:· 4642:· 4636:· 4630:· 4624:· 4619:( 4611:) 4606:· 4600:· 4594:· 4588:· 4582:· 4576:· 4571:( 4563:) 4558:· 4552:· 4546:· 4540:· 4534:· 4528:· 4523:( 4515:) 4510:· 4504:· 4498:· 4492:· 4486:· 4480:· 4475:( 4460:) 4455:· 4449:· 4443:· 4437:· 4431:· 4425:· 4420:( 4412:) 4407:· 4401:· 4395:· 4389:· 4383:· 4377:· 4372:( 4364:) 4359:· 4353:· 4347:· 4341:· 4335:· 4329:· 4324:( 4316:) 4311:· 4305:· 4299:· 4293:· 4287:· 4281:· 4276:( 4268:) 4263:· 4257:· 4251:· 4245:· 4239:· 4233:· 4228:( 4220:) 4215:· 4209:· 4203:· 4197:· 4191:· 4185:· 4180:( 4172:) 4167:· 4161:· 4155:· 4149:· 4143:· 4137:· 4132:( 4124:) 4119:· 4113:· 4107:· 4101:· 4095:· 4089:· 4084:( 4076:) 4071:· 4065:· 4059:· 4053:· 4047:· 4041:· 4036:( 4028:) 4023:· 4017:· 4011:· 4005:· 3999:· 3993:· 3988:( 3980:) 3975:· 3969:· 3963:· 3957:· 3951:· 3945:· 3940:( 3932:) 3927:· 3921:· 3915:· 3909:· 3903:· 3897:· 3892:( 3883:) 3878:· 3872:· 3866:· 3860:· 3854:· 3848:· 3843:( 3804:. 3798:) 3796:t 3794:/ 3788:t 3786:/ 3784:w 3780:t 3778:/ 3772:t 3770:( 3729:c 3726:· 3723:t 3720:· 3712:( 3702:@ 3670:( 3656:: 3652:@ 3639:c 3636:· 3633:t 3630:· 3622:( 3604:@ 3592:( 3580:c 3577:· 3574:t 3571:· 3563:( 3555:. 3502:( 3477:( 3318:( 3306:c 3303:· 3300:t 3297:· 3289:( 3273:( 3243:( 3148:c 3145:· 3142:t 3139:· 3131:( 3121:@ 3113:c 3110:· 3107:t 3104:· 3096:( 3056:( 3033:( 3019:( 2735:( 2708:( 2694:@ 2675:( 2608:' 2570:( 2562:@ 2551:( 2536:: 2532:@ 2501:: 2497:@ 2490:: 2486:@ 2469:( 2434:: 2391:. 2385:" 2380:. 2374:" 2367:" 2361:: 2329:: 2286:( 2267:( 2251:: 2247:@ 2236:( 2230:: 2226:@ 2215:( 2205:: 2201:@ 2196:: 2192:@ 2181:( 2164:( 2153:: 2149:@ 2141:: 2137:@ 2134:: 2130:@ 2084:) 2079:· 2073:· 2067:· 2061:· 2055:· 2049:· 2043:· 2038:( 2029:) 2024:· 2018:· 2012:· 2006:· 2000:· 1994:· 1989:( 1960:) 1958:t 1956:/ 1950:t 1948:/ 1946:w 1942:t 1940:/ 1934:t 1932:( 1266:9 1261:8 1256:7 1251:6 1246:5 1241:4 1236:3 1231:2 1226:1 1209:e 1202:t 1195:v 461:9 456:8 451:7 446:6 441:5 436:4 431:3 426:2 421:1 404:e 397:t 390:v 263:( 239:( 215:( 145:) 141:(

Index

Knowledge:Arbitration
Requests
Shortcut
WP:ARCA
Arbitration Committee
recent changes
purge this page
view
discuss
Case requests
Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke
Past cases
Historical elections
Clarification and Amendment requests
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)
Motion
orig. case
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)
Motion
orig. case
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing
orig. case
Arbitrator motions
Click here to file a request for clarification
Click here to file a request for amendment
contentious topics restriction
Arbitration CA notice
Clarification and Amendment
archives
v

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