410:
Used as "support" for a disagreement/conflict with other user/s or similar hard deceive/mislead-attempts (like double voting, circumventing)? - No. You were at least careless about the 2 accounts, since there wasn't just one topic interaction and not years apart or so (can happen as freak accident). The danger then is, others may think then the 2 accounts are different people. I believe you're sincere though when you say that you did not intent to deceive (no misleading method visible, it would for example otherwise probably have been tempting to use it as a fake supporter for the conflict with another user). Since your account is attached to some personal info, to make a 2nd more private account is believable, there might be further arguments for it. Security/Privacy is a legitimate reason according to
Knowledge:Sockpuppetry, which unfortunately here collided with the inappropriate use (contributing to same page). That's how I would weigh up the arguments. Idk how such cases have been decided here in the past. --
428:
Maduro, and would easily endorse the need for an alternate account in such a case, if one continues making the same controversial edits from a new account and ends up as party to an arbcase, the behaviors of all accounts are open to examination; the policy page says "users should not expect that checkusers nor arbitrators will act to conceal the connection if it is made on-wiki". If the need for security/privacy is so great (and I suspect it is), then it's not wise to continue making the same kinds of edits that led to the need for privacy in the first place. A clean start means one doesn't go right back to the same topics, same behaviors, same battles. And if they do, examination of the behaviors of the previous account is on the table.
943:. Looking back, of course they would be defensive and be offended, but at that time I was genuinely trying to get these feelings off my chest and share my concerns. Telling them I meant no offense does not excuse the matter and I hope both of them accept my apology. These cases provided are some of the bigger missteps that I made with these two and in no way was I trying to intimidate as some have suggested. I apologize for any offensive behavior committed by me towards other users and I believe that my use of the dispute resolution processes above shows that I have been attempting to be increasingly collaborative more recently.
210:). I reviewed my main interactions between my two accounts; they were primarily due to a category being placed in a range of related articles and some prose additions that were not made in any deceitful manner to affect consensus or edit conflicts whatsoever. Confused by this, my first UTRS appeal request was a failure and denied because I was primarily asking what had happened since I genuinely didn't understand what I had done improper. After discussing the situation with the administrator that denied the first appeal, they explained that
1004:
editing
Venezuelan topics since it has only resulted in negative consequences. Recognizing that I am currently indefinitely banned, I want ArbCom to know that they will not regret the decision of unblocking my account. Again, thank you ArbCom for doing your best to remedy this messy situation, for taking your time to be thorough and for allowing me to be somewhat involved in this process. Recognizing that your main focus is on the future of Knowledge, I will accept and respect any decision you make.
22:
202:, though when I was drawn into controversial topics on this main account, I stopped editing with the second account to avoid inappropriate interactions. After some discussions and reviewing policy, I now know that what I did was inappropriate and understand why my account was blocked out of caution. While a block was a valid decision, I want to appeal for an unblock and guarantee to you all that I have learned my lesson that having a second undisclosed account was a mistake.
215:
policy violation or that I could have made a private disclosure. This is still no excuse and it truly was my ignorance of policy which caused me to be blocked. On my part, I want to explain that my original intention was to use my second account for sensitive topics (politics, etc.) and my main account for local editing since I did not want individuals who disagreed with any edits knowing where I live (just look at my username...), believing that a second account for
1445:
749:
112:
726:
account that was separate from where my location is in order to maintain privacy. I do not have any other active account. ArbCom has since been notified about all of the details and I'm leaving it in their hands, respectively. Honestly, if I continue to be blocked, I understand and recognize ArbCom's decision since after reviewing all of the details provided, they have reached that this would be the best outcome for the project.
227:
all, I only wanted to provide my rationale concerning my own privacy. I apologize for this disruption and can promise that this will not happen again as I take pride in being accountable for my actions. If this main account were to be unblocked, I want my second account to remain blocked and I agree to not edit the articles where these interactions occurred. While also seeing another user recommended a
875:
to speak on the behavior of others as I have already shared what was necessary and do not want to perpetuate conflict. I will, however, respond to the proposals regarding my account and comment on each point that mentions my account name. Also, I will share my opinion on why I now believe
Venezuelan political topics should be considered a contentious topic.
1462:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see
765:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see
243:(I'm not sure if a UTRS request is the same as this), this request still helps me feel better since I want to ensure to the Knowledge community that I am being as transparent as possible for you all. I have nothing to hide and if any other user has questions or concerns, feel free to comment here on my talk page.
409:
Hello. Saw your ban when checking on an article (topic unrelated to the conflict). Hope it's still appropriate to post 2 cents. From what I see about the 2 checkuser-blocked accounts: Cases where the same topic was edited (with time difference between the two accounts, but not that long time)? - Yes.
226:
So, now that this can of worms has now been opened, I'm a little bit more comfortable with addressing all of this publicly with the community. To sum things up, I made a mistake and should have reviewed sockpuppet policy more thoroughly before having two accounts. I’m not here to excuse my actions at
874:
Thank you for doing your best to include me in this strenuous process. I'm grateful that you all have taken the time to review this complicated matter and sincerely apologize if my behavior has ever been disruptive towards your decisions or to the project in general. In my response, I no longer want
695:
can you please clarify exactly what you mean by a privacy reason for having the second account? Do you mean that because others wouldn't have known that it was you that was making the edits that they wouldn't subjected the edits being made by your second account to the same level of scrutiny as they
427:
under the privacy provision says "the account may be publicly linked to your main account for sanctions" and "If the connection is discovered, prior notification is not a 'get out of jail free card'." While I hugely respect the need for security/privacy when editing controversial topics like
Nicolas
366:
Regarding a broad Latin
American political topics ban, I'm not opposed to it if necessary as I sincerely want to focus on local topics for now. However, it is clear that the serious editing issues arose with my entry into Venezuelan politics. I had actually exposed multiple sockpuppets being used in
197:
Well, seeing how things are developing, it may be more appropriate to provide a public explanation since other users may be skeptical or have lost trust in me. After discussing the situation with an administrator and reviewing some policies on the appeal process, I wanted to wait about a week before
672:
As for the involvement of other users in this discussion, I can't explain this. I will be deliberately avoiding Latin
American topics for the foreseeable future, so users shouldn't expect any future involvement on my part. I have always valued my privacy and well-being more than some political POV.
358:
reasons and I would feel more comfortable discussing the details about this explicitly in a private manner with ArbCom if needed (It appears the second account was blocked without any additional tags to this account for a reason, since there are known privacy issues). As I said, I'm trying to be as
214:
interaction whatsoever between the accounts was a violation and that I could have disclosed the links privately to administrators. All of this was new to me and I now comprehend this clearly. Since I did not have any malicious intent with having two accounts, I did not know that such behavior was a
382:
While those accounts were used for deceptive purposes, mine wasn't. You would think that I would have been more observant about sockpuppet policy details (no interactions and providing private disclosure) due to the previous sockpuppets, but I ignorantly overlooked the intricacies of such policies
238:
Hopefully these requests demonstrate that I have learned my lesson and that the previous interactions had no deeper motive nor have any future motive. Since warmer weather is approaching here, I also want to share that I really want to only focus on local topics for awhile and contribute with more
1209:
I do have a question; will I be able to ping other users on my talk page to suggest images or files for them? For instance, to place a certain image in an infobox or to provide an update, would I be able to contact a recent editor or a member of a WikiProject? I only want to be making appropriate
1166:
As it seems that I will remain blocked for the time being, I want to share that I accept ArbCom's decision. No matter my rationale of maintaining privacy, my actions were inexcusable and disruptive. If I were truly concerned about my privacy, I should not have participated in such a controversial
886:
I do not believe that edit warring and similar conflicts regarding
Venezuelan politics began with NoonIcarus and I. You can see the discussions, ANIs and other warnings from the past, all prior to this more recent dispute, evidences that Venezuelan politics is clearly a contentious topic with its
983:
The main edit warring/reverting concerns were between NoonIcarus and I. While I personally do not believe that I will engage in edit warring since I will avoid controversial topics, if you believe this would support my editing behavior and the project, then I will accept the restriction. My main
1003:
In summary, I apologize for my misbehavior and the use of a second account; my exit from controversial topics should resolve both of these problems (no edit warring and no need for a second private account without controversy, even though the cat is out of the bag). I have no desire to continue
617:
I looked at their contribution history to review their recent edits and noticed the block. Most of my activity is observing recent edits to articles while logged out (I've already read the articles and so I just look at the additions or changes). Out of curiosity, I sometimes look at the recent
725:
It was related to this account being used for local editing and the second account shortly being used for political topics. As I became more interested in political topics, my intention was to have my main account for local edits only where I could be less careful about who I am and the second
957:
due to its highly-polarized nature, its history of edit warring, its subjection to misinformation and other concerns that were shared in private correspondences with the
Arbitration Committee and the English Knowledge CheckUser team. After initially rejecting the proposal, it is clear that a
994:
of the interaction ban for NoonIcarus and I months ago in an attempt to deter edit warring. For the record, if this is the last time I can mention NoonIcarus on the project, I want them to know that I don't hold any negative personal feelings or animosity towards them and I apologize if my
231:, I am open to being banned from Venezuelan politics for a period of time; it really is the last place I want to be (see section "Thanks for the tag" on my talk page since a link here creates an error). The evidence really does suggest that Venezuelan politics should be recognized as a
984:
concerns with the 0RR would be me reverting obviously inappropriate edits and disagreements on topics with very limited editor involvement, though I suppose I could reach out with dispute resolution procedures for the latter and cross that bridge when it comes for the former.
964:
After reflecting on my behavior and my unintentional violation of having a second account, I believe that I can still be beneficial for the project by avoiding contentious topics. As shared previously, I want to focus more on local topics and put all of this behind me.
1176:
appeal those blocks and will never make any other account to participate in such topics. Moving forward, I am going to be focusing on providing images and files on
Wikimedia Commons, trying to be as useful as possible for the project in a less controversial manner.
1229:
prohibits all edits except those to appeal your ban. In the case of
Arbitration Committee bans, these are also set to disallow talk page access because the appeal method is via email. Therefore, asking for others to make edits is not allowed and could violate the
205:
When the block occurred, I was initially confused since I did not participate in acts "to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban or sanction" (see
518:. There is a legitimate security and privacy concern, especially with the present political climate in relation to Venezuelan politics. I'm not too familiar with the activity or disagreements going on currently but I was disappointed to see the block because
926:
I will acknowledge that my behavior was not acceptable in some circumstances, especially in my initial interactions with users while discussing Venezuelan topics during my first few months editing on the subject. Especially regarding SandyGeorgia, I
887:
highly-polarized nature and the war of truths/untruths being waged by both sides. The conflict between NoonIcarus and I was only a more-severe symptom of the illness that Venezuelan political topics have been suffering for nearly two decades now.
843:
which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on your talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see
1084:
was intentional due to the talk page process and since it was a reply to David Tornheim, but should you change the section title of "Comments by David Tornheim" over Allan Nonymous' comments to "Comments by Allan Nonymous"? Just trying to
958:
contentious topic designation would provide more rigid sanctions that would heighten the topic's standards, set expectations on behavior/interactions and would encourage dialogue amongst users, promoting collaboration instead of conflict.
485:
I don't know where the idea that I support a clean start for WMrapids came from; my point is that if an abuse of clean start is already on the table, the return to battleground should be accounted for by increasing sanctions.
559:
permits publicly revealing prior accounts created for security reasons. I have been courteous in not initiating a public SPI, but if these behaviors continue, I might re-evaluate my decision to be compassionate.
618:
history of users who happen to modify the articles that I edit. I've looked at yours in the past also as you edit a lot of articles that I'm interested in. Most users are like me, we are just in the background.
1301:
Thank you for the quick response. I'll probably still contribute through Commons and won't make any suggestions to other editors. Again, just asking because I want to respect all policies and don't want to be
743:
1121:
1023:
1257:
1454:
920:
and the account was not used for malicious reasons, it does not excuse such behavior. Personally, I take this as a learning experience and assure the community that I will not use a second account.
840:
555:
If this account is unblocked, then any identified sockmaster should be blocked or revealed, and I don't believe that outcome to be in the best interest of the person operating the accounts.
335:
the WMrapids account entered there, with prior disagreements with NoonIcarus? Also, the behaviors have also occurred in Peruvian politics, so Latin America probably would be a better target.
935:
for us to both take a break to lower the temperature). Regarding both NoonIcarus and SandyGeorgia, I vented to both of them in November 2023 about my concerns with their editing behavior (
1439:
1081:
1055:
383:
and this is where I'm at. However, I have now learned my lesson. I respectively request that you can all understand my circumstances, can recognize my privacy concerns and know that my
1377:) is topic banned from Venezuelan politics, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
910:). Moving forward, if unblocked, I assure the community that I will do my best to utilize every appropriate measure of dispute resolution in order to avoid disrupting the project.
1432:
198:
making an appeal as I did not want to be disruptive. It's true, I had a second account (with a little over 100 edits) that I initially used for privacy reasons believing it was a
1411:
anywhere on Knowledge, subject to the ordinary exceptions. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
464:
862:
368:
824:
977:
Again, I have no problem with being topic banned from Venezuelan topics and even if I am not topic banned, I do not foresee participating in the topic moving forward.
1180:
Overall, I believe ArbCom made the best decision they could make given the evidence presented and I am hopeful that things will begin moving in the right direction.--
1041:
639:
They are not a poll and are based on the decision of administrators. I leave it in their hands now that they know everything and we should respect their decision.
1341:
995:
participation in past disputes with them caused any disruption. NoonIcarus is a knowledgable editor and even if we have disagreements, I want them to know that.
834:
468:
788:
372:
1256:
amongst other things. The proxying wasn't the complete story for why they lost their talk page access but it certainly was a large part of it. Another editor
669:
and to let the administrators make their decision. Don't worry, you won't see me editing in the same topics going forward (especially if I stay blocked haha).
299:
template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.
176:
1170:
During this time, I will reflect on whether or not I want to appeal my indefinite account block. Regarding my other blocks (topic and interaction), I will
757:
1361:) is indefinitely banned from Knowledge. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
1486:
331:; I did not recommend a clean start. I do ask if CLEAN START has already been breached. Did you edit under another account in Venezuela politics,
85:
The blocked user had removed the content within this box – I am restoring it. Until their block (now ban) is lifted, this discussion is part of an "
857:
971:
I have no problem with being restricted to only one account and you can proceed to enact this restriction if you believe it is necessary.
845:
1264:
to appeal it on behalf of the blocked editor and the block was endorsed. Given this recent example I'd probably advise against it.
901:
329:"While also seeing another user recommended a clean start, I am open to being banned from Venezuelan politics for a period of time"
1474:
776:
152:
105:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1323:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1058:
when it comes to interaction bans. Additional restrictions should always be considered if an interaction ban is enacted.--
1424:
284:
500:
1332:
928:
1458:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a
761:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a
1155:
1016:
893:
It seems that we have all made attempts at dispute resolution at some point. On my part, I have attempted using the
240:
1390:
1311:
1281:
940:
735:
548:
124:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
1094:
651:
574:
396:
1243:
1109:
1035:
936:
1067:
682:
627:
612:
480:
1404:
1374:
1358:
713:
544:
522:
has made very insightful contributions and seems to have always been open to communication with other editors.
147:
1463:
1344:
has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the case page. The following remedies have been enacted:
766:
349:
170:
139:
86:
1133:
810:
419:
135:
38:
531:
818:
161:
93:
1459:
762:
1189:
1129:
252:
125:
89:" and should not be removed. I've placed it within a collapse box as a courtesy to the blocked user.
180:
157:
476:
359:
transparent as possible due to my own privacy concerns and I emphasize that the second account was
274:
119:
321:
143:
1219:
1046:
While I don't see myself editing the same topics as NoonIcarus in the future, I agree with what
666:
570:
496:
438:
345:
166:
931:
in discussions and did not know about their editing difficulties with a keyboard (when I made
1384:
1141:
1125:
1049:
798:
647:
608:
228:
219:
was appropriate for privacy. While some may question this motive, it was not done to avoid
1194:
8:
917:
511:
472:
355:
1296:
1266:
1253:
1231:
720:
698:
623:
587:
540:
527:
220:
216:
199:
1167:
topic in the first place, so this is on me and I apologize for consuming their time.
1161:
1115:
660:
561:
487:
460:
429:
336:
223:
in any way either since the edits on my second account were quite limited in number.
65:
1416:
1292:
1235:
1201:
1101:
1075:
1027:
869:
849:
293:
269:
90:
1433:
Knowledge talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Venezuelan politics case closed
991:
932:
908:
905:
898:
696:
would have if they would have known it was you? Is that what you mean by privacy?
1482:
1380:
784:
643:
634:
604:
415:
1408:
1226:
556:
424:
316:
232:
207:
1122:
Knowledge talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Proposed decision
1024:
Knowledge talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Proposed decision
592:
Just a reminder that, if I understand correctly, appeal requests aren't polls.
50:
1394:
1364:
1348:
1303:
1261:
1249:
1211:
1181:
1147:
1086:
1059:
1008:
727:
692:
674:
619:
598:
536:
523:
519:
515:
456:
388:
354:
That is the concern about the second account. Again, this second account was
306:
244:
130:
21:
744:
Orphaned non-free image File:Metro Health, University of Michigan Health.png
894:
805:
266:
54:
56:
1478:
1252:, recently a blocked editor (Sennalen) lost their talk page access for
916:
Yes, I had a second account that violated sockpuppet policies. Even if
780:
411:
1206:
I am pinging you since it appears that ArbCom may be assuming my ban?
312:
955:
I do believe that Venezuelan politics should be a contentious topic
665:
My two accounts have been blocked. I respectively ask you to avoid
52:
1440:
Orphaned non-free image File:Carta de Madrid (Madrid Charter).png
387:
goal is to contribute with building an outstanding encyclopedia.
57:
1409:
prohibited from interacting with or commenting on each other
239:
location images moving forward (I'm over the drama). While
369:
Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Búfalo Barreto/Archive
1210:
contributions, so I would appreciate an answer on this.--
281:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
907:) and personally plead for an agreement on a talk page (
514:, I agree with conditions similar to those suggested by
301:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
1342:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics
1124:
was very nicely, thoughtfully and graciously written.
603:, how did you learn about this block? Kind regards, --
373:
Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Armando AZ/Archive
309:: please could you review the request above? — Martin
758:
File:Metro Health, University of Michigan Health.png
118:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
15:
929:
ignorantly overlooked some of their personal issues
1473:will be deleted after seven days, as described in
1120:Hi I just wanted to say I think your statement at
969:WMrapids unblocked with a one-account restriction:
775:will be deleted after seven days, as described in
469:WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan_politics
1475:section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion
1469:Note that any non-free images not used in any
777:section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion
771:Note that any non-free images not used in any
455:with conditions similar to those suggested by
804:, should be SVGified and moved to Commons. –
990:I have no problem with the interaction ban.
265:Moot now that the user is banned by ArbCom.
841:remedy or finding of fact has been proposed
846:Knowledge:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration
1455:File:Carta de Madrid (Madrid Charter).png
241:this request may be procedurally declined
367:Peruvian political topics myself (see:
988:Interpersonal issues/Interaction ban:
75:Discussion related to unblock request
101:The following discussion is closed.
918:my intentions were only for privacy
363:used for deceptive purposes at all.
13:
1443:
992:I even proposed a more lax version
747:
110:
14:
1497:
1056:about the "first-mover advantage"
848:. For the Arbitration Committee,
510:- To piggyback on the comment by
1319:The discussion above is closed.
20:
1415:For the Arbitration Committee,
1258:took the talk page access block
1022:I have copied your comments to
1487:02:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
952:Contentious topic designation:
902:dispute resolution noticeboard
1:
1464:our policy for non-free media
863:Response to proposed decision
767:our policy for non-free media
981:WMrapids revert restriction:
379:misuse of multiple accounts.
7:
1232:the policy on proxy editing
122:, who declined the request.
87:important community process
10:
1502:
819:21:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
789:02:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
736:16:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
714:14:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
683:17:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
652:17:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
628:15:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
613:13:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
575:13:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
532:13:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
501:03:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
481:03:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
420:23:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
397:19:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
350:16:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
322:18:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
253:01:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
1444:
1042:More comments by WMrapids
914:Use of multiple accounts:
879:PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
833:Hi WMrapids, in the open
825:Proposed decision in the
748:
285:guide to appealing blocks
208:"This page in a nutshell"
1425:12:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
1321:Please do not modify it.
1312:15:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
1307:
1282:10:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
1244:08:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
1220:22:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
1215:
1190:22:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
1185:
1156:14:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
1151:
1134:10:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
1110:19:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
1095:14:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
1090:
1068:14:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
1063:
1036:08:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
1017:20:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
1012:
858:17:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
731:
678:
595:If it is alright to ask
508:Strongly support unblock
392:
275:14:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
248:
103:Please do not modify it.
94:09:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
1449:
975:WMrapids topic banned:
753:
115:
1452:Thanks for uploading
1447:
1340:The arbitration case
895:third opinion process
884:Locus of the dispute:
755:Thanks for uploading
751:
549:few or no other edits
463:above per my comment
167:change block settings
114:
924:WMrapids' behaviour:
839:arbitration case, a
551:outside this topic.
1334:Venezuelan politics
1100:I have fixed this.
891:Dispute resolution:
836:Venezuelan politics
827:Venezuelan politics
1450:
754:
375:), so I recognize
116:
104:
1460:claim of fair use
1430:Discuss this at:
1329:
1328:
947:PROPOSED REMEDIES
817:
763:claim of fair use
642:Same thoughts. --
591:
552:
320:
233:contentious topic
102:
63:
62:
44:
43:
1493:
1446:
1300:
1205:
1174:
1145:
1079:
1053:
962:WMrapids banned:
956:
873:
808:
803:
797:
750:
724:
664:
638:
602:
585:
567:
534:
493:
435:
342:
310:
298:
292:
186:
184:
173:
155:
153:deleted contribs
113:
71:
70:
58:
35:
34:
24:
16:
1501:
1500:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1477:. Thank you. --
1442:
1338:
1330:
1325:
1324:
1290:
1199:
1197:
1172:
1164:
1142:Bobfrombrockley
1139:
1126:BobFromBrockley
1118:
1073:
1050:Robert McClenon
1047:
1044:
1001:
954:
949:
933:this suggestion
881:
867:
865:
831:
816:
813:
801:
795:
779:. Thank you. --
746:
718:
658:
632:
596:
565:
491:
453:Support unblock
433:
340:
304:
296:
290:
289:, then use the
278:
272:
271:it has begun...
256:
174:
164:
150:
133:
126:blocking policy
111:
107:
98:
97:
96:
76:
68:
59:
53:
29:
12:
11:
5:
1499:
1441:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1413:
1412:
1378:
1362:
1337:
1331:
1327:
1326:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1285:
1284:
1246:
1196:
1193:
1163:
1162:Moving forward
1160:
1159:
1158:
1117:
1116:Nice statement
1114:
1113:
1112:
1043:
1040:
1039:
1038:
997:
945:
877:
864:
861:
830:
823:
822:
821:
814:
809:
745:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
670:
656:
655:
654:
630:
593:
580:
579:
578:
577:
512:David Tornheim
505:
504:
503:
473:David Tornheim
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
402:
401:
400:
399:
380:
364:
279:
270:
263:
259:Decline reason
217:legitimate use
200:legitimate use
195:
191:Request reason
188:
109:
108:
99:
84:
83:
82:
81:
78:
77:
74:
69:
67:
66:Appeal request
64:
61:
60:
55:
51:
49:
46:
45:
42:
41:
31:
30:
25:
19:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1498:
1489:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1467:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1456:
1435:
1434:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1410:
1406:
1403:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1389:
1386:
1382:
1379:
1376:
1373:
1370:
1366:
1363:
1360:
1357:
1354:
1350:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1343:
1335:
1322:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1302:disruptive.--
1298:
1297:TarnishedPath
1294:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1283:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1275:
1272:
1269:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1245:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1233:
1228:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1207:
1203:
1192:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1178:
1175:
1168:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1143:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1111:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1083:
1077:
1070:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1051:
1037:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1025:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1005:
1000:
996:
993:
989:
985:
982:
978:
976:
972:
970:
966:
963:
959:
953:
948:
944:
942:
938:
934:
930:
925:
921:
919:
915:
911:
909:
906:
903:
899:
896:
892:
888:
885:
880:
876:
871:
860:
859:
856:
855:
854:
847:
842:
838:
837:
828:
820:
812:
807:
800:
793:
792:
791:
790:
786:
782:
778:
774:
768:
764:
760:
759:
737:
733:
729:
722:
721:TarnishedPath
717:
716:
715:
712:
711:
710:
707:
704:
701:
694:
690:
684:
680:
676:
671:
668:
662:
657:
653:
649:
645:
641:
640:
636:
631:
629:
625:
621:
616:
615:
614:
610:
606:
600:
594:
589:
588:edit conflict
584:
583:
582:
581:
576:
572:
568:
564:
558:
554:
553:
550:
546:
542:
538:
533:
529:
525:
521:
517:
513:
509:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
484:
483:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
451:
450:
440:
436:
432:
426:
423:
422:
421:
417:
413:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
398:
394:
390:
386:
381:
378:
374:
370:
365:
362:
357:
353:
352:
351:
347:
343:
339:
334:
330:
326:
325:
324:
323:
318:
314:
308:
303:
302:
295:
288:
286:
277:
276:
273:
268:
262:
260:
255:
254:
250:
246:
242:
236:
234:
230:
224:
222:
218:
213:
209:
203:
201:
194:
192:
187:
182:
178:
172:
168:
163:
159:
154:
149:
145:
144:global blocks
141:
140:active blocks
137:
132:
127:
123:
121:
120:administrator
106:
95:
92:
88:
80:
79:
73:
72:
48:
47:
40:
37:
36:
33:
32:
28:
23:
18:
17:
1470:
1468:
1453:
1451:
1431:
1419:
1418:
1414:
1401:
1398:
1387:
1371:
1368:
1355:
1352:
1339:
1333:
1320:
1276:
1273:
1270:
1267:
1265:
1238:
1237:
1208:
1198:
1179:
1171:
1169:
1165:
1119:
1104:
1103:
1071:
1045:
1030:
1029:
1007:Thank you --
1006:
1002:
998:
987:
986:
980:
979:
974:
973:
968:
967:
961:
960:
951:
950:
946:
941:SandyGeorgia
923:
922:
913:
912:
900:), used the
890:
889:
883:
882:
878:
866:
852:
851:
835:
832:
826:
794:Retagged as
772:
770:
756:
708:
705:
702:
699:
697:
667:gravedancing
661:SandyGeorgia
562:
507:
488:
461:SandyGeorgia
452:
430:
384:
376:
360:
337:
332:
328:
305:
300:
282:
280:
264:
258:
257:
237:
225:
211:
204:
196:
190:
189:
162:creation log
129:
117:
100:
26:
1336:case closed
1293:Dreamy Jazz
1254:WP:PROXYING
1202:Dreamy Jazz
1146:Thank you!
1080:, not sure
1076:Dreamy Jazz
870:Dreamy Jazz
829:case posted
799:PD-textlogo
547:) has made
356:for privacy
229:clean start
91:Arcticocean
1381:NoonIcarus
999:CONCLUSION
937:NoonIcarus
644:NoonIcarus
635:NoonIcarus
605:NoonIcarus
267:* Pppery *
158:filter log
1195:Questions
283:read the
177:checkuser
136:block log
39:Archive 1
1471:articles
1405:contribs
1395:WMrapids
1391:contribs
1375:contribs
1365:WMrapids
1359:contribs
1349:WMrapids
1304:WMrapids
1250:WMrapids
1227:site ban
1212:WMrapids
1182:WMrapids
1148:WMrapids
1087:WMrapids
1060:WMrapids
1009:WMrapids
811:contribs
773:articles
728:WMrapids
693:WMrapids
675:WMrapids
620:Esequiba
599:Esequiba
545:contribs
537:Esequiba
524:Esequiba
520:WMrapids
516:WMrapids
457:WMrapids
389:WMrapids
307:Primefac
245:WMrapids
221:scrutiny
148:contribs
131:WMrapids
27:Archives
1417:Dreamy
1236:Dreamy
1102:Dreamy
1085:help!--
1082:if this
1028:Dreamy
850:Dreamy
566:Georgia
557:WP:SOCK
492:Georgia
434:Georgia
425:WP:SOCK
341:Georgia
294:unblock
171:unblock
1407:) are
1393:) and
1262:WP:XRV
1072:Also,
806:dudhhr
377:actual
333:before
1479:B-bot
1173:never
1054:says
781:B-bot
563:Sandy
489:Sandy
471:. --
431:Sandy
412:Casra
338:Sandy
287:first
1483:talk
1420:Jazz
1399:talk
1385:talk
1369:talk
1353:talk
1308:talk
1295:and
1277:Path
1239:Jazz
1216:talk
1186:talk
1152:talk
1130:talk
1105:Jazz
1091:talk
1064:talk
1031:Jazz
1013:talk
939:and
853:Jazz
785:talk
732:talk
709:Path
679:talk
648:talk
624:talk
609:talk
571:Talk
541:talk
528:talk
497:Talk
477:talk
465:here
459:and
439:Talk
416:talk
393:talk
385:only
371:and
346:Talk
317:talk
313:MSGJ
249:talk
1466:).
1274:hed
1271:nis
1268:Tar
1260:to
815:her
769:).
706:hed
703:nis
700:Tar
573:)
499:)
467:at
361:not
348:)
327:Re
212:any
181:log
128:).
1485:)
1310:)
1234:.
1225:A
1218:)
1188:)
1154:)
1132:)
1093:)
1066:)
1026:.
1015:)
802:}}
796:{{
787:)
734:)
681:)
650:)
626:)
611:)
543:•
535:—
530:)
479:)
418:)
395:)
315:·
297:}}
291:{{
261::
251:)
235:.
193::
175:•
169:•
165:•
160:•
156:•
151:•
146:•
142:•
138:•
1481:(
1448:⚠
1402:·
1397:(
1388:·
1383:(
1372:·
1367:(
1356:·
1351:(
1306:(
1299::
1291:@
1248:@
1214:(
1204::
1200:@
1184:(
1150:(
1144::
1140:@
1128:(
1089:(
1078::
1074:@
1062:(
1052::
1048:@
1011:(
904:(
897:(
872::
868:@
783:(
752:⚠
730:(
723::
719:@
691:@
677:(
663::
659:@
646:(
637::
633:@
622:(
607:(
601::
597:@
590:)
586:(
569:(
539:(
526:(
495:(
475:(
441:)
437:(
414:(
391:(
344:(
319:)
311:(
247:(
185:)
183:)
179:(
134:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
