946:. I do this with some trepidation because most committees in recent years have treated accepting a case has been tantamount to voting to desysop. I am not ready to vote to desysop. I may never be ready to vote to desysop. However, I don't think accepting a case should be the same as support desysop and don't want to have to vote strategically in that way and I am hoping that there are enough people on this year's committee who feel similarly. Philosophically I think a case can be a helpful mechanism whereby ArbCom examines repeated allegations of conduct in a systematic fair manner and deliver an outcome. That can be to say "there's a lot of smoke around this admin but there's no fire", it can be to say "this person is a positive overall admin but needs some guardrails (as the 2020 committee did with GiantSnowman, and this year's committee reaffirmed in our motion to modify that which is part of the reason why I'm will to go this route). Or it can be to say "you should no longer be an admin". The evidence to suggest Mzajac's conduct needs closer examination continues to accumulate and in fact all of the editors commenting on Mzajac's conduct outside of this incident have pointed to some troubling things, with little overlap (even if those editors' conclusion is there's no case to be had). We have now received multiple editors pointing to specific evidence of use of their admin right as a way to get what they want without using the toolset, their not understanding policies and guidelines which I expect admin to understand, and general inability to edit in their main topic area in a colloborative and collegial manner which suggests an inability to abide by
1410:, scoped to Mzajac's behavior. It was reasonable to bring the wheel-warring straight to ArbCom, but I think in this case it was a simple mistake and doesn't need more than an informal "that was wrong, be more careful in the future". Under normal circumstances I'd call that sufficient and ask people to go through the normal escalation process if there are separate problems with Mzajac. However, I do feel that the evidence raised here (particularly the AE threads), coupled with Mzajac's failure to see the problem here, is sufficient for a deeper look into their admin conduct. As other arbs noted, this doesn't mean a desysop is guaranteed and I'm not there yet myself.
1123:
chance to discuss this admin's performance and they have not had chance to take on board the community's feedback. The "perfect" admin conduct case would come to us after discussion at a noticeboard where it has become clear that the community has lost faith in an admin or that the admin is not taking the community's hints that there are problems with their adminning. This case request was originally about another admin who did not need our attention at this time. I'm undecided on whether referring this to AN only for it to come back here if the concerns can't be resolved there would be bureaucracy for its own sake.
925:. I also take note of RoySmith's and Tamzin's comments (the latter of which I obviously previewed in my own initial comment) suggesting that there might be enough for a case focused on examining Mzajac's conduct and actions as admin. In general I think our bar to accepting such cases should be low given that we are the only body that can fully and completely act on this issue. I am curious if there is other feedback from the community about that, rather than merely responding to the incident noted in the filing request.
579:
185:
950:(example of editor statements to support these characterizations include Roy, Tamzin, Ymblanter, Ostalgia, and Nick). With a committee that will, I hope, not just march to an inevitable desysop I vote to accept because I worry that declining now means that if there is a problem necessitating desysop by the time someone comes back to us the problem will have festered and harmed editors and our content in a very sensitive topic in the mean time.
1435:. The edits to protected pages and any move-related deletions requiring administrator access are in the general topic of Ukraine and can be reasonably construed as being part of a contentious topic. I wouldn't go as far as characterizing administrative actions, particularly routine ones, in a topic area that an administrator routinely edits and participates in related discussions as necessarily crossing the line of
1269:, with the implication that they can no longer tell which policies govern the use of each option. But none of these merit taking the short route to ArbCom. If this comes back after the intermediate steps, and after Mzajac has had the opportunity to consider their awareness of relevant policies and their future use of the tools, then there's material which is worthy of ArbCom consideration and action.
1618:
1528:
bureaucratic to insist that a new case request be filed for the committee to examine Mzajac's conduct. I also do not agree that Mzajac's conduct should go to AN/ANI/AE first for community discussion; their conduct has been discussed at AE twice with some conclusion that concerns should be presented here, and I think this is enough community discussion and information to open a case now.
1444:
it doesn't seem you'd be using the tools, either at all or almost so. On the other hand, I feel that continued, albeit sporadic, use of admin tools in that topic area is unlikely to be beneficial for either the project or yourself, and in the event that we decline a case, I fear that we will be back here sooner rather than later. You may use an additional 500 words to reply.
982:'s undeletion: If you disagree with a deletion and consider it wise for whichever reason to undo the action without discussion, then please at least just re-create the page like everyone else without the undeletion button would do. Same result, less drama. Or, better: Discuss the matter with the deleting administrator. Regarding
1439:, but that's something that can be close to said line, particularly in a contentious topic. I want to also highlight that the meaning of administrator involvement has changed over the past 15+ years; the undeletion that brings us here I don't think would have been as big of a deal back then. At a minimum, I would strongly
1473:
is a bright-line rule for a good reason, though I think the explanation that it was a mistake is a reasonable one given the atypical circumstances of the action compared to other wheel concerns that I have seen. Regarding Mzajac, I shared a similar concern as
Jclemens regarding the process used here.
1443:
that you avoid administrator actions related to
Ukraine, broadly construed. But this suggestion leads me to a direct question: have you considered resigning as an administrator, particularly given the light use of the tools in general? If you voluntarily abstain from anything related to Ukraine, then
1523:
Concerning Bbb23's WHEELing: Bbb23 admitted their mistake, explained what they should have done, explained what they will do differently next time, and no additional evidence of misbehaviour has been presented. Therefore, I endorse
CaptainEek's trout above and don't think this needs to be looked at
1375:
I expect to vote to accept an ADMINCOND case primarily related to Mzajac. I do want to make a general point about wheel warring, which is that the firmness of the rule against the third action (i.e., reinstating a reversed admin action) wheel warring (even relatively minor cases) has been important
1122:
Striking my vote for the moment while I give more thought to the issues raised. On the one hand, I agree that the committee should have a low bar for accepting admin conduct cases because ultimately we're the only body that can desysop if that's called for. On the other, the community has not had a
796:
seen as a brightline where violating is likely to result in desysop has benefitted our project. A G7 would, for me, be a reasonable exception. So I look forward to hearing where that request was placed, because I'm not seeing it in Mzajac's contribution history. I will note that Mzajac was recently
1631:
If such a request is not made within three months of this motion or if Mzajac resigns his administrative tools, this case shall be automatically closed, and Mzajac shall remain desysopped. If tools are resigned or removed, in the circumstances described above, Mzajac may regain the administrative
1143:
an admin conduct case centred on Mzajac given that there appear to be ongoing issues with Mzajac's adminning, that these issues have come up before but discussions have petered out before resolution, and that their comments here indicate a lack of awareness or understanding of processes and norms
1218:
given that we appear to have a pattern of failures to understand and adhere to policy surrounding use of admin tools on the part of Mzajac. Like others, I want to emphasise that taking a case is no guarantee of specific sanctions (or any at all really) being levied, it merely means there is
920:
looks like through his comments at this case, reflecting on what happened, owning what mistakes happened, and making credible assurances the mistakes won't be repeated. I am, however, far more concerned about the comments Mzajac has made which do not show, for me, adequate understanding of
1527:
Concerning Mzajac's conduct: Mzajac's undeletion brought INVOLVED concerns to ArbCom's attention, and other editors posted additional INVOLVED concerns, including AE reports from 2022 and 2023. This shows a concerning pattern of behaviour for an admin that should be looked at. It would be
1611:
Should Mzajac return to active editing on the
English Knowledge during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and it will proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to
1432:
1172:
policy, and that has served us well. However, just because something is technically a policy violation does not mean that we need to do anything about it. It is perfectly clear that Bbb23 did not intentionally reverse another admin's action, but merely had a
899:
says, admin are expected to read the talk pages when considering whether or not to delete it. So it does matter and give context. But contesting deletion for an attack page doesn't mean the attack page just gets to live on (when something is an attack page).
1192:
On the issues presented in the original request, I would struggle to accept. However, we have a small but growing list of additional suboptimal behaviour from Mzajac. Like
Barkeep49, I would appreciate any additional feedback around this specific point.
1104:
The reinstatement of a reversed action was a mistake so there's no bright-line rule violation. If there are admin conduct issues with Mzajac I'd be willing to hear those but I'd rather see those mature through discussion before coming to ArbCom.
1427:, looking through your admin logs, I notice that the use of tools is infrequent. Most of the entries in your deletion log are related to over-redirect page moves which I believe can be generally done as an ordinary user, or in some cases, as a
1180:
Mzajac's failure to understand that their actions were at best unwise concerns me greatly, and leads me to wonder whether their understanding of the policies and norms that govern the use of admin tools are out of step with the community's.
1345:
Similar to other Arbs I'm thinking on my vote and am leaning on accepting a case with Mzajac as the focus, although I'd like to see further comments on the matter. I think Bbb23 can be removed from the party list if we proceed with that.
31:
1144:
surrounding adminning in 2024. But I hope not to set a precedent that you can get somebody sanctioned by throwing enough mud at them during an arbitration request that resulted from something they were tangentially involved in.
1531:
Noting here that a case does not mean that "desysop" and "admonishment" are the only options available; if a case is opened I will be looking at all the evidence first before contemplating the appropriate resolution.
851:
thanks for that explanation and for your reflection. It strikes me as quite reasonable. I, for one, think it would still be appropriate to undelete it and let it go to RfD like the other one if an editor wishes.
1290:
I think this summary omits the 2023 AE report which closed with ADMINCOND concerns noted. At ACE you talked about needing more options and I think declining cases like this are why we end up with no options.
797:
here in a case that was removed because the filing party was ineligible to file it, but as I noted at that request I'm mindful of last year's AE outcome so there could be issues beyond this incident there.
1431:. All of your entries in your protection log from the past 15 years involve moving protection settings, which can be done as an ordinary user. You've made one block since 2010, and you've made four
1479:
1474:
If this case were not presented as "Mzajac and Bbb23 Wheel War" but as "Mzajac and ADMINACCT" then evidence of previous DR attempts would be needed, and has that been adequately attempted? A
57:
1053:, this is not about wheel-warring on your part; the issue with your undeletion is a different one. It has been named by multiple users already and the relevant policy section is linked in
781:
764:
90:
52:
818:
G10 - Attack Pages - makes no distinction between redirects and other kinds of pages. I have deleted redirects as attack pages. Whether this pair (which I was aware of because of
680:
916:
I agree with the commentary that this incident on its does not need a case, or really any further action. Bbb23 has done, in my opinion, an excellent job of demonstrating what
406:
85:
738:
1520:
a case looking at Mzajac's conduct only, with particular (but not exclusive) focus on INVOLVED concerns within the Russia/Ukraine topic area. Reasoning outlined below:
597:
443:
275:
1078:
administrative action. Which, as I had tried to explain in my first message, wasn't even needed for doing what you wanted to do. This makes the situation so absurd.
1475:
806:
79:
68:
208:
822:) is an attack page is a different story but I didn't want you to get the imrpession you couldn't delete redirects as attack pages; the exception is only for
437:
896:
74:
63:
827:
401:
433:
229:
221:
46:
1419:
1556:
375:
1156:
1135:
1313:
I would hope that declining express-lane cases would encourage the community to explore other remedies before we get involved. However, as
1368:
1117:
225:
1512:
1353:
973:
395:
240:
218:
1376:
in avoiding significant problems over the years, and it's appropriate for ArbCom to continue to uphold the firmness of that rule. Best,
959:
934:
909:
890:
861:
839:
999:
590:
564:
476:
428:
366:
285:
213:
1210:
1087:
1066:
1045:
1024:
1334:
1300:
1285:
526:
391:
1541:
1495:
1453:
1236:
1402:
502:
371:
381:
361:
244:
1570:
386:
299:
280:
558:
552:
349:
611:
420:
311:
1657:
1486:. I think there is enough prior attempt at resolving the issues presented to warrant accepting a case about this matter. -
1263:. I worry about an admin using the tools in support of their own preferred content. I worry about an admin who cannot tell
604:
344:
1524:
further. If other editors have other concerns with their conduct, please post their reasoning in their statement section.
819:
270:
199:
25:
1266:"which of the interface elements have had access to for much of two decades are non-admin, admin, or add-on gadgets"
546:
1509:
873:
contesting a speedy deletion with a talk page message doesn't mean that the page can't be deleted; this isn't like
644:
336:
176:
1185:
referred to by RoySmith is also perturbing, as is the AE thread raised by Tamzin, where Mzajac was said to have
1177:
and didn't check things closely enough. He has said as much and I don't think there's anything more to do there.
656:
322:
265:
21:
1231:
1205:
674:
662:
257:
1598:
746:
702:
650:
495:
307:
205:
1015:'s part, not done with the slightest intention of overruling or wheel-warring with another administrator.
1415:
668:
317:
235:
1361:
given concerns about Mzajac raised and to stifle the bureaucracy of kicking this back to a noticeboard.
1398:
714:
356:
732:
720:
708:
1580:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1182:
771:
726:
610:
Actions taken to enforce remedies authorised in the case (if applicable) are to be logged at the
488:
1411:
1151:
1130:
1112:
195:
118:
17:
1561:
The only thing I have decided is that a case should be opened looking at Mzajac's actions.
1365:
1350:
638:
627:
154:
1608:
will be suspended for a period of three months and Mzajac will be temporarily desysopped.
585:
This case is closed. No edits should be made to this page except by clerks or arbitrators.
8:
1625:
1462:
1296:
1008:
955:
947:
930:
917:
905:
886:
857:
835:
802:
596:
Specific requests for amendment or clarification about the decision should be raised at
1484:
Concerns regarding Mzajac's conduct should be addressed with a arbitration case request
1466:
1436:
1318:
1083:
1075:
1062:
1041:
1020:
995:
922:
757:
1227:
1201:
776:
129:
1478:
was closed citing ADMINACCT concerns that would need to be handled by ArbCom, and a
1592:
1392:
1330:
1281:
1145:
1124:
1106:
696:
113:
1503:
a Mzajac conduct case, seeing as this is a simmering issue. And a trout to Bbb23.
1566:
1537:
1504:
1491:
1470:
1449:
1362:
1347:
1054:
1004:
970:
943:
793:
633:
165:
149:
143:
1321:
activity by Mzajac, and this shows evidence of a pattern of ongoing behaviour,
1314:
1292:
951:
926:
901:
882:
874:
853:
831:
798:
460:
1651:
1633:
1428:
1248:
1079:
1058:
1037:
1036:, you used your administrative tools to undelete it. Do you see the problem?
1033:
1016:
991:
107:
32:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator
Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac
464:
1628:. Mzajac will remain temporarily desysopped for the duration of the case.
1220:
1194:
752:
124:
622:
1588:
1424:
1326:
1277:
1252:
1071:
1050:
1029:
979:
868:
813:
691:
1261:
that contesting a CSD is a cast-iron guarantee the deletion won't happen
1562:
1533:
1487:
1445:
1244:
1174:
1012:
983:
846:
763:
Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at
160:
138:
877:. So can you please clarify what specifically you are referring to as
589:
Any violations of the remedies passed in the case should be raised at
1386:
1378:
1007:, I'm not saying it was wrong to file the case, I'm just saying that
184:
990:
unless this is shown to be part of a larger pattern or intentional.
895:
Mzajac: thanks for that explanation for how you approached this. As
1074:, correct – you have not been wheel warring. You have performed an
462:
102:
465:
466:
1243:
Wheel warring was the reason for short cut route to ArbCom.
1247:
acknowledged his mistake. Unless we're rushing to abandon
1057:'s statement; please take a moment to see and address it.
1009:
occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship
598:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and
Amendment
986:'s mistake: It happens; thank you for the clarification.
942:
a case to examine Mzajac's conduct and adherenece to the
1165:
Here's where I am on the various issues discussed here:
1251:
there's nothing more to do or see on that point.As for
830:
to some BLP that would, for me, still qualify as G10.
782:
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (9/1/1)
1219:sufficient evidence to warrant further scrutiny.
1649:
496:
1643:Passed 12 to 0, 20:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
1011:and this seems to be a genuine mistake on
591:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
503:
489:
1189:the conduct standards expected of admins.
1632:tools at any time only via a successful
1255:'s actions - I worry about an admin who
612:centralised arbitration enforcement log
14:
1650:
1257:thinks a non-admin deleted an article
544:Watchlist all case (and talk) pages:
1469:issues raised in regards to Mzajac.
1317:have drawn my attention to previous
1259:. I worry about an admin who thinks
879:performed apparently against process
605:Knowledge talk:Arbitration Committee
573:
276:Clarification and Amendment requests
1152:
1131:
1113:
603:General questions can be raised at
38:
826:. So if there was a redirect from
39:
1669:
1168:I believe WHEEL is a bright-line/
787:Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
1616:
577:
183:
530:on 20:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
519:on 17:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
1601:)'s absence from editing, the
1482:was closed with the note that
13:
1:
1461:- Specifically regarding the
1187:woefully failed to live up to
1571:04:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
1542:03:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
1513:20:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
1496:02:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
1454:01:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
1420:00:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
1403:00:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
1369:04:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
1157:21:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
923:what it means to be involved
918:administrator accountability
407:Conflict of interest reports
7:
1658:Knowledge arbitration cases
1354:22:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
1335:22:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
1301:22:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
1286:20:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
1237:22:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
1211:15:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
1136:22:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
1118:12:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
1088:21:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
1067:21:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
1046:20:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
1025:20:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
1000:20:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
974:20:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
960:16:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
935:00:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
910:21:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
891:21:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
862:21:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
840:21:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
807:19:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
236:Search archived proceedings
10:
1674:
1032:, you did not "re-create"
538:on 21:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
281:Arbitrator motion requests
1617:
1433:edits to protected pages
1271:At this point I vote to
1153:Penny for your thoughts?
1132:Penny for your thoughts?
1114:Penny for your thoughts?
747:Prior dispute resolution
820:this very useful script
765:/Preliminary statements
824:plausible search terms
758:Preliminary statements
53:Preliminary statements
1634:request for adminship
477:Track related changes
337:Arbitration Committee
177:Knowledge Arbitration
18:Knowledge:Arbitration
944:administrator policy
772:Preliminary decision
286:Enforcement requests
214:Guide to arbitration
135:Drafting arbitrators
1626:clerks' noticeboard
1480:2023 AE discussion
1476:2022 AE discussion
525:Case suspended by
308:Contentious topics
206:Arbitration policy
1581:Motion to suspend
1412:GeneralNotability
1385:
1235:
1209:
788:
620:
619:
571:
513:
512:
480:
448:
318:General sanctions
266:All open requests
196:About arbitration
169:
158:
147:
133:
122:
111:
94:
86:Proposed decision
83:
72:
61:
50:
30:(Redirected from
1665:
1623:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1560:
1383:
1225:
1223:
1199:
1197:
1170:strict liability
1154:
1133:
1115:
872:
850:
828:Worst Human Ever
817:
786:
751:None needed per
742:
684:
628:Involved parties
623:Case information
581:
580:
574:
570:
569:
542:
505:
498:
491:
479:
474:
467:
446:
402:Clerk procedures
394:
352:
323:Editor sanctions
300:Active sanctions
258:Open proceedings
228:
187:
173:
172:
163:
152:
141:
127:
116:
105:
88:
77:
66:
55:
44:
35:
1673:
1672:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1648:
1647:
1639:
1638:
1615:
1613:
1583:
1554:
1221:
1195:
866:
844:
811:
792:I think having
784:
779:
774:
760:
749:
694:
636:
630:
625:
578:
572:
545:
543:
539:
531:
520:
509:
475:
469:
468:
463:
453:
452:
451:
440:
423:
413:
412:
411:
398:
390:
378:
353:
348:
339:
329:
328:
327:
302:
292:
291:
290:
260:
250:
247:
232:
224:
202:
171:
37:
36:
29:
28:
12:
11:
5:
1671:
1661:
1660:
1646:
1645:
1585:
1584:
1582:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1529:
1525:
1515:
1498:
1456:
1422:
1405:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1213:
1190:
1183:This statement
1178:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1027:
976:
964:
963:
962:
937:
914:
913:
912:
864:
842:
783:
780:
778:
775:
773:
770:
759:
756:
748:
745:
744:
743:
689:
629:
626:
624:
621:
618:
617:
616:
615:
608:
601:
594:
582:
541:
534:
523:
515:
511:
510:
508:
507:
500:
493:
485:
482:
481:
471:
470:
461:
459:
458:
455:
454:
450:
449:
441:
436:
431:
425:
424:
419:
418:
415:
414:
410:
409:
404:
399:
389:
384:
379:
374:
369:
364:
359:
354:
347:
341:
340:
335:
334:
331:
330:
326:
325:
320:
315:
304:
303:
298:
297:
294:
293:
289:
288:
283:
278:
273:
268:
262:
261:
256:
255:
252:
251:
249:
248:
243:
238:
233:
223:
216:
211:
203:
198:
192:
189:
188:
180:
179:
42:Main case page
40:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1670:
1659:
1656:
1655:
1653:
1644:
1641:
1640:
1637:
1635:
1629:
1627:
1622:wikimedia.org
1609:
1607:
1605:
1600:
1597:
1594:
1590:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1558:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1543:
1539:
1535:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1521:
1519:
1516:
1514:
1511:
1508:
1507:
1502:
1499:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1457:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1423:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1406:
1404:
1400:
1397:
1394:
1391:
1388:
1381:
1380:
1374:
1370:
1367:
1364:
1363:Moneytrees🏝️
1360:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1352:
1349:
1348:Moneytrees🏝️
1344:
1343:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1276:
1274:
1268:
1267:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1233:
1229:
1224:
1217:
1214:
1212:
1207:
1203:
1198:
1191:
1188:
1184:
1179:
1176:
1171:
1167:
1166:
1164:
1158:
1155:
1149:
1148:
1142:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1134:
1128:
1127:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1116:
1110:
1109:
1103:
1101:
1097:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1034:New Orc Times
1031:
1028:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1003:
1002:
1001:
997:
993:
989:
985:
981:
977:
975:
972:
968:
965:
961:
957:
953:
949:
945:
941:
938:
936:
932:
928:
924:
919:
915:
911:
907:
903:
898:
894:
893:
892:
888:
884:
880:
876:
870:
865:
863:
859:
855:
848:
843:
841:
837:
833:
829:
825:
821:
815:
810:
809:
808:
804:
800:
795:
791:
790:
789:
769:
768:
766:
755:
754:
740:
737:
734:
731:
728:
725:
722:
719:
716:
713:
710:
707:
704:
701:
698:
693:
690:
688:
682:
679:
676:
673:
670:
667:
664:
661:
658:
655:
652:
649:
646:
643:
640:
635:
632:
631:
613:
609:
606:
602:
599:
595:
592:
588:
587:
586:
583:
576:
575:
568:
567:
562:
561:
556:
555:
550:
549:
540:
537:
532:
529:
528:
521:
518:
506:
501:
499:
494:
492:
487:
486:
484:
483:
478:
473:
472:
457:
456:
445:
442:
439:
435:
432:
430:
427:
426:
422:
417:
416:
408:
405:
403:
400:
397:
393:
388:
385:
383:
380:
377:
373:
370:
368:
365:
363:
360:
358:
355:
351:
346:
343:
342:
338:
333:
332:
324:
321:
319:
316:
313:
309:
306:
305:
301:
296:
295:
287:
284:
282:
279:
277:
274:
272:
271:Case requests
269:
267:
264:
263:
259:
254:
253:
246:
242:
239:
237:
234:
231:
227:
222:
220:
217:
215:
212:
210:
207:
204:
201:
197:
194:
193:
191:
190:
186:
182:
181:
178:
175:
174:
170:
167:
162:
156:
151:
145:
140:
136:
131:
126:
120:
115:
109:
104:
100:
96:
92:
87:
81:
76:
70:
65:
59:
54:
48:
43:
33:
27:
23:
19:
1642:
1630:
1610:
1603:
1602:
1595:
1586:
1517:
1505:
1500:
1483:
1463:WP:ADMINCOND
1458:
1440:
1407:
1395:
1389:
1377:
1358:
1322:
1272:
1270:
1265:
1215:
1186:
1169:
1146:
1140:
1125:
1107:
1099:
1098:
987:
966:
948:WP:ADMINCOND
939:
878:
823:
785:
762:
761:
750:
735:
729:
723:
717:
711:
705:
699:
687:filing party
686:
677:
671:
665:
659:
653:
647:
641:
584:
565:
559:
553:
547:
535:
533:
524:
522:
516:
514:
134:
98:
97:
95:
41:
1467:WP:INVOLVED
1437:WP:INVOLVED
1319:WP:INVOLVED
1147:HJ Mitchell
1126:HJ Mitchell
1108:HJ Mitchell
777:Clerk notes
715:protections
657:protections
536:Case closed
517:Case opened
241:Ban appeals
219:Noticeboard
114:Dreamy Jazz
99:Case clerks
1624:or at the
1506:CaptainEek
1429:page mover
1175:brain fart
1080:~ ToBeFree
1059:~ ToBeFree
1055:Guerillero
1038:~ ToBeFree
1017:~ ToBeFree
1005:Guerillero
992:~ ToBeFree
978:Regarding
971:Guerillero
881:? Thanks,
727:page moves
669:page moves
634:Guerillero
447:(pre-2016)
434:Statistics
367:Procedures
150:Moneytrees
1614:arbcom-en
1293:Barkeep49
1275:the case.
952:Barkeep49
927:Barkeep49
902:Barkeep49
883:Barkeep49
854:Barkeep49
832:Barkeep49
799:Barkeep49
721:deletions
663:deletions
372:Elections
1652:Category
1599:contribs
1471:WP:WHEEL
1076:involved
794:WP:WHEEL
703:contribs
645:contribs
75:Workshop
64:Evidence
24: |
22:Requests
20: |
1557:Banedon
1441:suggest
1273:decline
1222:firefly
1196:firefly
1100:Decline
988:Decline
875:WP:PROD
444:Reports
382:History
362:Members
357:Contact
345:Discuss
209:(CU/OS)
125:Firefly
1604:Mzajac
1589:Mzajac
1587:Given
1518:Accept
1501:Accept
1459:Accept
1425:Mzajac
1408:Accept
1379:KevinL
1366:(Talk)
1359:Accept
1351:(Talk)
1327:Cabayi
1323:Accept
1278:Cabayi
1253:Mzajac
1249:WP:AGF
1216:Accept
1141:Accept
1072:Mzajac
1051:Mzajac
1030:Mzajac
980:Mzajac
967:Recuse
940:Accept
869:Mzajac
814:331dot
733:rights
709:blocks
692:Mzajac
675:rights
651:blocks
527:motion
387:Clerks
245:Report
159:&
148:&
123:&
112:&
1563:Z1720
1534:Z1720
1488:Aoidh
1446:Maxim
1245:Bbb23
1013:Bbb23
984:Bbb23
847:Bbb23
560:Wshp.
548:Front
421:Audit
161:Z1720
139:Aoidh
16:<
1606:case
1593:talk
1567:talk
1538:talk
1492:talk
1465:and
1450:talk
1416:talk
1387:L235
1331:talk
1297:talk
1282:talk
1084:talk
1063:talk
1042:talk
1021:talk
996:talk
956:talk
931:talk
906:talk
887:talk
858:talk
836:talk
803:talk
697:talk
639:talk
438:Talk
429:Talk
396:Talk
376:Talk
230:Talk
200:Talk
166:Talk
155:Talk
144:Talk
130:Talk
119:Talk
108:Talk
91:Talk
80:Talk
69:Talk
58:Talk
47:Talk
26:Case
1384:aka
1315:you
897:CSD
739:RfA
681:RfA
566:PD.
554:Ev.
312:Log
103:MJL
1654::
1636:.
1569:)
1540:)
1494:)
1452:)
1418:)
1401:)
1333:)
1325:.
1299:)
1284:)
1230:·
1226:(
1204:·
1200:(
1150:|
1129:|
1111:|
1086:)
1065:)
1044:)
1023:)
998:)
969:--
958:)
933:)
908:)
889:)
860:)
838:)
805:)
753:WW
685:,
563:,
557:,
551:,
137::
101::
84:—
73:—
62:—
51:—
1596:·
1591:(
1565:(
1559::
1555:@
1536:(
1510:⚓
1490:(
1448:(
1414:(
1399:c
1396:·
1393:t
1390:·
1382:(
1329:(
1295:(
1280:(
1234:)
1232:c
1228:t
1208:)
1206:c
1202:t
1102:.
1082:(
1061:(
1040:(
1019:(
994:(
954:(
929:(
904:(
885:(
871::
867:@
856:(
849::
845:@
834:(
816::
812:@
801:(
767:.
741:)
736:·
730:·
724:·
718:·
712:·
706:·
700:·
695:(
683:)
678:·
672:·
666:·
660:·
654:·
648:·
642:·
637:(
614:.
607:.
600:.
593:.
504:e
497:t
490:v
392:+
350:+
314:)
310:(
226:+
168:)
164:(
157:)
153:(
146:)
142:(
132:)
128:(
121:)
117:(
110:)
106:(
93:)
89:(
82:)
78:(
71:)
67:(
60:)
56:(
49:)
45:(
34:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
