Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals

2696:

that have resulted in either an absence of consensus for deletion, or an outright vote to keep the portal in question. It is therefore apparent from practice that the community wants some number of portals to exist. The problem is extremism of views constrained by two-dimensional thinking on both sides. Some editors appear to want to save as many portals as possible, and therefore engage in a flurry of activity to revive moribund portals without instilling a sense of confidence that this level of maintenance will be sustained. This is understandable to the degree that it is how things work in article space, where an article nominated for deletion due to specific defects can be saved by remediation of those defects, but this is generally not how things work with portals, which must be somewhat dynamic to serve a purpose distinct from that already served by articles. Other editors appear to want to delete even those portals that are relatively well-attended and consistently well maintained. Editors need to stop pining for one extreme or the other and find a middle ground.

2592:'s opening statement only mentions the conduct of BHG and NA1K. In my view, they should be the only involved parties in this request for arbitration. If other users are to be investigated, then please amend the opening statement to include the specific incidents where these users are purported to have behaved inappropriately. Additionally, it's unclear to me what the scope of this request is. It clearly seems to be asking the committee to investigate the behavior of BHG and NA1K, but it also seems to be implying that the committee should investigate whether or not portals should exist at all, or that the committee should make some kind of decision that imposes inclusion criteria upon portals so that users cannot create "spam" portals anymore. I disagree that arbitration is the right forum for the latter investigations/decisions. 2482:

ArbCom to review the actions of the users involved, especially BrownHairedGirl, who has led a sustained, six-month harassment campaign against Northamerica1000, for no clear reason other than Northamerica1000 has attempted to improve the existing portals. This conduct should be considered unacceptable in our community, as many different avenues exist to work with and report users who allegedly edit outside the norms. Continually disparaging them is the worst way to solve the problem, and this, combined with the fact no specific rules currently exist for whether to keep or how to improve portals, has directly led to a battleground mentality in this space. I would ask ArbCom to review and mediate this dispute, and I would ask that BrownHairedGirl be at least desysopped for their actions and role in this dispute.

3829:

warning or blocking editors for personal attacks; Brown Haired Girl has lost that credibility. Brown Haired Girl's mass reverting of the edits of a fellow administrator North America 1000's were a major disruption to the project. What followed was a long, drawn out, disruptive public feud which has taken time and energy away from the project. The administrator North America 1000 has tolerated abuse in the form of personal attacks and insults from Brown Haired Girl. I lament the fact that policies are not applied evenly on the project. Administrator's are at different levels of competence: some administrators are punitive or worse. However at a minimum every editor and administrator on the project should follow the guidelines and policies and especially the fourth pillar

3176:. Also note that it appears resolved.) I've made a direct request to Jehochman, but he is apparently declining in favor of allowing me to add additonal parties. Personally I'd prefer Diannaa be removed from the list (unless she desires to be there for some reason) because the block and unblock are not directly related to Portals, and the issue can be addressed either by statement here, or via an evidence phase which would make clearer how appropriate it is to have them on the list. There are plenty of actors here to choose from for a list of parties, and since neither Diannaa or JBW appear to be active in the Portal areas, it makes sense IMO to restrict the number of people to only those most directly involved in the topic of the case request. Thank you 1290:. What the community is looking for is a way forward without the combative rants about someone's ability or lack there of. Don't think brown has abused their admin tools but is this someone the administration community wants representing them? At this point it's not really about portals but the Integrity of the community at large. The editors inability to see any wrong doing makes us normal editors wonder if the administration community has lost its integrity if this is the type of admin that is representative of the community. I keep hearing what are portals by the few that go out of their way to stop progress...but the majority are fully aware of the purpose of portals as outline at 4137:

Portal:American Revolutionary War and have listed myself as maintainer on several other war-related portals, some recently deleted. I rarely find myself in an MfD discussion; some dead wood must be pruned. I have tried to assert constructive notions on WikiProject:Portals, a strange place where some of the most dedicated contributors oppose and impede portal improvement. Despite these contributions editors like myself have been called portalistas, members of the portal platoon; we live on Planet Portal Fan. Instead of treating our disagreements with good faith, we are “othered.”

1928:; (4) decline this case, leaving it alone, although knowing that the community cannot resolve it; (5) accept a case, and assess what aspects of the case are within the committee's charter, to try to "break the back" of the dispute. Since I don't think that the committee intends to exceed its authority, as in option (2), and since I don't know who the other authority would be for option (3), I would suggest that option (5) is the wise minimal option. I respectfully disagree with those who think that there is about to be a successful RFC, at least not without 3968:

resembles the Infobox Wars in the amount of vitriol being spilled between what would otherwise be very competent editors and administrators. But from my point of view, I find the heavy-handed incivility and personal attacks by BHG - even if they are even REMOTELY justified in some small fashion - to be counter-productive to an atmosphere of collegiality. This affects not merely the editors who are directly being called out, but also editors who are merely tangentially involved, as they may be dissuaded from contributing or collaborating further.

4191:, and I will also admit that I'm more of the side of the "Portals had their time but have been superseded by newer features and are now redundant" camp, but the comments mentioned above quoting BHG's comments are very worrying. Considering that, and the fact that the community has been unable to find a compromise between the pro-portals and anti-portals camps, it seems that there is really no other option but for ArbCom to weigh in. I did not comment in the earlier request, but I would have supported such too had I commented. 3833:. If an ordinary editor behaved as Brown Haired girl has behaved, they would get an indefinite block. I believe that Brown Haired Girl should be Desysopped. In addition, as Usedtobecool has correctly stated this disruptive feud should not have gotten to this point: the many administrators who failed to act to protect the project and North America 1000 should be addressed. Only one administrator had the courage to finally block Brown Haired Girl for the behavior and that was only after this very long disruption. 550: 1920:

is a dispute that cannot be settled by the community. The question for ArbCom should be whether to: (1) decline this case, thinking that the community will resolve it in the near future (although I see no reason to support that belief); (2) accept this case, and address the content as well as conduct issues, possibly exceeding the committee's authority; (3) decline this case, knowing that the community cannot resolve it either, referring it to another authority, such as

1315:

after some objections the list was expanded, and now it is being considered to be reduced after that major expansion as being too wide in scope. It's also unclear what the scope of the case will ultimately be at this time. Please note that I am presently on vacation, and won't be around to contribute in a full capacity until on or after November 30, 2019 (UTC). More comprehensive information will be posted at the Evidence phase if this case is formally accepted.

5077:. Although I would have liked to read statements from BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000, I see that both of them have offline factors keeping them from adding statements here. However, reading through the other statements and the history of this dispute convinces me that we should take this case, so I do not feel the need to wait for their statements. We can work with BHG and NA1000 to adjust timelines if needed so they can participate in the case itself. 156: 1495:, the community is unable or unwilling to deal with some of the behavioural issues surrounding portal space, but it is not acceptable that it continues. I think we are able to deal with the content issues without involving Arbcom once the behavioural issues (specifically, the behaviour of BrownHairedGirl towards Northamerica1000, Moxy, and some others, and the reasons she claims for her behaviour) have been dealth with. There is currently some 3948:, could and maybe should have been removed by any editor (such as myself). Also, although I have seen many criticisms of NA1k's editing and behaviour, I am still unclear what they have done outside Knowledge norms. The evidence phase of this case and the subsequent dispassionate assessment would help people like myself understand where disagreeing with a majority over a series of discussions becomes "gaming". 4130:

less (and regularly attempt to move/merge/deprecate them, often asserting delete). Perhaps due to the adversarial tone of ENDPORTALS and the deletion process itself, tiny but motivated tribes have formed with somewhat rigid views and approaches. This tribalism, rigidity and its corollary defensiveness has inspired an occasional failure of AGF on the part of the most committed, trusted and energetic editors.

2070:. I found the reverts bewildering at the time, as the changes helped address a persistent problem with portals being outdated. While the topic selection was not perfect, up-to-date content is vastly preferable to forested subpages of eight-year-old content forks. I've felt that, in any case, one-off improvements would not necessarily stave off deletion at MfD. I did not participate in the unproductive 1554:

I wasn't even among those in the first round of invitations to the recent workshopping effort by Scottywong, I personally do not think so), or on the entirety of how we got here from the first "delete all portals" via the mass creations and deletions, and the recent block and unblock of BHG. The list of parties to the case should be clarified and pruned accordingly, depending on what scope is chosen. —

5970: 4660: 4475:, InvalidOS is critical of BHG for saying that Hecato's actions are the result of dishonesty, malice, or stupidity. Well, those are harsh words, but those are also the only three options that would tend to explain Hecato saying "I asked X and she said Y", when in fact, he never asked X, and she said the opposite of Y. It's either intentional dishonesty or incompetence. What else can it be? 4015:, on at least two sides. The "delete almost all the portals" crowd have made such accusations about the (mostly a year or so back) mass creation of portals (which has stopped, and which may be too stale for ArbCom to address). Currently, though, many of us skeptical of mass deletion of portals (even if leaning pro-deletion on most of them when we actually have time to analyze particular 5044:'s concern that what ArbCom is limited in what we can do here because the core issue is a content dispute. We can't bend the rules to let ArbCom decide on content, but we're not just limited to individual sanctions either. For example, we could consider specifying a route by which the community must reach a consensus on these issues that is definitive and minimises disruption. 2467:. I was trying to provide a tool for objective reasoning and to reduce everyone's manual work. Seeing it was mostly ignored, I put it to the test by opening a handful of MfD, which I think were mostly well received and civil. I think most people kept using other methods to identify portals worth deleting, so my role in this saga can be written off as irrelevant. 3490:. What is even more concerning is that BHG is an admin, a privilege that is meant to be a role model for examplar Knowledge behavior. NA1K is a victim of harassment from someone who does not learn from their previous mistakes. It is unbelievable that an admin can be this disrespectful of their peers." My personal recommendation was a proposal to desysop BHG. 1447:

utility as navigational devices, and how else can a rational person measure this basic utility other then in page views? What mattered most to Certes was that the portal looked good, not that the portal would take nearly five years to get the total number of views the head article gets in a single day, and Kusma displayed the same irrational keep criteria

5317:

entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment or multiple violations of policy (in the use of administrator tools, or otherwise) may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

3283:

subsequently kicking me off her talk page. In the same comment, she wrote, “So sustained incivility directed at me is fine, but my incivility in response is unacceptable?” This establishes that she recognizes her actions are uncivil, and evidently believes that when responding to people whose arguments she sees as incorrect, namely portal proponents,

3198:

possibilities that are in disagreement with these arguments, whether it is to brainstorm new options, or because the others don't agree with the analysis. This stalemates any discussion to move forward, and as it generates antagonism, it discourages collaboration. This negative behaviour should be examined and appropriate remedies enacted.

3972:

portals and holding everyone to it under threat of discretionary sanctions. Only then, I think, can the conflict be deescalated. In any case, the situation has coalesced to a point where it's impossible for ArbCom to continue kicking the can down the road any longer; the community has clearly proven itself incapable of solving it.--

3245:

restrictive guidelines than them as if they personally endorse(d) mass creating thousands of portals, but the same attitude is also in evidence from some who are in favour of portals generally (it is not limited to BHG and NA1K). There are examples in this request, and in most of the discussions already linked.

3429:

behavior and while BHG has repeatedly insinuated bad faith on the part of NA1K, she has yet to present evidence that supports her claims. Moreover, if this case is to be accepted, I urge ArbCom to scrutinized the actions of Newshunter12, who has been noticeably disingenuous in their replies to Vermont in

3433:. Given the well-established fact that BHG has repeatedly attacked NA1K, there is no possible explanation for Newshunter12's feigned ignorance that could reflect well upon their motives. This is an encyclopedia, not a middle school playground, and Newshunter needs a reminder of that at the very least. 6036:

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still

6003:

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction

5707:

10) During this case, a temporary injunction was enacted to prevent BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000 from editing or discussing portals. BrownHairedGirl violated this injunction by discussing an MfD in which she had participated. BrownHairedGirl also used arbitration case talk pages to insult and

4143:

Putting aside the ease of destroying something rather than creating it, I believe that throwing out the baby with the bathwater is always poor practice. We are almost out of low-hanging fruit these days. Currently, Portal:Weather is up for deletion (a massive and essential subject matter portal which

3865:

If NA1K's conduct is found to be so unseemly that all of BHG's accusations (and word choices) are judged to be on the mark, not only might we need serious sanction/s against NA1K, and possibly others, but also clarifications/rewrites to much of our policies, because it would mean that there's so much

3362:

A 2 way iBan probalby isn't fair, but may be pragmatic. BHG & NA1k seem to be almost supernaturally energetic editors, and it could take many hundreds of hours to give careful attention to the enormous past arguments they've generated. It doesn't help that the anti-portal side rarely seems to use

3282:

she referred to NA1k’s actions as stonewalling and their arguments as “word soup which conveys nothing”. I replied, using that exact phrasing to describe her argument as to why her insults are justified, which she then described as “spectacular rudeness”, bad faith, trolling, uncivil, and disruptive,

3265:

I’ve been following this issue since a disagreement between myself and BHG over the portal for Vermont (now deleted) resulted in myself being labeled as incompetent and a "portalista" back in August of this year. As such, my statement focuses on BHG’s conduct; I have not sufficiently looked into that

3228:

In this request, and if the case is accepted (which I recommend), then I very strongly encourage the arbitrators and clerks to take a very firm line regarding both personal attacks and word limits (a skim read of any of the previous discussions should explain why). Also the scope should be conduct in

2295:

3. ArbCom should go through the last 20 portal MfDs for reference. They are long discussions - longer than most AfDs, and of a higher standard of analysis and debate imho. The MfDs are closed by some of the most experienced closers in WP (I won't name them, but they are obvious to see). I say this

4489:

Arbs, in the evidence phase, you will see multiple editors present evidence of BHG saying something is dishonest or incompetence or the like. In each case, please take the time to dig into the accusation and see whether or not BHG's words are, in your view, 100% accurate. What I think you'll find is

4147:

For my part, I’d like to see an immediate injunction against any further portal creation or deletion nomination while these proceedings are in process. To break the back of the dispute we must reacquaint ourselves with good faith. Temporarily stopping the deletion allows us time to rebuild such good

3561:

I am not asking for you to change the request. I am stating that BHG needs to be held accountable and that in my opinion, the idea of desysop should be floated around. It is a statement from me, not a request for a case change. I agree that this needs to encompass everything. Hope that clarifies it.

2455:

I came to MfD discussions after seeing that a handful of users were shouldering most of the work of the case-by-case examination of portals which was forced on us by the inconclusive RfC. Furthermore, they were targeted by a relentless mud machine for their efforts. It was impossible to sustain such

2116:

I am not fully in the loop with all of the drama, but I have seen strong evidence of repeated WP:NPA violations here, something that needs to be investigated and dealt with. NPA all too often goes unnoticed and almost never leads to blocks, an attitude that needs to change if we want to keep editors

2057:

1. BHG has taken the positive de-escalating step of agreeing to refrain from using the word portalistas. She is urged not to use another such word instead and not to accuse her perceived opponents of mendacity but instead to focus the discussions as much as possible on pages and policies rather than

1919:

This is a difficult case, as it was in March when I first requested that ArbCom take up the issues of portals and conduct concerning portals. The content issues, about the existence and maintenance of portals, are not within the usual scope of ArbCom; but it should be obvious from history that this

1553:

If/when this is accepted, the Committee should carefully consider the scope of the case. It could either focus very narrowly on BHG and NA1k, or somewhat wider on selected people deemed major participants in the portal wars (I guess opinions may differ on whether I am a major participant; given that

1471:

has finally started to crack and speak more harshly to portal fans in recent months then in a perfect world would be ideal. The answer to her harsher words is not to punish her for selflessly cleaning up the playground and trying to install rational encyclopedic quality standards, but to either shut

1446:

displayed incredible cognitive dissonance stating that page views (or lack thereof), a core reason for deleting most of the 1000 abandoned pre-TTH spam portals over the last 7 months, were not a reason to consider deleting a portal. Portals do not have their own content and are useful only for their

1294:

for a decade. What we are stuck with is a circular argument that leads us to nowhere but here. Last thing we need is an administrator going out of their way to mess with the rest of us. Brown may have many valid point but lacks the ability to express this in a productive manner again leading us here

5486:

3) Following the first RfC on a proposal to end the system of portals in April 2018, thousands of additional portals were created in a semi-automatic fashion (primarily by an editor who is not a party to this case). Most of these new portals have since been deleted, many through mass-nominations at

5359:

to hold grudges or insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Editors should approach issues intelligently and engage in polite discussion. Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other when they interact on Knowledge, and who are unable to resolve

3971:

Nonetheless, I'm not sure that blocks or topic bans are the answer to this. Portals are a problem for which there have been multiple attempts at resolution or RFC, but each time, no consensus arises from it. I think ArbCom needs to take the unenviable position of setting a policy in stone regarding

3857:

I'd been waiting to see if this actually comes about, ever since the October ANI discussion (one of the longer ones I've seen) whose close I read as "parties who might possibly be considered for any sanction are too big for any individual admin to have the courage to apply it to, even assuming they

3662:

related to this issue. When one administrator feels the need to block another administrator, that's a sign that the dispute should go to arbitration, because the admin corps is too divided to deal with it. ArbCom could be useful identifying bad behavior that obstructs the formation of consensus.

3473:

I agree with Lepricavark that policy decisions are not what this ArbCom case should be about. This should be about holding a user accountable for their actions. On the ANI discussion board, I provided examples of BHG harassing and attacking other users, such as NA1K. From my ANI: "BHG is violating

3391:

Given the insults listed above by Vermont, some might think BHG would be getting off lightly with a no fault iBan. But having spent a couple of hours reading some of her arguments, she does seem sincere. Occasionally calling out what you perceive as blatant lying probably is the right thing to do.

2828:

If this case is taken, it will prolong for some weeks the festering sore that has been caused by our inability to properly decide on the role of portals in Knowledge. It may result in sanctions for one or more sincere individuals who differ on the issue and have failed to find a proper consolidated

2777:

of portals. the fact they exist is because the Knowledge community did and does want them to. that is one aspect of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I don't have any objection to occasionally getting rid of portals that are too obscure or that no one is maintaining. but the effort to discredit

2695:

With respect to portals generally, I would note that the community has repeatedly rejected binary proposals to eliminate portal space. Furthermore, while there have been hundreds of successful proposals to delete specific portals, there have also been roughly a hundred proposals for portal deletion

1419:

NA1K's "black-box" portal plan and other shenanigans, which greatly unbalanced the POV of dozens of portals in hostile takeovers he hid from all other interested parties (including in their edit summaries on the portals) until called out by BHG. An editor with such conduct does not belong in portal

5242:

1) The purpose of Knowledge is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith;

5003:

We are now at a majority. The holidays are coming up and we are in the midst of the Arbitration Committee elections. It is with almost certainty due to the complexity of this case, that it will run until well after the New Year, at which point, the full 2020 Arbitration Committee will be involved.

4129:

This case is the result of an astounding and creeping failure of WP:AGF. IMHO from before the commencement of WP:ENDPORTALS, portalspace has been batted about like a shuttlecock between those who see more potential in portals (trying to improve individual portals and assert keep) and those who see

4088:

since a broad portion of the community, including myself, is wary of wading into this dynamic. It has gotten to the point where MfD has an option to filter portal debates so that even MfD regulars don't need to get involved. Social dynamics like these break our typical consensus building processes

4036:

I'm kind of a centrist in this, having joined WikiProject Portals (mainly to suggest some material for a "WP:Manual of Style/Portals") then having been critical of the creation of so many pointless and redundant portals, but also alarmed at the deletion, with basically no meaningful discussion, of

4019:

requests) have raised similar concerns about the "firehose" abuse of MfD to list portal after portal after portal, generally with no individual distinction or consideration of current or future merits (or lack thereof) on a per-topic basis, and at such a rate that no one sane could keep up. It's a

3967:

I'm not going to pretend to understand in full the complexities and eccentricities of the portal-space debate, namely the creation (and subsequent deletion) of hundreds upon hundreds of "junk portals" as well as the purpose that portals serve in this community in general. To me, this whole debacle

3534:

4. Not a role model for non-admins. Administrators are meant to be examples of Wikipedias who excel in the pilars and understand all policies. They are meant to cooperate and help build an encyclopedia. BHG being able to commit activities I mention above is not what an Admin stands for or what ANY

2918:

you are right, but my feeling is that if we divert all the participants to that page, then consensus may emerge - at least if it is their last chance to avoid an arbitration case. That may be hopelessly naive. I admit my view is coloured by the presence on both sides of admins whose mops and usual

2896:

I do not think that is actually true, and even if it is, a well-conducted RfC with substantial input will be impossible to ignore. I see no attempt to burn all portals since the earlier RfC. I don't see any evidence that anyone is acting on the absolutist stance you describe, even if it their view

2481:

I strongly believe this case is about conduct, not content. We have made sustained progress in improving what remains of portal space in the past couple of weeks alone, and we've consistently voted to keep portals. While there are a number of questions we need to solve in portal space, I am asking

1314:

It appears that this case will likely be accepted, which I have no qualms about. I feel that the initial case request was overly rushed, and not researched in a comprehensive manner. For example, it appears that the proposer initially simply added in a few names of recent contributors at MfD, then

4849:

I'm really, really annoyed at these two admins. I was puzzled yesterday when AGK said BHG couldn't respond to the case, as I had looked at her activity which has continued apace since the case was filed. NA1K has declared himself on vacation, and while I have no reason to doubt that, it's awfully

4450:

There is a pretty small-scale consensus going on of users who decided to delete most of the portal space. When I asked one of those users what their endgame is, they told me they wanted to delete at least 93.8% of the portal space, or 848 portals of the 904 remaining ones in July 2019, which they

4331:

I would specifically like to ask for interim injunctions (especially since the case has at least 2 big reasons for delay) - moratoria on the creation and deletion of portals - any case should be focusing on how to make the community do its consideration of the issue in a less hostile fashion, not

3869:

If BHG's conduct is judged to be completely unacceptable, ArbCom needs to look at the conduct of admins who've refused to take sides and basically said "you both are grownups, go figure out yourself", essentially falling short of their obligation to protect NA1K, and possibly others, from ongoing

3828:

I urge Arbcom to take this case. The overriding concern should be to stop the disruptions on the project and restore civility and confidence in administration. The incivility and personal attacks by the administrator Brown Haired Girl are a major concern. An administrator must have credibility in

3244:

One thing that doesn't seem to have been highlighted is the battleground attitude of some, characterised by assigning everybody into one of two groups regardless of what their actual argument is. Most frequently this treating someone who disagrees with deleting one or more portals or favours less

2155:

when needed. This being said, the only side which I witnessed being in my view uncivil was BrownHairedGirl in regards to her edits. Editing Knowledge is about focusing on content NOT contributor. When you begin to say things that demean another editor, it crosses the line into tedious editing and

1237:

I have tried hard to remain civil when faced with this conduct, but have several times lost my cool and called NA1K a liar. That's not civil, and it's not who I want to be, but I simply found myself flaring at some escalations of the sustained disruption, which I have never encountered before in

3874:

Personally, I hope it turns out to be the exact middle where everyone is half-right, with the other half being simple good-faith misunderstandings, so we can all just appeal to human imperfections and move on. But we won't know, unless ArbCom elects to undertake the risks involved in choosing to

3428:

I do not believe it is within ArbCom's remit to make policy decisions with regard to portal space, but there are protracted behavioral issues here which need to be resolved. While this is not my preferred venue, other options have not worked. Vermont has clearly laid out the case regarding BHG's

3197:

The problem with all attempts at discussion is they get derailed by editors assuming they haven't been heard and who repeat their arguments over and over, including accusations of poor behaviour such as lying. This fails to acknowledge that other editors can still want to discuss and investigate

2842:

Put simply, we do not have a consensus as to the role of portals, the parameters which might govern their creation or deletion, and even the true status of the guidelines we use to describe them. This is a recipe for dispute, and that is exactly what has happened. The number of active disputants

2726:

I am not a party to this case. I urge Arbcom to take this case. the rhetoric used in cases pertaining to portals has continually included various disparaging terms used by some editors for other editors with whom they disagree. Arbcom is sorely needed to review editor conduct. this includes some

2278:

issue between BHG and NA1K is whether an abandoned portal with no active maintainer/topic enthusiast/WikiProject support should be deleted, OR, whether mass-updates across many portals by a non-maintainer/non-topic enthusiast, are sufficient to keep the portal in place. BHG believes that NA1K's

2258:

of FA/GA rated articles on a topic. The problem is that there is a variable correlation between FA/GA articles and the major articles in a topic area, and it is not obvious that readers are into FA/GA as a concept. Some portals try to add non-FA/GA articles, but only end up FORKING against the

1499:

going on, which has until now been far more pleasant than many other recent portal discussions that I have been involved in, probably because we have been discussing portals instead of being sidetracked by the conflict between BHG and NA1k. I suggest that the committee should accept the case and

6044:

All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally

6040:

These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special

2587:

I don't understand why I am considered an "involved party" with respect to this request. My only involvement has been as an uninvolved administrator closing some portal MFD's, as well as writing a few brief votes on portal RFC's and related ANI threads. I also don't think that most of the other

2096:

All this is not to scapegoat a single person or say that certain portal supporters have not done admonishable things. I have had issues recently with a portal supporter who I believe has acted vindictively towards me. I am choosing, for now, not to name them here as their behavior has only been

5316:

are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Knowledge policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are

4298:

I have not examined any participant admin's conduct and have no comment on same, but as multiple parties above have raised an issue of admin conduct, that needs to be examined. Despite the obvious difficulties of lack of consensus with portals, there needs to be some more structured RfC to get

3578:

I recently made a comment on this at AN/I, but I would like to reiterate my stance that personal attacks cannot be tolerated; but I should hope that the Committee, if they choose to accept this case, would choose to hold this case (which is indeed likely to be long and protracted) in abeyance,

5833:

4) The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion be held to establish a guideline for portals. The committee further recommends that this RfC be kept open for at least 30 days, be closed by a panel of 3 uninvolved administrators, and at a minimum address the

4167:

I wish to register my opposition to postponing this to a new committee composition (or even opening it to new committee). The boil is already ripe for lancing and holding this over for a new committee or composition could have the perverse impact of making the ArbCom election a referendum on

1629: 3273:

about this subject, BHG referred to other contributors, mostly NA1k, with the terms: “incompetent", "mendacious", "habitual lying", "idiot", "poster-child for the Dunning–Kruger effect", "incapable of conducting rational discussions", "a liar or incompetent, or both", a "mix of stupidity and

1737:, singling out one user in this whole mess would appear to poison the atmosphere one way or another. Since it appears that nothing else has succeeded in cooling this debate, I strongly urge the Arbitration Committee to review the conduct of all users involved in this debate, myself included. 4136:

Because of my deep interest in military history I took over a poorly completed Portal:American Civil War early in my wiki-career and while over time I have blown hot and cold with effort, I have been a listed maintainer and performed maintenance continuously. In addition I have watched over

2679:, which are worth examining. I do believe that she has toned down her invective following these discussions, but still evinces a tendency to view such disagreements through an ill-fitting moral lens in which those who think differently are harshly characterized as dishonest or incompetent. 1090:

The MFD scrutiny of so many portals taught me and several other editors how to evaluate the complex structure of portals, leading us to MFD many other portals which were abandoned in poor shape. This process has been bitterly resented and opposed by the portal fans, who have repeatedly

4274:

which will tend to cause a variety of difficulties. In particular, it must be difficult for the WMF to support all these structures as they develop the underlying software – aspects like the visual editor, mobile apps, interfaces with other projects and so forth. There ought to be a

1962:, initially listed a large number of editors who are known as portal skeptics, and then amended the filing also to list a large number of portal advocates. I think that there has been good-faith erroneous zeal in listing many parties, and that ArbCom can significantly trim the list. 1004: 3331:, BHG is quite uncivil, naming editors she labels as incompetent, generalizing "portal fans", coining "Moxy-follies", referring to the actions of editors who disagree with her as "sustained disruption", admitting to incivility, and again trying to justify her actions by blaming NA1k. 2291:

issue between BHG and NA1K is that BHG has accused NA1K of being "sneaky", "a liar", and versions of not having the intellectual competence to understand the error of their ways. NA1K has not replied in kind, and has protested that they are being unreasonably bullied and attacked.

4721:

Just a reminder that statements here should concern whether a case request should be accepted or declined by the committee, not for putting forward evidence for any particular outcome of a potential case. That evidence can be presented should the case be accepted by the committee.

4032:

behavior pattern, of obsessing over portal-nuking, and crushing opposition or even the ability to ask some questions, by engaging in such a rate of deletion demands that it's impossible to respond to it all unless you devote 100% of your time to deletion discussions about portals.

2998:, and another counters with incivility, only the second party would be scrutinized, while the first walks free while their reprehensible behaviour would be outside the scope of the case? If limited to a single behavioural issue, I'd suggest that ArbCom declines to take the case. 2296:

because outside of BHG/NA1K's interactions, the process of cleaning up portal-space, while laborious (ultimately, the community decided against a binary decision to delete all portals), is not that inefficient. Unless ArbCom is going to opine/force the community to opine on the

1696:

However, several users, myself included, have repeatedly called the necessity of certain portals into question, and have slowly been nominating additional portals for deletion. This has caused us to clash with the so-called "portal advocates" who wish to keep certain portals.

1700:

More recently, this has led to extremely heated arguments between BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000. During portal deletion discussions, both users have displayed, at best, questionable behavior. BHG has become increasingly frustrated with her interactions with NA1k, even

4205:

I'm indifferent to portals myself but have seen that there's too much bad blood and so a case is needed to clear the air. One point which might be addressed is the proliferation of structures. I keep coming across new ones and, so far, have counted over a dozen including:

4653:

As a reminder, don't get too bogged down by the parties list at this stage. The Arbs can, and plausibly will looking at the length of the parties list, remove and add parties. Please don't add and remove people without talking to the Clerks or Arbs. You can email us at

2081:

for deletion. I became aware, after nominating, that NA1000 had made improvements to the portal in October, only to be reverted by BHG. I reverted BHG, as NA1000's revision was superior and I did not want to appear to be attacking a straw man. BHG reverted me, but was

3307:, and that they should back off? Or does it say to the likes of me who are trying to uphold encyclopedic quality that no matter how persistently dishonest or incompetent other editors are, that their incompetence and dishonesty must not be explicitly challenged?" ( 5339:

While there will always be borderline cases, best practices suggest that, whenever in doubt, an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that other sysops can provide help.

2871:

If the Committee does decide to take the case I would request that it is put on hold until after the RfC to see if the process that has been initiated in order to deal with the root cause, results in a meaningful improvement in the symptoms as laid out above.

4490:

that there are a small group of editors (some of them new accounts like Hecato) who have been repeatedly making false statements about BHG for the better part of a year now. This is what explains BHG's harsh language. (Note that Hecato has been working on an

4075:

where I attempted to get BHG and NA1K to find a mutually agreeable solution; it quickly fell apart and exemplifies the problem faced in collective/discussion-based solutions. I agree with Smokey Joe that there are serious problems in this dispute of editors

4097:

in 2013. ArbCom can hopefully remedy the conduct issues so that regular editing and consensus building can function properly and make the environment less toxic so that editors are willing to contribute to portal discussions. 06:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

5937:

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

1717:

behavior, failing to properly disclose his methodology for the kinds of selected content he added to portals, not to mention implementing said changes without an adequate community consensus. (While NA1k's proposed organization method of selected content

1238:

nearly 14 years on en.wp, and don't know how to handle it. I waver in my assessment of whether NA1K lacks competence or good faith or something else, but I do see that many similar concerns about NA1K's skill and judgement were expressed at NA1K's

2214:

I only have evidence against BrownHairedGirl as I observed it, and was on the receiving end of it. I can if you wish participate but my evidence is one sided in the matter. There were other editors on the receiving end of it as well which include

6004:

placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

1286:. What should be looked at is the behavior and disruption to any conversation Brown is in. They claim to want to form a consensus but at every attempt at an RFC by a third party on some aspect of portals is blocked by Brown a few can be seen at 5633:) reverted all of Northamerica1000's changes using Twinkle, calling every change 'unexplained', 'sneaky', and a 'stealthy mass-takeover of portals'. Northamerica1000 had made contemporaneous edits to the talk pages of many portals they edited. ( 4116:

which suggests Certes and Moxy seem to have significant history in this dispute. There are likely others, but it would largely be based on whom I've seen around these discussions rather than whose conduct is at issue. 06:01, 20 November 2019

2456:

a climate for many more months: the only option I saw was to keep up the pace (if you have fewer deletion discussions, they just expand to fill all the space and consume all oxygen) and to provide some support to the most hard-working users.

1667: 1080: 5458:

2) Portals, a page-collation function created on Knowledge in 2005, are tools intended to help readers browse broad subject areas. Recent community proposals have been contentious and have not resulted in a clear consensus about their use.

4746:

are extended to a hard limit of 1,000 words. All parties are reminded that statements at this stage should address only whether the Committee should accept this case, and should not argue the case itself. For the Arbitration Committee,

4459:–one in which Hecato did not participate (so he couldn't have asked anything), and BHG never said her endgame was to delete X number of portals–rather, she proposed a guideline based on page views, which is quite different. In fact, in 3663:

As JzG suggests, stop the bad behavior and the underlying issue will then resolve. I don't agree, however, to wait for the moribund RfC to end. I think people can write guidelines and have a bunch of MfDs to clear up this portal mess.

3302:

I wanted to share this quote by BHG (from Nov. 8) on whether this case should go to ArbCom: "So if this goes to ArbCom, then ArbCom faces some ugly choices. Does it say to the angry portal fans that their low skill level is a breach of

3384:. Yet at the ANI, a clear majority supported BHG's reverts being undone, though not quite enough to establish consensus. In the specific case of the Transport portal, even the person who put it up for MfD judged that NA1K's edits were 2686:

has tended to edit boldly where cautious editing would have better served the interests of the project. I have alluded to this in one of the more recent ANI threads on this topic, but have not taken it up with the editor specifically.

5685: 1940:

that had long been standing failed, and I am not optimistic that a different RFC is likely to be more successful at this time. I ask editors who think that ArbCom should decline this case what they think should be done instead.

1168:

of selected articles where 27 of 56 are about The Troubles. I can find no attempt by NA1K to engage Northern Irish projects or editors other than on the little-watched portal talk page, and even then nothing until a vague post in

3371:

or other problematic behaviour by NA1K. IMO it shows the opposite. NA1K had for many weeks been carefully updating portals, partly to address BHG's concern that portals were going unmaintained. Then on 12th Oct, in violation of

5600: 2034:

I have initiated about 200 MfDs for portals since I first became involved in the portal debate in June (all but four of those MfD that have completed have been deleted or merged). Previously, in 2010, I had been maintaining

5398:

8) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind. Long-held consensus cannot be used as an excuse against a

5282:, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable. 4037:

various portals on major topics that are certainly viable. PS: I agree that the "ongoing" portal RfC is not ongoing. It has completely stalled out, because of too much trench-digging to even agree what the RfC should ask.

5460: 2425:

In most MfD discussions, I've argued for deletion of narrow topic portals. I believe there is some relativization by some users of what would be "narrow" to vote for "Keep", but without clear criteria this is a fruitless

5642: 6082: 5570:); labeling editors with opposing viewpoints to hers in portal matters as 'portalistas', which she defined as 'those editors who have engaged in misconduct to subvert the application of community consensus to portals' ( 2300:

issue in 2. above (favoring BHG's view, we go down to well under 100 portals; favoring NA1K, we can go back to over 2,000 portals), then I would let this process continue. There is an interesting project going on here

5583: 5336:. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. 4922:

has indicated that she is temporarily unable to respond to this request due to real-life issues. I think it would be appropriate to delay voting on this request until all parties have had an opportunity to comment.

5999:

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

5927:

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the

1134:

made massive changes to portals on topics where they have no demonstrable expertise or experience, without even attempting to notify related WikiProjects etc, and which on scrutiny turned out to be awful. See MFDs

1002:

in 2018 not to delete all portals, but set no guidance on their purpose, objectives, construction, maintenance, contents, or even what topics are suitable. Most portals remain almost unread, with a Q2Q3 median of

5526: 5464: 2834: 1012: 5403:

that follows Knowledge's policies. However, the idea that consensus can change does not allow for the same point being brought up repeatedly over the course of months or years in an attempt to shift consensus.

6037:

request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.

5894:

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

2522:

BHG has made harsh criticism of NA. I think the substance of the criticism is between “defensible criticism” (if overstated) and “correct”. The tone is what I would call “uncomfortable”, and “non-collegial”.

4584:

It would eventually act as a guide to all content browsing systems, perhaps even replace the main contents page/finally validate it. And it would validate all portals by defining the key points of junction in

1664: 1076: 4390:

This goes on further, and you can read the discussion if you'd like. I've also heard of incivility from the pro-portal side as well, which makes me believe that an ArbCom case is, unfortunately, a necessity.

2146:

that had been put into place were deemed by consensus to be a failed proposal. In my view some portals certainly deserve to be deleted, but editors are also to assume good faith and be civil. This is per our

4144:

hasn’t seen maintenance recently) and Portal:Painting similarly facing deletion. Neither are broken nor reflect poorly on the project, but those opposed to portals are implementing tried and true tactics.

3376:, BHG mass reverted improvements to ~100 portals, which had clearly took NA1K at least dozens of hours, totally overwhelming his ability to respond without edit waring. (Tables showing the ~100 portals are 5683:

9) The climate surrounding portal issues has led some editors to take a break from portal editing or the encyclopedia, and has discouraged editors who continue to participate in discussions about portals.

4537:

I know what the best thing to fix this is. The rationale/guide for each portal. I know what will provide it. A tree of knowledge. It's a traditional part of the finest encyclopaedias. Examples include the

2633:

I think that perhaps the net has been cast a bit wide in identifying "involved" parties, but I will provide a broad statement of my opinion on the matters under examination within the next 24 hours or so.

5026:. I was in favour of accepting in April, and things don't seem to have improved. This has proved to be a long-running and intractable dispute and I doubt the recent(ish) RfC will bring it to a conclusion. 4168:

Portals. I understand this is not likely in light of the amount of bytes expressed earlier this year regarding a specific ban, but it could call into question the neutrality of any new committee members.

5037:'s suggestion of postponing the case doesn't seem necessary, because we're unlikely to have this finished before the end of the year, and the normal procedure is that incoming arbs can then participate. 2993:

Imho, if this would be accepted as a case, ArbCom should look at all behavioural issues regarding the area of conflict. The case proposal limits behavioural issues to one, i.e. civility. If one party is

2751:

your statement below is highly beneficial, but with respect, the RfC highlights the problem; the editors who dislike portals refuse to accept any existing consensus that portals should exist as a whole.

1689:, which was closed with a rough consensus to not delete all portals. However, a few users took this as a sign that Knowledge needed more portals, and began creating automated spam that eventually led to 2797:

I apologize in advance if creating this section is improper in any way. I just have some minor question. I'm hopeful we can retain this section here as a place for general queries like the one below.

5678: 5047:

The list of parties clearly needs to be trimmed before the case is opened. It should only include people who have been substantially involved in the dispute. With that in mind, suggestions as to who

2263:

for a topic). Some portals paste-in the Main Article NavBox as a navigation aid, and/or also paste-in FA/GA directory from the WikiProject, but this is duplication. Thus, most WP portals have been

2060:

2. Close this thread immediately as the rest of this is either content dispute or heated feelings over said dispute. There is no indication of anything even remotely resembling misuse of Admin tools.

4779: 2388:'s characterization. I understand that this is the wrong venue though. The point of this discussion is convincing ArbCom that there should be an investigation, not discuss who is right or wrong. -- 5646: 5638: 5525:

had been listed as a guideline since 2008. In 2019, it was tagged for update requests and disputes before being marked as under discussion, which led to its current status as a failed proposal. (

3352: 3351:

Recommend accept – but to resolve by motion. Something like an indefinite no fault 2way iBan for BHG & NA1K, and then perhaps delay any further action to see if the outcome of various active

2068: 1755:

having some trouble with the tally of involved parties in this case request, and so anyone who genuinely feels they would be better off added or removed as a party to this case is free to do so.

1331:

I have participated in hundreds of portal MfD's since early August, and made eight comprehensive portal nominations at MfD, the latter of which were all deleted without opposition, save a single

1092: 980: 1690: 5587: 5383:, which ignores the spirit of those policies and serves to obstruct consensus-building processes or cover up an agenda of POV-pushing, is harmful to the project and may be met with sanctions. 4380:

BrownHairedGirl says that Hecato is being "shamefully disruptive" by "misrepresenting comments." She also says that Hecato's actions are the result of either stupidity, malice, or dishonesty.

1084: 5726: 5634: 5571: 3377: 2050: 1283: 1060:

a post by NA1K in an ANI thread opened by Moxy about my reverts as evidence that NA1K had informed others of what they were doing, despite my having noted the absurdity 6 days earlier at ANI.

971: 2801:

If someone does not have the actual link to this page, where else is this case posted for others to find? I went to the Arbcom main case page, but didn't see this case listed there anywhere.

1152: 1031: 3785: 3454:

I second FeydHuxtable's call for evidence of bad faith on NA1K's part. I'm willing to change my mind if presented with convincing evidence, but so far I have not seen anything of the sort.

1117:

caused long dramas due their failure to understand very basic statistics. NA1K posted the total pageviews for a period, rather than the daily averages used by every other editor. See e.g.

753: 5689: 3720: 2830: 1686: 1016: 699: 4574:

The research for it is mostly done already throughout the site, between deciding things like which portals are essential, vital articles, category, outline, overview trees and many more.

4870:. I've argued in and closed enough contentious portal MfDs that I'd consider myself too involved with the topic in general, even if I haven't waded into these particular discussions. ♠ 5901: 5659: 4483: 4303:

consensus. Knowledge has done it with notability, where there is a margin folks work around despite the views of many that it should be much tighter or looser. They are the two foci.

72: 5758:

1) BrownHairedGirl is prohibited from editing in the Portal: namespace or engaging in discussions about portals anywhere on Knowledge. She may appeal this restriction in six months.

4809: 4072: 2408:

I see 4 factions, which defend different opinions: - Free portal creation. - Maintenance of everything as it is (or was). - Reduction to a minimum number of portals - End of portals

2279:

mass-updates across a range of portals are a non-good faith way to prolong portals; she also accuses NA1K of using techniques that are hard to undo (I don't understand this area but

6057: 4794:, the RfC you mention was opened in July, and has had a total of 3 edits since the end of July, and none in 2 months. I think stating that it's in progress is a bit of a stretch... 4455:

AFAIK, Hecato never asked BHG "What their endgame is", and BHG has never said that she "wanted to delete at least 93.8% of the portal space". When pressed by BHG, Hecato pointed to

3862:

It's starting to look like admins are held to a lower standard, not higher, in both how involved admins have (/allegedly) behaved, and how uninvolved ones have chosen to !handle it.

3941:

For uninvolved people like myself the committee could determine whether frequently repeated remarks such as "NA1K's mendacity and incompetence" and "NA1K's lies and smear tactics"

2036: 4293: 3308: 1223: 4883:

Pausing for further statements, but unless the request changes I am likely to accept the request. The role of portals on Knowledge has remained a source of tension throughout

5579: 5468: 4884: 4365: 2970:

said, and may $ DEITY have mercy on the souls of all those involved. Too late. I feel guilty that I did not propose the above months ago and push for it via the admin boards.

2868:

This, the community can do. In my opinion, if portals are not being deleted, created or pretextually reactivated while the RfC goes on, the behaviour noted above should stop.

2676: 2671:, to suggest that she refrain from characterizing editors with whom she has policy disagreements as liars. These discussions generally arose in response to statements made in 1193: 1098:

As a result, those discussions have often been heated. Portal fans repeatedly attack "deletionists" etc, but the most disruptive conduct has been by Northamerica1000, who has

976: 5502:

4) Portal deletion discussions have been highly contentious, with many involving accusations of bad faith, accusations of lying and incompetence, and other violations of the

4878: 4140:

If accepted, the evidence phase of this case will not be kind with the behavior of at least one involved administrator. User:Vermont has adequately documented this for now.

3487: 3483: 2064:

I can't pinpoint when, but I believe BHG reneged on her commitment to avoid personal attacks. However she did appear to discontinue using the tired "Portalista" expression.

67: 4182: 2026: 1361: 1357: 5103: 4831: 3653: 3097: 1456: 1448: 1416: 1412: 1206: 377: 5209:

are prohibited from editing in the Portal: namespace or engaging in discussions about portals, with the exception of arbitration case pages, until this case is concluded.

2988: 1373: 5565: 5086: 2071: 2014: 1993: 1971: 1336: 4844: 2449: 2323: 1914: 1443: 1440: 1436: 1364:, that they were a dedicated maintainer of the portal and there was an active WikiProject that might take it on. This was not the end of their disingenuous conduct. At 5957: 3729:), although she has not taken the time to respond to this request. It is unwise to continue the disputed behavior pattern while neglecting a request for arbitration. 3225:) for an extensive but incomplete list of discussions about portals. For evidence of behaviour in the topic area see also just about any MfD discussion about portals. 2232: 2202: 2188: 1391: 1387: 1332: 1113: 903: 568: 414: 246: 5562: 4551:

It could take a long time to build, but with a tree of knowledge as a guide to the key points of knowledge, the essential portals, for instance, would be conceivable.

2403: 2238: 2133: 5297:

3) Inappropriate behaviour driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

4860: 4063:

This case should be accepted and held in abeyance per Ched. Discussion is at this point intractable. Pick any random ANI thread or contentious MFD and you will find

3541: 3067:

for an arbitration case, not an opened case. Other requests, i.e. not for a new case, include requests for "Clarification and Amendment" of earlier concluded cases (

2533:. That she should not make further repeated allegations in lower level discussions. This dispute between two administrators is highly detrimental to the project. — 2287:). NA1K replies that previous RfCs on portals give them a right to exist on WP, and that NA1K is not breaking any policy or guideline in the area. The core of the 61: 50: 5873:: How should portals be used? Should they be linked on all relevant Knowledge articles, or should another method be used to ensure that portals are viewed and used? 5748:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

3468: 2476: 5731:

11) No compelling evidence was presented to indicate misconduct, abuse of admin tools, or persistent abuse of Knowledge policies on the part of Northamerica1000.

5275: 4595:

Can I please have a tree of knowledge in my favourite book please, that I didn't just write myself, and it will solve all this confusion, into the future, thanks.

2098: 5067: 4084:

substantiation. The central issue is not content but patterns of conduct issue that makes contributing in portal space unpleasant. This leads to problems such as

3852: 3346: 4355:

that I performed a while ago. While this close didn't cause anything bad from what I remember, I am bringing it up because it does show a bit of incivility from

4195: 2529:

I have urged BHG, that if she has evidence of NA’s behaviour being unbecoming of an administrator, three times, she should seek his desysop, or other remedy, at

2193:

I have struck evidence presented for now, I agree with the comments below though that the fact that an admin had to block another admin is reason for concern. -

2106: 1118: 179: 4323: 3986: 3423: 1243: 4977: 4712: 4676: 4479: 3018: 1321: 4914: 3823: 3573: 3363:

diffs to clarify what they mean. Take the seemingly non-neutral opening statement for this arb request as an example. There's a hand wave to the 12,000+ word

2582: 1107:"Please bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers" 3936: 3817: 3733: 3254: 2576: 2560: 2337: 1950: 1723: 1265: 408: 4525: 4346: 4200: 3893: 3600: 3409:

Lepricavark was correct, there's been no bad faith by NA1K. Please either support with diffs or strike your inaccurate maligning of NA1IK's good character.

3212: 2506: 1239: 1083:, with overwhelming consensus. The other ~1,600 were deleted in a long series of follow-up discussions, and the template used to create them was deleted at 5568: 5380: 4352: 4318: 3798: 3222: 2435: 2317: 2169: 1890: 1734: 1579:

My response depends on the scope of any case and, in particular, whether it is about conduct or content. However, I shall reply to some other statements.

56: 45: 4436: 2843:

being small, and the merits of most of the arguments being hard to objectively decide on one side or the other, we have failed to deal with the problem.

2440: 5664:

8) BrownHairedGirl has used her administrator tools to delete over 2000 portal pages since April 2019 and has nominated dozens of portals for deletion. (

3568: 3496: 3340: 3320: 2501: 1350: 5702: 4478:

All this apparently because shortly after creating an account in June, Hecato recreated the deleted Portal:Climbing (Portal:Rock climbing had also been

4414:

As far as I can tell, the behavior complaints regarding the admins in question are limited (exclusively?) to their work as editors, not with the tools.

4409: 4162: 4121: 3962: 3927: 3260: 2250:

of WP portals mean that they are dying of their own accord. WP Portals are not "portals" as a casual reader would interpret the term. They are really

1798:

Yeah, the number of parties involved is something that I'm not entirely clear on myself for now. I'll probably add more within the next 48 hours or so.

1726:, nothing there was ever formally closed, and NA1k has failed to cite whether he based his edits off of that discussion.) The ongoing back-and-forth at 1228: 4288: 4279:

to help everyone plan for the future and avoid wasted effort. If one doesn't exist, then perhaps the need for one can be a finding or recommendation.

3910: 3888: 3418: 3401: 3364: 2397: 2039:

after that portal's maintainer tapped me to continue his work after his retirement. This portal was one of the first portals I nominated for deletion.

1884: 1861: 1840: 1807: 1786: 1727: 1481: 1452: 1176: 1144: 3192: 2721: 2628: 2342: 1110: 4460: 4341: 4053: 3463: 3442: 1547: 1395: 1365: 1136: 1064: 372: 3287:

does not apply. As such, I urge the Committee to take this case and take action to ensure a civil and welcoming community contributing environment.

1309: 1221: 5014: 4998: 4543: 3847: 3595: 3479: 2849: 2623: 2603: 1462:

It is only after seven months of this type of nonsense and disruption, and over 1000 hours of her time donated to help clean up portal space, that

1209: 404: 200: 192: 39: 3942: 3803:

I urge the Committee to stop waiting for statements from NA1K and BHG. The apparent gaming of the system by both parties should not be condoned.

3104: 1492: 1061: 1019:). Portals have become detached from content creation and from WikiProjects, and are now largely the domain of editors who specialise in portals. 992: 5713: 4960: 4938: 4404: 3922: 3807: 3667: 3356: 3238: 2959: 2932: 2910: 2817: 2542: 2302: 2176: 2046:

exhibited some battleground behavior—both with matters large, like deletions, and matters small, such as where and how to point portal redlinks.

1529: 1496: 1424: 1173: 5258:

2) Knowledge users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as

4531: 2822: 2411:

These factions are facing each other through MfDs and Edit reverts, and in the absence of WP:POG and outdated WP:PORTAL, there is no consensus.

1199: 1055: 5773:

2) BrownHairedGirl is indefinitely restricted from interacting with or commenting about Northamerica1000 anywhere on Knowledge, subject to the

4506: 2471: 1383: 1187: 1140: 1121: 4351:

While I haven't really been involved in this too much, I've heard that both sides have been uncivil. I'd also like to bring up things such as

3866:

confusion among editors on this that BHG's accurate characterisations have, so often, been discredited as breach of civility/personal attacks.

3392:

And with her phenomenal 13 years of contribution, she surely has earned a little slack for occasionally getting passionate about the project.

3002: 1408: 5180: 4431: 4177: 4157: 4094: 3981: 3957: 3381: 3296: 3199: 2672: 2005:, and others - I suggest that anyone who is named in the statement of another editor be listed as a party and everyone else be trimmed out. 346: 5559: 2551:

Arb Com must referee the debacle of long running acrimonious conflict between admins. Admins are supposed to be exemplars of Wikipedians. —

2111: 1360:

some automated content in less then 40 minutes to a micro-portal that had been abandoned since 2008 and made various false claims, rebutted

1326: 1166: 1156: 5133: 3207: 2852:

is looking to resolve the root cause of the issue. I would invite the Committee to suspend judgment for now, I would like to propose that:

2787: 2761: 2736: 2711: 2649: 2378: 2360: 1764: 1746: 1685:, the necessity of portals in general has been heavily debated over the course of several months. In April 2018, The Transhumanist started 1653: 1606: 3791: 2445:

I'm not sure why I was included as a party, but then I see almost all the regulars of the deletion discussions were so I guess it's fine.

1124: 196: 4067:. Additionally there are routine assumptions of bad faith, name calling, and a collective failure of uninvolved editors to intervene per 2792: 1569: 1515: 1225: 366: 211: 189: 3165: 2243:

I am not sure there is much more to add over the several extensive recent ANIs in this area. By way of summary, I offer the following:

1976:

I urge that ArbCom first, identify editors whose conduct concerning portals has been disruptive and take action, and, second, authorize

535: 5946: 4697: 4648: 3933: 3932:

Arbcom should accept this case because the community has failed to agree any substantive action regarding the behaviour of BHG and NA1k

3274:

mendacity", "anti-truth", "bad faith", "low-skill group", "very low-competence editors" (which she went on to name Moxy and NA1k), and

3185: 3142: 3123: 2160:. BrownHairedGirl makes great arguments, sadly it seems like she has not been listening to the advice given to her by other editors. - 1304: 1155:, not NI projects; dismissed my concerns, and was supported by other portal fans, one of whom issued a shockingly partisan notification 561: 447: 399: 337: 256: 184: 5792:

3) For numerous violations of basic policies and generally failing to meet community expectations and responsibilities as outlined in

3173: 2804:

On a similar note, what is the meaning of the url for this page? It simply refers to this proceeding as "case"? Is that usual? thanks.

2464: 5558:) has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, including stating that editors are either liars or lying ( 4610: 4133:

This failure of AGF isn’t a binary yes or no; it exists on a continuum of 1 to 10. I have myself failed the project in this regard.

2983: 2885: 2716: 2083: 1585:

makes two claims about my conduct. The first, that I prioritise page quality over page views at MfD, is standard good practice (see

927: 362: 4471:

that he asked BHG and she said she wanted to delete 93.8% of portals, Hecato must have known that was not a true statement. Now, in

3835: 1058: 1015:

when portal supporters objected to its use in support of deletion, having failed to secure support for their proposed changes (e.g.

4058: 3796: 3726: 2829:

venue to hash out these differences and obtain wider community consensus. The dispute has been going on for a long time and led to

1282:: The post above says North did not inform as to what they were doing....this was proven incorrect a few times....most recently at 1163: 473: 342: 4456: 6093: 4773: 2128: 1129: 505: 352: 332: 215: 5439:

1) The disputes in this case center around the behavior of editors active in the editing of, deletion of, and discussions about

4733: 1658: 1574: 5950: 5849:: Should there be a minimum number of page views for a portal to be considered viable? How should those page views be measured? 5616: 5174: 4888: 3749: 3162: 1368:, UnitedStatesian stated a portal that is over 13 years old and abandoned for nearly six years did not fail the then guideline 717: 529: 523: 357: 270: 251: 5774: 3794: 1486: 320: 6108: 5811: 5630: 5555: 5127: 4895:, an administrator, is also concerning to me and it would be helpful if she would separately address the issues (portals and 3684: 1260: 663: 582: 391: 282: 3858:

were willing to wade through the mountain of evidence, so take it to ArbCom". I think this case should be accepted because:

1271: 1231: 6124: 5574:); and questioning the intelligence of those participating in portal edits and discussions with accusations of mendacity, ' 3761: 729: 575: 315: 1158:. There was no response from any editor active on NI topics, but despite making a post advocating not overloading it with 5797: 3779: 3767: 3696: 3270: 2664: 2496: 1682: 1192:

added themself as a "maintainer" to 42 portals on a wide range of topics where they had no expertise, removing themselves

825: 747: 735: 675: 621: 241: 170: 25: 4453: 2835:

Knowledge:Village pump (policy)/Archive 153 § RFC: Formalize Standing of Portal Guidelines as a Guideline (18 July 2019)

2284: 6107:

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

5414: 3884: 3755: 3714: 3702: 1984:

deletion discussions including but not limited to portals, an area in which disruption has been an issue in the past.

921: 723: 693: 681: 2267:

by editors, creators, WikiProjects, readers, and even vandals (e.g. if Main Article needs indefinite protection, like

1067: 517: 5709: 5004:

So, we are discussing what this might look like in terms of timelines and drafters. Thank you all for your patience.

4064: 4048: 3773: 3690: 3505:

1. Harassment. Plenty of evidence is prominent through diffs and this discussion. Targets other users. This violates

3279: 1500:

consider issuing a temporary injunction similar to JzG's "Topic/interaction ban proposal" in the recent ANI thread. —

777: 741: 669: 4420:

Administrators are expected to follow Knowledge policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities.

5828: 5815: 5350: 3813:

With respect to BHG, she seems to have been unsure how to respond. I gave her some tips and she was very thankful.

3708: 3590: 2864:

We adopt a zero-tolerance policy towards ad-hominem arguments, personal attacks, snideness and the like on the RfC.

1346:

My main concern for ArbCom is the destructive, fact averse, and often irrational conduct of portal advocates/fans.

1287: 687: 5793: 4361:, who says "It's long past time for those editors to stop defending this abysmally-made, redundant, unused junk." 3913:. I wonder where starting that RfC ranks in WikiHistory for single actions leading to the most amount of drama... 6070: 6021:(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or 5768: 5516: 5374: 1070: 307: 147: 5204: 4556:

We need a tree that suits Knowledge and the modern age. We need to build our own tree of knowledge and not wait

4085: 3516:. BHG does not reason properly as she erupts into poor judgement and accusations. She breaches multiple policies 2305:, which may or may not produce ideas the community will accept to forestall the ongoing collapse in WP portals. 1386:, they re-made a long abandoned portal and inexplicably left a sub-page about a dead person the portal said was 5992:

prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

5198: 5157: 4689: 4688:

Arbcom refers to the issues that it looks at as "cases". The listing of all requests to arbcom can be found at

4314: 3053: 1459:

of the portal. They are clearly not in portal space to help build an encyclopedia, they are there to have fun.

987: 293: 236: 21: 5332:

5) With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been

5192: 4625: 3430: 5259: 5151: 5145: 3617: 1472:

the playground down or to permanently remove the above portal fans who treat it as playground to begin with.

228: 5889: 3385: 3001:

Note that at least one of the currently proposed involved parties has already been "punished" with a block (

2942:

It is not true that BHG has failed to demonstrate bad faith on the part of NA1K: there is clear evidence of

2093:

to topic ban BHG from portals for six months "for battleground behaviour and incivility." I supported this.

1205:; or switched to passive voice to describe actions for which they seemed to want to distance themself (e.g. 951: 5481: 5186: 4875: 4620: 4255: 3725:

continues to maintain a high volume of anti-portal activity, including uses of the administrative toolkit (

3218: 1590: 959: 819: 615: 466: 278: 176: 1640: 939: 5522: 5279: 5267: 5139: 3629: 3126:.... (add) Since it's only the legal talk that is usually heard here: I suggest the case be accepted and 2102: 1634: 1565: 1543: 1511: 1170: 867: 288: 206: 5996:

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

5909: 5419:

9) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

4187:

I admit that my exposure to the conflict between BHG and NA1K has been limited to occasional lurking of

4090: 3523:

by reverting other admin's edits. She reverts other users edits without consensus and does not consider

2049:

In August BHG agreed to discontinue personal attacks against portal supporters. The community adopted a

1616: 5961: 5787: 5753: 5610: 5327: 5292: 5168: 5109: 5099: 4825: 4803: 4769: 3743: 3647: 3635: 3093: 3014: 2384:

I am willing to address that pageview issue that came up below, if ArbCom wants me to. I disagree with

1291: 945: 771: 711: 327: 849: 645: 5805: 5624: 5575: 5549: 5121: 4606: 4284: 3678: 3623: 2333: 2010: 1989: 1967: 1946: 1256: 879: 657: 5855:: Should portals be required to be connected to an active WikiProject or other group of maintainers? 5360:

their differences, should seek to minimise the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them.

3157:), or the Arbs if that's required to address a concern I have with the party list. Jehochman added 837: 801: 633: 5497: 5313: 5082: 4693: 3641: 3075: 3046: 2431: 2313: 2228: 2198: 2184: 2165: 933: 897: 885: 4891:. Examining this issue now seems necessary and unavoidable. In the examples cited, behaviour by 4579:

It's one of the earliest requested features for the site which was never rejected, only forgotten.

3009:

is not necessarily a principle for ArbCom proceedings, but one could also say: enough suffered. --

2452:

to the discussions. If someone thinks I should explain more about my conduct, please let me know.

1777:

I've changed the title to better reflect the scope of the case. Hope that addresses your concern.

1227:(a verbose synonym for "guideline") even tho NA1K has written the longest plea for its downgrading 1063:

Such Moxy-follies are massively timewasting (see e.g. my reply to more of Moxy's hostile nonsense

789: 4871: 2548:

Arb Com must keep out of Portals, they are content, and existing community processes are at play.

2488: 1714: 1586: 1148: 873: 581:

Actions taken to enforce remedies authorised in the case (if applicable) are to be logged at the

459: 114: 2668: 1057:

Note that Moxy also repeatedly demonstrates poor competence, even on this page where Moxy cited

5307: 4192: 4029: 4012: 3414: 3397: 1710: 1706: 1671: 1477: 1023: 965: 915: 891: 2861:

All discussion of portals should be directed to the RfC or its talk page while it is underway;

2778:

or to diminish portals as a group is getting a bit overboard, with all due respect. thanks. --

5606: 5393: 5237: 5163: 5095: 4817: 4795: 4743: 4337: 4247: 4045: 3738: 3459: 3438: 3089: 3010: 2915: 2683: 2002: 1772: 1379: 1317: 1047: 1043: 706: 166: 17: 4546:. We have many content trees, but none which explain themselves as they go/no visible guide. 4112: 2138:

Over the past month or so there has been a great increase in the amount of portals taken to

5801: 5620: 5545: 5434: 5271: 5116: 5041: 4919: 4892: 4739: 4707: 4671: 4643: 4280: 4004: 3843: 3673: 3659: 3586: 3520: 2768: 2660: 2618: 2598: 2329: 2117:(especially fresh, easily dissuaded ones) around. I highly recommend ArbCom take the case. 2006: 1985: 1963: 1942: 1933: 1925: 1678: 1611: 1528:

I admit wasn't even aware of that attempt at an RfC. The currently active discussion is at

1463: 1399: 1354: 1247: 999: 843: 652: 639: 598: 89: 5985:

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

5665: 5572:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive311#Civility issues with User:BrownHairedGirl

1186:

repeatedly cited this v poor work as "improvement" to justify retention of a portal (e.g.

556:

This case is closed. No edits should be made to this page except by clerks or arbitrators.

8: 5539: 5429: 5078: 4896: 4415: 4077: 3918: 3513: 3506: 3275: 3250: 3234: 2572: 2556: 2538: 2427: 2309: 2224: 2194: 2180: 2161: 100: 5601:

Northamerica1000 made edits to many portals, which BrownHairedGirl reverted with Twinkle

4448:

makes a comment" but doesn't mention that the comment was a completely false statement:

2511:

It looks like everyone who has ever stated an opinion on these two is “involved”. Ok.

1713:". However, NA1k's actions are also a cause for concern; he has repeatedly demonstrated 1589:). The second, that I do not help build an encyclopedia, is easily refuted by sampling 567:

Specific requests for amendment or clarification about the decision should be raised at

6101: 5333: 5263: 4856: 4840: 4501: 4308: 4276: 4267: 4227: 4223: 4211: 4126:

I urge the committee to accept this case because the central issues transcend content.

3563: 3536: 3491: 2483: 2148: 2097:

relatively recent and has not been repeated, and so as not to invite future conflicts.

1847: 1814: 1702: 1180: 831: 795: 627: 109: 5814:) is desysopped. She may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful 4494:

for this arbitration–overall, a lot of axe-grinding by an editor with a new account.)

4080:

that need to be considered, and an arbitration case will examine those complaints and

5062: 4427: 4386:

BrownHairedGirl asks Hecato if he can read English, and accuses him of cherrypicking.

4263: 4251: 4235: 4173: 4153: 4025: 4021: 4008: 3977: 3953: 3877: 3611: 3410: 3393: 3336: 3316: 3292: 2157: 2090: 1582: 1473: 910: 4838:

Also awaiting statements, but I'm much closer to an accept now than I was in April.

1407:'s nom describes in detail how poor NA1K's update was. BHG described in detail here 5356: 4763: 4520: 4399: 4333: 4259: 4040: 3524: 3475: 3455: 3434: 3203: 2995: 2943: 2939: 2858:

While the RfC is underway there is a moratorium on creation or deletion of portals;

2813: 2783: 2757: 2732: 2706: 2644: 2415: 2393: 2374: 2356: 2078: 1880: 1857: 1836: 1803: 1782: 1760: 1742: 1649: 1602: 1027: 972:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020 § Portal updates reverted

813: 783: 609: 3938:

It is important to show the community can indeed deal with behavioural problems.

2156:

creates a hostile environment. I will finish by saying that Knowledge isn't about

5503: 4954: 4932: 4908: 4701: 4491: 4231: 4215: 4207: 3996: 3995:. However, I would add something I'm not seeing said yet: This isn't just about 3839: 3582: 3150: 3006: 2613: 2593: 2366: 2280: 2125: 1977: 1929: 1561: 1539: 1507: 1382:(NA1K) has repeatedly added content to portals in a sloppy, haphazard manner. On 1284:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020#Portal updates reverted

861: 136: 84: 5884: 5440: 5361: 5012: 4996: 4975: 4850:

convenient. I'm persuaded we at least need to examine the conduct of BHG, so I

4569:

The tree is an indispensable part of the finest encyclopaedias through history.

4514: 4441: 4393: 4368:, showing incivility from both sides. Here's a basic summary of what happened: 4239: 3992: 3914: 3814: 3804: 3730: 3664: 3528: 3373: 3246: 3230: 3181: 3138: 3119: 3068: 2967: 2608:

I have removed myself as an involved party in this request, per a message from

2568: 2552: 2534: 2460: 2152: 1819:

No, just...not a chance. I'm not at all changing this case request to focus on

1594: 1340: 1297: 765: 125: 95: 4366:

Knowledge:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 162#Proposal to delete Portal space

3793:, yet they also continue to have time for other things and working on portals. 3579:

pending the installation of the new Committee at the conclusion of this term.

3380:) BHG made a long but unconvincing argument that NA1K's improvements were an 2259:

better structured and more scrutinized Main Articles (which really are the WP

431: 6118: 6065: 5400: 5232: 4602: 4497: 4304: 4271: 4243: 4219: 4188: 4068: 4016: 4000: 3945: 3830: 3304: 3284: 3114:

This will be a long and likely difficult case, and the more eyes the better.

2978: 2954: 2927: 2905: 2880: 2468: 2419: 2385: 2143: 2139: 1981: 1937: 1870: 1369: 1215: 1102: 1008: 2142:. Things took a turn when the bottom fell out of the arguments to delete as 1875:

I guess you're right, so I've removed you from the "involved parties" list.

1109:, but NA1K repeatedly omitted the crucial second part of the sentence. e.g. 435: 5057: 4667: 4639: 4423: 4383:

Hecato asks BrownHairedGirl a question about statistics she also presented.

4169: 4149: 4103: 3973: 3949: 3606: 3332: 3312: 3288: 3229:

portal space and in discussions of portals, not just deletion discussions.

3158: 3133:

note 1: I suspect that you'll need to modify the list of parties involved.

2530: 2348: 2209: 1998: 1625: 1159: 6027:

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

3100:(updated, questions moved to proper section 15:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)) 2347:

I also recommend that ArbCom takes this case. Please see the statement by

1172:. Visible lists of articles (to allow scrutiny) were added only on Nov 15 593: 5989:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or

5741: 5453: 5243:

and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still result in sanctions.

4683: 4445: 3900: 3556: 3025: 2893: 2809: 2779: 2753: 2728: 2697: 2635: 2609: 2589: 2389: 2370: 2352: 1959: 1921: 1876: 1853: 1832: 1799: 1778: 1756: 1738: 1645: 1598: 1593:. I write few articles, but coding and wikignoming are valid ways to be 1428: 1035: 808: 604: 5867:: Can automated tools be used in the creation or maintenance of portals? 5843:: How broad or narrow should a topic area be for it to sustain a portal? 3935:

and delegation to Arbcom was agreed to as, seemingly, the only solution.

3172:

to the list as the unblocking admin. (and not without controversy, see

2414:

I could suggest that MfDs and new portal creations are paralyzed until

2118: 1556: 1534: 1502: 1432: 1203:

I assessed these articles relative to their suitability for this portal

1091:

misrepresented one-by-one scrutiny at MFD as "mass deletion" (see e.g.

1030:-supported creation of ~4,000 semi-automated spam portals. Portal fans 856: 131: 5942:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;

5679:

Editors have been discouraged from participation in portal discussions

5227: 4482:, shortly before Hecato registered their account), and the portal was 3907:

In April 2018, The Transhumanist started an RfC on deprecating portals

1046:

approach which has been sustained ever since, most notably by Certes,

560:

Any violations of the remedies passed in the case should be raised at

6085:

and related pages, and only until the conclusion of the RfA process.

5034: 5006: 4990: 4969: 4757: 4749: 4632:

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

4539: 3502:

Reasons for Desysop of BrownHairedGirl (Copied from my ANI proposal):

3177: 3134: 3115: 2448:

As far as I know, I've not had any heated exchange with anyone in my

2218: 1793: 1051: 760: 155: 120: 5960:. If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through 3790:

appears to have declared a vacation after the filing of this request

2831:

Knowledge:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals

2067:

In October BHG reverted en masse dozens of portal changes by NA1000

1628:

with details of each deletion. My remark has since been frequently

5736:

Passed 11 to 0 (with 3 abstentions) at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

5379:

7) Excessive formalistic and legalistic argument over policies and

5253: 4947: 4925: 4901: 4791: 4738:

At the direction of the Arbitration Committee, the word limits for

4724: 4598: 3449: 3406: 3169: 3154: 2972: 2948: 2921: 2899: 2874: 2743: 1523: 1101:

repeatedly cherrypicked guidelines, and persisted when challenged.

977:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1023 § Portals

433: 5727:

No compelling evidence presented of misconduct by Northamerica1000

5697:

Passed 12 to 2 (with 1 abstention) at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

5388:

Passed 14 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

5345:

Passed 14 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

4967:

Leaning towards accept but I need more time to review everything.

3081:

is also displayed, and which has also .../Requests/... in the url.

5673:

Passed 9 to 5 (with 1 abstention) at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

5580:

Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1023#Portals

5094:, belatedly (and with a +1 to Joe's point about the party list). 1398:, a portal NA1K re-made was deleted yet again for being junk and 1032:

opposed their speedy deletion, and demanded individual discussion

4692:

and the ongoing cases, motions, and amendments can be found in

2268: 2246:

1. It is a shame for anybody to go down "on this hill", as the

436: 6058:

procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision

5660:

BrownHairedGirl has used administrator tools to delete portals

5051:

be listed as a party (apart from BHG and NA) would be helpful.

4357: 2677:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ohio State University

437: 4110:

be included as parties beyond BHG and NA1k, I would point to

3168:). My request is that a clerk either remove Diannaa, or add 3056:

page. That's, for instance, where you can find open requests.

2365:

Okay I actually bothered to look up some quotes. Please see:

1376:. Facts, policies, and reality do not matter to this editor. 3278:. I had confronted her on her talk page with that list, and 1211:). NA1K accepted no responsibility for their breach of NPOV. 2659:

For full disclosure, I have twice initiated discussions on

2463:

grounds. My only significant contribution was probably the

1337:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Special operations

6060:

adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

5904:

adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

569:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

4638:

Please refrain from editing in other people's sections --

4590:

It just needs a group willing to research and discuss it.

3217:

I will likely be presenting more evidence later, but see

2567:

I think the *only* real parties here are BHG & NA. —

2179:

is going on regarding potential new portal guidelines. -

998:

Sadly, I think a case is needed. The community chose at

1177:

discovery of NA1K's creation of bias at Portal:Transport

1075:

2,550 spam portals were deleted in April mass deletions

1066:

and the spat which began with Moxy's aggressive response

4065:

walls of text that make any kind of discourse difficult

1372:'s very low minimum of 20 articles because it was just 3367:, with nothing specific to point out how it shows any 4373: 2897:

privately. I could be wrong: let's see, via the RfC.

2459:

In most MfD discussions, I've argued for deletion on

2271:, the associated portal rarely does), for years now. 1624:. The context was a (now blocked) editor cluttering 4780:

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (7/0/1)

4486:

again, and BHG !voted to delete in that discussion.

3112:

and to hold until the 2020 group of Arbs are seated.

4422:

Curious to see how ADMINCOND is interpretted here.—

3509:

and is against Knowledge policy through the pilars.

3052:, a template that is displayed for instance on the 3003:

the reviewing admin evaluated the block as punitive

2151:policy, and there are ways for an editor to take a 1351:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Antarctica

1153:

proposed "improvements" only at the portals project

966:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case § Portal Issues

6083:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/BrownHairedGirl 2 5777:. This restriction may be appealed in six months. 5619:) made edits to dozens of portals. On 12 October, 2351:, which basically sums up the issue in my eyes. -- 1730:is a good example of what I'm talking about here. 1453:Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Christmas 5647:NA1K's Portal talk contribs from 1 Sept to 12 Oct 3905:There's an error in your statement in regards to 2588:"involved" editors should be on the list either. 1823:user; this is about the potential wrongdoings of 1396:Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Djibouti 1366:Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Language 6116: 5902:procedure for the standard enforcement provision 4544:File:Cyclopaedia, Chambers - Volume 1 - 0015.jpg 4353:this bad closure of a contentious MfD discussion 3382:"extraordinarily huge breach of WP:FAITACCOMPLI" 2850:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Portals guideline 2526:NA generally does not respond to her criticism. 1663:This has been a recurring debate ever since the 1072:comment about lack of WikiProject notification). 2773:with respect, there is no issue concerning the 2303:User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace 1691:a portal topic ban applied to The Transhumanist 1530:User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace 1425:Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Monaco 5879:Passed 14 to 1 at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 5798:Knowledge:Administrators#Administrator conduct 5782:Passed 11 to 3 at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 5763:Passed 15 to 0 at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 5654:Passed 15 to 0 at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 5595:Passed 15 to 0 at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 5534:Passed 15 to 0 at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 5511:Passed 15 to 0 at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 5492:Passed 15 to 0 at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 5476:Passed 15 to 0 at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 5448:Passed 15 to 0 at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 5424:Passed 14 to 1 at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 5409:Passed 15 to 0 at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 5369:Passed 15 to 0 at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 5322:Passed 15 to 0 at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 5302:Passed 15 to 0 at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 5287:Passed 15 to 0 at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 5248:Passed 15 to 0 at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 3836:I !voted to topic ban Brown Haired Girl at ANI 3029: 1898:Preliminary statements by uninvolved editors. 1394:edits to make a very basic short response. At 5823:Passed 9 to 6 at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 5721:Passed 8 to 7 at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 5215:Passed 5 to 0 at 03:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC) 5031:To address a few points of discussion above: 4328:Glad to see it's already accepted as a case. 3063:/Case" (my emphasis): in other words it is a 2673:Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Golf 1011:was tagged for years as a guideline, but was 467: 6024:(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA 5703:BrownHairedGirl's conduct during arbitration 5643:NA1K's Portal contribs from 1 Sept to 12 Oct 3519:3. Reverting and edit warring. Violation of 3149:I'd like to request that one of the clerks ( 1891:Preliminary statements by uninvolved editors 1728:the deletion discussion for Portal:Transport 4463:back in July, BHG specifically told Hecato 1128:misrepresented guidelines (e.g. my reply at 5690:Espresso Addict's proposals (see comments) 5639:BHG's October 12 Portal namespace contribs 4698:Knowledge:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration 2058:on editors or perceived groups of editors. 1903:The following discussion has been closed. 562:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement 474: 460: 5578:conduct', and being a 'low-skill group' ( 2328:I recommend that ArbCom take this case. 2175:I will also echo Scotty in saying that a 1198:used uncollegially evasive replies, e.g. 4512:Thanks for pointing that out, actually. 3549: 3059:The url contains "Knowledge:Arbitration/ 1278: 5962:Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee 5861:: How often should a portal be updated? 5794:Knowledge:Administrators#Accountability 5364:may be used to force editors to do so. 4564:doing it. Twenty years is a generation. 1693:and the aforementioned mass deletions. 583:centralised arbitration enforcement log 14: 6117: 6041:functionary blocks of whatever nature. 5527:proposal to adopt community guidelines 5465:proposal to adopt community guidelines 3875:actually go through all the evidence. 3110:I would urge the committee to accept, 2465:SQL query to identify decaying portals 1980:either for portal discussions, or for 1827:users involved, and singling out just 1230:and noted the close on the face of POG 6109:Knowledge:Arbitration enforcement log 6092:Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstentions by 5708:belittle other parties in the case. ( 4889:arbitration request earlier this year 2450:relatively unremarkable participation 2089:This MfD appears to have triggered a 1733:However, as generally agreed upon in 515:Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: 5964:(or, if email access is revoked, to 5220:Expired 21:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 3944:are "derogatory comments" which, by 1491:As evidenced by the recently closed 1292:Knowledge:Portal#Purposes of portals 1214:misrepresented the former guideline 576:Knowledge talk:Arbitration Committee 544: 247:Clarification and Amendment requests 5947:arbitration enforcement noticeboard 3219:WP:AN/I#Previous portal discussions 2031:I'm going to give some background. 1683:essay on issues surrounding portals 1374:"in the process of being built out" 1295:wasting the time of all involved.-- 574:General questions can be raised at 31: 5956:submit a request for amendment at 5605:7) In September and October 2019, 4071:. The straw that broke my back is 32: 6136: 5461:proposal to discontinue their use 5415:Role of the Arbitration Committee 4785:Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse) 4451:picked based on pageview numbers. 4294:Statement by uninvolved Cas Liber 2919:good humour I would sorely miss. 1711:either a liar or an idiot or both 1632:in attempts to discredit me as a 6081:are temporarily lifted, only at 6014:For a request to succeed, either 5968: 5829:Community discussion recommended 4658: 2833:and other discussions including 1288:Knowledge talk:Portal/Guidelines 548: 490:on 20:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC) 154: 6096:at 19:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC) 5981:Modifications by administrators 5769:BrownHairedGirl interaction ban 5469:proposal to delete portal space 5351:Knowledge is not a battleground 3130:. 22:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 1195:only after repeated complaints. 509:on 19:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC) 498:on 21:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 6071:Motion: Portals (October 2020) 5375:Wikilawyering and stonewalling 4690:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests 4183:Statement by Narutolovehinata5 3054:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests 2037:Portal:United States Air Force 2027:Statement by Mark Schierbecker 1038:described this cleanup as the 13: 1: 5933:Appeals by sanctioned editors 5104:17:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC) 5087:06:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC) 5068:17:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 5015:17:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC) 4999:03:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC) 4978:00:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 4961:21:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC) 4939:09:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC) 4915:21:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 4879:18:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 4861:13:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC) 4854:the case without any delays. 4845:18:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 4832:15:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC) 4810:17:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 4790:I'm awaiting statements, but 4774:21:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC) 4734:00:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 4713:15:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC) 4677:17:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 4649:17:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 4611:17:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC) 4526:19:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC) 4507:16:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC) 4465:I never set a pageview target 4432:15:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC) 4405:14:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC) 4342:20:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC) 4319:20:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC) 4289:18:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC) 4196:05:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC) 4178:23:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC) 4158:17:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC) 4054:04:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC) 3982:14:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 3958:13:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 3923:06:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 3889:06:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 3848:04:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 3818:22:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC) 3808:13:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC) 3734:13:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC) 3668:04:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 3596:01:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 3569:21:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 3542:20:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 3497:20:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 3464:04:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 3443:19:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 3419:20:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 3402:19:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 3341:02:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC) 3321:10:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC) 3297:18:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 3255:15:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC) 3239:18:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 3208:18:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 3186:08:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 3143:18:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 3124:17:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 3098:15:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC) 3019:17:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 2989:Statement by Francis Schonken 2984:01:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC) 2960:20:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 2933:17:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 2911:17:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 2886:17:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 2818:15:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC) 2788:15:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC) 2762:17:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 2737:17:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 2712:13:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 2655:Conduct of the administrators 2650:23:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 2624:01:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 2604:00:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 2577:23:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC) 2561:06:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC) 2543:04:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 2502:23:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 2472:22:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 2436:23:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 2398:19:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC) 2379:00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 2361:23:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 2338:22:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 2318:12:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC) 2233:18:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 2203:15:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 2189:04:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 2170:04:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 2129:01:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 2107:01:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 2086:by another portal supporter. 2015:23:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 1994:06:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 1972:06:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 1951:20:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 1885:22:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 1862:22:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 1852:Okay, thanks for clarifying. 1841:21:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 1808:18:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 1787:17:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 1765:22:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 1751:I'd also like to note that I 1747:16:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 1687:an RfC on deprecating portals 1654:22:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC) 1607:15:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC) 1570:10:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 1548:07:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 1516:21:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 1482:06:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 1335:by one portal's creator, and 1322:01:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC) 1310:Statement by Northamerica1000 1305:23:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 1266:21:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC) 1165:NA1K proceeded to make a list 5919:0) Appeals and modifications 5714:talk page for main case page 3535:Wikipedian should be doing. 3071:), where the content of the 2663:'s user talk page, archived 2324:Statement by UnitedStatesian 1915:Statement by Robert McClenon 1455:, which ignored the obvious 1390:, and when called out, took 993:Statement by BrownHairedGirl 983:for additional discussions.) 378:Conflict of interest reports 7: 6125:Knowledge arbitration cases 6045:discussed at another venue. 5951:administrators’ noticeboard 5890:Enforcement of restrictions 5710:BrownHairedGirl's talk page 5523:Knowledge:Portal/Guidelines 5517:Knowledge:Portal/Guidelines 3991:I agree word-for-word with 3359:produces a calming effect. 2404:Statement by Guilherme Burn 2239:Statement by Britishfinance 2134:Statement by Knowledgekid87 1831:user won't solve anything. 1179:. This area is subject to 207:Search archived proceedings 10: 6141: 6077:Remedies 1 & 2 of the 5788:BrownHairedGirl desysopped 5754:BrownHairedGirl prohibited 4885:many months of discussions 3469:Statement by AmericanAir88 3271:recently-closed ANI thread 3030:#Questions to Arbcom clerk 2727:editors who are admins. -- 2477:Statement by SportingFlyer 2077:On November 7 I nominated 252:Arbitrator motion requests 5969: 5910:Appeals and modifications 5328:Administrator involvement 5293:Good faith and disruption 4659: 4467:. So when Hecato said in 4364:I'd also like to mention 4089:and is a classic case of 3853:Statement by Usedtobecool 3347:Statement by FeydHuxtable 3042:The request is listed in 2793:Questions to Arbcom clerk 1670:of portalspam created by 1327:Statement by Newshunter12 1042:, setting the tone for a 5482:Mass-creation of portals 5268:assumptions of bad faith 4696:. Please take a look at 4694:Template:ArbComOpenTasks 4324:Statement by Nosebagbear 3987:Statement by SMcCandlish 3424:Statement by Lepricavark 1906:Please do not modify it. 1022:The disputes began with 960:Prior dispute resolution 6056:In accordance with the 6035: 5900:In accordance with the 5686:Voceditenore's evidence 5276:disruptive point-making 3824:Statement by Lightburst 3574:Statement by Javert2113 3478:through examples like: 2717:Statement by Bermicourt 2583:Statement by Scottywong 2177:constructive discussion 1978:discretionary sanctions 1930:discretionary sanctions 1497:constructive discussion 1219:a schema for advisement 1151:, where in August NA1K 1149:Portal:Northern Ireland 5945:request review at the 4492:anti-BHG evidence page 4484:nominated for deletion 4444:'s writes above that " 4347:Statement by InvalidOS 4332:just the big 2 names. 4244:navigational templates 4201:Statement by Andrew D. 4059:Statement by Wugapodes 3894:Statement by Galobtter 3601:Statement by Jehochman 3213:Statement by Thryduulf 2507:Statement by SmokeyJoe 2062: 1024:User:The Transhumanist 988:Preliminary statements 5834:following questions: 5816:request for adminship 5308:Administrator conduct 4560:twenty years to even 4437:Statement by Levivich 4091:CommunityDoesNotAgree 3911:I who started the RfC 3329:In her statement here 3276:various other phrases 2684:User:Northamerica1000 2441:Statement by Nemo bis 2144:the portal guidelines 2091:a proposed resolution 2055: 2053:, which I supported: 2003:User:Opabinia regalis 1457:abandonment and decay 1013:delisted in September 448:Track related changes 308:Arbitration Committee 148:Knowledge Arbitration 18:Knowledge:Arbitration 5498:Deletion discussions 5394:Consensus can change 5238:Purpose of Knowledge 5110:Temporary injunction 4668:In actu (Guerillero) 4640:In actu (Guerillero) 4621:Preliminary decision 4410:Statement by Bagumba 4270:. This seems to be 4163:Statement by Hasteur 4122:Statement by BusterD 3963:Statement by WaltCip 3928:Statement by Thincat 3550:#Statement by ToThAc 3365:transport portal MfD 3261:Statement by Vermont 2661:User:BrownHairedGirl 2518:Northamerica1000. NA 2515:BrownHairedGirl. BHG 2369:for a minor list. -- 2265:rationally abandoned 2248:functional obsolesce 1926:Wikimedia Foundation 1279:#Statement by ToThAc 257:Enforcement requests 185:Guide to arbitration 106:Drafting arbitrators 5775:ordinary exceptions 4899:) in a statement. 4664:lists.wikimedia.org 3193:Statement by isaacl 3088:Hope this helps. -- 2722:Statement by Sm8900 2629:Statement by BD2412 2343:Statement by Hecato 2274:2. The core of the 1936:to ratify a set of 1735:this ANI discussion 1659:Statement by ToThAc 1575:Statement by Certes 1427:, portal advocates 1353:, over six days in 4461:another discussion 4268:set index articles 4113:this edit from BHG 4095:the Infobox issues 4078:casting aspersions 4007:matters, but also 3005:) in this matter: 2691:Portals, generally 1958:The filing party, 1703:going as far as to 1487:Statement by Kusma 1435:both respectively 1093:April at WT:WPPORT 279:Contentious topics 177:Arbitration policy 6051: 6050: 5949:("AE") or at the 5750: 5280:gaming the system 5085: 5066: 4786: 4756: 4618: 4617: 4277:technical roadmap 4193:Narutolovehinata5 4106:asking about who 3838: 3658:recently blocked 3357:other discussions 3105:Statement by Ched 2982: 2958: 2931: 2909: 2884: 2612:on my talk page. 2099:Mark Schierbecker 1938:portal guidelines 1722:well-received in 1677:As summarized in 1672:The Transhumanist 1272:Statement by Moxy 1264: 1175:, i.e. after the 1005:only 23 views/day 591: 590: 542: 484: 483: 451: 419: 289:General sanctions 237:All open requests 167:About arbitration 140: 129: 118: 104: 93: 76: 68:Proposed decision 65: 54: 43: 6132: 5975: 5973: 5972: 5971: 5915: 5914: 5871:Links to portals 5746: 5607:Northamerica1000 5435:Locus of dispute 5430:Findings of fact 5362:Interaction bans 5355:6) Knowledge is 5260:personal attacks 5208: 5181:deleted contribs 5164:Northamerica1000 5161: 5134:deleted contribs 5096:Opabinia regalis 5081: 5060: 5009: 4993: 4972: 4959: 4957: 4952: 4937: 4935: 4930: 4913: 4911: 4906: 4859: 4843: 4784: 4754: 4744:Northamerica1000 4732: 4710: 4704: 4687: 4674: 4665: 4663: 4662: 4661: 4646: 4609: 4532:Statement by RTG 4524: 4517: 4505: 4504: 4480:recently deleted 4403: 4396: 4377:makes a comment. 4376: 4360: 4115: 4052: 3904: 3881: 3834: 3789: 3739:Northamerica1000 3724: 3657: 3594: 3560: 3512:2. Violation of 3453: 3386:"an improvement" 3164:(see: reasoning 3128:Held in abeyance 3090:Francis Schonken 3080: 3074: 3051: 3045: 3011:Francis Schonken 2976: 2966:I give up. What 2952: 2925: 2916:Worm That Turned 2903: 2878: 2823:Statement by JzG 2772: 2747: 2704: 2642: 2621: 2616: 2601: 2596: 2499: 2491: 2222: 2213: 2123: 2079:Portal:Transport 2051:WP:AN resolution 1908: 1895: 1894: 1874: 1851: 1818: 1797: 1776: 1773:Francis Schonken 1643: 1637: 1619: 1614:mentions that I 1591:my contributions 1527: 1469: 1467: 1405: 1403: 1320: 1303: 1300: 1255: 1253: 1251: 1201:the meaningless 1048:Northamerica1000 955: 928:deleted contribs 907: 853: 826:deleted contribs 805: 778:deleted contribs 757: 707:Northamerica1000 703: 649: 622:deleted contribs 599:Involved parties 594:Case information 552: 551: 545: 541: 540: 513: 504:Case amended by 476: 469: 462: 450: 445: 438: 417: 373:Clerk procedures 365: 323: 294:Editor sanctions 271:Active sanctions 229:Open proceedings 199: 158: 144: 143: 134: 123: 112: 98: 87: 70: 59: 48: 37: 6140: 6139: 6135: 6134: 6133: 6131: 6130: 6129: 6115: 6114: 6104: 6102:Enforcement log 6088: 6087: 6073: 6068: 6052: 6008:Important notes 5967: 5965: 5920: 5912: 5892: 5887: 5831: 5802:BrownHairedGirl 5790: 5771: 5756: 5744: 5729: 5705: 5681: 5662: 5621:BrownHairedGirl 5603: 5584:NA1K's evidence 5546:BrownHairedGirl 5542: 5540:BrownHairedGirl 5519: 5504:civility policy 5500: 5484: 5456: 5437: 5432: 5417: 5396: 5377: 5353: 5330: 5310: 5295: 5256: 5240: 5235: 5230: 5166: 5119: 5117:BrownHairedGirl 5112: 5007: 4991: 4970: 4955: 4948: 4946: 4933: 4926: 4924: 4920:BrownHairedGirl 4909: 4902: 4900: 4893:BrownHairedGirl 4887:, including an 4855: 4839: 4782: 4740:BrownHairedGirl 4723: 4708: 4702: 4681: 4672: 4657: 4655: 4644: 4628: 4623: 4596: 4534: 4515: 4513: 4500: 4495: 4457:this discussion 4439: 4412: 4394: 4392: 4372: 4358:BrownHairedGirl 4356: 4349: 4326: 4296: 4203: 4185: 4165: 4124: 4111: 4086:false consensus 4073:this ANI thread 4061: 4038: 4030:WP:BATTLEGROUND 4013:WP:FAITACCOMPLI 3989: 3965: 3930: 3898: 3896: 3879: 3855: 3826: 3741: 3676: 3674:BrownHairedGirl 3660:BrownHairedGirl 3609: 3605:I noticed that 3603: 3580: 3576: 3554: 3471: 3447: 3431:this discussion 3426: 3378:in ANI archives 3349: 3263: 3215: 3195: 3107: 3078: 3076:ArbComOpenTasks 3072: 3049: 3047:ArbComOpenTasks 3043: 3007:non bis in idem 2991: 2825: 2795: 2769:Robert McClenon 2766: 2741: 2724: 2719: 2698: 2636: 2631: 2619: 2614: 2599: 2594: 2585: 2509: 2495: 2487: 2479: 2443: 2406: 2367:User:Hecato/BHG 2345: 2330:UnitedStatesian 2326: 2283:looked into it 2241: 2216: 2207: 2136: 2119: 2114: 2074:that followed. 2029: 2007:Robert McClenon 1986:Robert McClenon 1964:Robert McClenon 1943:Robert McClenon 1932:. The minimal 1917: 1904: 1893: 1868: 1845: 1812: 1791: 1770: 1724:this discussion 1679:Robert McClenon 1661: 1639: 1633: 1615: 1612:BrownHairedGirl 1577: 1521: 1489: 1465: 1464: 1401: 1400: 1355:UnitedStatesian 1329: 1316: 1312: 1301: 1296: 1274: 1249: 1248: 995: 990: 962: 913: 859: 811: 763: 709: 655: 653:BrownHairedGirl 607: 601: 596: 549: 543: 516: 514: 510: 499: 491: 480: 446: 440: 439: 434: 424: 423: 422: 411: 394: 384: 383: 382: 369: 361: 349: 324: 319: 310: 300: 299: 298: 273: 263: 262: 261: 231: 221: 218: 203: 195: 173: 142: 30: 29: 28: 12: 11: 5: 6138: 6128: 6127: 6103: 6100: 6099: 6098: 6075: 6074: 6072: 6069: 6067: 6064: 6063: 6062: 6049: 6048: 6047: 6046: 6042: 6038: 6034: 6031: 6030: 6029: 6028: 6025: 6022: 6016: 6015: 5994: 5993: 5990: 5983: 5982: 5978: 5977: 5954: 5943: 5935: 5934: 5922: 5921: 5918: 5913: 5911: 5908: 5907: 5906: 5891: 5888: 5886: 5883: 5882: 5881: 5876: 5875: 5874: 5868: 5862: 5856: 5850: 5844: 5830: 5827: 5826: 5825: 5789: 5786: 5785: 5784: 5770: 5767: 5766: 5765: 5755: 5752: 5743: 5740: 5739: 5738: 5728: 5725: 5724: 5723: 5704: 5701: 5700: 5699: 5680: 5677: 5676: 5675: 5661: 5658: 5657: 5656: 5602: 5599: 5598: 5597: 5588:BHG's evidence 5576:Dunning–Kruger 5541: 5538: 5537: 5536: 5518: 5515: 5514: 5513: 5499: 5496: 5495: 5494: 5483: 5480: 5479: 5478: 5455: 5452: 5451: 5450: 5436: 5433: 5431: 5428: 5427: 5426: 5416: 5413: 5412: 5411: 5395: 5392: 5391: 5390: 5376: 5373: 5372: 5371: 5352: 5349: 5348: 5347: 5329: 5326: 5325: 5324: 5314:Administrators 5309: 5306: 5305: 5304: 5294: 5291: 5290: 5289: 5255: 5252: 5251: 5250: 5239: 5236: 5234: 5231: 5229: 5228:Final decision 5226: 5225: 5224: 5223: 5222: 5111: 5108: 5107: 5106: 5089: 5079:GorillaWarfare 5071: 5070: 5054: 5053: 5052: 5045: 5038: 5028: 5027: 5020: 5019: 5018: 5017: 5001: 4981: 4980: 4965: 4964: 4963: 4941: 4881: 4865: 4864: 4863: 4836: 4835: 4834: 4781: 4778: 4777: 4776: 4736: 4719: 4718: 4717: 4716: 4715: 4635: 4634: 4627: 4624: 4622: 4619: 4616: 4615: 4614: 4613: 4592: 4591: 4587: 4586: 4581: 4580: 4576: 4575: 4571: 4570: 4566: 4565: 4553: 4552: 4548: 4547: 4533: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4438: 4435: 4411: 4408: 4388: 4387: 4384: 4381: 4378: 4348: 4345: 4325: 4322: 4295: 4292: 4224:disambiguation 4202: 4199: 4184: 4181: 4164: 4161: 4123: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4060: 4057: 3988: 3985: 3964: 3961: 3929: 3926: 3895: 3892: 3872: 3871: 3867: 3863: 3854: 3851: 3825: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3801: 3800: 3736: 3602: 3599: 3575: 3572: 3545: 3544: 3532: 3517: 3510: 3503: 3470: 3467: 3425: 3422: 3348: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3324: 3323: 3262: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3214: 3211: 3194: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3145: 3131: 3106: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3057: 2990: 2987: 2964: 2963: 2935: 2913: 2866: 2865: 2862: 2859: 2824: 2821: 2806: 2805: 2802: 2794: 2791: 2723: 2720: 2718: 2715: 2693: 2692: 2682:For his part, 2657: 2656: 2630: 2627: 2584: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2564: 2563: 2549: 2520: 2519: 2516: 2508: 2505: 2478: 2475: 2442: 2439: 2428:Guilherme Burn 2405: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2344: 2341: 2325: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2310:Britishfinance 2261:content portal 2240: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2225:Knowledgekid87 2205: 2195:Knowledgekid87 2191: 2181:Knowledgekid87 2162:Knowledgekid87 2135: 2132: 2113: 2112:Statement by Ɱ 2110: 2072:ANI discussion 2059: 2028: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 1916: 1913: 1910: 1909: 1900: 1899: 1892: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1810: 1789: 1668:mass deletions 1660: 1657: 1622:War on Portals 1576: 1573: 1551: 1550: 1493:ANI discussion 1488: 1485: 1328: 1325: 1311: 1308: 1273: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1212: 1196: 1190: 1184: 1132: 1126: 1115: 1096: 1088: 1073: 1044:WP:BATTLEFIELD 1040:War on Portals 1020: 994: 991: 989: 986: 985: 984: 974: 969: 961: 958: 957: 956: 908: 854: 806: 758: 704: 650: 600: 597: 595: 592: 589: 588: 587: 586: 579: 572: 565: 553: 512: 502: 494: 486: 482: 481: 479: 478: 471: 464: 456: 453: 452: 442: 441: 432: 430: 429: 426: 425: 421: 420: 412: 407: 402: 396: 395: 390: 389: 386: 385: 381: 380: 375: 370: 360: 355: 350: 345: 340: 335: 330: 325: 318: 312: 311: 306: 305: 302: 301: 297: 296: 291: 286: 275: 274: 269: 268: 265: 264: 260: 259: 254: 249: 244: 239: 233: 232: 227: 226: 223: 222: 220: 219: 214: 209: 204: 194: 187: 182: 174: 169: 163: 160: 159: 151: 150: 35:Main case page 33: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 6137: 6126: 6123: 6122: 6120: 6113: 6112: 6110: 6097: 6095: 6090: 6089: 6086: 6084: 6080: 6061: 6059: 6054: 6053: 6043: 6039: 6033: 6032: 6026: 6023: 6020: 6019: 6018: 6017: 6013: 6012: 6011: 6009: 6005: 6001: 5997: 5991: 5988: 5987: 5986: 5980: 5979: 5974:wikimedia.org 5963: 5959: 5955: 5952: 5948: 5944: 5941: 5940: 5939: 5932: 5931: 5930: 5929: 5924: 5923: 5917: 5916: 5905: 5903: 5898: 5897: 5896: 5880: 5877: 5872: 5869: 5866: 5863: 5860: 5857: 5854: 5851: 5848: 5845: 5842: 5839: 5838: 5837: 5836: 5835: 5824: 5821: 5820: 5819: 5817: 5813: 5810: 5807: 5803: 5799: 5795: 5783: 5780: 5779: 5778: 5776: 5764: 5761: 5760: 5759: 5751: 5749: 5737: 5734: 5733: 5732: 5722: 5719: 5718: 5717: 5715: 5711: 5698: 5695: 5694: 5693: 5691: 5687: 5674: 5671: 5670: 5669: 5667: 5655: 5652: 5651: 5650: 5648: 5644: 5640: 5636: 5632: 5629: 5626: 5622: 5618: 5615: 5612: 5608: 5596: 5593: 5592: 5591: 5589: 5585: 5581: 5577: 5573: 5569: 5566: 5563: 5560: 5557: 5554: 5551: 5547: 5535: 5532: 5531: 5530: 5528: 5524: 5512: 5509: 5508: 5507: 5505: 5493: 5490: 5489: 5488: 5477: 5474: 5473: 5472: 5470: 5466: 5462: 5449: 5446: 5445: 5444: 5442: 5425: 5422: 5421: 5420: 5410: 5407: 5406: 5405: 5402: 5389: 5386: 5385: 5384: 5382: 5370: 5367: 5366: 5365: 5363: 5358: 5346: 5343: 5342: 5341: 5337: 5335: 5323: 5320: 5319: 5318: 5315: 5303: 5300: 5299: 5298: 5288: 5285: 5284: 5283: 5281: 5277: 5273: 5269: 5265: 5261: 5249: 5246: 5245: 5244: 5221: 5218: 5217: 5216: 5213: 5212: 5211: 5210: 5206: 5203: 5200: 5197: 5194: 5191: 5188: 5185: 5182: 5179: 5176: 5173: 5170: 5165: 5159: 5156: 5153: 5150: 5147: 5144: 5141: 5138: 5135: 5132: 5129: 5126: 5123: 5118: 5105: 5101: 5097: 5093: 5090: 5088: 5084: 5080: 5076: 5073: 5072: 5069: 5064: 5059: 5055: 5050: 5046: 5043: 5039: 5036: 5033: 5032: 5030: 5029: 5025: 5022: 5021: 5016: 5013: 5011: 5010: 5002: 5000: 4997: 4995: 4994: 4988: 4985: 4984: 4983: 4982: 4979: 4976: 4974: 4973: 4966: 4962: 4958: 4953: 4951: 4945: 4942: 4940: 4936: 4931: 4929: 4921: 4918: 4917: 4916: 4912: 4907: 4905: 4898: 4894: 4890: 4886: 4882: 4880: 4877: 4873: 4869: 4866: 4862: 4858: 4853: 4848: 4847: 4846: 4842: 4837: 4833: 4829: 4828: 4823: 4822: 4821: 4816: 4813: 4812: 4811: 4807: 4806: 4801: 4800: 4799: 4793: 4789: 4788: 4787: 4775: 4771: 4768: 4765: 4762: 4759: 4752: 4751: 4745: 4741: 4737: 4735: 4731: 4729: 4728: 4720: 4714: 4711: 4705: 4699: 4695: 4691: 4685: 4680: 4679: 4678: 4675: 4669: 4652: 4651: 4650: 4647: 4641: 4637: 4636: 4633: 4630: 4629: 4612: 4608: 4604: 4600: 4594: 4593: 4589: 4588: 4583: 4582: 4578: 4577: 4573: 4572: 4568: 4567: 4563: 4559: 4555: 4554: 4550: 4549: 4545: 4541: 4536: 4535: 4527: 4522: 4518: 4511: 4510: 4509: 4508: 4503: 4499: 4493: 4487: 4485: 4481: 4476: 4474: 4470: 4466: 4462: 4458: 4454: 4452: 4447: 4443: 4434: 4433: 4429: 4425: 4421: 4417: 4407: 4406: 4401: 4397: 4385: 4382: 4379: 4375: 4371: 4370: 4369: 4367: 4362: 4359: 4354: 4344: 4343: 4339: 4335: 4329: 4321: 4320: 4316: 4313: 4310: 4306: 4302: 4291: 4290: 4286: 4282: 4278: 4273: 4272:feature creep 4269: 4265: 4261: 4257: 4253: 4249: 4245: 4241: 4237: 4233: 4229: 4225: 4221: 4217: 4213: 4209: 4198: 4197: 4194: 4190: 4180: 4179: 4175: 4171: 4160: 4159: 4155: 4151: 4145: 4141: 4138: 4134: 4131: 4127: 4114: 4109: 4105: 4101: 4100: 4099: 4096: 4092: 4087: 4083: 4079: 4074: 4070: 4066: 4056: 4055: 4050: 4047: 4044: 4043: 4034: 4031: 4027: 4023: 4018: 4014: 4010: 4006: 4005:WP:ASPERSIONS 4002: 3998: 3994: 3984: 3983: 3979: 3975: 3969: 3960: 3959: 3955: 3951: 3947: 3943: 3939: 3937: 3934: 3925: 3924: 3920: 3916: 3912: 3908: 3902: 3891: 3890: 3887: 3886: 3883: 3882: 3868: 3864: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3850: 3849: 3845: 3841: 3837: 3832: 3819: 3816: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3806: 3799: 3797: 3795: 3792: 3787: 3784: 3781: 3778: 3775: 3772: 3769: 3766: 3763: 3760: 3757: 3754: 3751: 3748: 3745: 3740: 3737: 3735: 3732: 3728: 3722: 3719: 3716: 3713: 3710: 3707: 3704: 3701: 3698: 3695: 3692: 3689: 3686: 3683: 3680: 3675: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3666: 3661: 3655: 3652: 3649: 3646: 3643: 3640: 3637: 3634: 3631: 3628: 3625: 3622: 3619: 3616: 3613: 3608: 3598: 3597: 3592: 3588: 3584: 3571: 3570: 3567: 3566: 3565:AmericanAir88 3558: 3552: 3551: 3543: 3540: 3539: 3538:AmericanAir88 3533: 3530: 3526: 3522: 3521:WP:TOOLMISUSE 3518: 3515: 3511: 3508: 3504: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3495: 3494: 3493:AmericanAir88 3489: 3485: 3481: 3477: 3466: 3465: 3461: 3457: 3451: 3445: 3444: 3440: 3436: 3432: 3421: 3420: 3416: 3412: 3408: 3404: 3403: 3399: 3395: 3389: 3387: 3383: 3379: 3375: 3370: 3369:fait accompli 3366: 3360: 3358: 3354: 3342: 3338: 3334: 3330: 3326: 3325: 3322: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3294: 3290: 3286: 3281: 3277: 3272: 3267: 3256: 3252: 3248: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3236: 3232: 3226: 3224: 3220: 3210: 3209: 3205: 3201: 3188: 3187: 3183: 3179: 3175: 3171: 3167: 3163: 3160: 3156: 3152: 3146: 3144: 3140: 3136: 3132: 3129: 3125: 3121: 3117: 3113: 3109: 3108: 3099: 3095: 3091: 3087: 3086: 3077: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3058: 3055: 3048: 3041: 3040: 3038: 3035: 3031: 3027: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3016: 3012: 3008: 3004: 2999: 2997: 2986: 2985: 2980: 2975: 2974: 2969: 2962: 2961: 2956: 2951: 2950: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2936: 2934: 2929: 2924: 2923: 2917: 2914: 2912: 2907: 2902: 2901: 2895: 2892: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2882: 2877: 2876: 2869: 2863: 2860: 2857: 2856: 2854: 2853: 2851: 2845: 2844: 2839: 2838: 2836: 2832: 2820: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2803: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2790: 2789: 2785: 2781: 2776: 2770: 2764: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2750: 2745: 2739: 2738: 2734: 2730: 2714: 2713: 2710: 2709: 2705: 2703: 2702: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2685: 2680: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2648: 2647: 2643: 2641: 2640: 2626: 2625: 2622: 2617: 2611: 2606: 2605: 2602: 2597: 2591: 2578: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2565: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2550: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2527: 2524: 2517: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2504: 2503: 2500: 2498: 2492: 2490: 2485: 2484:SportingFlyer 2474: 2473: 2470: 2466: 2462: 2457: 2453: 2451: 2446: 2438: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2423: 2422:are updated. 2421: 2417: 2412: 2409: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2386:User:Levivich 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2368: 2363: 2362: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2340: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2319: 2315: 2311: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2304: 2299: 2293: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2277: 2272: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2244: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2223:I believe. - 2220: 2211: 2206: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2154: 2150: 2145: 2141: 2131: 2130: 2127: 2124: 2122: 2109: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2094: 2092: 2087: 2085: 2080: 2075: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2054: 2052: 2047: 2045: 2040: 2038: 2032: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1912: 1911: 1907: 1902: 1901: 1897: 1896: 1886: 1882: 1878: 1872: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1849: 1848:AmericanAir88 1844: 1843: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1816: 1815:AmericanAir88 1811: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1795: 1790: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1774: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1754: 1749: 1748: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1731: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1716: 1715:fait accompli 1712: 1708: 1705:calling him " 1704: 1698: 1694: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1675: 1673: 1669: 1666: 1656: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1642: 1641:misrepresents 1636: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1618: 1613: 1609: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1587:NOBODYREADSIT 1584: 1580: 1572: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1558: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1536: 1531: 1525: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1504: 1498: 1494: 1484: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1470: 1460: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1445: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1421: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1380:North America 1377: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1356: 1352: 1347: 1344: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1324: 1323: 1319: 1318:North America 1307: 1306: 1299: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1280: 1267: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1245: 1241: 1236: 1232: 1229: 1226: 1224: 1222: 1220: 1217: 1213: 1210: 1207: 1204: 1200: 1197: 1194: 1191: 1188: 1185: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1171: 1167: 1164: 1161: 1157: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1133: 1130: 1127: 1125: 1123:with my reply 1122: 1119: 1116: 1114: 1111: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1099: 1097: 1094: 1089: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1071: 1068: 1065: 1062: 1059: 1056: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1001: 1000:WP:ENDPORTALS 997: 996: 982: 978: 975: 973: 970: 967: 964: 963: 953: 950: 947: 944: 941: 938: 935: 932: 929: 926: 923: 920: 917: 912: 909: 905: 902: 899: 896: 893: 890: 887: 884: 881: 878: 875: 872: 869: 866: 863: 858: 855: 851: 848: 845: 842: 839: 836: 833: 830: 827: 824: 821: 818: 815: 810: 807: 803: 800: 797: 794: 791: 788: 785: 782: 779: 776: 773: 770: 767: 762: 759: 755: 752: 749: 746: 743: 740: 737: 734: 731: 728: 725: 722: 719: 716: 713: 708: 705: 701: 698: 695: 692: 689: 686: 683: 680: 677: 674: 671: 668: 665: 662: 659: 654: 651: 647: 644: 641: 638: 635: 632: 629: 626: 623: 620: 617: 614: 611: 606: 603: 602: 584: 580: 577: 573: 570: 566: 563: 559: 558: 557: 554: 547: 546: 539: 538: 533: 532: 527: 526: 521: 520: 511: 508: 507: 500: 497: 492: 489: 477: 472: 470: 465: 463: 458: 457: 455: 454: 449: 444: 443: 428: 427: 416: 413: 410: 406: 403: 401: 398: 397: 393: 388: 387: 379: 376: 374: 371: 368: 364: 359: 356: 354: 351: 348: 344: 341: 339: 336: 334: 331: 329: 326: 322: 317: 314: 313: 309: 304: 303: 295: 292: 290: 287: 284: 280: 277: 276: 272: 267: 266: 258: 255: 253: 250: 248: 245: 243: 242:Case requests 240: 238: 235: 234: 230: 225: 224: 217: 213: 210: 208: 205: 202: 198: 193: 191: 188: 186: 183: 181: 178: 175: 172: 168: 165: 164: 162: 161: 157: 153: 152: 149: 146: 145: 141: 138: 133: 127: 122: 116: 111: 110:KrakatoaKatie 107: 102: 97: 91: 86: 82: 78: 74: 69: 63: 58: 52: 47: 41: 36: 27: 23: 19: 6106: 6105: 6091: 6079:Portals case 6078: 6076: 6055: 6007: 6006: 6002: 5998: 5995: 5984: 5936: 5926: 5925: 5899: 5893: 5878: 5870: 5864: 5858: 5853:WikiProjects 5852: 5846: 5840: 5832: 5822: 5808: 5791: 5781: 5772: 5762: 5757: 5747: 5745: 5735: 5730: 5720: 5706: 5696: 5682: 5672: 5663: 5653: 5627: 5613: 5604: 5594: 5552: 5543: 5533: 5520: 5510: 5501: 5491: 5485: 5475: 5457: 5447: 5438: 5423: 5418: 5408: 5397: 5387: 5381:stonewalling 5378: 5368: 5354: 5344: 5338: 5331: 5321: 5311: 5301: 5296: 5286: 5257: 5247: 5241: 5219: 5214: 5201: 5195: 5189: 5183: 5177: 5171: 5154: 5148: 5142: 5136: 5130: 5124: 5115: 5113: 5091: 5074: 5048: 5023: 5005: 4989: 4986: 4968: 4949: 4943: 4927: 4903: 4897:WP:ADMINCOND 4867: 4851: 4826: 4819: 4818: 4814: 4804: 4797: 4796: 4783: 4766: 4760: 4748: 4726: 4725: 4631: 4561: 4557: 4488: 4477: 4472: 4468: 4464: 4449: 4440: 4419: 4416:WP:ADMINCOND 4413: 4389: 4363: 4350: 4330: 4327: 4311: 4300: 4297: 4248:noticeboards 4208:broad topics 4204: 4186: 4166: 4146: 4142: 4139: 4135: 4132: 4128: 4125: 4107: 4081: 4062: 4041: 4035: 3990: 3970: 3966: 3940: 3931: 3906: 3897: 3880:Usedtobecool 3878: 3876: 3873: 3856: 3827: 3802: 3782: 3776: 3770: 3764: 3758: 3752: 3746: 3717: 3711: 3705: 3699: 3693: 3687: 3681: 3650: 3644: 3638: 3632: 3626: 3620: 3614: 3604: 3577: 3564: 3547: 3546: 3537: 3514:WP:ADMINACCT 3507:WP:ADMINCOND 3492: 3472: 3446: 3427: 3411:FeydHuxtable 3405: 3394:FeydHuxtable 3390: 3368: 3361: 3350: 3328: 3280:in her reply 3268: 3264: 3227: 3216: 3196: 3148: 3127: 3111: 3064: 3060: 3036: 3033: 3000: 2992: 2971: 2965: 2947: 2938: 2920: 2898: 2891: 2873: 2870: 2867: 2855: 2847: 2846: 2841: 2840: 2827: 2826: 2807: 2796: 2774: 2765: 2748: 2740: 2725: 2707: 2700: 2699: 2694: 2681: 2658: 2645: 2638: 2637: 2632: 2607: 2586: 2528: 2525: 2521: 2510: 2494: 2486: 2480: 2458: 2454: 2447: 2444: 2424: 2413: 2410: 2407: 2364: 2349:User:Vermont 2346: 2327: 2297: 2294: 2288: 2275: 2273: 2264: 2260: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2245: 2242: 2137: 2120: 2115: 2095: 2088: 2076: 2066: 2063: 2056: 2048: 2043: 2041: 2033: 2030: 1999:User:Joe Roe 1918: 1905: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1752: 1750: 1732: 1719: 1699: 1695: 1676: 1662: 1621: 1610: 1583:Newshunter12 1581: 1578: 1555: 1552: 1533: 1501: 1490: 1474:Newshunter12 1461: 1422: 1384:Portal:Ghana 1378: 1348: 1345: 1330: 1313: 1276: 1275: 1218: 1202: 1160:The Troubles 1147:. See also 1106: 1039: 948: 942: 936: 930: 924: 918: 911:Newshunter12 900: 894: 888: 882: 876: 870: 864: 846: 840: 834: 828: 822: 816: 798: 792: 786: 780: 774: 768: 750: 744: 738: 732: 726: 720: 714: 696: 690: 684: 678: 672: 666: 660: 642: 636: 630: 624: 618: 612: 555: 536: 530: 524: 518: 503: 501: 495: 493: 487: 485: 105: 80: 79: 77: 34: 6111:, not here. 5953:("AN"); and 5885:Enforcement 5357:not a place 4626:Clerk notes 4334:Nosebagbear 4220:directories 4093:similar to 4042:SMcCandlish 3762:protections 3697:protections 3630:protections 3548:Moved from 3456:Lepricavark 3435:Lepricavark 3161:to the list 3026:User:Sm8900 3024:Replies to 2940:Lepricavark 2848:Right now, 2615:‑Scottywong 2595:‑Scottywong 2590:User:ToThAc 2426:discussion. 2149:WP:CIVILITY 1960:User:ToThAc 1922:Jimbo Wales 1277:Moved from 1183:sanctions.) 1181:WP:TROUBLES 1069:to my civil 880:protections 730:protections 676:protections 496:Case closed 488:Case opened 212:Ban appeals 190:Noticeboard 81:Case clerks 6066:Amendments 5928:Committee. 5865:Automation 5847:Page views 5635:ANI thread 5272:harassment 5264:incivility 5233:Principles 5199:block user 5193:filter log 5152:block user 5146:filter log 4709:Parlez Moi 4703:Guerillero 4585:knowledge. 4228:glossaries 4212:categories 4026:WP:WINNING 4022:WP:NOTHERE 4009:WP:MEATBOT 3840:Lightburst 3774:page moves 3709:page moves 3642:page moves 3583:Javert2113 3266:of NA1k. 3151:Guerillero 2808:thanks. -- 2281:Scottywong 1468:HairedGirl 1404:HairedGirl 1252:HairedGirl 1208:, my reply 1085:TFD Oct 25 968:(declined) 946:block user 940:filter log 892:page moves 844:block user 838:filter log 796:block user 790:filter log 742:page moves 688:page moves 640:block user 634:filter log 418:(pre-2016) 405:Statistics 338:Procedures 85:Guerillero 5966:arbcom-en 5205:block log 5158:block log 4540:Propaedia 4469:September 4442:InvalidOS 4305:Cas Liber 4281:Andrew D. 4256:overviews 4236:infoboxes 3993:Thryduulf 3919:pingó mió 3915:Galobtter 3815:Jehochman 3805:Jehochman 3768:deletions 3731:Jehochman 3703:deletions 3665:Jehochman 3636:deletions 3525:WP:ALTREV 3476:WP:HARASS 3247:Thryduulf 3231:Thryduulf 3223:permalink 2996:WP:GAMING 2968:Thryduulf 2944:WP:GAMING 2775:existence 2569:SmokeyJoe 2553:SmokeyJoe 2535:SmokeyJoe 2416:WP:PORTAL 2153:cool down 1635:warmonger 1620:the term 1617:once used 1343:delete. 1162:articles, 1145:Transport 1028:WP:WPPORT 952:block log 886:deletions 850:block log 802:block log 736:deletions 682:deletions 646:block log 343:Elections 96:CodeLyoko 6119:Category 5812:contribs 5742:Remedies 5631:contribs 5617:contribs 5556:contribs 5334:involved 5175:contribs 5128:contribs 5040:I share 4656:clerks-l 4473:November 4315:contribs 4264:projects 4252:outlines 4216:contents 3997:WP:CIVIL 3750:contribs 3685:contribs 3618:contribs 3327:Oy vey. 3147:note 2: 3061:Requests 3032:section 3028:(in the 2749:Comment. 2252:galleria 2084:reverted 1871:Nemo bis 1665:separate 1261:contribs 1137:Djibouti 1026:(TTH)'s 922:contribs 868:contribs 820:contribs 772:contribs 718:contribs 664:contribs 616:contribs 57:Workshop 46:Evidence 24:‎ | 22:Requests 20:‎ | 5859:Updates 5454:Portals 5441:portals 5254:Decorum 4944:Accept. 4673:My Talk 4645:My Talk 4562:propose 4558:another 4516:Invalid 4424:Bagumba 4418:states 4395:Invalid 4260:portals 4232:indexes 4170:Hasteur 4150:BusterD 4148:faith. 4104:Joe Roe 4082:require 3974:WaltCip 3950:Thincat 3909:- twas 3607:Diannaa 3587:Siarad. 3529:WP:ROWN 3374:WP:FAIT 3333:Vermont 3313:Vermont 3289:Vermont 3269:In the 3159:Diannaa 3069:WP:ARCA 3065:request 2461:WP:NPOV 2298:content 2289:conduct 2276:content 2256:emporia 2210:Joe Roe 2158:winning 1924:or the 1709:" and " 1420:space. 1341:WP:SNOW 1169:October 415:Reports 353:History 333:Members 328:Contact 316:Discuss 180:(CU/OS) 6094:motion 5958:"ARCA" 5841:Topics 5401:change 5278:, and 5092:Accept 5083:(talk) 5075:Accept 5049:should 5042:Robert 5024:Accept 4987:Accept 4876:(talk) 4868:Recuse 4852:accept 4815:Accept 4684:Sm8900 4446:Hecato 4374:Hecato 4189:WP:MFD 4108:should 4102:Given 4069:WP:RPA 4017:WP:MFD 4001:WP:NPA 3946:WP:NPA 3901:ToThAc 3870:abuse. 3831:WP:5P4 3780:rights 3756:blocks 3715:rights 3691:blocks 3648:rights 3624:blocks 3557:ToThAc 3486:, and 3355:& 3305:WP:CIR 3285:WP:5P4 3200:isaacl 3178:— Ched 3135:— Ched 3116:— Ched 2894:Sm8900 2810:Sm8900 2780:Sm8900 2754:Sm8900 2729:Sm8900 2701:BD2412 2639:BD2412 2610:ToThAc 2420:WP:POG 2390:Hecato 2371:Hecato 2353:Hecato 2269:Alaska 2126:(talk) 1877:ToThAc 1854:ToThAc 1833:ToThAc 1800:ToThAc 1779:ToThAc 1757:ToThAc 1739:ToThAc 1707:sneaky 1646:Certes 1630:quoted 1599:Certes 1429:Certes 1370:WP:POG 1257:(talk) 1216:WP:POG 1120:, and 1103:WP:POG 1050:, and 1036:Certes 1009:WP:POG 898:rights 874:blocks 809:Certes 748:rights 724:blocks 694:rights 670:blocks 605:ToThAc 506:motion 358:Clerks 216:Report 130:& 119:& 94:& 5487:MfD. 4857:Katie 4841:Katie 4750:Kevin 4498:Leviv 4240:lists 4117:(UTC) 3037:above 3034:below 2979:help! 2955:help! 2928:help! 2906:help! 2881:help! 2620:| || 2600:| || 2531:WP:AN 1557:Kusma 1535:Kusma 1503:Kusma 1466:Brown 1433:Kusma 1402:Brown 1392:seven 1388:alive 1358:added 1250:Brown 1141:Ghana 1105:said 979:(See 857:Kusma 531:Wshp. 519:Front 392:Audit 132:Bradv 16:< 5806:talk 5796:and 5625:talk 5611:talk 5550:talk 5521:5) 5187:logs 5169:talk 5162:and 5140:logs 5122:talk 5100:talk 5063:talk 5035:Ched 5008:Mkdw 4992:Mkdw 4971:Mkdw 4827:talk 4820:Worm 4805:talk 4798:Worm 4758:L235 4742:and 4666:. -- 4542:and 4521:talk 4428:talk 4400:talk 4338:talk 4309:talk 4301:some 4285:talk 4266:and 4174:talk 4154:talk 4011:and 3978:talk 3954:talk 3844:talk 3744:talk 3679:talk 3612:talk 3527:and 3488:this 3484:this 3480:this 3460:talk 3439:talk 3415:talk 3398:talk 3353:RfCs 3337:talk 3317:talk 3309:link 3293:talk 3251:talk 3235:talk 3204:talk 3182:talk 3174:here 3166:here 3139:talk 3120:talk 3094:talk 3015:talk 2814:talk 2784:talk 2758:talk 2733:talk 2675:and 2669:here 2667:and 2665:here 2573:talk 2557:talk 2539:talk 2469:Nemo 2432:talk 2418:and 2394:talk 2375:talk 2357:talk 2334:talk 2314:talk 2285:here 2229:talk 2219:Moxy 2199:talk 2185:talk 2166:talk 2103:talk 2042:BHG 2011:talk 1990:talk 1968:talk 1947:talk 1881:talk 1858:talk 1837:talk 1804:talk 1794:Ched 1783:talk 1761:talk 1743:talk 1650:talk 1638:who 1603:talk 1595:HERE 1478:talk 1449:here 1439:and 1431:and 1362:here 1339:was 1333:vote 1298:Moxy 1246:. -- 1244:RFA2 1242:and 1240:RFA1 1079:and 1052:Moxy 981:here 934:logs 916:talk 862:talk 832:logs 814:talk 784:logs 766:talk 761:Moxy 712:talk 658:talk 628:logs 610:talk 409:Talk 400:Talk 367:Talk 347:Talk 201:Talk 171:Talk 137:Talk 126:Talk 121:Mkdw 115:Talk 101:Talk 90:Talk 73:Talk 62:Talk 51:Talk 40:Talk 26:Case 5666:log 5590:). 5544:6) 5529:) 5312:4) 5114:1) 5058:Joe 4950:AGK 4928:AGK 4904:AGK 4872:PMC 4792:JzG 4755:aka 4502:ich 4051:😼 3786:RfA 3727:Log 3721:RfA 3654:RfA 3450:JzG 3407:JzG 3170:JBW 3155:Liz 3153:or 3039:): 2973:Guy 2949:Guy 2922:Guy 2900:Guy 2875:Guy 2744:JzG 2254:or 2140:MfD 2044:has 1982:XFD 1934:RFC 1829:one 1825:all 1821:one 1720:was 1681:'s 1532:. — 1524:JzG 1451:at 1423:At 1349:At 1259:• ( 1081:two 1077:one 904:RfA 754:RfA 700:RfA 537:PD. 525:Ev. 283:Log 6121:: 6010:: 5976:). 5818:. 5800:, 5716:) 5712:, 5692:) 5688:, 5668:) 5649:) 5645:, 5641:, 5637:, 5586:, 5582:, 5567:, 5564:, 5561:, 5506:. 5471:) 5467:, 5463:, 5443:. 5274:, 5270:, 5266:, 5262:, 5102:) 5056:– 4874:♠ 4830:) 4808:) 4772:) 4730:iz 4706:| 4700:-- 4670:| 4642:| 4597:~ 4496:– 4430:) 4340:) 4317:) 4287:) 4262:; 4258:; 4254:; 4250:; 4246:; 4242:; 4238:; 4234:; 4230:; 4226:; 4222:; 4218:; 4214:; 4210:; 4176:) 4156:) 4039:— 4028:+ 4024:+ 4003:/ 3999:/ 3980:) 3956:) 3921:) 3846:) 3581:— 3553:: 3482:, 3462:) 3441:) 3417:) 3400:) 3388:. 3339:) 3319:) 3311:) 3295:) 3253:) 3237:) 3206:) 3184:) 3141:) 3122:) 3096:) 3079:}} 3073:{{ 3050:}} 3044:{{ 3017:) 2946:. 2837:. 2816:) 2786:) 2760:) 2735:) 2575:) 2559:) 2541:) 2434:) 2396:) 2377:) 2359:) 2336:) 2316:) 2231:) 2201:) 2187:) 2168:) 2105:) 2013:) 2001:, 1992:) 1970:) 1949:) 1883:) 1860:) 1839:) 1806:) 1785:) 1763:) 1753:am 1745:) 1674:. 1652:) 1644:. 1626:AN 1605:) 1597:. 1568:) 1546:) 1514:) 1480:) 1415:, 1411:, 1302:🍁 1143:, 1139:, 1112:, 1095:). 1034:. 1007:. 534:, 528:, 522:, 108:: 83:: 66:— 55:— 44:— 5809:· 5804:( 5684:( 5628:· 5623:( 5614:· 5609:( 5553:· 5548:( 5459:( 5207:) 5202:· 5196:· 5190:· 5184:· 5178:· 5172:· 5167:( 5160:) 5155:· 5149:· 5143:· 5137:· 5131:· 5125:· 5120:( 5098:( 5065:) 5061:( 4956:■ 4934:■ 4910:■ 4824:( 4802:( 4770:c 4767:· 4764:t 4761:· 4753:( 4727:L 4686:: 4682:@ 4607:G 4605:. 4603:T 4601:. 4599:R 4523:) 4519:( 4426:( 4402:) 4398:( 4336:( 4312:· 4307:( 4283:( 4172:( 4152:( 4049:¢ 4046:☏ 3976:( 3952:( 3917:( 3903:: 3899:@ 3885:✨ 3842:( 3788:) 3783:· 3777:· 3771:· 3765:· 3759:· 3753:· 3747:· 3742:( 3723:) 3718:· 3712:· 3706:· 3700:· 3694:· 3688:· 3682:· 3677:( 3656:) 3651:· 3645:· 3639:· 3633:· 3627:· 3621:· 3615:· 3610:( 3593:) 3591:¤ 3589:| 3585:( 3559:: 3555:@ 3531:. 3458:( 3452:: 3448:@ 3437:( 3413:( 3396:( 3335:( 3315:( 3291:( 3249:( 3233:( 3221:( 3202:( 3180:( 3137:( 3118:( 3092:( 3013:( 2981:) 2977:( 2957:) 2953:( 2930:) 2926:( 2908:) 2904:( 2883:) 2879:( 2812:( 2782:( 2771:: 2767:@ 2756:( 2746:: 2742:@ 2731:( 2708:T 2646:T 2571:( 2555:( 2537:( 2497:C 2493:· 2489:T 2430:( 2392:( 2373:( 2355:( 2332:( 2312:( 2227:( 2221:: 2217:@ 2212:: 2208:@ 2197:( 2183:( 2164:( 2121:ɱ 2101:( 2009:( 1988:( 1966:( 1945:( 1879:( 1873:: 1869:@ 1856:( 1850:: 1846:@ 1835:( 1817:: 1813:@ 1802:( 1796:: 1792:@ 1781:( 1775:: 1771:@ 1759:( 1741:( 1648:( 1601:( 1566:c 1564:· 1562:t 1560:( 1544:c 1542:· 1540:t 1538:( 1526:: 1522:@ 1512:c 1510:· 1508:t 1506:( 1476:( 1444:3 1441:2 1437:1 1417:3 1413:2 1409:1 1263:) 1189:) 1131:) 1087:. 1054:. 1017:1 954:) 949:· 943:· 937:· 931:· 925:· 919:· 914:( 906:) 901:· 895:· 889:· 883:· 877:· 871:· 865:· 860:( 852:) 847:· 841:· 835:· 829:· 823:· 817:· 812:( 804:) 799:· 793:· 787:· 781:· 775:· 769:· 764:( 756:) 751:· 745:· 739:· 733:· 727:· 721:· 715:· 710:( 702:) 697:· 691:· 685:· 679:· 673:· 667:· 661:· 656:( 648:) 643:· 637:· 631:· 625:· 619:· 613:· 608:( 585:. 578:. 571:. 564:. 475:e 468:t 461:v 363:+ 321:+ 285:) 281:( 197:+ 139:) 135:( 128:) 124:( 117:) 113:( 103:) 99:( 92:) 88:( 75:) 71:( 64:) 60:( 53:) 49:( 42:) 38:(

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

Knowledge

:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals - Knowledge

Index