1959:(here on the RFAR) that I thought needed their actions examined. There may be more. This is not a two party dispute between Goethean and North8000, nor between Arzel and Goethean, or Malke 2010 and anyone, or even Arthur Rubin or North8000 and Xenophrenic, although one of them certainly called for Xenophrenic to be topic banned and he is involved in editing that article. In hindsight, I should have added his name to the case; not because I have seen anything in his actions to cause me to think sanctions are in order for him, but rather because he could give valuable evidence. Obviously it is not a dispute between North8000 and myself, since I have no dispute with him, and never did have any dispute with him (or any editor here, except long ago on far different articles.) There are at least a half dozen editors involved; I named the three I thought were causing the most serious issues. I concur that North8000 is the most serious problem at this time, and topic banning him would be helpful. It will not, however, resolve the entire problem. Should you choose that solution, I forsee many problems to come on TPM and other right-wing US political articles; anyone who gets a "pass" this time may well feel vindicated and justified in further battleground behavior. Well, I didn't mean to say so much, but dang, Anthony, I am really surprised anyone could read even just my first statement and somehow come away with the idea that it is a two party dispute. My communication skills must be going down the toilet with my health.
1769:(This is in response to Rexx's statement, but to the Arbs): I would prefer Arbcom accept this case; I think there have been serious problems with the behavior of some of those who have been active at TPM, and I also know the differences between community probation and ArbCom sanctions. Most of you know I enforced probation on Sarah Palin and now on Men's rights movement. It was done well; a much stronger consensus at ANI and a subpage with a chart to track who had been notified (not warned, we use notification) and a place to record sanctions. The TPM has no such page; but worse, it has no admins willing to babysit the article - until me, and you see what has happened here. I'm facing not just accusations of "involved" from the parties I've warned, there is an admin calling for me to be sanctioned for even trying to help on this toxic cesspit. On probation since 2010, I have found zero instances of anything being done about problems there. It's like the editnotice was added, and then things went on as before. If the article is under Arb probation, it can be seen at AE, which is always watched. In the past I have argued against that on some articles, but in this case, I think it might be warranted. I do think some of the editors on TPM should be looked at by Arbcom, but of course if you choose not to, please at least do pass a motion or two so other admins and myself can set up a better probation and enforce it.
2037:
thorough analysis (vs. the fact free mess that is occurring now) of what has occurred will show that I did ZERO wrong; if anything against me continues even an inch further I demand that thorough analysis. Any AN/ANI that is on a vague complaint (with contemplated sanctions) turns into fact-free disaster, and this one certainly has. POV warriors do not view POV warriors from the opposite side as their main targets. Persons who carefully, credibly and persistently work to bring the article to the neutral center are far harder to get rid of and the main threat to their POV agenda. A good way to spot fact-free ones is posts to the effect of "this just shows how bad North is" instead of "North did this: (insert specific)" I'm one of those and some of the most infamous of them (mostly not from this article) have showed up at the ANI with basis-free negative "assessments" of me as a part of their battle. And I am confident how any actual careful analysis (with the best hope of achieving that being Arbcom) will end up. However, beyond that, here is is where the clarity is needed.
3076:
enforced sanction is needed. I am hesitant to turn too quickly toward ArbCom, as I feel that each time a community resolvable situation is given up to ArbCom, the community loses some of the belief that the community can resolve issues. While some members of the community still believe that the problem can be resolved without ArbCom, I will support and applaud and encourage that - in the same way that I want to support and applaud and encourage admins like KillerChihuahua who attempt to resolve problems. We are a collaborative community who have together formed our rules and procedures, and we have created a community to be proud of. Working collaboratively we have created this encyclopedia, and we handle on a day to day basis complex issues. Let's hold our heads up, and let's not lose faith in ourselves. Certainly we need a body for truly intractable issues, or simply where the community have exhausted attempts at resolution. I'm not sure, yet, though, that the community are exhausted, and I for one am willing to wait. ArbCom will be here if needed. But I'd rather not rush into that yet.
2902:
we can issue sanctions which are then enforced by the community - which would mean someone who takes an interest in the case, the user, or in the topic, or who, as part of their volunteer work, are willing to keep an eye on ArbCom sanctions and enforce them as required. I would feel a little uncomfortable about not utilising sanctions because of a concern that such sanctions would overburden those who have volunteered to enforce them - that would then limit what options are available to us: we would be limited to either ban, warn or decline. Sanctions are an important part of what ArbCom does. If there is a concern that sanctions are now getting difficult to enforce, perhaps we can have a RfC on this to find a way of making it less burdensome. I'm not sure that it should influence our decision in how to deal with this particular case request. I think we should keep active all options until the matter has been more thoroughly discussed.
3029:. As community sanctions are listed on the same page as ArbCom sanctions, I'd be interested to hear what in effect would be the difference between the community imposing further sanctions and ArbCom doing it. Whichever way it goes, somebody will have to make an assessment and then carry out the appropriate sanction. If the concern is that existing community sanctions are not working on this topic because some individuals are not respecting that and/or because the situation is more complex than can be decided under pressure, but that making them ArbCom sanctions would simply be shifting the problem to another group of individuals who would also be unable to make the appropriate assessments, are the Committee being pushed in the direction of handing out topic/site bans - either now by gut-instinct motion, or in three months time after examining the contribution history of that Cecil B. DeMille cast list?
1616:, I'm not in a dispute. I'm an uninvolved admin sending up a flare. The issue is one of several editors exhibiting severe battleground behavior, and making the TPM article too toxic for others to edit. The article is under community probation, but that hasn't worked at all. I think the behavior of Arzel, Malke 2010, and especially North8000 need examination; I believe they are holding the article hostage to their views and attacking and accusing anyone with whom they disagree. Goethean asked me to take a look; I tried to caution and warn the editors who were exhibiting the poor behavior but the reaction was so hostile and accusatory that I took it to ANI, where it got even worse. They reject any editors and any sources which do not promote the Tea Party movement, to the point that the New York Times and MSNBC were dismissed as non-RS - rather snidely, too - by Arzel and Malke 2010.
2230:
several others could tell you, we had a far more collegial atmosphere in comparison. Once the aforementioned editors appeared, sometime in the fall of 2010, things changed dramatically. A few editors left immediately as the atmosphere was stiffled by the presence of a dominating administrator who made changes at will with virtually no discussion. I could not see the point in continuing especially after some of the encounters with Dylan
Flaherty on my talk page that went beyond the pale to the point where he was banned from my talk page (but not blocked which seemed very unfair to me at the time.) In the end, it was more baggage than seemed reasonable to be carrying for a voluntary editor. And since then I've restricted myself to random edits and writing and editing legal articles.
2058:
continues even an inch further I demand that thorough analysis. KillerChihuahua, without basis, quickly dismissed the validity of the TE concern (the review which was ostensibly the reason
Goethean was soliciting people) got into a battling mentality, incorrectly used their imprimatur in their battle, and baselessy escalated it into the shit-storm. With Geothean (via soliciting) probably being the largest in the other 2% involvement. So the list is flawed. And the idea of having one of the two involved disputants formulate it is also not a good idea, although I commend KC for closing the ani and bringing it here. Possibly a mediation between the two of us would be even a better idea. (but it looks like it may be over now)
1889:: I don't see how this is an improvement over your earlier assertions. I not only haven't misinterpreted or misunderstood consensus, I haven't said anything about content at all, let alone about consensus. And your shift from calling for me to be topic banned for misunderstanding some unspecified policy, to calling for me to be topic banned for supposedly misunderstanding some unstated consensus (when I've said nothing about such a thing) is still calling for me to be topic banned for an alleged misunderstanding. This is absurd. You have no diffs, because there was no such comment, whether accurate or a misunderstanding; and your call for a topic ban is not only baseless, it wouldn't even hold water if I
2303:
Beback, and the other admins would not reign him in. Will Beback really unsettled that page, as did his co-editor Dylan
Flaherty. It was after Dylan started editing warring, and full disclosure everybody there did some of that including me, that the page got put on probation. Dylan is the one who really got things rolling in that direction with the page getting locked several times. After the article got put on probation, it got ignored by the admins because Will Beback was there. If ArbCom had been in control of things, all that disruption would not have happened, and I really believe editors would have settled down and focused on really establishing a collegial talk page to sort things out.
1955:, and/or feel free to ask questions. I will illuminate as much as I am able, but I thought I had made it very clear that it is a complex situation, and I brought this here because I think ArbCom is the right venue due to the complexity. If it had been North8000 alone, I would probably have started an ANI thread titled "Proposed topic ban for North8000" and done with it, or simply blocked him myself and gone on blocking him repeatedly until he either learned to edit collegially or wound up indeffed by default. I did not; I titled the thread "Tea Party movement, looking for community input" because it is several editors, not two. I in fact named the
2295:- You make an excellent point. The TPM talk page revolves around content disputes that fall along idealogical lines. I can go back and find diffs for you to arguments but as a quick example, one side wanted to show that the TPM came about as a 'response' to the election of Obama, while the other side claimed it was grassroots and all about the money. Arguments over petty, silly 'news' items such as an incident in Maryland where a man claimed his outdoor barbecue grill was sabotaged by tea party members because he was an Obama supporter. Xenophrenic fought like crazy for that and anytime it got deleted, he put it right back.
2713:. I've waited a week rather than a day, but I don't see much progress being made. My instinct is that this case might wind up being resolved as some people have already predicted, but except in the clearest situations, I'd prefer to open a case to examine the evidence rather than adopt a remedy based on my instincts. If the case is accepted, all parties are reminded that the focus will be on user misconduct and what remedies would best assist out goal of creating a reliable, neutral encyclopeida, and not on the underlying real-world political disputes.
3409:. The community sanction states that on this article, "no editor may make more than one (1) revert on the same content per twenty-four (24) hour period". Concerns about the length and quality of the article, as well as debate about wording and content, have been raised on the talkpage since 2010, and discussions now fill 21 archives. Reverts regularly take place, creating a slow-moving edit-war that may meet the wording of the community sanction, but not its spirit. The article is currently fully protected.
2825:
articles under discretionary sanctions? Outside of AE, I am aware that if a matter is complex enough to require time to consider, that an article is locked down until the matter is resolved. I am not an AE admin so these are genuine questions - if it is felt that AE admins are operating in a restricted manner compared to non-AE admins, I think it's something we should be seriously looking into, because we would want to be enabling AE admins rather than restricting them, or over-burdening them.
3035:
counter to the
Knowledge spirit, and erodes the project. It is a wearisome, unpleasant and thankless task resolving conflicts - those of us who attempt it do get tired of it. We need to support those who still have the energy, interest and dedication to help resolve problems - otherwise, as with AE admins burning out because they are being asked to deal with too many sanctions, so we'll see dispute resolution volunteers giving up, and then the warriors will take over the encyclopedia.
2843:
of text, most of which are of questionable relevance, but all of which have to be read. As a result, you'll get very, very few admins who would be willing to look at it. Moreover, it's really a massive undertaking to review a lengthy and bitter dispute with dozens of diffs as a single admin, well beyond what we could reasonably expect from our administrators. I tried doing it once, and it was not pretty at all; the second time an equally massive thread in the topic area popped up, we
180:
2070:
article is a total disaster" too many times.) But I consider even that to be an effect, not a cause. But for the root cause this article is merely a poster child. It is flaws in policies and the system that been the ultimate cause of practically ALL of
Knowledge's articles on contentious topics being unstable, strife-ridden junky articles. Any findings that would come out of tackling this one as a "poster child" would do immense good for Knowledge.
2729:@KC: When this was brought up on the mailing list last night, I wrote, "We could probably write the proposed decision for such a case now: discretionary sanctions, ban, ban, topic ban, topic ban, admonishment." Do you think that ArbCom replacing community article probation with discretionary sanctions for the area by motion would be a helpful step? That would allow the case to return to ArbCom for closer inspection only if it fails.
2211:
comments seemed biased towards
Goethean which only made things worse with Arzel then commenting. I think North8000 reacted the way he did, and Arzel then commented as well, because KillerChihuahua seemed to them and myself, too, to be excusing Goethean’s last comment to me which was the one North8000 was reacting to. (Here is the diff with both Goethean's comment to me, my response to him, and North8000s comment:
4511:(where a consensus of uninvolved administrators will determine the result of the appeal), or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page. As an alternative to blocking under this paragraph, the uninvolved administrator may impose a discretionary sanction, which shall be in addition to any sanction imposed in this decision.
1597:. So far, there have been multiple views on a number of editors, several editors have added to the "Proposed topic ban" lists (several with no evidence at all), and including North8000 calling for my desysopping, and Arthur Rubin calling for me being topic banned for BATTLE because I brought the issue to ANI. I think this one is going to to take an ArbCom case to make any headway.
4639:
such enforcement action is pending on 01 January 2015, the remedies will become formally vacated only if the appeal is successful. If enforcement action is taken and an appeal is rejected, the remedies shall become unsuspended and a request for their amendment may not be re-submitted to the committee until six months have elapsed from the passage of this motion.
2113:
action against any individual, just pointing out what has been happening at the article that can tend to reduce those problems. Oh wait!......that's me, and that's what I did.....so conservatively that I took two years to make sure (and I bet it will be the best thing that happened to that article in years) .......and look what happened. What a great system.
3026:
2163:"It is written as an opinion of the writer. Who says that this writer gets to define the Tea Party? Why doesn't it belong in the media section? It is formed from a media outlet, what makes the NYT special in this regard? Why not include ALL of the media opinions in the definition? Arzel (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)"
2978:. Nothing I've read since this request has been filed convinces me that further community review is likely to lead to a tempering of this dispute, nor do I think the community can easily tackle this dispute (without the investment of a disproportionate amount of editorial time). My original comments on this request are
1976:, thanks in advance for your patience here. I didn't expect to have to provide evidence until and unless the case were accepted. I am digging through diffs, but before I finish, is this covering the behavior of the editors on US politics as I originally listed the case or am I confined to Tea Party movement only? -
2091:@KC you may be half right, so I should clarify. The TPM article was and is just chugging along in its usual normal sad state. IMO your ANI post was a volley as a result of a dispute between you and me which then picked up a life of its own as a mindless fact-free shit storm. The dispute is mostly right here
3580:; others were made with no attempt to engage in the wider community effort to rewrite the article or to hold a meaningful discussion on the talk page of the movement agenda. Goethean has also engaged in protracted reverting in order to retain sections of the article that reflect negatively on the movement (
3025:, though I suspect, as someone has hinted above, that when a problem is referred to ArbCom, the community might lose interest and motivation in attempting to resolve it. I'm interested to see that, as well as topic bans being proposed for what appears to be the cast list for a Cecil B. DeMille film, that
4559:
case is suspended for the period of one year from the date of passage of this motion. During the period of suspension, any uninvolved administrator may as an arbitration enforcement action reinstate the topic ban for failure to follow
Knowledge's standards of conduct in the area previously covered by
3341:
states: "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." Administrators are responsible for assessing for themselves the nature of any
3305:
6) The purpose of a talk page is to provide a location for editors to discuss changes to the associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Editors should strive to use talk pages effectively and must not misuse
3034:
I am concerned at the response to KillerChihuahua's attempt to sort out a problem, and, whatever else comes out of this, I'd like to see that users who respond inappropriately to reasonable attempts by uninvolved volunteers (admins or otherwise) to resolve problems are reminded that such behaviour is
2403:
specific edits, my impression is that there is an effort to add anything negative about any person connected to any organization in the TPm, whether or not relevant, even to the person. I've made some effort to remove material I consider undue, from unreliable sources (until I see consensus that the
2306:
As it is now, it is mired in incivility and obstruction. And there are editors there now whose behavior is just on the edge of true consequences for the things they say and do. They dance right on the edge of 3RR and personal attacks. And that behavior is the source of the obstructionism. And when an
2074:
BTW, in case anybody is wondering, my RW politics is libertarian, not conservative, and which is in conflict with conservationism on about 1/2 of issues. More importantly, that is irrelevant; we check those hats at the door when we edit wikipedia. A careful review of my discussion at the TPM article
2036:
There is an important lack of clarity and important flaws in the listing of participants in the formation of this, but if the current fact-free shit-storm at ani were to go even one inch further it should go to Arbcom (or possibly to mediation). (So "kill it all immediately" is also a good choice.) A
1736:
Comment: While I sympathise with those who wish to leave this at ANI, in the short time between posting there and filing here, there have been calls to topic ban 9 editors, a call to desysop me, several editors calling for the issue to be sent to ArbCom, 7 supports and 5 opposes (one of them mine) to
1562:(my first ever edit there) and advised the accusing editor, North8000, to either provide diffs, or cease the accusations (basically put up or shut up.) Then I added the TPM article to my watchlist. Less than a week later North8000 was making uncivil comments and personal attacks on article talk page.
3261:
4) Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.
3221:
2) All
Knowledge articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying
3001:
I'd prefer to keep this case narrow in scope, and have us only examine the Tea Party movement. Omnibus cases are difficult to resolve and more difficult to conduct; and a case concerning "U.S. politics" would so broad in scope that it'd certainly be an "omnibus" case. I suggest to my colleagues that
2865:
On the other hand, we are supposed to let the
Community handle things if we can. I'm still inclined to give discretionary sanctions a shot and if it doesn't work, we can take on a case then. Sandstein's idea seems like an interesting one. I've thought about it before, and I can see it working if the
2842:
Well, it's not built in, but 1) like most sanctions of the non-arbcom variety, people tend to bring up the "preventative not punitive" mantra if the sanction is separated from the misconduct for too long, and 2) if you let an AE thread drag on for too long, it tends to get filled with assorted walls
2661:
be ultimately responsible for a decision; this is not fair to either those whose behaviour is reviewed nor to the few administrators who are willing to carry out AE. Community sanctions have already been tried; are they sufficient? Are they working at all? If not, I am inclined to accept this case.
2229:
I don’t edit the Tea Party
Movement anymore. Specifically, I became disenchanted after numerous run-ins with Will Beback and Dylan Flaherty, both now banned from editing Knowledge. If the page is in a sad state now, it wasn’t always like that. As Xenophrenic, who was editing back in 2010 with me and
2221:
And so my comment came in the context of defending North8000 for what I perceived to be a lack of fairness, but certainly not meat puppetry. As it turned out, KillerChihuahua and North8000 had already had an exchange on his talk page. She never came to my talk page with any concerns of meat puppetry
2057:
and the solicitation thread at KC's talk page another 5% of it. Another 5% would be analysis of the (lack of) any specific basis for opening the ANI thread. A thorough analysis (vs. the fact free mess that is occurring now) of what has occurred will show that I did ZERO wrong; if anything against me
2901:
I don't think discretionary sanctions is passing the issue back to the community, I think it's the Committee's attempt at reaching a solution. There is a limit to what the Committee can do. We can return the issue back to the community/decline; we can ban; we can give warnings of various sorts; and
2660:
Thanks to those who ensured the necessary links were present and clear. I agree with my colleague Timotheus that simply shuttling this off to discretionary sanctions and arbitration enforcement is simply shifting the burden from a committee of 15 to a tiny handful of admins, of which only one would
2298:
You can ban all the the editors there right now and a new group will come in and do the same. I like your analogy to the school teacher keeping the students focused on the work. This is why I believe ArbCom control of the article like it has over The Troubles articles, will turn that page around. I
2233:
I think North8000 was simply frustrated, being a more conservative editor, by the other-side-of-the-aisle bias that exists on Knowledge. He was looking for KillerChihuahua to acknowledge that Goethean had made an uncivil comment but instead she defended it. Fireworks ensued. If I've offended her or
2206:
Nor did I question the NYTs as a reliable source. My comment about the MSNBC and the NYTs was based on the objection to the NYTs opinion piece. In the past, I have always relied on the news coverage by the NYTs because they have very strict fact checking and they are reliable. But the opinion pages
2159:
My part in this endevour began because an editor added to the TPM agenda the agenda/defintion from the point of view of a person outside of the movement. I simply moved that sentence to later in the section with the reasoning that the movement should define itself first. I then made the following
4565:
The following restriction is enacted: Arthur Rubin is restricted indefinitely to one revert per page per week in the area of the Tea Party movement. Enforcement of this restriction shall be per the enforcement provisions in the Tea Party movement case and any enforcement actions shall be logged at
2824:
Is haste built into AE decisions, or can the admins there decide to take more time to consider a matter? I am aware that outside of AE if a matter is considered serious and complex enough, a RfC is initiated, and those typically take 30 days. Is the haste because of potential ongoing disruption to
2774:
One of the things I criticized as an AE admin is the Committee's relatively recent tendency to slap discretionary sanctions on a topic and call it a day, leaving the bulk of the work of actually figuring out who's deserving of sanctions to the less-well-equipped AE admins. It would be hypocritical
2210:
As to my comment that KillerChihuahua refers to, when I read the exchange between North8000 and KillerChihuahua, it came across to me that KC wasn’t listening to North8000. While I felt KillerChihuahua made some good points, it seemed to me that the two of them were winding each other up. And her
2069:
The most productive thing for Arb Com to take up is the overall intractable mess and strife at that article. The inevitable proximate finding will be that Xenophrenic primarily and Geothean secondarilyy have dominated the article via TE and prevented its Wikification. (And maybe that I said "this
4638:
of uninvolved administrators. If no such enforcement action is taken (or all such actions are taken and successfully appealed) by 01 January 2015, on that date the remedies will become formally vacated by this motion, and the case pages then amended by the clerks in the usual way. If an appeal of
2217:
That made KillerChihuahua seem not uninvolved as she was claiming, but rather very much involved. And I reacted to what seemed to me to be unfair advantage for Goethean. I’ve been on Knowledge long enough to know accusing someone of meat puppetry is not welcome and certainly never tell that to an
2112:
On of the few things that can / would help on articles that have long term difficulties (until we can fix the policies the enable those problems) is for a person to objectively make an extensive long term analysis and form conclusions. If an issue is spotted, but not where it merits disciplinary
2063:
If we are talking about the tussles at the article in recent times, (e.g. 1-2 years) the list is also malformed. Malke (who has been absent for a long time) should not be on it. And Xenophreninc, who has, by a lion's share, been the most involved should be on it. And KillerChihuahua was not
3285:
of Knowledge and must be adhered to, through the use of reliable sources. Different types of sources (e.g. academic sources and news sources), as well as individual sources, need to be evaluated on their own merits. Differentiation between sources that meet the standard (e.g. different academic
3075:
CartoonDiablo, I'm not sure where it would be "better" to comment, nor am I sure whose solution would be "better" - there are people who believe that only ArbCom can solve this situation because some users have ignored an admin attempting to remind them of a community sanction, and so an ArbCom
2411:
I'll supply some diffs, later, if there is anything potentially indicating I've done something wrong other than stating that KC has misinterpreted policies, guidelines, and individual edits, and suggesting, at ANI, a topic ban at ANI, only because there is as much evidence for one against KC as
2302:
These are my recollections since I've not been editing there in a long time as an active editor and I've not gone back to sort the archives but as I recall, the problem with the Tea Party Movement is that it was put on probation and then ignored by admins. There was an admin editing there, Will
3245:
3) Knowledge users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported
2188:
The AN/I case has been reopened. The AN/I thread was less than 24 hours old and I'd like to see it continue before coming here. I think posting here right now is premature. If the situation changes and this is the venue then I will come back and make a statement and include whatever diffs are
2095:
and speaks for itself. Since as it shows I had already repeatedly disengaged, and it takes at least one to have a dispute, if you say that there is not currently a dispute between us then there no longer is one. So all that's left is the fact-free basis-free shitstorm which arose from it.
3357:
10.2) Wider community participation in dispute resolution can help resolve disputes; however, care should be taken by everyone to remain neutral and to carefully examine the issues in good faith to avoid further inflaming the dispute. Calls for sanctions should be based on quality evidence.
4560:
the ban. Such reinstatement may be appealed via the normal appeals process for arbitration enforcement actions. At one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements were successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted permanently.
2336:
has been to help ensure accuracy, neutrality and the use of reliable sources. There were lots of edit wars and battleground tactics at the article before I arrived, during the time that I edited the article, and edit wars have continued after I disengaged from the article a few days ago.
4506:
1) 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. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to
2352:
a reference to a 2007 Ron Paul rally as the origin of the Tea Party Movement. No sources have been offered which explicitly connect that rally to the Tea Party Movement, which is generally thought to have originated in 2009. Arthur Rubin, who very often takes the side of User:North8000,
2504:. Most of the other editors named are on the edge of the matter (on the TPm, anyway), and have few, if any, violations. I do apologize for saying KC should be banned from the subject; it's clear she doesn't understand what's happening, but that is not a reason for a topic ban. —
2429:
by a number of editors, and possibly misinterpreted consensus as not to note that thee two editors North8000 mentioned, as well as others, were edit warring against consensus in a couple cases (although, in the Ron Paul case, they seem to be correct, but for the wrong reason). —
2886:
Discretionary sanctions has nothing to do with the Community. It is, and has always been, a Committee process. Simply passing discretionary sanctions does nothing to return the dispute to the community; it merely shifts the actual, hard work to the few admins working at AE.
2390:
I quite agree with all parties that the article is in sad shape. However, it appears there is significant disagreement as to which parts are inappropriate or inadequately covered, but, until recently, discussions have generally been civil. I see few, if any, violations of
1652:
3466:. Also during the discussion, North8000 proposed that KillerChihuahua should be desysopped. Although some of these suggestions received much more support than others, there was no clear consensus as to how to proceed, and the matter was accepted for arbitration.
2129:
If this gets accepted, step 1 should be a thorough analysis, then a discussion, and then decisions. I am seeing comments here which are trying to skip the earlier steps and guess at or imply the final steps, which defeats the purpose of the Arbcom process.
4746:
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. Unless otherwise specified, the
2585:
2153:
They reject any editors and any sources which do not promote the Tea Party movement, to the point that the New York Times and MSNBC were dismissed as non-RS - rather snidely, too - by Arzel and Malke 2010. KillerChihuahua 06:16, 25 February 2013
3449:
3321:
7) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from the affected articles, or in extreme cases from the site, either by community consensus or by the Arbitration Committee.
3022:
2973:
I've been researching the dispute at greater length, and I don't think I can stand by my earlier reading of this as a low-level dispute. This dispute has been raging for quite some time, and the imposition of community-based general sanctions
2958:
1594:
1463:
3401:. The topic is sensitive, high-profile, and attracts polarising views. Editing of the article has been problematic from the start including a combination of vandal edits, edit-warring, and concerns about POV. In November 2010, there was an
1908:
adding: you need to stop making noise about the ANI subpage, it is only evidence you didn't bother to read my opening statement here, where I said it was at a sub-page and gave the link. I also left a link here on Talk:Tea party movement.
2225:
I felt the AN/I was premature as cooler heads could have prevailed. North8000 is not an unreasonable editor and I’m certain that had they both just stopped commenting, things would have picked up on a far better note the following day.
2492:@Followup. I'm afraid I over-reacted. Still, I don't see how an unbiased analysis could produce any conclusion but that Goethean sometimes "discussed" policy, but was never willing to follow it unless it agreed with his attempts to
4723:). Recognizing North8000's productive contributions and renewed voluntary commitments, the restrictions are suspended for one year, during which time the restrictions may be re-imposed (individually or entirely) upon request to
1657:"A complete topic ban, including a ban on discussion, administrative actions, and discussion of adminstrative actions. Your bringing this "report" here reflects a battlefield mentality which would best be removed from Knowledge.
4566:
the same case page. This restriction may be appealed after no less than one year from the date of passage of this motion, and if unsuccessful no less than one year following the decline of that or any subsequent appeal.
3631:
1585:
in order to enable Goethean to bully people - the exact phrasing was "you're here at the behest of goethean who apparently wants to bully editors he doesn't agree with. You, like goethean are failing to assume good
4526:
2) Should any editor subject to a discretionary sanction under this decision violate the terms of the sanction, then further sanctions may be imposed as appropriate pursuant to the discretionary sanction remedy.
2616:
3286:
viewpoints, all of which are peer reviewed) is a matter for consensus among editors. When there is disagreement or uncertainty about the reliability of particular sources, editors are encouraged to use the
92:
2010:
et al; I have no problem if you wish to focus on the TPM; however I will almost certainly be submitting evidence from other articles to illustrate more clearly the battleground approach of those editors.
2404:
sources are reliable), misquoted, or irrelevant. As for the NYT and MSNBC being "unreliable", I would like to see specific diffs, but at least one of the NYT references was to an editorial, which is
2979:
87:
2957:
in some form. I'm not exactly against the idea of just turning the DS knob and seeing what needs doing in three months, but something, and I'd slightly lean towards that being a case (shunting
1752:
1993:
I was digging through history and think I erred and left out an editor who should have been included in the Involved parties - what is the correct approach to add an editor? Thanks in advance.
2324:
As I recall, it may have been derailed by Dylan in the final stages. My point though is that these same editors are able to work together on this page, and civily, if there is some oversight.
3635:
697:
81:
70:
3873:
2376:
interested in discovering whether I had violated policy, and I figured that two admins who had no connection to the article would be the best people to help me answer that question. —
3246:
accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.
2945:
1720:
You might want to note the final line in the editnotice, that "Violations can be reported at WP:ANI. " - which is precisely what Arthur Rubin wants to sanction me for, oddly enough.
3716:
2975:
1677:
1540:
944:
2896:
2881:
2020:
2002:
1985:
1968:
1865:
1842:
1828:
1809:
1795:
1778:
1764:
1746:
1729:
1715:
1668:
1643:
3117:
2784:
2767:
2462:@Question: There are comments on the Arbitrator section proposing suspending any sanctions until there is progress at ANI. I can't find the ANI section. I also can't find, in
3639:
1631:
76:
65:
2744:
4631:) that, in the enforcing administrator's judgement, would have been considered disruptive for some other reason than that they breached the remedy had it not been suspended.
4548:
2914:
2860:
2837:
2819:
2805:
2639:
2486:
2437:
3262:
When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply
2705:
2299:
could be naive about this, but I've edited a bit on The Troubles and things got sorted out between editors and without the incivility that occurs now on the TPM talk page.
3162:
until further notice. The Committee will reconvene on 1 July 2013 to determine if the conflict has been resolved; and if not, what further steps the Committee should take.
3134:
2965:
2722:
4791:
401:
4748:
3050:
1939:
1918:
1881:
4754:
3342:
possible involvement, and to ensure they are not being influenced by prior personal interactions with any of the editors or personal views regarding the subject-matter.
59:
3223:
2655:
1625:
1489:
624:
438:
270:
3088:
3070:
1786:, I do think replacing the community probation with standard discretionary sanctions would be helpful. I also think your "ban, topic ban, admonish" would be helpful.
1552:
2992:
3942:
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.
2166:
I would ask that KC provide a link where I said that the NYT and MSNBC were non-RS. I did not remove the information, and I am getting a little sick of this crap.
2307:
admin shows up, what is he to do? Even if he can see the editor is sailing close to the wind, all he can say to the other editor is, "I can't find any violation."
2687:
2670:
2511:
2473:
2457:
2419:
1852:
seems to be very adamant that this is a dispute between the two of us. There is no dispute between us, but that aside - if that is his view, then he is saying he
4587:
3962:
3677:
3159:
2597:
1559:, but as you can see by following the link, I got reams of vague accusations but not a single diff. I hatted the accusatory accusations on the article talk page
203:
2321:
Here is an example of cooperation and positive comments despite Dylan Flaherty. This is also with the help of the mediation cabal, which I believe I suggested.
3206:
1) The purpose of Knowledge is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopaedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors.
4656:
4645:
4266:
4257:
4187:
4177:
3493:
where several different editors revert the same material, so while no single editor is reverting more than once, the combined effort results in an edit war.
2243:
2198:
559:
3486:
3432:
was in line with policy. KillerChihuahua advised that the matter should be dealt with in a low-key fashion, offering to discuss it with North8000. Following
432:
4741:
4435:, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.
4361:, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.
4305:, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.
4122:, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.
4033:, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.
3012:
2141:
2124:
2107:
2086:
4160:, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.
4071:, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.
2380:
1703:
2623:
1819:, this is a behavioral issue. Mediation is for content disputes. Mediation does not handle NPA, TE, and so on. There is nothing to mediate in this case.
3306:
them through practices such as excessive repetition, monopolization, irrelevancy, advocacy, misrepresentation of others' comments, or personal attacks.
2810:
They do not have the luxury of time. We have months in which we can systematically review someone's conduct. A thread at AE generally lasts a few days.
2479:
I see the subpage of ANI is still there, but not linked. Discussion is still occurring there, but, I don't know if all the parties are aware of it. —
4668:
2620:
1589:
There have been repeated instances of BATTLE and NPA from North8000, Azrel, and Malke 2010. The environment is toxic. I took this situation to ANI (as
3606:
4101:
2235:
2190:
801:
396:
2500:
from time to time, but among those active recently, only G was unwilling to follow consensus once established. I have doubts about North8000 being
2178:
3630:
6) One of Malke 2010's focuses on Knowledge has been modern American politics. In this topic area, he has treated Knowledge as a battleground (see
2851:
responsibility to resolve intractable user conduct disputes, not say "hey admins, here's some shiny new tools, now go resolve the dispute for us".
1800:
You could also follow RexxS's suggested course of action. The current probation is set up wrong, but I can fix it, I do have experience with that.
1016:
609:
428:
224:
216:
3463:
3460:
3457:
3453:
2579:
1474:
1447:
1390:
1333:
1276:
1219:
1162:
1105:
1048:
3476:
3038:
If the community discussion doesn't go anywhere, then I think we need to take this case and look carefully at the conduct of a number of people.
1872:
Mr Chihuahua brought me my tablet. I may not be fast to respond (I am still in the hospital and they're still doing tests) but I do have access.
4733:
4082:
579:
3429:
3996:
3958:
2548:
569:
3608:
2214:. As I made clear on the AN, I'm not defending North8000s reply. I thought the exchange was over and was not at all happy with his comment.)
1853:
1695:
370:
4720:
4542:
2385:
3428:
that Xenophrenic and Goethean were editing tendentiously in favour of their point of view. Goethean asked administrator KillerChihuahua to
3151:
1952:
1187:
3577:
2322:
603:
597:
220:
4445:
390:
235:
213:
2183:
632:
471:
423:
361:
280:
208:
2031:
4475:
4424:
3727:
3705:
1951:
a two party dispute, I'm not even sure who you think the parties are. Please re-read the statement I have given, and the ANI subpage
1566:
1556:
1301:
1010:
386:
3266:
back-and-forth between competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes.
2327:
4199:
1480:
Note: I've never filed an ArbCom case before so if I screw up, it's purely accidental - just let me know and I'll fix it, thanks -
1073:
968:
497:
366:
4521:
3638:). Malke 2010 has sought to disinclude sources authored by academics on the grounds that their research is flawed (see generally
2092:
2050:
818:
591:
376:
356:
239:
3490:
4690:
3541:
3536:
3172:
2169:
Additionally, I fail to see how questioning whether the actual movement should have first say in their agenda is problematic.
1513:
1508:
722:
381:
294:
275:
4483:
4238:
3002:
problematic editing on pages will only be arbitrated if they are brought to us as part of a separate request for arbitration.
2146:
344:
3708:) has attempted to block the inclusion of a peer-reviewed publication because he disagrees with the publication's conclusion.
3545:
1517:
1181:
866:
661:
415:
306:
3406:
4806:
3145:
2586:
1587:
1415:
1358:
1244:
628:
339:
4537:
3781:
3425:
2534:
Timotheus Canens' vote takes the tally to a net four to accept, and starts the 24 hour minimum clock to opening a case. —
2372:
article several years ago ('05 - '06), and with whom I have had very little contact since. I contacted them because I was
2354:
2348:
of tendentious editing. The reason that User:North8000 provided as evidence of my (alleged) tendentious editing is that I
2341:
2212:
2204:
3528:
1500:
1130:
673:
265:
194:
25:
4501:
3875:), and contributed to hostility at pages relating to the Tea Party movement article by making assumptions of bad faith (
3775:
3445:
3437:
1833:
If I thought there was a snowballs chance in hell of mediation solving the issues at this article, I would not be here.
1582:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1563:
1560:
4772:
4294:
3368:
1688:
1295:
908:
770:
691:
679:
3709:
1634:
total edits to the article talk page; Feb 19, 23, 24; all in my capacity as an uninvolved admin. None to the article.
623:
as needed, but the other content of this page should not be edited. Please raise any questions about this decision at
141:
4628:
4593:
4216:
4149:
3977:
3762:
3611:
3140:
1067:
1034:
962:
667:
3402:
2049:
The article was and is chugging along in its average state of going nowhere. A look at two threads on my talk page (
4408:
4111:
3923:
3920:
3917:
3914:
3882:
3879:
3876:
3841:
3838:
3835:
3832:
3829:
3797:
3794:
3791:
3788:
3778:
3772:
3769:
3766:
3614:
3584:
3581:
3571:
3568:
3448:
that KillerChihuahua was involved in the dispute and siding with Goethean. KillerChihuahua then took the matter to
2590:
2314:
2286:
2281:
2276:
2271:
2266:
2261:
2256:
2251:
1040:
920:
812:
685:
3765:) has consistently failed to obey Knowledge's conduct standards: by personalising his dispute with other editors (
4684:
4060:
3711:. Although he has attempted to work constructively with other editors, Phoenix and Winslow has contributed to an
2564:
1555:). I looked, couldn't find anything objectionable in his edits, so I asked the accusing editor to provide a diff
1028:
1022:
938:
926:
716:
331:
171:
3550:
2399:
edits (which, as far as I know, are completely uncoordinated, and almost certainly in good faith.) In terms of
1522:
4022:
3519:
3227:
1469:
1211:
914:
860:
317:
260:
21:
3674:
3671:
3668:
3665:
3662:
3574:
2521:
2349:
1659:". If he's asking for sanctions, seems appropriate to add him to this case so his evidence can be considered.
4469:
4461:
4418:
4387:
4350:
4234:
3910:
3869:
3825:
3734:
3699:
3605:
has acted in a manner that suggests a battleground mentality, for example proposing a desysop to make a point
2775:
for me to support a simple DS motion here. If we are going to do something here, I would accept a full case.
1409:
1352:
1238:
1205:
1199:
1004:
932:
252:
3567:. In February 2013, Goethean edit warred with two other parties about the agenda of the Tea Party movement (
1325:
3562:
3352:
2516:
2360:
In response to User:North8000's accusation, I contacted two high-profile and completely uninvolved admins,
2151:
My primary comment to clear up a false statement that KC has continued to make against me. KC's statement
1534:
1124:
1097:
992:
490:
302:
200:
4727:
if warranted. Any restrictions not reimposed will automatically expire at the end of the one year period.
3337:
9) Administrators are expected not to use administrator tools in disputes in which they are involved. The
2696:
Holding off on voting for a day or two to see if any progress is made at ANI. Will evaluate at that time.
1313:
842:
4714:
3441:
3433:
3373:
12) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
3158:
article. Pages relating to the Tea Party movement, in any namespace, broadly construed, are placed under
1193:
1085:
980:
764:
746:
312:
230:
2311:
890:
830:
4702:
4398:, broadly construed. This topic ban will expire after six months from the date this case is closed on.
4315:
3111:
2941:
2892:
2856:
2815:
2780:
2646:
Could someone please provide a link to the discussion that resulted in the article probation? Thanks.
2493:
1439:
1382:
1319:
1268:
734:
351:
2936:
as a case. I would be open to a motion authorizing DS in the topic area for the duration of the case.
1573:
on the article talk page that the article is under probation and in only a couple of hours North8000
1154:
878:
4571:
Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under this case to date shall remain in force unaffected.
4278:
3489:
that the wording of the community sanctions makes assessment of edit warring difficult. In addition,
2466:, a summary of the active content disputes, unless it's in the (ignored) section which I started. —
2015:
1997:
1980:
1963:
1860:
1837:
1823:
1804:
1790:
1773:
1759:
1741:
1724:
1710:
1663:
1638:
1620:
1484:
1427:
1370:
1256:
1175:
1091:
986:
794:
655:
2793:
By less well equipped, do you mean not having direct access to CheckUser and Oversight permissions?
1142:
4465:
4414:
4132:
3695:
2874:
2760:
2737:
2313:
Goethean also informs the other editors this study will be in the article, despite their protests.
1457:
1307:
999:
836:
782:
160:
4708:
4095:
3947:
3689:
3558:
3532:
2463:
1681:
1530:
1504:
1079:
974:
740:
483:
4776:
3774:); edit warring over comments that negatively portray him – thereby further increasing tension (
4766:
4288:
4043:
3730:
3419:
3388:
3282:
3216:
3191:
3023:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Tea Party movement; looking for community input
2508:
2483:
2470:
2454:
2434:
2416:
1692:
1464:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Tea Party movement; looking for community input
1289:
902:
884:
824:
3452:, stating that she had checked for tendentious editing by Goethean and found no problems. She
4696:
4622:
4210:
4143:
4006:
3756:
3554:
3201:
3150:
1) The Tea Party movement case is suspended until the end of June 2013 to allow time for the
3101:
3097:
I've had a skim read through the relevent pages and I believe that a case is necessary here.
2937:
2888:
2852:
2811:
2776:
2718:
2701:
2392:
2137:
2120:
2103:
2082:
1737:"shut this down". IOW, it went off the rails really fast, and that's why I brought it here.
1526:
1433:
1376:
1262:
1061:
956:
728:
190:
135:
17:
4634:
Enforcement action taken pursuant to the foregoing may be appealed in the ordinary way to a
4582:
4371:
4334:
4105:
3316:
3178:
3130:
2574:
2443:@ RexxS. I disagree. Whether or not KC has improperly taken sides, his interpretation of
2365:
2239:
2194:
2012:
1994:
1977:
1960:
1930:, that would be a benefit, but it is emphatically not the only reason I brought this here.
1857:
1834:
1820:
1801:
1787:
1770:
1756:
1738:
1721:
1707:
1660:
1635:
1617:
1481:
1170:
1148:
872:
806:
650:
643:
532:
521:
45:
8:
4678:
4054:
3383:
3256:
2867:
2753:
2730:
2558:
1421:
1364:
1250:
788:
710:
155:
109:
3405:
on article content. At about the same time, community sanctions were imposed, following
4432:
4395:
4358:
4302:
4157:
4119:
4068:
4030:
4016:
3973:
3719:
3712:
3658:
3524:
3513:
3398:
3394:
3338:
3155:
3085:
3067:
3047:
2911:
2834:
2802:
2425:
On consideration, I don't think KC has misinterpreted policies. He has misinterpreted
2333:
1496:
1136:
854:
124:
37:
3481:
3) The community sanctions provides that "No editor may make more than one (1) revert
2317:
4762:
4455:
4381:
4344:
4284:
4228:
3904:
3863:
3819:
2844:
2632:
2609:
2505:
2480:
2467:
2451:
2431:
2413:
2396:
1403:
1346:
1284:
1232:
897:
776:
4753:
All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at
4617:, but effective the passage of this motion they shall only be enforced for edits by
4618:
4206:
4139:
3752:
3652:
2714:
2697:
2683:
2666:
2651:
2542:
1118:
1056:
951:
130:
2961:
towards AE is suboptimal), is needed here, as the topic area is just not working.
4577:
3746:
3576:). Some of these reverts were made despite ongoing attempts to discuss the issue
3126:
3010:
2990:
2962:
2589:
Tea Party movement: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <10/0/0/0: -->
2568:
2501:
2361:
2174:
1935:
1914:
1898:
1877:
758:
2203:
First, let me start off by saying I did not call KillerChihuahua a meat puppet.
4782:
4724:
4673:
4496:
4479:
4428:
4391:
4354:
4298:
4220:
4153:
4115:
4086:
4064:
4050:
4026:
3625:
3602:
3287:
2554:
2345:
705:
104:
4265:
There having been no enforcement actions taken this remedy is vacated by the
4186:
There having been no enforcement actions taken this remedy is vacated by the
455:
4800:
4012:
3783:); and engaging in unnecessary mockery (e.g. of Collect's use of the signoff
3723:
3596:
3509:
3196:
3078:
3060:
3040:
2904:
2827:
2795:
2377:
1676:, the discussion is linked in my first sentence, at "is on community article
1544:
849:
149:
119:
3444:
North8000against uncivil behaviour. At this point, North8000 and Malke 2010
2357:
that the rally does not refer to the same tea party as the article covers.
459:
4635:
4508:
4451:
4377:
4340:
4224:
3900:
3859:
3815:
3673:) and has, on occasion and over a long period of time, edited combatively (
3503:
3332:
3263:
2497:
1684:
page. I haven't been able to find any probation page such as we set up for
1548:
1398:
1341:
1227:
2156:
is simply false. I never said that the NYT or MSNBC were non-RS sources.
638:
3935:
3894:
3853:
3809:
3300:
2679:
2662:
2647:
2535:
1685:
1113:
3610:, posting to a user talk page multiple times despite being asked not to,
2170:
1931:
1910:
1894:
1873:
753:
3657:
7) Arthur Rubin has repeatedly edit warred with other contributors to
3276:
2528:
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
179:
4085:
at 20:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC). If not reimposed within one year at
2608:: @KC. Could you briefly summarise the actual dispute here please?
2043:
that is basically 98% a two person dispute, me and KillerChihuahua.
1893:
misunderstood something. We do not topic ban for misunderstandings.
3240:
3003:
2983:
457:
144:
3397:
article. The article was created in January 2010 as a split from
2234:
Goethean in any way, I certainly apologize as I did on the AN/I.
4321:
3456:. During this discussion, other editors proposed topic-bans for
4491:
Passed 8 to 0, with 1 abstentions 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
2408:
reliable for statements of "fact", only for notable opinions.
460:
4366:
Passed 5 to 3, with 1 abstention 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
4127:
Passed 7 to 1, with 1 abstention 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
3831:) and needlessly inflamed tensions with the other disputants (
3647:
Passed 8 to 0, with 1 abstention 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
3471:
Passed 8 to 0, with 1 abstention 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
3424:
2) Following a content disagreement on 18 February, North8000
3414:
Passed 8 to 0, with 1 abstention 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
3393:
1) This case addresses concerns related to the editing of the
461:
4603:
3980:. This sanction supersedes the existing community sanctions.
2866:
community is fine with us using this case as a test vehicle.
2369:
1680:." - apologies if that was unclear. I got that link from the
1551:) and wanted a second opinion from an uninvolved admin (see
4755:
Knowledge:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log
2093:
User_talk:North8000#Tea Party Movement, POV pushing, and TE
2051:
User_talk:North8000#Tea Party Movement, POV pushing, and TE
4659:
formally vacates the remedies, 00:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
3281:
5) The verifiability policy is at the heart of one of the
2075:
will confirm this successful separation. Sincerely,
625:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
620:
4576:
Passed by motion, 9 to 0 For the Arbitration Committee,--
3440:
that Goethean was "being rude as usual". KillerChihuahua
4613:
are suspended. These remedies may be enforced under the
3454:
proposed topic-bans for North8000, Azrel, and Malke 2010
2567:) as a trainee. Do any of the parties object to this? --
4775:) blocked for a week for violating his topic ban per a
3963:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2
1547:, who had been accused of poor behavior (specifically,
4614:
1755:
the ANI sub-page thread, and there is activity there.
3872:) has ignored sound arguments about article content (
3436:
regarding evidence of tendentious editing, North8000
3733:
nature in discussing related articles on Knowledge (
3485:
per twenty-four (24) hour period" (emphasis added).
2591:-Preliminary_decision-2013-02-25T06:04:00.000Z": -->
2587:-Preliminary_decision-2013-02-25T06:04:00.000Z": -->
2047:
And it is generally NOT at or about the TPM article.
4482:, each other anywhere on Knowledge (subject to the
3925:) other editors of the Tea Party movement article.
3828:) has been dismissive of other users' views (e.g.
3021:I'm still waiting for something to be resolved at
3154:to attempt to resolve the conflict regarding the
2368:, with whom I had had a long disagreement at the
2310:Typical exchange on the origins of the tea party.
4798:
4253:
4173:
3177:Further to the above, the Arbitration Committee
3058:. The community discussion has clearly stalled.
619:Once the case is closed, editors may add to the
4655:There having been no enforcement actions taken
3715:in an attempt to impose his preferred wording (
2412:against some of the other proposed editors. —
1591:Tea Party movement; looking for community input
1543:. I was asked on 18 February to take a look by
549:
4555:Remedy 8.1 (Arthur Rubin topic banned) in the
1579:insulted Goethean again and misrepresented him
4599:
3613:and commenting on behaviour without evidence.
2553:I have volunteered to be the lead clerk with
1856:for me to be desysoped because of a dispute.
491:
4669:North8000 restrictions: Motion (August 2020)
4532:Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
4516:Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
4440:Passed 8 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
4403:Passed 6 to 3, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
4329:Passed 7 to 1, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
4310:Passed 5 to 3, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
4247:Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
4166:Passed 7 to 2, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
4077:Passed 7 to 2, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
4038:Passed 6 to 3, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
3990:Passed 8 to 1, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
3961:, discretionary sanctions authorised in the
3930:Passed 5 to 4, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
3889:Passed 6 to 2, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
3848:Passed 6 to 3, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
3804:Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
3741:Passed 8 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
3684:Passed 7 to 2, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
3620:Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
3591:Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
3498:Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
3378:Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
3363:Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
3347:Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
3327:Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
3311:Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
3295:Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
3271:Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
3251:Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
3235:Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
3211:Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
4719:was restricted by motion in December 2016 (
4446:Snowded–Phoenix and Winslow interaction ban
3477:Inadequacies of current community sanctions
1583:basically told me I'm Goethean's meatpuppet
3181:proceedings for this case on 2 July 2013.
633:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
498:
484:
3634:) and has a history of acting uncivilly (
2496:. There are a few editors who have been
2041:If this is about the current shit-storm,
4604:Xenophrenic interaction ban with Collect
4237:) anywhere on Knowledge (subject to the
4200:Xenophrenic interaction ban with Collect
3230:", is also contrary to this principle.
3167:Passed 8 to 0, 14:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
3152:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion
3125:, it seems a full case is needed here.
2600:Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
2340:On 18 Feb, User:Xenophrenic and I were
631:, and report violations of remedies to
14:
4799:
4522:Enforcement of discretionary sanctions
3976:, broadly construed, are placed under
3027:increased sanctions are being proposed
1698:; I don't know if there is one. There
621:#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions
4742:Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions
3186:Announced on 22:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
629:Knowledge talk:Arbitration Committee
271:Clarification and Amendment requests
4607:
4478:) are indefinitely prohibited from
3726:during the suspension of the case (
31:
4749:standardised enforcement provision
4480:interacting with, or commenting on
4221:interacting with, or commenting on
4219:) is indefinitely prohibited from
3718:) and was banned from editing the
2847:back to ArbCom. In the end, it is
2045:(looks like it may be over now)
32:
4818:
4502:Enforcement of decision sanctions
3999:, at 13:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
3369:Role of the Arbitration Committee
2445:Knowledge policies and guidelines
1653:he asked for sanctions against me
4409:Phoenix and Winslow topic-banned
3430:evaluate whether his own editing
3173:Interim decision: Reinstate case
543:on 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
178:
4431:from all pages relating to the
4394:from all pages relating to the
4357:from all pages relating to the
4301:from all pages relating to the
4156:from all pages relating to the
4118:from all pages relating to the
4067:from all pages relating to the
4029:from all pages relating to the
3913:) has been disparaging toward (
1651:was added to this case because
573:on 13:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
563:on 07:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
4736:at 20:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
4648:, 07:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
4615:relevant enforcement provision
4260:, 07:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
4180:, 07:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
3146:Interim decision: Suspend case
583:on 21:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
553:on 18:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
13:
1:
4792:13:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
4269:, 00:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
4190:, 00:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
2820:11:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
2806:11:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
2785:19:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
2745:00:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
2706:19:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
2656:12:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
2618:06:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
2487:20:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
2474:19:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
2458:19:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
2438:10:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
2420:07:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
2381:16:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
2244:17:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
2199:15:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
2108:20:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
2087:12:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
1940:14:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
1919:12:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
1882:23:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
1866:13:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
1843:12:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
1829:12:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
1810:03:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
1796:01:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
1779:18:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
1765:13:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
1747:13:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
1730:12:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
1716:12:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
1669:12:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
1644:06:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
1626:06:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
1490:05:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
3881:) about and condescending (
3288:reliable sources noticeboard
2253:first comment by Malke 2010
2248:The whole exchange is here:
1475:Statement by KillerChihuahua
514:on 23:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
402:Conflict of interest reports
7:
4807:Knowledge arbitration cases
4721:Motion regarding North80000
4594:December 2014 (Xenophrenic)
4588:18:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
4322:current community sanctions
3353:Seeking community input (2)
3290:to broaden the discussion.
3141:Temporary injunction (none)
1605:Supplementaries and replies
1567:asking him to be more civil
627:, any general questions at
536:at 22:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
526:at 14:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
231:Search archived proceedings
10:
4823:
4543:August 2014 (Arthur Rubin)
4316:Community sanctions lifted
4081:Suspended for one year by
3972:1.1) Pages related to the
3632:KillerChihuahua's evidence
3434:an inconclusive discussion
1565:I posted on his talk page
589:Watchlist all case pages:
276:Arbitrator motion requests
35:
4279:Arthur Rubin topic-banned
4089:, the remedy will expire.
3729:). He has demonstrated a
3135:23:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
3118:14:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
3089:22:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
3071:10:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
3051:18:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
3013:19:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
2993:18:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
2966:06:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
2946:01:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
2915:16:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
2897:17:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
2882:16:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
2861:13:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
2838:10:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
2768:00:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
2723:22:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
2688:19:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
2671:17:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
2640:07:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
2580:01:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
2549:03:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
2512:22:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
2386:Statement by Arthur Rubin
2179:21:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
2142:15:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
2125:14:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
2021:14:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
2003:15:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
1986:19:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
1969:22:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
1450:at 14:39, 17 August 2013.
4600:Xenophrenic topic-banned
4133:Xenophrenic topic-banned
2395:, but there may be some
2064:involved until recently.
1593:) , now at the sub-page
1539:is on community article
4509:arbitration enforcement
4252:Suspended (see wording
4172:Suspended (see wording
4096:Malke 2010 topic-banned
3978:discretionary sanctions
3948:Discretionary sanctions
3884:) to other disputants.
3522:) has revert warred at
3487:Concern has been raised
3160:discretionary sanctions
2464:Talk:Tea Party movement
2268:link given by Goethean
2184:Statement by Malke 2010
1682:Talk:Tea Party movement
1393:at 00:17, 26 July 2013.
1336:at 00:17, 26 July 2013.
1279:at 17:11, 16 July 2013.
1222:at 17:11, 16 July 2013.
1165:at 17:11, 16 July 2013.
1108:at 17:11, 16 July 2013.
4751:applies to this case.
4044:North8000 topic-banned
3922:) and combative with (
3722:article for 1 week by
2355:seems to agree with me
2055:tells 80% of the story
2053:and the one after it)
2032:Statement by North8000
1470:Preliminary statements
1051:at 18:39, 7 July 2013.
4007:Goethean topic-banned
3217:Neutral point of view
2328:Statement by Goethean
1693:Men's rights movement
1655:in this topic area -
472:Track related changes
332:Arbitration Committee
172:Knowledge Arbitration
18:Knowledge:Arbitration
4602:") and Remedy 7.2 ("
4538:Amendments by motion
4372:Collect topic-banned
4335:Ubikwit topic-banned
3957:Remedy rescinded by
3339:administrator policy
3202:Purpose of Knowledge
2517:Preliminary decision
2366:User:KillerChihuahua
2283:reply by Malke 2010
2273:reply by Malke 2010
2263:reply by Malke 2010
1575:told me I'm involved
1458:Requests for comment
281:Enforcement requests
209:Guide to arbitration
115:Drafting arbitrators
4549:Original discussion
4484:ordinary exceptions
4466:Phoenix and Winslow
4415:Phoenix and Winslow
4239:ordinary exceptions
4025:) is indefinitely
3696:Phoenix and Winslow
3690:Phoenix and Winslow
3636:Viriditas' evidence
3491:there are instances
3483:on the same content
3317:Tendentious editing
2494:WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS
2316:Behavior disputes:
2288:reply by North8000
2258:reply by North8000
2222:or anything else.
1991:Procedural question
1947:, not only is this
1751:Update: NE Ent has
1000:Phoenix and Winslow
4609:Tea Party movement
4557:Tea Party movement
4433:Tea Party movement
4427:) is indefinitely
4396:Tea Party movement
4359:Tea Party movement
4353:) is indefinitely
4303:Tea Party movement
4297:) is indefinitely
4158:Tea Party movement
4152:) is indefinitely
4120:Tea Party movement
4114:) is indefinitely
4069:Tea Party movement
4063:) is indefinitely
4031:Tea Party movement
3995:Amended 7 to 1 by
3974:Tea Party movement
3720:Tea Party movement
3659:Tea Party movement
3525:Tea Party movement
3420:Locus of dispute 2
3403:informal mediation
3399:Tea Party protests
3395:Tea Party movement
3389:Locus of dispute 1
3257:Consensus building
3224:synthesized claims
3156:Tea Party movement
2334:Tea Party Movement
2278:reply by Goethean
2147:Statement by Arzel
1497:Tea Party movement
519:Case suspended by
303:Contentious topics
201:Arbitration policy
4790:
4732:Passed 8 to 0 by
3985:
3984:
3944:
3228:original research
2601:
2028:
2027:
1581:, and Malke 2010
1452:
1395:
1338:
1281:
1224:
1167:
1110:
1053:
616:
508:
507:
475:
443:
313:General sanctions
261:All open requests
191:About arbitration
164:
153:
139:
128:
113:
96:
88:Proposed decision
85:
74:
63:
4814:
4789:
4787:
4780:
4718:
4691:deleted contribs
4585:
4580:
3953:
3952:
3940:
3578:on the talk page
3566:
3548:
3384:Findings of fact
3114:
3108:
3081:
3063:
3043:
3008:
2988:
2907:
2877:
2849:this Committee's
2830:
2798:
2763:
2740:
2637:
2625:
2622:
2614:
2599:
2596:
2592:
2588:
2577:
2571:
2546:
2540:
2448:editors' actions
2135:
2118:
2101:
2080:
2018:
2000:
1983:
1966:
1863:
1840:
1826:
1807:
1793:
1776:
1762:
1744:
1727:
1713:
1666:
1641:
1623:
1601:
1600:
1571:added a reminder
1538:
1520:
1487:
1445:
1443:
1416:deleted contribs
1388:
1386:
1359:deleted contribs
1331:
1329:
1302:deleted contribs
1274:
1272:
1245:deleted contribs
1217:
1215:
1188:deleted contribs
1160:
1158:
1131:deleted contribs
1103:
1101:
1074:deleted contribs
1046:
1044:
1017:deleted contribs
996:
969:deleted contribs
948:
894:
867:deleted contribs
846:
819:deleted contribs
798:
771:deleted contribs
750:
723:deleted contribs
701:
644:Involved parties
639:Case information
615:
614:
587:
578:Case amended by
568:Case amended by
558:Case amended by
548:Case amended by
524:
500:
493:
486:
474:
469:
462:
441:
397:Clerk procedures
389:
347:
318:Editor sanctions
295:Active sanctions
253:Open proceedings
223:
182:
168:
167:
158:
147:
133:
122:
107:
90:
79:
68:
57:
48:
4822:
4821:
4817:
4816:
4815:
4813:
4812:
4811:
4797:
4796:
4783:
4781:
4744:
4676:
4671:
4596:
4583:
4578:
4545:
4540:
4524:
4504:
4499:
4448:
4411:
4374:
4337:
4318:
4281:
4202:
4135:
4098:
4046:
4009:
3986:
3966:
3950:
3938:
3897:
3856:
3812:
3749:
3692:
3655:
3628:
3599:
3539:
3523:
3506:
3479:
3422:
3407:this discussion
3391:
3386:
3371:
3355:
3335:
3319:
3303:
3279:
3259:
3243:
3219:
3204:
3199:
3194:
3175:
3148:
3143:
3112:
3102:
3079:
3061:
3041:
3004:
2984:
2905:
2875:
2845:passed the buck
2828:
2796:
2761:
2738:
2633:
2610:
2594:
2575:
2569:
2543:
2536:
2524:
2519:
2388:
2362:User:SlimVirgin
2330:
2186:
2149:
2131:
2114:
2097:
2076:
2034:
2029:
2016:
1998:
1981:
1964:
1861:
1838:
1824:
1805:
1791:
1774:
1760:
1742:
1725:
1711:
1702:an editonotice
1664:
1639:
1630:Adding, I have
1621:
1606:
1511:
1495:
1485:
1477:
1472:
1460:
1455:
1401:
1344:
1287:
1230:
1173:
1171:The Four Deuces
1116:
1059:
1002:
954:
900:
852:
804:
756:
708:
653:
651:KillerChihuahua
646:
641:
617:
590:
588:
584:
574:
564:
554:
544:
537:
527:
520:
515:
504:
470:
464:
463:
458:
448:
447:
446:
435:
418:
408:
407:
406:
393:
385:
373:
348:
343:
334:
324:
323:
322:
297:
287:
286:
285:
255:
245:
242:
227:
219:
197:
166:
53:
52:
51:
44:
40:
30:
29:
28:
12:
11:
5:
4820:
4810:
4809:
4795:
4794:
4743:
4740:
4739:
4738:
4670:
4667:
4666:
4665:
4664:
4663:
4662:
4661:
4636:consensus view
4595:
4592:
4591:
4590:
4573:
4572:
4568:
4567:
4562:
4561:
4544:
4541:
4539:
4536:
4535:
4534:
4523:
4520:
4519:
4518:
4503:
4500:
4498:
4495:
4494:
4493:
4447:
4444:
4443:
4442:
4410:
4407:
4406:
4405:
4373:
4370:
4369:
4368:
4336:
4333:
4332:
4331:
4317:
4314:
4313:
4312:
4280:
4277:
4276:
4275:
4274:
4273:
4272:
4271:
4201:
4198:
4197:
4196:
4195:
4194:
4193:
4192:
4134:
4131:
4130:
4129:
4097:
4094:
4093:
4092:
4091:
4090:
4045:
4042:
4041:
4040:
4008:
4005:
4004:
4003:
4002:
4001:
3983:
3982:
3968:
3967:
3956:
3951:
3949:
3946:
3937:
3934:
3933:
3932:
3896:
3893:
3892:
3891:
3855:
3852:
3851:
3850:
3811:
3808:
3807:
3806:
3748:
3745:
3744:
3743:
3691:
3688:
3687:
3686:
3654:
3651:
3650:
3649:
3627:
3624:
3623:
3622:
3603:User:North8000
3598:
3595:
3594:
3593:
3505:
3502:
3501:
3500:
3478:
3475:
3474:
3473:
3421:
3418:
3417:
3416:
3390:
3387:
3385:
3382:
3381:
3380:
3370:
3367:
3366:
3365:
3354:
3351:
3350:
3349:
3334:
3331:
3330:
3329:
3318:
3315:
3314:
3313:
3302:
3299:
3298:
3297:
3278:
3275:
3274:
3273:
3258:
3255:
3254:
3253:
3242:
3239:
3238:
3237:
3218:
3215:
3214:
3213:
3203:
3200:
3198:
3195:
3193:
3192:Final decision
3190:
3189:
3188:
3174:
3171:
3170:
3169:
3147:
3144:
3142:
3139:
3138:
3137:
3120:
3094:
3093:
3092:
3091:
3073:
3036:
3031:
3030:
3018:
3017:
3016:
3015:
2996:
2995:
2968:
2951:
2950:
2949:
2948:
2930:
2929:
2928:
2927:
2926:
2925:
2924:
2923:
2922:
2921:
2920:
2919:
2918:
2917:
2788:
2787:
2772:
2771:
2770:
2727:
2726:
2725:
2694:
2693:
2692:
2691:
2690:
2644:
2643:
2642:
2593:
2584:
2583:
2582:
2551:
2531:
2530:
2523:
2520:
2518:
2515:
2490:
2489:
2441:
2440:
2393:WP:BATTLEFIELD
2387:
2384:
2346:User:North8000
2329:
2326:
2291:
2185:
2182:
2148:
2145:
2072:
2071:
2066:
2065:
2060:
2059:
2033:
2030:
2026:
2025:
2024:
2023:
2005:
1988:
1971:
1942:
1924:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1903:
1902:
1884:
1869:
1868:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1781:
1767:
1749:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1671:
1646:
1628:
1608:
1607:
1604:
1599:
1493:
1492:
1476:
1473:
1471:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1459:
1456:
1454:
1453:
1396:
1339:
1282:
1225:
1168:
1111:
1054:
997:
949:
895:
847:
799:
751:
703:
647:
645:
642:
640:
637:
586:
576:
575:
566:
565:
556:
555:
546:
545:
539:
538:
529:
528:
517:
516:
510:
506:
505:
503:
502:
495:
488:
480:
477:
476:
466:
465:
456:
454:
453:
450:
449:
445:
444:
436:
431:
426:
420:
419:
414:
413:
410:
409:
405:
404:
399:
394:
384:
379:
374:
369:
364:
359:
354:
349:
342:
336:
335:
330:
329:
326:
325:
321:
320:
315:
310:
299:
298:
293:
292:
289:
288:
284:
283:
278:
273:
268:
263:
257:
256:
251:
250:
247:
246:
244:
243:
238:
233:
228:
218:
211:
206:
198:
193:
187:
184:
183:
175:
174:
156:NuclearWarfare
55:Main case page
50:
49:
41:
36:
34:
33:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
4819:
4808:
4805:
4804:
4802:
4793:
4788:
4786:
4778:
4777:WP:AE request
4774:
4771:
4768:
4764:
4761:
4760:
4759:
4758:
4756:
4750:
4737:
4735:
4730:
4729:
4728:
4726:
4722:
4716:
4713:
4710:
4707:
4704:
4701:
4698:
4695:
4692:
4689:
4686:
4683:
4680:
4675:
4660:
4658:
4653:
4652:
4651:
4650:
4649:
4647:
4642:
4641:
4640:
4637:
4632:
4630:
4627:
4624:
4620:
4616:
4612:
4610:
4605:
4601:
4598:Remedy 7.1 ("
4589:
4586:
4581:
4575:
4574:
4570:
4569:
4564:
4563:
4558:
4554:
4553:
4552:
4551:
4550:
4533:
4530:
4529:
4528:
4517:
4514:
4513:
4512:
4510:
4492:
4489:
4488:
4487:
4485:
4481:
4477:
4474:
4471:
4467:
4463:
4460:
4457:
4453:
4441:
4438:
4437:
4436:
4434:
4430:
4426:
4423:
4420:
4416:
4404:
4401:
4400:
4399:
4397:
4393:
4389:
4386:
4383:
4379:
4367:
4364:
4363:
4362:
4360:
4356:
4352:
4349:
4346:
4342:
4330:
4327:
4326:
4325:
4324:are lifted.
4323:
4311:
4308:
4307:
4306:
4304:
4300:
4296:
4293:
4290:
4286:
4270:
4268:
4263:
4262:
4261:
4259:
4255:
4250:
4249:
4248:
4245:
4244:
4243:
4242:
4240:
4236:
4233:
4230:
4226:
4222:
4218:
4215:
4212:
4208:
4191:
4189:
4184:
4183:
4182:
4181:
4179:
4175:
4169:
4168:
4167:
4164:
4163:
4162:
4161:
4159:
4155:
4151:
4148:
4145:
4141:
4128:
4125:
4124:
4123:
4121:
4117:
4113:
4110:
4107:
4103:
4088:
4084:
4080:
4079:
4078:
4075:
4074:
4073:
4072:
4070:
4066:
4062:
4059:
4056:
4052:
4039:
4036:
4035:
4034:
4032:
4028:
4024:
4021:
4018:
4014:
4000:
3998:
3993:
3992:
3991:
3988:
3987:
3981:
3979:
3975:
3970:
3969:
3964:
3960:
3955:
3954:
3945:
3943:
3931:
3928:
3927:
3926:
3924:
3921:
3918:
3915:
3912:
3909:
3906:
3902:
3890:
3887:
3886:
3885:
3883:
3880:
3877:
3874:
3871:
3868:
3865:
3861:
3849:
3846:
3845:
3844:
3842:
3839:
3836:
3833:
3830:
3827:
3824:
3821:
3817:
3805:
3802:
3801:
3800:
3798:
3795:
3792:
3789:
3786:
3782:
3779:
3776:
3773:
3770:
3767:
3764:
3761:
3758:
3754:
3742:
3739:
3738:
3737:
3735:
3732:
3728:
3725:
3724:User:SilkTork
3721:
3717:
3714:
3710:
3707:
3704:
3701:
3697:
3685:
3682:
3681:
3680:
3678:
3675:
3672:
3669:
3666:
3663:
3660:
3648:
3645:
3644:
3643:
3641:
3637:
3633:
3621:
3618:
3617:
3616:
3615:
3612:
3609:
3607:
3604:
3592:
3589:
3588:
3587:
3585:
3582:
3579:
3575:
3572:
3569:
3564:
3560:
3556:
3552:
3547:
3543:
3538:
3534:
3530:
3526:
3521:
3518:
3515:
3511:
3499:
3496:
3495:
3494:
3492:
3488:
3484:
3472:
3469:
3468:
3467:
3465:
3462:
3459:
3455:
3451:
3447:
3443:
3439:
3435:
3431:
3427:
3415:
3412:
3411:
3410:
3408:
3404:
3400:
3396:
3379:
3376:
3375:
3374:
3364:
3361:
3360:
3359:
3348:
3345:
3344:
3343:
3340:
3328:
3325:
3324:
3323:
3312:
3309:
3308:
3307:
3296:
3293:
3292:
3291:
3289:
3284:
3272:
3269:
3268:
3267:
3265:
3252:
3249:
3248:
3247:
3236:
3233:
3232:
3231:
3229:
3226:", or other "
3225:
3212:
3209:
3208:
3207:
3187:
3184:
3183:
3182:
3180:
3168:
3165:
3164:
3163:
3161:
3157:
3153:
3136:
3132:
3128:
3124:
3121:
3119:
3115:
3109:
3107:
3106:
3100:
3096:
3095:
3090:
3087:
3086:
3083:
3082:
3074:
3072:
3069:
3068:
3065:
3064:
3057:
3054:
3053:
3052:
3049:
3048:
3045:
3044:
3037:
3033:
3032:
3028:
3024:
3020:
3019:
3014:
3011:
3009:
3007:
3000:
2999:
2998:
2997:
2994:
2991:
2989:
2987:
2981:
2977:
2972:
2969:
2967:
2964:
2960:
2956:
2953:
2952:
2947:
2943:
2939:
2935:
2932:
2931:
2916:
2913:
2912:
2909:
2908:
2900:
2899:
2898:
2894:
2890:
2885:
2884:
2883:
2880:
2878:
2871:
2870:
2864:
2863:
2862:
2858:
2854:
2850:
2846:
2841:
2840:
2839:
2836:
2835:
2832:
2831:
2823:
2822:
2821:
2817:
2813:
2809:
2808:
2807:
2804:
2803:
2800:
2799:
2792:
2791:
2790:
2789:
2786:
2782:
2778:
2773:
2769:
2766:
2764:
2757:
2756:
2751:
2748:
2747:
2746:
2743:
2741:
2734:
2733:
2728:
2724:
2720:
2716:
2712:
2709:
2708:
2707:
2703:
2699:
2695:
2689:
2685:
2681:
2677:
2674:
2673:
2672:
2668:
2664:
2659:
2658:
2657:
2653:
2649:
2645:
2641:
2638:
2636:
2630:
2627:
2626:
2619:
2615:
2613:
2607:
2604:
2603:
2602:
2581:
2578:
2572:
2566:
2563:
2560:
2556:
2552:
2550:
2547:
2545:
2541:
2539:
2533:
2532:
2529:
2526:
2525:
2514:
2513:
2510:
2507:
2503:
2499:
2495:
2488:
2485:
2482:
2478:
2477:
2476:
2475:
2472:
2469:
2465:
2460:
2459:
2456:
2453:
2450:is wrong. —
2449:
2446:
2439:
2436:
2433:
2428:
2424:
2423:
2422:
2421:
2418:
2415:
2409:
2407:
2402:
2398:
2394:
2383:
2382:
2379:
2375:
2371:
2367:
2363:
2358:
2356:
2351:
2347:
2343:
2338:
2335:
2325:
2323:
2319:
2318:
2315:
2312:
2308:
2304:
2300:
2296:
2294:
2289:
2287:
2284:
2282:
2279:
2277:
2274:
2272:
2269:
2267:
2264:
2262:
2259:
2257:
2254:
2252:
2249:
2246:
2245:
2241:
2237:
2231:
2227:
2223:
2219:
2215:
2213:
2208:
2205:
2201:
2200:
2196:
2192:
2181:
2180:
2176:
2172:
2167:
2164:
2161:
2157:
2155:
2144:
2143:
2139:
2134:
2127:
2126:
2122:
2117:
2110:
2109:
2105:
2100:
2094:
2089:
2088:
2084:
2079:
2068:
2067:
2062:
2061:
2056:
2052:
2048:
2044:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2022:
2019:
2014:
2009:
2006:
2004:
2001:
1996:
1992:
1989:
1987:
1984:
1979:
1975:
1972:
1970:
1967:
1962:
1958:
1954:
1950:
1946:
1943:
1941:
1937:
1933:
1929:
1926:
1925:
1920:
1916:
1912:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1900:
1896:
1892:
1888:
1885:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1870:
1867:
1864:
1859:
1855:
1851:
1848:
1844:
1841:
1836:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1827:
1822:
1818:
1815:
1811:
1808:
1803:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1794:
1789:
1785:
1782:
1780:
1777:
1772:
1768:
1766:
1763:
1758:
1754:
1750:
1748:
1745:
1740:
1735:
1731:
1728:
1723:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1714:
1709:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1694:
1690:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1675:
1672:
1670:
1667:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1647:
1645:
1642:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1627:
1624:
1619:
1615:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1603:
1602:
1598:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1561:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1545:User:Goethean
1542:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1519:
1515:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1491:
1488:
1483:
1479:
1478:
1465:
1462:
1461:
1451:
1449:
1441:
1438:
1435:
1432:
1429:
1426:
1423:
1420:
1417:
1414:
1411:
1408:
1405:
1400:
1397:
1394:
1392:
1384:
1381:
1378:
1375:
1372:
1369:
1366:
1363:
1360:
1357:
1354:
1351:
1348:
1343:
1340:
1337:
1335:
1327:
1324:
1321:
1318:
1315:
1312:
1309:
1306:
1303:
1300:
1297:
1294:
1291:
1286:
1283:
1280:
1278:
1270:
1267:
1264:
1261:
1258:
1255:
1252:
1249:
1246:
1243:
1240:
1237:
1234:
1229:
1226:
1223:
1221:
1213:
1210:
1207:
1204:
1201:
1198:
1195:
1192:
1189:
1186:
1183:
1180:
1177:
1172:
1169:
1166:
1164:
1156:
1153:
1150:
1147:
1144:
1141:
1138:
1135:
1132:
1129:
1126:
1123:
1120:
1115:
1112:
1109:
1107:
1099:
1096:
1093:
1090:
1087:
1084:
1081:
1078:
1075:
1072:
1069:
1066:
1063:
1058:
1055:
1052:
1050:
1042:
1039:
1036:
1033:
1030:
1027:
1024:
1021:
1018:
1015:
1012:
1009:
1006:
1001:
998:
994:
991:
988:
985:
982:
979:
976:
973:
970:
967:
964:
961:
958:
953:
950:
946:
943:
940:
937:
934:
931:
928:
925:
922:
919:
916:
913:
910:
907:
904:
899:
896:
892:
889:
886:
883:
880:
877:
874:
871:
868:
865:
862:
859:
856:
851:
848:
844:
841:
838:
835:
832:
829:
826:
823:
820:
817:
814:
811:
808:
803:
800:
796:
793:
790:
787:
784:
781:
778:
775:
772:
769:
766:
763:
760:
755:
752:
748:
745:
742:
739:
736:
733:
730:
727:
724:
721:
718:
715:
712:
707:
704:
699:
696:
693:
690:
687:
684:
681:
678:
675:
672:
669:
666:
663:
660:
657:
652:
649:
648:
636:
634:
630:
626:
622:
613:
612:
607:
606:
601:
600:
595:
594:
585:
582:
581:
572:
571:
562:
561:
552:
551:
542:
535:
534:
525:
523:
513:
501:
496:
494:
489:
487:
482:
481:
479:
478:
473:
468:
467:
452:
451:
440:
437:
434:
430:
427:
425:
422:
421:
417:
412:
411:
403:
400:
398:
395:
392:
388:
383:
380:
378:
375:
372:
368:
365:
363:
360:
358:
355:
353:
350:
346:
341:
338:
337:
333:
328:
327:
319:
316:
314:
311:
308:
304:
301:
300:
296:
291:
290:
282:
279:
277:
274:
272:
269:
267:
266:Case requests
264:
262:
259:
258:
254:
249:
248:
241:
237:
234:
232:
229:
226:
222:
217:
215:
212:
210:
207:
205:
202:
199:
196:
192:
189:
188:
186:
185:
181:
177:
176:
173:
170:
169:
165:
162:
157:
151:
146:
143:
142:from Aug 2013
140:
137:
132:
126:
121:
116:
111:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
83:
78:
72:
67:
61:
56:
47:
43:
42:
39:
27:
23:
19:
4784:
4769:
4763:Arthur Rubin
4752:
4745:
4731:
4711:
4705:
4699:
4693:
4687:
4681:
4672:
4654:
4643:
4633:
4625:
4608:
4597:
4556:
4547:
4546:
4531:
4525:
4515:
4505:
4490:
4472:
4458:
4449:
4439:
4429:topic-banned
4421:
4412:
4402:
4392:topic-banned
4384:
4375:
4365:
4355:topic-banned
4347:
4338:
4328:
4319:
4309:
4299:topic-banned
4291:
4285:Arthur Rubin
4282:
4264:
4251:
4246:
4231:
4213:
4204:
4203:
4185:
4171:
4170:
4165:
4154:topic-banned
4146:
4137:
4136:
4126:
4116:topic-banned
4108:
4099:
4076:
4065:topic-banned
4057:
4048:
4047:
4037:
4027:topic-banned
4019:
4010:
3994:
3989:
3971:
3941:
3939:
3929:
3907:
3898:
3888:
3866:
3857:
3847:
3822:
3813:
3803:
3784:
3759:
3750:
3740:
3731:battleground
3702:
3693:
3683:
3656:
3653:Arthur Rubin
3646:
3629:
3619:
3600:
3590:
3516:
3507:
3497:
3482:
3480:
3470:
3464:contributors
3423:
3413:
3392:
3377:
3372:
3362:
3356:
3346:
3336:
3326:
3320:
3310:
3304:
3294:
3283:five pillars
3280:
3270:
3264:edit-warring
3260:
3250:
3244:
3234:
3220:
3210:
3205:
3185:
3176:
3166:
3149:
3122:
3104:
3103:
3098:
3084:
3077:
3066:
3059:
3055:
3046:
3039:
3005:
2985:
2970:
2954:
2933:
2910:
2903:
2872:
2868:
2848:
2833:
2826:
2801:
2794:
2758:
2754:
2749:
2735:
2731:
2710:
2675:
2635:Roger Davies
2634:
2628:
2612:Roger Davies
2611:
2605:
2595:
2561:
2544:
2537:
2527:
2506:Arthur Rubin
2491:
2481:Arthur Rubin
2468:Arthur Rubin
2461:
2452:Arthur Rubin
2447:
2444:
2442:
2432:Arthur Rubin
2426:
2414:Arthur Rubin
2410:
2405:
2400:
2389:
2373:
2359:
2339:
2331:
2320:
2309:
2305:
2301:
2297:
2293:@Count Iblis
2292:
2290:
2285:
2280:
2275:
2270:
2265:
2260:
2255:
2250:
2247:
2232:
2228:
2224:
2220:
2216:
2209:
2207:are not RS.
2202:
2187:
2168:
2165:
2162:
2158:
2152:
2150:
2132:
2128:
2115:
2111:
2098:
2090:
2077:
2073:
2054:
2046:
2042:
2035:
2007:
1990:
1973:
1956:
1948:
1944:
1927:
1890:
1886:
1849:
1816:
1783:
1699:
1673:
1656:
1649:Arthur Rubin
1648:
1613:
1590:
1494:
1446:
1436:
1430:
1424:
1418:
1412:
1406:
1389:
1379:
1373:
1367:
1361:
1355:
1349:
1332:
1322:
1316:
1310:
1304:
1298:
1292:
1285:ThinkEnemies
1275:
1265:
1259:
1253:
1247:
1241:
1235:
1218:
1208:
1202:
1196:
1190:
1184:
1178:
1161:
1151:
1145:
1139:
1133:
1127:
1121:
1104:
1094:
1088:
1082:
1076:
1070:
1064:
1047:
1037:
1031:
1025:
1019:
1013:
1007:
989:
983:
977:
971:
965:
959:
941:
935:
929:
923:
917:
911:
905:
898:Arthur Rubin
887:
881:
875:
869:
863:
857:
839:
833:
827:
821:
815:
809:
791:
785:
779:
773:
767:
761:
743:
737:
731:
725:
719:
713:
694:
688:
682:
676:
670:
664:
658:
618:
610:
604:
598:
592:
577:
567:
557:
547:
540:
530:
518:
511:
509:
118:
114:
100:
99:
97:
54:
4657:this motion
4619:Xenophrenic
4579:S Philbrick
4497:Enforcement
4267:same motion
4207:Xenophrenic
4188:same motion
4140:Xenophrenic
3753:Xenophrenic
3747:Xenophrenic
3333:Involvement
2715:Newyorkbrad
2698:Newyorkbrad
2522:Clerk notes
2332:My goal at
1817:Count Iblis
1686:Sarah Palin
1057:Xenophrenic
952:Darkstar1st
921:protections
702:(initiator)
674:protections
541:Case Closed
533:unsuspended
512:Case Opened
236:Ban appeals
214:Noticeboard
131:Newyorkbrad
4785:Sandstein
4709:block user
4703:filter log
4644:Passed by
4606:") of the
4102:Malke 2010
3640:Archive 22
3626:Malke 2010
3461:additional
3301:Talk pages
3197:Principles
3179:reinstated
3127:Carcharoth
2963:Courcelles
2570:Guerillero
2397:WP:TAGTEAM
2236:Malke 2010
2191:Malke 2010
2189:necessary.
1434:block user
1428:filter log
1377:block user
1371:filter log
1320:block user
1314:filter log
1263:block user
1257:filter log
1206:block user
1200:filter log
1149:block user
1143:filter log
1092:block user
1086:filter log
1035:block user
1029:filter log
987:block user
981:filter log
933:page moves
885:block user
879:filter log
837:block user
831:filter log
802:Malke 2010
789:block user
783:filter log
741:block user
735:filter log
686:page moves
442:(pre-2016)
429:Statistics
362:Procedures
101:Case clerk
4715:block log
4674:North8000
4051:North8000
3597:North8000
3438:commented
3426:commented
2938:T. Canens
2889:T. Canens
2853:T. Canens
2812:T. Canens
2777:T. Canens
2555:Callanecc
2374:genuinely
2160:comment.
2133:North8000
2116:North8000
2099:North8000
2078:North8000
2017:Chihuahua
1999:Chihuahua
1982:Chihuahua
1965:Chihuahua
1862:Chihuahua
1850:North8000
1839:Chihuahua
1825:Chihuahua
1806:Chihuahua
1792:Chihuahua
1775:Chihuahua
1761:Chihuahua
1743:Chihuahua
1726:Chihuahua
1712:Chihuahua
1678:probation
1665:Chihuahua
1640:Chihuahua
1622:Chihuahua
1541:probation
1486:Chihuahua
1440:block log
1383:block log
1326:block log
1269:block log
1212:block log
1155:block log
1098:block log
1041:block log
993:block log
927:deletions
891:block log
843:block log
795:block log
747:block log
706:North8000
680:deletions
367:Elections
105:Callanecc
46:WP:ARBTPM
4801:Category
4773:contribs
4685:contribs
4629:contribs
4611:decision
4476:contribs
4462:contribs
4425:contribs
4388:contribs
4351:contribs
4320:10) The
4295:contribs
4235:contribs
4217:contribs
4150:contribs
4112:contribs
4061:contribs
4023:contribs
4013:Goethean
3936:Remedies
3911:contribs
3870:contribs
3826:contribs
3763:contribs
3713:edit war
3706:contribs
3520:contribs
3510:Goethean
3504:Goethean
3277:Sourcing
3080:SilkTork
3062:SilkTork
3042:SilkTork
2906:SilkTork
2829:SilkTork
2797:SilkTork
2565:contribs
2502:WP:CIVIL
2378:goethean
1753:unclosed
1577:, Arzel
1410:contribs
1353:contribs
1296:contribs
1239:contribs
1182:contribs
1125:contribs
1068:contribs
1011:contribs
963:contribs
909:contribs
861:contribs
850:Goethean
813:contribs
765:contribs
717:contribs
662:contribs
120:SilkTork
77:Workshop
66:Evidence
38:Shortcut
24: |
22:Requests
20: |
4725:WP:ARCA
4452:Snowded
4378:Collect
4341:Ubikwit
4225:Collect
4087:WP:ARCA
3901:Snowded
3895:Snowded
3860:Ubikwit
3854:Ubikwit
3816:Collect
3810:Collect
3542:protect
3537:history
3241:Decorum
2976:in 2010
2971:Accept.
2606:Comment
2576:My Talk
2427:actions
2350:removed
2342:accused
2218:admin.
1569:and I
1514:protect
1509:history
1399:Snowded
1342:Ubikwit
1228:Collect
439:Reports
377:History
357:Members
352:Contact
340:Discuss
204:(CU/OS)
4734:motion
4646:motion
4584:(Talk)
4464:) and
4258:motion
4178:motion
4083:motion
3997:motion
3965:apply.
3959:motion
3785:Cheers
3546:delete
3446:opined
3442:warned
3123:Accept
3099:Accept
3056:Accept
2955:Accept
2934:Accept
2750:Accept
2711:Accept
2680:Risker
2676:Accept
2663:Risker
2648:Risker
2629:Accept
2624:": -->
2621:": -->
2617:": -->
2598:": -->
2509:(talk)
2484:(talk)
2471:(talk)
2455:(talk)
2435:(talk)
2417:(talk)
2013:Killer
1995:Killer
1978:Killer
1961:Killer
1928:NE Ent
1887:Arthur
1858:Killer
1854:called
1835:Killer
1821:Killer
1802:Killer
1788:Killer
1771:Killer
1757:Killer
1739:Killer
1722:Killer
1708:Killer
1674:Risker
1661:Killer
1636:Killer
1618:Killer
1586:faith"
1518:delete
1482:Killer
1114:WLRoss
939:rights
915:blocks
692:rights
668:blocks
580:motion
570:motion
560:motion
550:motion
522:motion
382:Clerks
240:Report
154:&
4390:) is
4283:8.1)
4256:) by
4205:7.2)
4176:) by
4138:7.1)
4100:6.1)
4049:4.2)
4011:3.1)
3563:views
3555:watch
3551:links
2498:WP:TE
2370:Human
2171:Arzel
2154:(UTC)
1957:three
1932:Puppy
1911:Puppy
1895:Puppy
1874:Puppy
1691:, or
1614:Roger
1549:WP:TE
1535:views
1527:watch
1523:links
1448:Added
1391:Added
1334:Added
1277:Added
1220:Added
1163:Added
1106:Added
1049:Added
754:Arzel
531:Case
416:Audit
16:<
4767:talk
4697:logs
4679:talk
4623:talk
4470:talk
4456:talk
4450:15)
4419:talk
4413:13)
4382:talk
4376:12)
4345:talk
4339:11)
4289:talk
4254:here
4229:talk
4211:talk
4174:here
4144:talk
4106:talk
4055:talk
4017:talk
3905:talk
3899:13)
3864:talk
3858:12)
3820:talk
3814:11)
3757:talk
3751:10)
3700:talk
3559:logs
3533:talk
3529:edit
3514:talk
3458:some
3222:on "
3131:talk
3113:talk
3105:Worm
2980:here
2959:this
2942:talk
2893:talk
2876:Talk
2857:talk
2816:talk
2781:talk
2762:Talk
2739:Talk
2719:talk
2702:talk
2684:talk
2667:talk
2652:talk
2559:talk
2364:and
2240:talk
2195:talk
2175:talk
2138:talk
2121:talk
2104:talk
2083:talk
1953:here
1936:talk
1915:talk
1899:talk
1878:talk
1704:here
1696:here
1689:here
1632:five
1595:HERE
1557:here
1553:here
1531:logs
1505:talk
1501:edit
1422:logs
1404:talk
1365:logs
1347:talk
1308:logs
1290:talk
1251:logs
1233:talk
1194:logs
1176:talk
1137:logs
1119:talk
1080:logs
1062:talk
1023:logs
1005:talk
975:logs
957:talk
903:talk
873:logs
855:talk
825:logs
807:talk
777:logs
759:talk
729:logs
711:talk
656:talk
433:Talk
424:Talk
391:Talk
371:Talk
225:Talk
195:Talk
161:Talk
150:Talk
136:Talk
129:and
125:Talk
110:Talk
93:Talk
82:Talk
71:Talk
60:Talk
26:Case
4486:).
3843:).
3799:).
3736:).
3694:9)
3679:).
3642:).
3601:5)
3586:).
3508:4)
3450:ANI
3006:AGK
2986:AGK
2631:,
2538:ΛΧΣ
2406:not
2344:by
2008:AGK
1974:AGK
1949:not
1945:AGK
1891:had
945:RfA
698:RfA
307:Log
145:AGK
4803::
4779:.
4241:).
4223:,
3919:,
3916:,
3878:,
3840:,
3837:,
3834:,
3796:,
3793:,
3790:,
3787:,
3780:,
3777:,
3771:,
3768:,
3676:,
3670:,
3667:,
3664:,
3583:,
3573:,
3570:,
3561:|
3557:|
3553:|
3549:|
3544:|
3540:|
3535:|
3531:|
3133:)
3116:)
2982:.
2944:)
2895:)
2869:NW
2859:)
2818:)
2783:)
2755:NW
2752:.
2732:NW
2721:)
2704:)
2686:)
2678:.
2669:)
2654:)
2573:|
2401:my
2242:)
2197:)
2177:)
2140:)
2123:)
2106:)
2085:)
1938:)
1917:)
1880:)
1784:NW
1706:.
1700:is
1533:|
1529:|
1525:|
1521:|
1516:|
1512:|
1507:|
1503:|
1444:—
1387:—
1330:—
1273:—
1216:—
1159:—
1102:—
1045:—
635:.
608:,
602:,
596:,
117::
103::
86:—
75:—
64:—
4770:·
4765:(
4757:.
4717:)
4712:·
4706:·
4700:·
4694:·
4688:·
4682:·
4677:(
4626:·
4621:(
4473:·
4468:(
4459:·
4454:(
4422:·
4417:(
4385:·
4380:(
4348:·
4343:(
4292:·
4287:(
4232:·
4227:(
4214:·
4209:(
4147:·
4142:(
4109:·
4104:(
4058:·
4053:(
4020:·
4015:(
3908:·
3903:(
3867:·
3862:(
3823:·
3818:(
3760:·
3755:(
3703:·
3698:(
3661:(
3565:)
3527:(
3517:·
3512:(
3129:(
3110:(
2940:(
2891:(
2879:)
2873:(
2855:(
2814:(
2779:(
2765:)
2759:(
2742:)
2736:(
2717:(
2700:(
2682:(
2665:(
2650:(
2562:·
2557:(
2238:(
2193:(
2173:(
2136:(
2119:(
2102:(
2081:(
1934:(
1913:(
1901:)
1897:(
1876:(
1537:)
1499:(
1442:)
1437:·
1431:·
1425:·
1419:·
1413:·
1407:·
1402:(
1385:)
1380:·
1374:·
1368:·
1362:·
1356:·
1350:·
1345:(
1328:)
1323:·
1317:·
1311:·
1305:·
1299:·
1293:·
1288:(
1271:)
1266:·
1260:·
1254:·
1248:·
1242:·
1236:·
1231:(
1214:)
1209:·
1203:·
1197:·
1191:·
1185:·
1179:·
1174:(
1157:)
1152:·
1146:·
1140:·
1134:·
1128:·
1122:·
1117:(
1100:)
1095:·
1089:·
1083:·
1077:·
1071:·
1065:·
1060:(
1043:)
1038:·
1032:·
1026:·
1020:·
1014:·
1008:·
1003:(
995:)
990:·
984:·
978:·
972:·
966:·
960:·
955:(
947:)
942:·
936:·
930:·
924:·
918:·
912:·
906:·
901:(
893:)
888:·
882:·
876:·
870:·
864:·
858:·
853:(
845:)
840:·
834:·
828:·
822:·
816:·
810:·
805:(
797:)
792:·
786:·
780:·
774:·
768:·
762:·
757:(
749:)
744:·
738:·
732:·
726:·
720:·
714:·
709:(
700:)
695:·
689:·
683:·
677:·
671:·
665:·
659:·
654:(
611:4
605:3
599:2
593:1
499:e
492:t
485:v
387:+
345:+
309:)
305:(
221:+
163:)
159:(
152:)
148:(
138:)
134:(
127:)
123:(
112:)
108:(
95:)
91:(
84:)
80:(
73:)
69:(
62:)
58:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.