Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop

8516:

anything different from what you are doing. But I am picking up that you are pushing your assertion that he is engaged in tendentious editing in a manner that could be thought to be tendentious in itself. My thinking from early on in this case, has been that the significant editors on this article have all been editing and behaving in a sub-optimal manner, but that people, both those involved, and those who have observed, have tended to take sides - perhaps based on a political allegiance, or some unseen bias. I haven't finished looking yet (hopefully this weekend), but without clear and obvious evidence that one side has behaved significantly worse than the other, it would be inappropriate to pick sides, and do a lop-sided topic-ban. I think it needs to be everyone or nobody. However, I am concerned when the matter spills out from the article and involves the rest of the community - as it has done here. We can look at the timeline of how that occurred - you made a comment, Geothean asked KC to look into it, KC and you got into a disagreement, and KC took the matter to AN/I where the matter quickly escalated into sanctions for all, including KC. Reflecting back on that timeline, who do you feel is responsible for the community dust up? Would you feel you share some responsibility yourself?

13718:

rarely reverted, but when they have, it has had a negative impact. Rather than pick out some and not others and leave the possibility that those left out become tempted in the heat of the moment to revert, which the others can't, it seems more appropriate to just impose restrictions on the major players. And, yes, if someone hasn't been reverting much, then a restriction is not going to change matters as regards editing behaviour. I would rather go down the editing restriction route than hand out topic bans, because - again - handing out bans to some but not others may cause problems. The main aim here is to make sure conflict stops and the article improves, rather than what is "fair" for the editors involved. And I'm not keen on preventing the most knowledgeable editors on this topic from editing the article, as I don't think that will help the article. Let's sort out the conflict in as low key a manner as possible and see where we go from there. With DS in place, if conflict does flare up, then those involved can be blocked and/or banned.

14121:(edit conflict, responding only to previous post) ) I think that the diffs provided (and in particular the discussion at my talk page) and the chronology show that that is not accurate. You are renaming the original dispute in a way that makes the second topic sound like a part of it. The first was me simply making push against TE editing by (after 2+ years of observation) making a claim the Xenophrenic & Goethean). (Later, after I was forced to spend 8 hours compiling diffs at the ANI, this was shown to be accurate). And ostensibly Goethean's reason for going to you was to see if the TE claim was warranted. The second was me commenting on Geothean's very nasty comment against Malke. Yes I correctly added a "rude as usual" from long personal knowledge, as I had endured many particularly abrasive and insulting comments from Goethean, and they had also recently shredded an olive branch that I offered. 14897:

those editors (an admin) who made the first BLP deletions. To get the ruling that the source was unreliable, Phoenix and Winslow took the source to three additional noticeboards (RFCN, FTN and RSN) after I'd already taken it to the NPOVN and he only gained a majority after canvassing. The edits were NOT poorly sourced UNTIL it was ruled that the source was not acceptable at which time I stopped using that source. It should be noted that this source was supported by court transcripts which were sealed by court order after the book was published, the findings of a state board of enquiry and another secondary source that was rejected after it was placed behind a paywall that would cost $ 1,700 to access. Phoenix and Winslow's involvement with the article was initially an attempt to remove any mention that the main character was a Republican and after failing he went on to BLP issues

2921:. The comments there underline an important principle about dealing with incivility: ignoring someone's tone of voice or temporary fit of pique may be more beneficial than confronting it. However, having given that advice, KC was still requested to follow up. The request was to look into if goethean's editing was tendentious. What KC did was to ask North8000 to stop making that accusation or provide difs. My question is: did KC look into if goethean's editing was tendentious? And if so, did KC feel that North8000's comments were totally unjustified, and that the tone of voice was unjustified when compared to goethean's tone of voice. I think this is important, as it appears to me that North felt unfairly picked on, as it probably appeared to North that what they were doing was no different to what goethean was doing - such as 8127:

of the editors involved in this case have been reverting to their preferred state, and have commentated tensely at times. I'm not seeing significant problems, though there are three editors I have yet to finish re-examining more closely, and also I am looking again at the AN/I incident. It's interesting to note that a number of editors involved in this article have block records for edit warring on this and/or other articles. Is it that this article attracts edit warriors - or that the editors attracted to this article are interested in contentious topics where emotions run high? I sometimes think we'd be better off without the undo/revert button - though that would make the work of the vandal fighters more difficult. Well, the project is still young, and we are learning and improving all the time.

8166:

normally reverting by editing rather than the "revert" button) is Xenophrenic. This combined with Goethean "helping" at key moments, and the fact to no debate ever gets resolved at the article means that Xenophrenic/Goethean has been the dominant force in determining what has ended up in the article in each of the contested areas. This behavior merited the "nudge" that I gave that (through unrelated happennings) snowballed into the baseless random mob violence at AN/I, but does NOT constitute mis-behavior that needs some arbcom smackdown. I LIKE Xenophrenic, and would adamantly oppose any sanction other than something like a caution or warning. The "evidence"/"diffs" of my correctness on this is in the one week

12598:

edit war that caused the page to be locked. He persisted in adding a very large edit that was undue weight and poorly sourced. I tried to solve the problem by editing down what he'd written to a paragraph and adding a more reliable source that directly involved the Tea Party movement. The edit seemed stable. Ubikwit became angry when I deleted his personal attack on the moderated discussion sub-page. I engaged him on his talk page regarding it. His last comment in that discussion was regarding the edit I'd made to the article. He then went and reverted the article edit again. Had I seen his talk page comment first, I would have just taken him to the 3RR noticeboard. There is no evidence that I edit-war.

3829:. At the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, they may impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Knowledge, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project, including page protection. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision. 12338:, not a week later and North8000 is making uncivil comments and personal attacks..." (my bold), and though there are several people involved in edit warring and tense discussions on the article, you selected only those editors on one side of the dispute. While you are not involved, you may have given the appearance of taking sides, which has unsettled matters. However, these are not big concerns, and certainly far from warranting a desysopping, so there is no need to respond to The Devil's Advocate. I am hoping to be in a position to stop drafting today, and to ask the rest of the Committee to review the draft so we can decide what to put on the PD page. 6900:, and not only wp:synth, but faulty synthesis at that. Here is my core comment "The text that you are trying to war in makes claims about the entire tea party movement, which is unsupported by even the cherry-picked sources and in fact in conflict with them. The text is in clear violation of wp:ver, and doubly so of wp:synth (not only is it synthesis, but it is faulty synthesis). And the additional source that you just provided reinforces that point. So mere presence of the material violates wp:ver and wp:synth, putting it in over such objection violates wp:burden, and trying to war it in makes it three-times-over problematic. " 9274:. Unfortunately, the cited source directly contradicted his edit (it stated that one individual had yet to be charged with anything, while the other individual isn't even mentioned). So North8000 wrote that two private, living individuals had been charged with serious crimes, without any supporting sources. He then added a source but misrepresented its content, again in a way which potentially defamed two living, private individuals. I suppose one could argue that it was two years ago, or employ a total ignorance of this site's standards for biographical material as a defense, but surely you see the cause for concern there? 16138:

to vary. My own view is that ArbCom is still going to be available, even if the Committee initially declines a case, so declining is not a big deal, and does not have as demoralising an impact on community dispute resolution as declining a case. It is not uncommon for the Committee to reject a case several times before accepting it. So, I'd rather ArbCom erred on the side of letting the community deal with matters, so as to discourage people from requesting a case too early. What might be useful is to hold a community discussion to see if as part of ArbCom procedures, a new rule could be included that

12223:

any basis that Darkstar opposed another editor's RFA just because she was the nom and her non-apology apology are both very suggestive of WP:BATTLE behavior. Claiming that North was engaging in battleground behavior by responding to an editor who was agitating against him on KC's page is also obscene as he has a reasonable interest in responding to allegations made against him at an admin's talk page. Her claims about Malke were also misrepresentation as she was only accused of being there at the "behest" of goethean, which was not an uncivil or inaccurate characterization as she

4643:

article" was the wrong thing to say. You always have choices about how you respond. And disengaging is one of them. I told you before, you make these comments to people without regard for how they will take it. When an editor appears clearly upset by something you've said, or by behaviours you've engaged in, then either disengage or simply apologize and explain that his reaction is not what you sought. That's how I imagine you could have constructively responded. This is my best "Moonriddengirl advice." And now, we should not be here. If you like, you can comment on my talk page.

14338:. When any of these principles are violated, editors must be free to report such violations to administrators and the community, and ensure that they are properly remedied. Such editors must be protected from harassment or other forms of retaliation by editors whose edits were subsequently found to be in violation of any of these principles. Protection may take the form of a warning, a block, a topic ban, or an interaction ban, either by community consensus, by the Arbitration Committee, or by an uninvolved administrator under discretionary or probationary sanctions. 16295:"Community discussion" on vague/general (vs. specific) items regarding editors, particularly those at wp:an and wp:ani generally turn into fact-free mob violence situations. People who want to "get rid" of people show up and mislead or tell outright lies that nobody has the time to check out. And as often as not it is POV warriors trying to get rid of neutral people. Unfortunately the only place that actually looks into things on broader behavioral allegations, and seeks to obtain and evaluate evidence, and see where the the evidence actually leads is ArbCom. 12656:(e/c)Silk Tork, yes, that's an edit war, but my point was that making one revert did not make me an edit warrior and is not grounds for banning. And I understand what you're saying about 3RR, but I don't routinely engage in a round-robin of reverting. I much prefer talk page discussion to solve an issue. When that stalls, you'll notice I don't go back to the article and engage in reverting/edit-warring. I simply continue using the talk page. My attempt to solve the problem with Ubikwit's edit shows that I'm more interested in compromise. Edit-warriors don't do that. 10726:

editors I consider to be part of an affinity group collectively engaged in such POV pushing, tag-teaming, etc., and provided a thread from the article Talk page to substantiate the characterization. Though I'd initially been commenting as something of an outsider, based on participation in an RS/N discussion on the Tobacco Control article and evaluating past Talk page discussions, the extent of that POV pushing and tag-teaming impacted me as an editor directly with respect to the edits and reverts of the Constitution subsection I created under the Agenda section.

4432:

attacks were "two accurate useful comments" - I fail to see him acknowledging in any way his culpability here. Then of course he did double down by proposing my desysopping for being the admin who responded to Goethean's request. Had he responded as you suggest, this would probably have been done with a month ago, never gone to ANI and not here. While I applaud your optimism, I see no solid evidence that it is grounded in anything solid. I see continuing evidence that he has a battleground mindset and is firm in his conviction that he was, and is, in the right.

10351:

thus far I had only included information from three of those sources, having yet to have gotten around to the one cited in the NYT article by the professor from Columbia, and tried to use new material in a manner that I feel meets the italicized statement in the above cited passage. I attempted to take into account any concern stated in an edit summary that might be deemed legitimate, such as removing the paragraph on “birth-right citizenship” and the related constitutional amendment, and I made queries to Malke and Arzel on the Talk page regarding the content.

10877:

is that people will conduct themselves in a manner appropriate to the writing of an encyclopedia, and will be respectful, polite, considerate, and rationale. The reality, sadly, is sometimes a little divorced from that because editing can be stressful. If there is persistent, inflammatory personal comments, after requests to stop, then sanctions can be looked into. In a situation where one person is being rude in response to the rudeness of another, then sanctions may apply to both parties. So when looking at difs, one also has to consider the background.

4152:

it appears to be an attempt to get discussion going on how to improve the article (but I've not examined the full two years worth). In the comment that initiated this case, North8000 wasn't diplomatic with his use of words. But that appears to be the case for many people involved in this case. And we have various users issuing threats and assuming bad faith. I'm not sure anyone is coming out of this looking good. However, for a topic ban, I think we need some evidence of long term disruption, not one incident which blew up out of control.

14785:, and eventually the community determined that the Bryant book was not a sufficiently reliable source. Through the use of tag team editwarring, other editwarring, and arguments on the article's Talk page, WLRoss and Apostle12 continued to protect unsourced negative material about living persons in the article that had been sourced to the Bryant book, reverting efforts to remove it. NuclearWarfare and FloNight then removed the unsourced negative material about living persons from the article, eventually stubbing the article in May 2011. 5710:

these situations, or which are too easily mis-used in situations such as this, other actions can help the situation. Two factors have made the course of the TPM article somewhat different. One is the the 1RR restriction which tends to reward tendentious editing, and in fact, the results of disputes at the article have been largely determined by tendentiousness than resolution in discussions. The second is that the TPM is a phenomena, not an entity, leaving it open to very creative interpretations of what is and isn't germane.

8596:

before the dustup even started. Of course I could have avoided it by bowing and (wrongly) saying that that my TE comment was wrong and improper, but I would not consider that to be a "cause". I could have also committed the suicide that they demanded by "trying" to show TE with a couple of diffs. (a quest that would be certain to fail, and rightly so) I think that I did everything short of that to disengage. I am the type to easily and quickly admit to an error, oversight, mis-action of mine so if you see one, let me know.

11135:"anti-immigration," yet he offers no reliable sources other than trivial mentions in Google books searches. And even where the author doesn't even use the word 'anti-immigration' he will claim that is what the author is really talking about. The archives are filled with these same arguments about racism in the tea party, which Xenophrenic takes the lead on whenever that topic comes up. I have several other examples of disruption, incivil comments, and battle, but I don't have time today due to RL work obligations. 12414:

were going to look into it is the main reason. I would have thought it would take at least twenty hours to review that history which even at an hour a day would take almost three weeks. More time than I'd like to spend, but you are the one who said they checked it out enough to say that my statement was wrong. And, I submit that my 1 week samples of diffs at the ANI (which themselves took me many hours to prepare) support that my comment was not only reasonable but also accurate. .

8641:

is really about an argument between you and KC. But that keeps getting ignored. I think Silk Tork is absolutely right. These matters should be well sorted by the community before they arrive at ArbCom. If admins had stepped in straight away at ANI, this would have been sorted right then and there. Whoever moved that ANI thread, (I'm sure unintentionally), actually disrupted what likely would have been a fair understanding of what was really going on, and a satisfactory resolution to it.

966:

announced that the source was of the "highest order" and "will be used in this article." And what followed were several interminable threads about RS. The edit was made, it was reverted, etc. I don't even know if it's in or out at this point. It doesn't matter. What matters, IMHO, is that these round-robins about negative/positive content and sources, are the font from which animosity, personal attacks, battle, and incivility spring. At the end of the day, the encyclopedia suffers.

7090:); posting enormous amounts of text; repeated mention, for weeks and weeks afterward, of mistakes made by other editors with whom he disagrees; arguing tenaciously over one sentence, or even one word at a time (such as "grass-roots" and "anti-immigration"); and when edit-warring in the article mainspace was no longer an option, he actually started edit-warring in a "sandbox" subpage of the moderated discussion, where we're working on what will eventually become a spin-off article: 8663:

grease fire. Not only do the burns stop happening, the smoke inhalation stops happening too. Other editors would no longer be incited to misconduct by his tendentious editing. He's pushing a POV, and he's been doing it for years. A review of his editing trail confirms that he's doing this across several articles related to U.S. politics. He stays just under the radar by limiting his mainspace reversions to key moments in an ongoing edit war — which is the textbook definition of

956:

with a topic like TPM is that it's vague and so you don't often find, especially after all this time, reliable sources like the Washington Post, New York Times, L.A. Times, picking up these news bits. Instead, you get Joe's blog, or some dodgy journal masquerading as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. As an example, Goethean opened a thread about a journal/study that claimed the TPM, this amorphous entire movement, was actually started/funded long ago by the tobacco industry.

7935:, which states that "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 the spirit. The article is currently fully protected. 13753:

needlessly stressful and has been allowed to go on for three months with the excuse that ArbCom is so busy elsewhere. And the argument that since I don't make edits to the article, then a sanction won't make a difference is beyond the pale. It does make a difference It's totally wrong. And the fact that Ubikwit is not mentioned here, and with his bad-faith record of disruption, violation of sanctions, and revert-only account is more than wrong. This is bias. Clearly.

13831:". The only anger demonstrated in that thread on my Talk page is from Malke. With regard to the edits, I mentioned that the source (Schmidt) she had posted was good, and after reading through part of it I reverted her revert of the Constitution subsection I'd started under the Agenda section and incorporated material from the Schmidt source, as it supported the existence of the Constitution section and included further material beneficial to the article. 184: 3233:. They are clearly there. I was being a devils advocate. I was not suggesting sanctions. My solution for all the editors would be to eject anybody who has been active consistently for one year. Editors don't know when to quit. I left because I didn't see a way to fix the article. Most of the editors there now have been active on that article, consistently, for 3 years. That's way too long. That's why that article is having problems. Not the admin. 4786:

may not be seen to represent egregious incivility, but he has been prominent in several of the instances that I have seen of legitimate sources being suppressed by an appeal to a non-consensus based claim that resorts to attempts to undermine the credibility of one or another aspect of the source in an illegitimate manner. I have encountered precisely the same sort of behavior on other topics with a completely different set of editors.

11173:

the most (quietly) relentless person towards a particular end I've ever seen, and this includes a lot of "creative" stuff on talk pages (e.g. renaming sections, inserting new heading over existing posts, splitting existing threads etc.) And so folks are not out of line for noting that special case. Again, I adamantly oppose anything beyond a warning on this, but we must recognize the realities in order to move forward.

11151:

An edit war involves two people. A person cannot edit war with themselves. The editing on Arthur Rubin’s talk page reflects badly on both Xenophrenic and Malke 2010. If we cannot get through this case without everyone agreeing to get along and edit the article constructively, then perhaps topic bans all round is the best solution. I'm certainly not seeing a case for banning one side but not the other.

8189: 6717:

comments with him on the ANI. He admitted his comment was wrong but blamed North8000. Banning one editor will not improve the article. Some editors have been regular, nearly daily, contributors for almost three years. This includes Goethean and Xenophrenic. Not just North8000. And Goethean's and Xenophrenic's arguments and edit wars today are the same ones they had back in 2010. Goethean violates

11314:@Ubikwit: I provided a link to an interesting article which seemed to clarify the tobacco issue. I did not provide the link to you specifically. And you still need to reread the article, as you claimed that these were right wing corporations which the article does not claim, and certainly no other editor stated that but you. Any subsequent comment was to point that out to you. 11939:

who added Collect - I'd prefer not to know - but if they are reading this I suggest they consider carefully before adding Collect to any such list in the future. I have seen no evidence that Collect has acted improperly on TPM or the associated talk page; I think this is a case of a hanging party deciding Collect bears guilt by association. We should avoid such accusations.

11354:, in particular, shows Malke arguing against the characterizations in the source, which at the time made me question why she' introduced it in the first place. The source did contain some interesting material which I found worthwhile to discuss, but it didn't the type of material that would actually support Malke's position that it discredited the Tobacco Control report.-- 12700:

through that prism. It's written in the Agenda section, "oppose Obama." It's the reason for the racism section and why bits about bbq grills get warred over. Any word that reinforces racism is battled over like 'anti-immigration' instead of 'illegal immigration.' It's been there from the start of the article. The intensity has never abated. It's well and truly polarized.

7642:

and thinking clearly, and set out the AN/I discussion and initial topic bans in a manner that could be seen to be taking sides. I think everyone now understands that. There was also a suggestion by KC that Rubin was using his admin status in manner that may weight arguments, but that suggestion doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and I don't think KC is pursuing it any longer.

5328:

evidence. If there are more occasions in which Rubin can be seen to be unreasonably blocking legitimate material, or has been introducing bias in the article either by direct editing or supporting inappropriate ideas on the talkpage, that would be worth looking at. But one discussion in which he feels a source is not the right fit, is unlikely to be sufficient by itself.

10265:

revert with a somewhat insulting edit summary that in and of itself may constitute a personal attack. After that revert, I tried another version of the Constitution subsection I was trying to add based on four RS secondary sources. Initially, Malke and Arzel simply eliminated the entirety of what I continue to consider to be WP:DUE, WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc. compliant text).

9899:

specific issues first brought here two years later were not mentioned by anybody back then. Either way, I never have and never will knowingly violate wp:blp, and I take it seriously. How may times do I need to say that before the false claims otherwise will stop? MastCell, are checking into the CURRENT probable BLP violation in the TPM article I told you about?

14152:

was engaging in battleground behavior by responding to an editor's accusation against him on KC's talk and the baseless accusation that Darkstar opposed an RFA simply because KC was the nom were both uncivil. Generally, her persistence in pursuing this has likely inflamed a lot of the underlying tensions more than was necessary to resolve the initial concerns.--

4289:

Knowledge, and one for which we have no adequate solution. The question here is, apart from the blow up following KC's involvement, has there been sufficient incivility to sanction anyone, or to impose extra conditions on the article? I would like to see evidence of that, and I'm not seeing it yet. I'm not saying it's not there, but that I'm not yet seeing it.

1293:

fund raiser were relevant context, yet most of the editors had not even done the homework of examining the sources. In the end people recognized the claims I was making (which basically expanded on or supported claims made by Gothean or Xenophreninc earlier), after which what I suppose was a consensus was reached not to include anything from that source at all.

15086:

in any socking activity, just a lot of half-truths, false accusations and innuendo as we see here. The canvassing allegation is just another example of these half-truths and false accusations. I tend to seek input from previously uninvolved editors who have indicated that they are willing to participate in a discussion, whether they are recent participants at

2036:- but you didn't. You actually chose to use words you, yourself, find offensive - not just offensive, but "grossly offensive". You were trying to get a rise out of people, you were intentionally using offensive words. You were picking a fight, and that's battleground to a T. And it wasn't just then, it is, as we can see on the evidence page, here and now. 8193: 14074:, and the second instance was of you accusing Goethean of a character flaw, again without evidence, the two are related. They are both instances of you commenting on the contributor and not the content; and the second instance was an escalation from the first, as you expanded your assertion to include not just an instance but his entire character ( 3181:, Nor Xenophrenic's. Goethean has even admitted on ANI that his comment at the opening of a thread was wrong. It's not his first comment of that nature. Can you really interpret Goethean's comments to editors as civil? Can you really leave off a close examination of Goethean's comments and Xenophrenic's editing and still be an "uninvolved admin?" 12584:(cur | prev) 00:29, 6 April 2013‎ Phoenix and Winslow (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (168,567 bytes) (-40)‎ . . (You don't have consensus. The survey demonstrates that you don't have consensus. The burden of obtaining consensus, and proving that you have it, is on you. See WP:NOCONSENSUS regarding contentious material about living persons.) (undo) 15056:. This RFC was marred by extensive canvassing by Phoenix and Winslow but still resulted in an oppose vote which he objected to so he objected to the closure. As a result, an admin re-opened the RFC and re-closed it as no consensus. A new admin moderated RFC was then conducted. This RFC was open for 58 days before I made a request for closure 5379:

it might be helpful to have him removed from the article during its first months of probation. I have not been encouraged by his attitude during this case to believe that he regrets his actions and plans to not allow his personal interest in an article cloud his judgment. This is regrettable in any editor, but doubly so in an administrator.

3000:

to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'.

7428:

Differentiation between sources that meet the standard (e.g. different academic 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 reliable sources noticeboard to broaden the discussion.

1783:

which would indicate a need for sanctions - and I think that 1) the category makes it easy to determine which articles without in-depth analysis of each and every article and 2) if we choose some, then there is likelihood the behavior will spill onto currently not-so-problematic, related articles, much as Abortion issues leak over into the

2606:, and wonder, how is a little more than an edit every other day not active? If it were only two or three a week? Only one a week? It looks active to me. I don't know where your line of demarcation is, but this is not even borderline to me. One edit a week is still "currently editing" and you're doing considerably more than that. 4605:, then clearly Goethean needs to be banned or sanctioned as well. Even now, in his question to you he's blaming North8000 for getting the whole thing started, yet Goethean was the one who sought an admin instead of responding to North, or simply disengaging. And I apologize for this late entry and understand if it is removed. 9722:

reinserted. Plus even the claim (i.e. that one piece of the block of text was not supported by the source) was NOT made or discussed then. Plus if someone has to look back two years to find something to falsely gin up into a alleged knowing BLP violation, I must be doing pretty good and they must be trying awfully hard.

1591:

enough. This might well have brought out rational editors suggesting ArbCom. Certainly the desysop bit wouldn't have happened, but that's not KC's fault. I've never seen editors come out so fast and post such vitriol so furiously. Their posts offered virtually nothing in the way of constructively managing problems at TPM.

1196:

administrative tasks. Editors making any or all of these types of contributions are welcome. The project and progress toward our goals are diminished if we drive away or demoralize a good-faith editor who contributes or has the potential to contribute, while complying with Knowledge policies, in any or all of these areas.

3209:

do not accuse her of bias, thereby insulting her. I would appreciate it if you could manage at least on this case page not to malign my ethics without strong evidence - and this is not only not strong evidence, it is not evidence at all. I have myself given extensive evidence that Goethean and I have virtully never agreed

9290:, then removed by Fat&Happy and added by Darkstar1st removed by PhGustaf and added by North8000. If this is a concern about BLP issues, then for any sanctions to apply, it would need to be shown that North8000 had been made aware of BLP issues, and flagrantly ignored them. Is that the case, as far as you are aware? 14054:

As the record shows, I tried multiple times to disengage and KC kept coming back at me. KC later then launched the ANI based on a totally unrelated comment that I made, when I (on firm policy grounds) commented on Geothean's uncalled-for nasty comment to Malke. At best this is a series of significant errors by KC.

8667:— and dominates the article Talk pages with arguments and mockery. North8000 is correct in his diagnosis with regard to this editor, but his proposed remedy doesn't go far enough. For the protection of the Knowledge project, I recommend a topic ban, broadly construed across all WP articles related to U.S. politics. 9217:

reinserted. Plus even the claim (i.e. that one piece of the block was not supported by the source) was NOT made or discussed then. Plus if someone has to look back two years to find something to falsely gin up into a alleged knowing BLP violation, I must be doing pretty good and they must be trying awfully hard.

16142:. Opening a case request derails the community discussion. In effect, it is undermining the confidence of the community in its ability to deal with matters. If it is felt a community discussion has stalled, then call for closure of the discussion, and get the discussion closed BEFORE making an ArbCom request. 16220:

lateness of the hour at the time, or the rapidly growing off-topic comments being made at the ANI thread, that caused it to jump here. But in looking at ANI archives about other issues, they've sorted much more serious and complicated issues than this. The Gordian knots are the ones that need to come here.

7042:

TPM and groups that were initially funded by the tobacco industry to counter anti-smoke grass-roots organizations, after which the relationship was developed and the groups transformed with respect to the issue of tobacco excise taxes as an issue that resonates with the overall anti-tax platform of the TPM.

15865:

As I said in my evidence, I've suggested a sub-article on fiscal policies of the TPM before. It's not a new suggestion and I've never intended nor suggested an editor should write a sub-article as a means to advance POV. I made a clarifying reply to Goethean that made it very clear what my intentions

15676:

My first edit to the Franklin article was in late 2009 while Phoenix and Winslow’s first edit was in January 2011. I did however follow him to two articles from there. Phoenix and Winslow had made an edit to the Franklin article he stated was supported by two other Knowledge articles. I had a look at

15264:

page, and then returning to that page after being warned by MONGO about Wikistalking, you submitted yourself to the jurisdiction of this ArbCom proceeding. That's what it's got to do with TPm. I have grown very weary of noticeboards, because they've proven to be completely ineffective at dealing with

15177:

isn't really a warning — should be taken into account when reviewing the rest of his claims, and should also be taken into consideration when contemplating the remedies to be imposed. Also, he continues to attempt to present evidence (on this page) when the time period for presenting evidence (on the

15085:

Dates and timespan of content dispute have been corrected. Again, if WLRoss felt that my conduct deserved scrutiny by ArbCom, he was more than welcome to present evidence at the appropriate time and he declined to do so after proper notification. There was never any actual finding that I was involved

14151:

The reasons for this have been covered, but, in summary, her persistence in pushing for action against Malke and Rubin particularly seems to have been more motivated out of a desire for retribution over a personal slight as opposed to evidence of serious disruption. Additionally, her claim that North

14053:

My discussion of TE editing, the reason for KC's initial interaction with me was OVER and (and I said then it was over) before even the initial interaction between KC and me. Further, KC essentially issued a suicide demand to "show" TE with a few diffs, something that (rightly) would be sure to fail.

13838:

I think at this point that it is behooves me to point out that she appears to have made several somewhat egocentric remarks based on phantom projections as to my editing behavior, not to mention that of Viriditas in 2010. For the record, prior to her blanket reverts of the aforementioned edits, Malke

13691:

So does this mean these editors would all be subject to a zero-revert restriction or something close to it? I am not sure why Malke would be subjected to such a restriction when, based on your workshop proposal, that editor has done very little reverting even without considering the number of reverts

12958:

Perhaps there is no need to belabor the point here, but in light of the deeper context that I discovered yesterday, I do feel compelled to directly refer here to evidence on her Talk page that would seem to refute the assertions made above by Malke that she has "not repeated any of the behaviors" for

12670:

I am building information to assist the rest of the Committee to make an informed judgement. As I am doing so, it is also focusing my mind on what is happening, and what may be the most appropriate solution to suggest. I do not want to suggest topic bans for anyone, but I am struggling with the facts

12639:

Yes, but Malke had only one edit in that sequence, and it was on pretty solid ground in the edit summary. While I think that the exchange is illustrative of the history of this article IMHO doesn't show particular mis-behavior by Malke. Also illustrative is that on all of the big contested ones

12621:

edit warring. On disputed articles, getting consensus for an edit can be a slow and frustrating process, but that's what we have to do. Knowledge is going to be here for a long time - way after we are all dead and gone. It's very important to get it right for the long term. Editors who don't have the

11806:

Malke, I readily expect someone to twist my username into some sort of insult, because it's tailor-made for such insults and normally I would actually consider being likened to one of the most malevolent beings in religious lore more offensive than some veiled reference to a typical profane insult. I

11780:

As Rubin has acknowledged the error of that whole "topic ban" nonsense, I think the only concern should be with his editing of the article and interactions with other editors. The major parties editing the article pretty much all have a large number of reverts in content disputes, but I don't think a

10515:

If you look at the reality, that Malke has been total absent from the article page for the 2 or 2 1/2 year period ending recently, and also absent from its talk page for the same period (except for 2 or 3 conversations) and then look at the misleading creation of Ubikwit's above, one can see why the

9655:

MastCell, I disagree that you can then block North at any time if you believe he's violated BLP, unless he does it right now. A warning followed by a block would only apply if he repeats the same violation again now. North has no history of doing that. If it's a BLP vio at all, it's a one-off. Please

9629:

Given that North is one of the most prolific editors on this subject, I think it would be better to look for a less restrictive solution. A straight topic ban would seem to be too much in my opinion. Most of the incivility and battleground accusations are trivial or basically represent how several of

8996:

I have to say, looking over Goethean's evidence against North and some of his comments on the article talk page, it seems to me has been nursing a lot of hostility towards North for some time. My impression of North's comments are that he is less livid towards Goethean, but is frustrated with some of

8640:

North, you've hit on a very important point that the two are separate and this might not be entirely clear to everyone. You and the others were earlier involved in something that Goethean asked KC to come over and take a look at. You're right, it appears that issue had been resolved. This whole thing

8283:

Answering your first question, (re Malke) I meant for the 2 years ending about a week before the avalanche . On your second question, I meant changing to the desired version by editing rather than by using the "revert" button, so it does not obviously show up as a revert. Your last questions reflect

8165:

Your first three sentences are an accurate summary of the situation. Looking at the last two years, the editor who has had the most article-lifetime edits (Malke2010) has been absent. And the simple reality is that the editor who has done the most "have been reverting to their preferred state" (but

8126:

I am keen to examine claims of editors inappropriately dominating an article to their preferred POV, though I would need evidence in the form of difs. There have been rather a lot of assertions in this case, and little hard evidence. What I have seen (and am attempting to briefly record) is that most

8097:

The article chugging along in it's same, sad state, with only occasional hot debates which are never settled, and the content result gets determined by TE. Failure is not a big flaming war, it is when people give up on any substantive effort to fix it. And the dominant player is not even a party to

7469:

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 aspire to use talk pages effectively and must not misuse

7041:

The status of the article as an RS for the TPM article can be summed up in terms that the research of the authors on the tobacco industry vis-a-vis public health has indirectly exposed a connection to the TPM, which they explicated in the paper. The article demonstrates direct connections between the

7037:

The crux of the matter, the way I see it, is that the authors are indeed public health policy experts that have as one of their manifold focuses the tobacco industry, which has been exposed to be nefarious at least since the exposure of subliminal advertising techniques and misleading consumers about

7002:

Your first point was not my intention when I said that it is really a phenomena rather than an entity. Its complicated, but my consistent theme over the years at the article is that content (either pro or con is fine) should be informative at some higher level, dealing at the regional level, national

6157:

7) KC implied that North's action complaining about behavior was improper because it did not include diffs. It was in error to imply this; such is common and accepted practice in Knowledge; other forms of basis are often given. Doubly so in view of the dilemma described in finding #5. Triply so in

5777:

I think that we're partially agreeing. But I think that one big hole is on the topic of inclusion/exclusion. The net effect that degree of relevance is easily excluded from the conversation, and also that the others are still too easily mis-quoted as saying that verifiability is a force for inclusion

5762:

I don't think there's a problem with Knowledge policies. The policies are meant to be flexible to fit unforeseen situations. The problem seems to be with editors who want to interpret the policies to their advantage to win an argument/battle, or to block an editor from making an edit they don't agree

5378:

Rubin was actively editing throughout this case; I believe his POINTy BATTLE call for sanctions was due to his involvement with the article. I can see no other plausible reason for his aggressive and inappropriate behavior. I don't anticipate this passing, but offer it as a possible remedy as I think

5345:

I am genuinely looking for evidence. I'm working through people's contributions and the article history, and the talkpage archives, and reading statements. This takes time, so any assistance with finding the facts would be much appreciated. We're all part-time volunteers, and Committee members are no

4785:

Silk Tork, I believe that you are searching for a sort of egregious behavior that has probably not been the motive force that resulting in the ANI case that quickly manifested the unwieldy dimension that landed it here. KC has provided a couple of diffs representing personal attacks. North's behavior

4151:

I have looked at North8000's edits on the article and I'm not seeing an obvious reason for a topic ban. I see North8000 doing a lot of reverting, but this doesn't appear to move into edit wars. Is this based on comments made on the talkpage? There's over two years worth of comments there, and much of

3935:

The solution I propose is that any group of editors found to have acted in such a manner--and in this case I would include North8000, Malke, Arthur Rubin, and Arzel in the group--should be banned for a nominal amount of time, such as a month, during which the editors whose edits they were obstructing

3927:

It seems to me that a reasonable amount of evidence (albeit somewhat lacking in particular diffs) has been provided that should compel the Committee, upon examination of the discussions at hand, that there are a plurality of editors acting in a collusional manner constituting a group characterized by

2999:

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation

2023:

Edit warring tends to show in article edits; battleground behavior shows more in talk and other page posts. You intentionally started a section with a heading of words you find objectionable, and you did it again in your evidence section here. You could have titled the section on the TPM talk page as

1638:

Thanks; I think so too. As far as remembering to use my "special admin Twinkle app" (cute!) remember that there are 1,354 results for for "admin abuse" on prefix:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard - which doesn't even include other phrasing, such as "investigate admin for misuse of block" or "this

16168:

After thinking about this, I suggest this may cause more problems than any it might potentially solve. The committee has in the past, and certainly may in the future, stated they will wait and see what happens in a community discussion before deciding whether to take a case. However, forbidding even

15259:

If you were merely responding to evidence and proposed FOFs supported by that evidence, you would be defending your own behavior. Instead, you are posting diffs of my behavior, and other people's reactions. It is clearly an attempt to present evidence on the wrong page, and long past the deadline. I

15125:

For the RSN, I take it that it was just a coincidence that they are were all involved in a previous dispute with me? You may have had no idea how the editors you canvassed would vote in the Rfc but in the request you posted on their Talk pages you specifically worded the request to encourage support

14865:

Dates have been corrected. If you felt my conduct deserved ArbCom scrutiny, you had an opportunity just like everyone else to present evidence, including diffs of my alleged misconduct. That opportunity has now expired. Significantly, you don't deny the allegations against you: that you were engaged

14646:

article and participated actively on its Talk page. On October 20, 2010, WLRoss briefly edited the article, but did not participate on the Talk page and had no interaction with Phoenix and Winslow at that time. WLRoss then stopped editing the article for more than four months, effectively abandoning

12926:

Yeah, I don't think this is particularly useful information without context. Xenophrenic had a block just three months ago so that one does seem pertinent, but Darkstar's most recent one is from nearly six months ago with the one before that being a year prior, Rubin's most recent block is from over

12597:

Silk Tork, making one revert on the anti-immigration edit doesn't seem like edit warring. That's just not something I do. And the anti-immigration edit became stable after another editor changed the wording. Not a single editor engaged it after that. And Ubikwit is not listed. It was his slow-moving

12413:

KC, lack of explanation may be a part of it, but TE editing is something that has occurred over a period of years. It took me over two years of observation at the article to get to the point of being sure enough to say what I did, and the fact that you had dismissed it on the same day you said you

12355:

Had I seen someone else say something similarly uncollegiate, I would have spoken to them. I cannot be held responsible for North8000 choosing to do so. Point taken that North8000, especially if he were a suspicious and untrusting type, might think I hadn't looked at Goethean's edits. I will attempt

12333:

There are some aspects of your involvement in this which I have noted. Though you stated on the ANI thread that you had looked into the TE claims, you didn't make this clear to North - indeed, asking him to supply difs gave the impression that you hadn't. I think it was this, that generated heat and

11435:

The accusation that I made a claim not found in the article when I in fact provided reference to the claim as a block quote on the article page is somewhat tiresome, and certainly counterproductive. It is the article that characterizes the corporations on the list provided therein as "right wing", I

11390:

Perhaps Malke should have taken care to read the article thoroughly herself before telling me that I "still need to reread the article" because of her apparently biased misconceptions with no basis in reality. The following two quotes appear in succession in the Daily Kos article, the first of which

11150:

What is true about this case is that the editors involved are butting heads, and complaining about each other. What is interesting is that none of you are reflecting on your own behaviour - you all seem so focused on being angry with the other guy that you are not seeing what you are doing yourself.

10450:

Secondly, I did not make a direct personal attack against her, only an improper remark that the content she favored including in the article was only content that could be deemed to portray the TPm in a favorable light. I did use the term advocacy as a short hand, but plainly not in the COI sense. I

10208:

People keep going on about me being a major contributor to Tea Party movement, but up until March, 2013, I had not edited the article in 2.5 years. That hardly makes me a major contributor anymore, despite what the edit counter says. It's not reality. And I'd only made very brief one-off comments on

9479:

without any supporting sources, I or another admin will block him, in accordance with the commitment to ethical treatment of living people which has been repeatedly affirmed by the community, by ArbCom, and by the Foundation. An established editor shouldn't need to be told that, but now he has been.

9478:

that BLP violation, now, 2 years later - or least trying to evade responsibility for it. So why should we believe that he'll respect BLP going forward? In any case, he can consider himself warned. The next I see North8000 use a Knowledge article to accuse living private individuals of serious crimes

8595:

Answering your question on the dustup, I feel that Goethen's solicitation set the wheels in motion but that KC is responsible for the dustup through multiple errors. A close look at the dialog shows that I kept trying to disengage, and the discussed item (my discussion about TE) was OVER and ENDED

8515:

I've looked at the Xenophrenic evidence, and the discussion following. Who else feels as you do that Xenophrenic's editing and behaviour is inappropriately dominating the article to their preferred POV? I'm asking that question because I'm not picking up from your evidence where Xenophrenic is doing

7693:

section of the Admin Policy, 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." It is up to each admin to assess for themselves

7641:

As there are no sanctions against admins, and nothing in the case to say that admin actions were inappropriate, this principle can be left out. There were claims that KC was acting as an involved admin, but in reality it was a misunderstanding regarding apparent bias as KC didn't explain her actions

7381:

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.

7297:

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

7095:

Other people on both sides — Ubikwit, North8000, KillerChihuahua, Arthur Rubin, Goethean, etc. — should get nothing worse than a 0RR restriction for a few months. Xenophrenic is the exception. He's been like this for several years, on several articles related to U.S. politics; his block log confirms

7049:

At any rate, there is nothing in any of that which would pose any sort of dilemma with respect to the authors writing outside of their field of expertise. So I found your reaction during the RS/N discussion, that is to say, shifting the basis of your opposition to the source as RS from a negation of

6984:

Maybe this is a TPM topic-specific feature that causes the turmoil to exceed the norm of what is encountered at other US politics articles. It seems to me that, in a sense, North is, in effect setting up a straw man by claiming that because the TP is a decentralized movement, one can't address it as

6716:

The problem is that the same editors are there all the time, voicing the same complaints and editing in the same way, with no improvement to the article. I stopped by after a year and found the same arguments as usual but noticed Goethean's civility had seriously deteriorated. I discussed one of his

6658:

5) Improvement of the article must come first. Topic bans are not punitive. They are meant to prevent disruption. Any imposition of topic bans must include the editors actively contributing on a regular basis to the problems on the article. As a special sanction for Tea Party movement, no editor can

6335:

2) A general warning to be issued for the TPM article against TE and slow motion edit wars. The results on disputes are to be decided by proper processes (talk, RFC's etc.) not by TE and slow motion edit wars. The warning will include a recommendation that admins give this aspect a higher level of

5857:

The problem with the affinity group editors is that they are aware of this, and take advantage of that to illicitly block inclusion of sources on the basis of the logical fallacy that because a given source doesn't support a position held by one entity associated with the TPM it can't be used in the

4699:

Goethean, at the time it based on years of observation. And "calling it out" was intended only to reduce the problem at the article. Subsequently I was forced into getting diffs regarding this and IMHO it has been shown to be both merited and evidenced. To be direct, you have done less TE stuff than

4642:

I explained what you could have done. Is it better to say, "When all you have is a hammer," or is it better to say, "I've found an RS that should settle the matter,"? Or, as I said, you could have disengaged. And we've discussed this at ANI. You admitted your comment about the source "will be in the

4022:

I think that that any implication of "collusion" by anybody is a baseless personal attack. Regarding working "in concert" or towards the same ends a look at the disputes and how they have ended up clearly shows that the dominant editing force in determining the article content on these has been

4003:

If they aren't violating policy, no. Perhaps it is in respect of policy where the line between source-based, GF collaboration and something more akin to tacit collusive interaction between editors, which is based on shared values and perceptions and results in subverting policy insofar as it relates

2700:

KC, you were trying to resolve the issue and maybe a few others. Most of those people commenting had never even edited TPM. That aside, Arthur should not have added to the desysop post. As I recall, he said he had an e/c and did not know that would be there. There's no reason not to believe him so I

2274:

Note that the edits Malke has reverted today included passages from a source that she herself used first, but which she is basically seeking to restrict to a one sentence paraphrase, excluding the substantial amount of relevant material I pulled out of it. This is the version of the section that was

2206:

2118:

My one comment to KillerChihuahua on the talk page was an ill-timed reaction to both North8000 and KC using my name in their argument. I have taken several opportunities at ANI and ArbCom to apologize to her. Granted, it's hard to assume good faith when your name is being bandied about. However, had

1782:

I would say that US politics in general at this time tends towards strong opinion and partisan editing. I would not say that all US politics articles are currently in need of DS, although a good case could be made for several. I would have to say many, but not all, TPM articles have serious behavior

16280:

There's something worthwhile procedurally in your observation, but the AN/I scenario was sprawling, totally unwieldy and verging on the dissolute, and I believe it was therefore better that this issue was taken up in this forum, where the matters at hand could be kept in focus. That might save more

16268:

A "finding of fact" should be that if the committee fence sits on whether to take a case or not, community discussion is going to pretty much stop. Everyone's wiki time is limited, so why should a volunteer waste effort on something that could very well be rendered moot by the committee deciding to

16137:

I think there is a lesson to be learned. It is, however, a question of judgement as to when to reject a case because the community can deal with it and when to accept a case so as not to discourage the community from requesting cases. As ArbCom is a committee of individuals, that judgement is going

15311:

I don't have to defend my behavior, I'm having to refute the false claims you are making about my behavior, claims you are making without providing any diffs. MONGO "warned me" because you told him I followed you to both the Ugg boots and TPM articles after the Franklin dispute. After he was told

14693:

My first edit was on 20 October 2010, not 2009 and came back on 3 March 2011. A look at my contributions shows I do not "abandon" articles. As long as they are in my watchlist, which contains 544 pages, they remain active. Several have had breaks of two or more years between editing. I’m at a loss

14082:

bring them to your attention; yet here you are trying to paint my "very mild" (see talk page of evidence) reminder as being "uncivil". If I erred in anything, it is as Malke has said numerous times, it was in not simply blocking you for personal attacks/incivility. You have repeatedly managed to be

13834:

She basically seems to be accusing me of behaving in an irrational and vengeful manner with herself being the object. While there is no question that I was indignant after Arzel's edit summary and that the lack of a response on the Talk page to my requests for discussion of the content of the edits

13717:

Yes. When looking into editing histories it is difficult to give appropriate weighting to users who have been heavily involved in the article since 2010, and over that time have made a lot of reverts, against those who haven't edited much, but when they do they mainly revert, against those who have

12975:

I have tried to be thorough in addressing the matters that have arisen here, but would prefer not to have to further examine Malke's Talk page or the enforcement measures referred to in that thread, and am going to presume that this comment intended as a refutation is not missing anything of direct

12253:

i am concerned about KillerChihuahua not being able to remember proposing the topic ban for Collect, as well as not providing diffs. Xenophrenic proposed a topic ban for me and neglected to provide diffs, even after being ask by KC, yet no action was taken against Xenophrenic? this case started by

12227:

there after an earnest request from him. These types of incendiary and unsubstantiated accusations are not what we should expect from an administrator, especially one presenting herself as uninvolved on the subject. Admins should put forward an appearance of impartiality and circumspection. I think

11938:

I don't even remember who added Collect, but I do note there has been a distressing tendency to accuse Collect of malfeasance whenever right wing politics articles arrive on ANI. I find this regrettable and have in the past spoken out rather strongly against it. I don't want to go look and find out

11197:

I've posted my behaviour. I've not tried to minimize what I've said or done. I agree that it takes two to edit war, but Xenophrenic always starts the edit wars. He has a long history of edit warring on Tea Party movement and elsewhere, including talk pages. Look what he does to other editors. He is

11172:

The reason that I like Xenophrenic is that (after extensive interaction and observation) I see no meanness or viciousness in them, and no attempts to "go after" people to get rid of them. (as has been commonplace in the ANI and Arbcom case on this) But they are a special case in that that they are

10876:

We need difs - "appears" is not enough when there are three years and 573 edits to sift through. That a contributor does not agree with another contributor, and says so, is not in itself grounds for a sanction, especially when the climate on a talkpage has been argumentative. The expectation always

10350:

I believe that since there are at least four reliable sources by legal scholars that specifically address the TPm agenda vis-à-vis the constitution, that the inclusion of a fairly detailed account of the analysis in such sources meets the relevant policies noted above. It should be pointed out that

10282:

Finally, do not revert any edits that can be verified per WP:V and would be an improvement to a page, within the boundaries of other Knowledge policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:Undue. If an edit can be verified as encyclopedic, and improves a page but you still worry that someone else might disagree,

9812:

Technically, the source says they were arrested for such offenses but that authorities were not sure if charges would be pursued, and they apparently were pursued. It doesn't mention the one name specifically, but does indicate others were arrested. My impression is that the only real issue is with

9524:

There is no way that an admin stating he will defend Knowledge against BLP violations can be construed as "vindictive". North8000 has now been, if he was not before, informed of his responsibility as regards BLP and been warned of likely consequences should he choose to ignore that warning and post

9505:

MastCell, you are evading the central point. If there was no known, discussed or alleged BLP violation at the time by anybody, and just now, 2 years later, you are saying that 5% of the material (which I didn't even write) was not supported by the source, that (even if true) is called an oversight

9373:

I don't recall any discussion or expressed concerns along those lines. I would never put in an edit if there was even an open question of a BLP issue. Was there? Or is this just a brand new angle two years later? Apparently your claim (first made two years later) is that the material which I

9352:

BLP violation, rather than your own, isn't a mitigating factor - if anything, it makes things worse. You're responsible for the edits you make. Based on the sequence outlined by SilkTork, Fat&Happy and PhGustaf acted properly (and their actions were not "edit-warring", but rather an appropriate

8148:

article which reflects a real world conflict or contest, where one side sees that they have something to gain or lose by what is in the article tends to be this way. The only way that stability is achieved on these is when one side manages to "run off" or silence the editors from the other side.

6954:

problem with the article, is that editors (such as G and X) are willing to add any negative information about anyone or -thing associated with the TPm to the article, without establishing reliability, relevance, or appropriate weight. I've noticed a similar phenomenon in the Occupy articles (which

6851:

Goethean, do you have diffs of me "joining this effort?" Because I just looked the tobacco threads over and I'm not seeing Malke there. My first edit to the talk page in a year was to the 'worst article ever' thread. Your tobacco study/source debate started the beginning of February. Unless you can

6784:

Darkstar1st, you are a party to this case. You may make any proposals you feel are indicated. If you think there are editors for whom sanctions would be appropriate remedies, who are not listed, by all means list them. I listed those I felt were appropriate, Malke 2010 listed those she thought were

5825:

That math of what you are both saying is very true and I think that the possibility that you are describing exists. However, my observation is the the main way that the 1RR has rewarded TE editing is by making edit wars longer term and less visible. Despite warnings against slow motion edit wars,

5709:

The article is in bad shape and contains large amounts of trivia that is in there for effect rather than to inform. This is the case with most Knowledge articles on topics which cover a real world "conflict". While the "fault" primarily lies with Knowledge policies which either fail to help guide

4949:

The more I look into this case, the more uncomfortable I am becoming at the general level of reverts taking place by the main editors on an article which has a revert restriction. But I'm still not sure if the problem is the users editing the article, or the topic itself. If it is the topic itself,

4284:

Thank you Malke. That looks like there is an awareness that there are differences of opinion in how to develop the article, but that the parties are willing to discuss in a tense but civil manner those differences, and agree to disagree at times, and agree that both sides have the best interests of

3942:

I think that such a sanctionary regime provides impetus for reasonable, source-based cooperation--if not collaboration--as well as provides ample deterrent force insofar as being banned as a group for a month would allow for substantial input by the obstructed editors during the interim. And in the

3208:

No, that would be me not finding evidence against them. If I don't find evidence, I'm not going to call for sanctions, and that is in no way bias. I am insulted and offended that you have so characterized my evidence here. I note Malke 2010 has called for sanctions on G and X and no one else- yet I

2685:

genuinely trying to offer input and resolve the issues. I grant you that, as Malke states elsewhere on this page, it was a case of "editors come out so fast and post such vitriol so furiously" yet I do not believe there was intentional disruption of Knowledge by most of these. Some were cases of a

2380:

Several years ago she accused Viriditas of having an unusual interest in her, similar to what she has asserted about me. I will post that quote below, but first I want to point out a couple of things that stuck out once I looked at two threads from the article Talk page a little closer, with regard

2287:

Malke states above that the article should "not stay mired in excessive details", which I assume means that, as in the case of the Agenda section, she wants to minimize the content so that the article presents only information that serves the purpose of advocacy as opposed to providing encyclopedic

955:

Herein lies the crux of the problem on Tea Party movement. One side wants to edit in as much negative content as possible and keep out positive edits, while the other side wants to edit out negativity and load in more positive edits. These negotiations almost always involve the sources. The problem

16201:

I understand what Silk Tork is getting at. It is better for the community to resolve issues. But in this particular case, I have to agree with Killer Chihuahua and North. Right from the start, the ANI thread went off the rails. KC is right. There would be endless wikilawyering. I think it's a good

15683:

article on 31 March 2012. Phoenix and Winslow made two minor edits to the article (7 Sept and 5 Dec) and after more than a year of stability, a good article review began on 4 February 2013. The review was almost completed when on 26 February Phoenix and Winslow objected to the reviewer passing the

14896:

Just so it's clear. There was no tag-team edit-warring. Phoenix and Winslow was the only editor disputing the edits out of the four active editors editing the article from January until April when he canvassed for support from editors I had been in dispute with on another article and it was one of

14269:" or "Wikihounding," will be warned and, if the behavior continued, they may be blocked, topic banned, or banned from interaction with the targeted editor, either by community consensus, by the Arbitration Committee, or by an uninvolved administrator under discretionary or probationary sanctions. 12699:

Your analysis of what's been going on has been on the mark so far. The edit wars might well be a permanent feature. Part of the problem seems to be that many editors tie the tea party to the election of Barack Obama. They see the tea party as his opposition because he's black. They pass every edit

12526:

While I am reluctant to recommend topic bans, I have been disappointed by how edit warring has continued even though a case was opened to look into such matters. If these editors are prepared to edit war against the spirit of the community sanctions even when ArbCom are closely watching them, then

12222:

Although desysopping is obviously an absurd proposition under these circumstances, I think there should be some consideration given to KC's general conduct on this matter. Some of her accusations of misconduct against editors have been frivolous and unsubstantiated. For instance, insisting without

11769:

Frankly, when someone is of the female gender, adopts a dog-based username, and then constantly talks about being a puppy, one should hardly react to the occasional snarky "bitch" remark in heated discussion and should really just expect it. My username has been used in an insulting fashion many a

11426:

The last sentence in the second paragraph makes a statement that addresses a claim that is not made in the Tobacco Control article, so it is a polemic statement made in the context of the authors editorializing. It does not refute the findings of the Tobacco Control article or "clarify the tobacco

10230:

Some editors think Killer Chihuahua is involved, but I think her assuming I was still a major contributor speaks to her not being involved. It appears she assumed I was an active editor there based on the edit count. Had she been involved, she would have seen I was not active and no longer a major

10002:

I am concerned that so many editors felt that Arzel's conduct was generally poor enough to support topic banning; however, when looking into the conduct related to the case, I don't think there is sufficient evidence for a sanction. I don't think it would be appropriate for the Committee to extend

8534:

I've also now looked at the Goethean evidence. Only two of the three "anti-immigration" edits are Goethean. One of the links is used twice. The time frame for the edit you list, indicates it was an edit by Xenophrenic. The talkpage comments you cite are not evidence for a topic ban, nor of someone

8493:

I think that the intention of the "locus" section was to try to understand the overall situation in an attempt to move forward, not just another venue to try to do battle against individuals. That is why I made such a point of wording it the way that I did, and also saying that I would adamantly

8108:

The reality is that so far this case has gone off in the wrong direction from any fix on #1 by ignoring the main issues and instead reviewing the behaviors of the secondary players, (though your moderated discussion is on the right track) #2 is long over, and that by taking this case on, you have

8052:

Yes, I am becoming more aware of that, and will later be looking more closely at the AN/I thread and seeing who said what and when. Meanwhile I would encourage other people to read through my workings and point me in the right direction as I go along. Better to do it now, than when it is on the PD

5864:

On the other hand, to editors trying to present the TPM as some sort of coherent united front, that is undesirable, and this is one source of the content dispute that results in behavior issues appearing in the form of the partisan group dynamic as well as individual personal attacks, most evident

4838:

That would exacerbate not help the problem as Xenophrenic and Goethean have already dominated the results in the article of every disputed item. Havign an outside uninvolved non-political editor take a few weeks to go thought the article while the regulars all sit back would be a much better idea.

4737:

What it was was calling out the behavior in the hopes that merely doing so / putting a spotlight on it would reduce the problem, plus making the "this has to stop" type comment. So I would call it leaning on you and Xenophrenic for a constructive purpose. And it was 100% behavior focused, nothing

3375:

Too many replies at once, I was thinking of North8000 of course. I have corrected this. And I did ask for diffs from Xeno. That was also a different situation. Multiple people were offering diffs and views; I was not by myself investigating one lone editor making personal attacks and accusations.

3015:

I believe that a dustup between you and me happened which was quite separate from anything at the article. I think that you made 3-4 errors early in the process, I tried engaging you in discussion on some of those, you refused to do so. Despite the fact that I disengaged on both the talk page and

2680:

who I think violated POINT. Yet you contend more than half violated POINT? If you do think so, why did you offer no evidence to support that allegation? Why do you not propose the persons be found to have violated POINT as a proposed finding of fact? I think you're painting with a very broad brush

2303:

regarding the edits at hand, which are based on excellent sources by legal scholars. I do not think that Malke has demonstrated a willingness to collaborate on those edits in a collegial manner. The moderated discussion is getting off to a slow start, as it is app apparent that Arbcom has multiple

2228:

1590:

ANI is all of the above. The problem is picking the right battle to bring there. North8000 was being disruptive and KC should have blocked him. ANI does not stop disruption in the moment. Blocks do that. It would have been better to save going to ANI for an interminable dispute, which happen often

1468:

10) Disruption of Knowledge is incompatible with the status of administrator. Administrators who repeatedly and aggressively engage in inappropriate activity may be faced with sanctions by the Arbitration Committee, including the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to

1292:

There were editors that wanted to represent the source solely as a source for casting aspersions on the "liberal" media by the mea cupa resignation of the CEO, while deprecating the statements made by the fund raiser that triggered the resignation. It seemed obvious to me that the statement of the

16234:

Agree with much of that, but the ANI (as do most ANI's on vague topics) had turned into a complete irrecoverable wreck / mob violence situation. People who little or noting about the topic except that they have a grudge against someone, or want them gone in order to POV articles show up and make

15555:

in response to a post by another editor after seeing the dispute mentioned on the Talk page of the admin who was doing a Good Article Review for one of my articles. Phoenix and Winslow replied to my post followed by posts by three other editors supporting me. Phoenix and Winslow gained no support

15090:

and I've just brought up WLRoss's questionable Nick Bryant source for review, or they have indicated that they're willing to participate in an RfC, and WLRoss has just started an RfC. When I seek their input, I have no idea how they're going to "vote." Therefore this activity is not prohibited by

10861:

Xenophrenic's behavior appears to be disruptive on the talk page. At the moment, he will not stop arguing against current consensus to not use the term 'anti-immigration.' He has been active on the article for over three years on a near daily basis. Xenophrenic has more than a tendency to revert.

10331:

Try to move the discussion towards making a new, and different, Bold edit as quickly as possible. One should seek to have an iterative cycle going on the page itself where people "try this" or "try that" and just try to see what sticks best. Warning: Repetitively doing this can easily violate the

10167:

In the meantime, Ubikwit made a personal attack on the moderated discussion page accusing me of advocacy, which I removed. I brought the issue to his talk page. In his last comment in that discussion, he mentioned the compromise edit I'd made to the article. Soon after, he went to the article and

9455:

I don't see North8000 making any intentional BLP vio here. I agree with Silk Tork in that it would need to be shown that North8000 was previously warned about a BLP vio and continued to post a negative comment without a source. I don't see that happening here. Also, I don't see it being repeated.

9438:

Let's be clear, we're not having a content dispute here, we're dealing with an accusation made by you. If you found 5% of the restored item 2 years later that wasn't covered by the source, which nobody noticed or even brought up, that is evidence of an oversight by everybody at the time, not bad

9394:

don't get it. You restored totally unsourced material stating that two people had been charged with crimes - a serious BLP violation in its own right. Then you added a reference which did not support the statement that either had been charged. That's another serious BLP violation. Let's make this

8958:

Goethean's contributions to the article can be seen as less than helpful. Direct edits tend to be mainly reverts, and while not making flagrant personal attacks, the talkpage comments do not assist in generating a positive atmosphere. However, there is not evidence to suggest a topic ban would be

8662:

As I said above under the section being prepared by Malke, it is evident to me (in the two months or so that I've edited the article) that the problem is principally the behavior of Xenophrenic. Other problems radiate outward from his behavior. Removing him from the equation is like putting out a

7755:

11) 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 evidence; the greater the

7077:

article. My opinion is that Malke is correct regarding Xenophrenic: a topic ban is appropriate. Regarding Goethean, I haven't seen enough of his conduct to make that determination. We don't need topic bans for both sides because one person, on one side, has been a great deal more tendentious than

7045:

The fact that the authors focus is on public health policy and not politics in no way detracts from the results of their research into the tobacco industry (with respect to public health and regulation, basically (second-hand smoke, etc.)) and the resulting expose on groups they are funding in an

5853:

I would suggest that in addition to any obviously irrelevant trivial content (of which there would appear to be an ample supply), what can be referred to as trivia in one context can be meaningful in another. In this case, the decentralized nature of the TPM means that the discussion of it easily

4632:

I really wonder how you imagine that I could have constructively responded to that freely-flowing stream of personal attacks and evidence-lacking accusations. The very fact that you can find fault with my consulting with two uninvolved admins in response to North8000's series of evidenceless (and

4601:

SilkTork, the diffs of Goethean's comments appear to show a consistent, long-term incivility to the other editors who simply go around it, or when they do respond they assume good faith. At times his comments appear to taunt or bait others as when he wrote, "When all you have is a hammer," rather

3931:

The collusion is motivated by a desire to prevent editing of the article by editors not sharing the same disposition toward the topic of the article that would result in representing positions found in RS that counter the POV of the particular narrative sought by the affinity group of editors, an

2966:

IMO the catalyst for the conflagration was the dustup between you and me on my talk page, IMHO you were involved on that. You may have been uninvolved at the article but it is really only a sidebar to the catalyst for the conflagration. I used "catalyst" in it's technical sense. Once the fuse is

2255:

I would like to call attention to the recent apparently arbitrary blanket reversions by Malke in the "Agenda" section of the TPm article. I have asked her and Arzel, who'd also reverted the same content once before Snowed mentioned "tag teaming" on the Talk page, for their policy-based rationales

2165:

1787:

article. I'm Goldilocks here - I think all US politics would be too broad a topic for sanctions, I think naming a few articles would be too narrow; I think the TPM category might be just right. If we name specific articles, I will probably ask for an extension so I can examine all the articles in

1605:

I think the chaotic, hostile reaction shows my judgment was correct, rather than the reverse, in choosing to take this to a wider audience. Had it been merely North8000, it would not have spiraled out of control so fast - and I note below you call for sanctions on Goethean and Xenophrenic, which

518:

is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions,

12902:

I've not had any blocks going on 3 years now and I've not repeated any of the behaviours for which I received blocks. I have reverted edits but have not violated 3RR or made provocative edits that start edit-wars. I've made reverts based on policy, and I've made a compromise edit in an effort to

10540:

It sounds counterintuitive to hear the leading contributor claim that the article is the worst ever or is a "train wreck". Moreover, why would she repeatedly make such assertions, starting sections on the Talk page, etc., instead of editing the article in the normal manner, addressing concretely

9898:

I undid the blanking of the entire multi-paragraph section (which was written by somebody else) and was in the process of rapidly paring it (4 edits in 7 minutes), (I don't remember, it was years ago..if I was taking those out too, when I was interrupted by reblanking of the entire section. The

9768:

supported by the source, but either way this is a point which you are first raising 2 years later and either certainly not indicative of any knowing violation back then. And I never have and never will knowingly commit BLP violation, such a thing, so I don't know where you got "minimizing" that

8556:

I think that I have failed to make one abstract point clear. My observations and diffs regarding Xenophrenic and Goethean are ONLY ONLY to establish that my comment which started all of this was not out of line, and so that we can have an accurate picture to move forward. It is NOT to say that

5484:

I can't say I've followed this case or the topic area closely, but regarding Arthur... in my interactions elsewhere, I've found him to be an opinionated but generally conscientious editor. I can recall times we've agreed and times we've disagreed, but he's been reasonable either way. When it was

4546:

I really don't see much, if any, tag-teaming in the example above in the Arbs section. My revert was based more on the edit summaries than on the texts of the edits, but, it was more in opposition to G's unreasonable edit summary than in support of D. (and I know this is 25 minutes late...) —

4254:

and that does give me a snap-shot of the "battle" that is taking place. What it doesn't tell us, of course, is whose position is "correct". Is the article being filled with negative trivia picked from scandal sheets to discredit the Tea Party? Or is the article being picked clean of any possible

4219:(cur | prev) 21:39, 18 February 2013‎ Goethean (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (164,532 bytes) (-577)‎ . . (Undid revision 538927416 by North8000 (talk) please do not violate WP:OR. the source never mentions the TPM. a secondary source needs to connect this event to the Tea Party Movement.) (undo) 3972:

The statement "a group characterized by a shared disposition toward the topical matter of the article" includes no inference about a secret or conspiratorial dimension to the group of editors I listed, but thanks for the drama. A number of individuals acting in a similar manner in view of shared

16219:

I've changed my mind about this. Silk Tork is right. The community should sort matters before coming to ArbCom. I went back and looked at the ANI thread on this. And then I looked at ANI archives. This particular issue did not have sufficient time at ANI to be resolved. It might be owing to the

10725:

I stated early in these proceedings that I do consider Malke to be engaged in POV pushing and advocacy (not of the COI type) as defined under the above "Neutrality and conflicts of interest" subsection under the Proposed Principles section. I identified her in the early stages as one of several

10264:

Regarding the "slow-moving edit war" only once did I simply revert an edit by replacing the same exact material, and that was in response to Malke's edit summary claiming that my edit was WP:OR and seeming to insist that the section be based solely on primary sources. Arzel then made a tag-team

9749:

think that your response here - to minimize what is an extremely serious BLP violation and argue technicalities - does not reflect well upon you, but I'll leave it there for others to decide. As an admin, I retain the right (and, arguably, the responsibility) to act appropriately to address any

9721:

For those that missed it, I said that I never have and never will knowingly violate wp:BLP. I understand its importance. And from a close look at the 2 year old exchange that somebody was trying to gin up into that 2 years later, there was not even an unknowing violation in the material that I

9331:

What is going on here? This was material put in by somebody else (not be me); the diff was to me reverting the removal of it and added a cite which supported it. Now, 2 years later, someone looks back two years and claims that one piece of it was not supported by the source. Someone having to

9216:

6757:

this case is seeking sanctions only against those attempting to remove/minimize negative and trivial text according to weight, yet more active editors who have sought and succeeded to include negative material are absent here, why? since article is rated C, does that mean there needs to be more

6199:

8) KC had discussed only two actions by North, a few comments ending Feb 18th on TE editing which had passed into old news, and an arguably valid policy comment on a nasty comment made by Goethean. With only these as a basis, it was in error to open an ani requesting broad and severe sanctions

5518:

My comment is somewhat similar to MastCell's. I've not followed the case too closely and I've had interactions with Arthur Rubin, some positive and some negative. Although we've had some disagreements in the past, I've never felt like Arthur Rubin was being disingenuous or not editing in good

2538:

Malke 2010, did you read that policy like I asked you to? I see that elsewhere you say you've done nothing wrong and don't intend to even respond to this request. Instead of responding to me you've made more reverts. I think that's unhelpful behavior and reminiscent of the behaviors that led to

1195:

5) Contributors to Knowledge may benefit the project by participating in a variety of ways. Good-faith participation is welcome whether it comes in the form of editorial contributions, tagging articles for clean-up, initiating or participating in community deletion discussions, or performing of

9082:

I suggested last week on the Arbitration Committee's mailing list that North8000 be topic banned. I noted specifically evidence of I what I believed to be tendentious editing in Archives 16 and 18 in particular. There are plenty of other diffs on the ANI thread, but one that stuck out to me in

7626:

most relevant in a given situation. Administrators should bear in mind that their actions may be influential on other editors, who may trust the administrator to know what is and is not appropriate, and should therefore strive to model good behavior, even when not acting in their administrator

6048:

5)Tendentious editing can only be shown by the combination of an immense number of instances. Any attempt to show TE by one or a few diffs is invalid and a recipe for certain failure. So this was in essence, a suicide demand. So KC was in error or unreasonable in requiring this of North.

5808:

1RR restrictions, and, editor Y removes A, and editor Z makes a edit in a different section of the article, then Y could not remove B or restore C or D without violating 1RR. It makes it even more critical in making POV edits, to do them quickly, so that they cannot easily be reverted; and in

5309:

on RSN. Rubin took part in that discussion, but I'm afraid you're going to have to explain to me why his taking part in a discussion on a source means he should be topic banned. I'm clearly missing something, because both you and Schulz are seeing something there, so it would help to have some

4431:

to the "blow up"; that's why I took it to ANI to begin with. And I don't see North8000 resolving this by examining their behaviour, realising what mistakes they themselves made, apologising, and then moving on - I see him commenting on my proposed finding of fact above that his unsubstantiated

4187:

KC, there's not huge community support there. 60%? And a number of people appear to be reacting to the blow up, rather than the history of North8000's involvement in the topic area. I'm wondering if there is anything more serious here than a group of people blowing up. And also, if this can be

1169:

One would have to grant that the TPM article, in view of the decentralized character of the movement, presents certain problems with respect to harmonizing sources, which may relate to any of the respective various disparate constituent non-parts of the phantom whole in all of their burgeoning

11346:

provides a little more context related to that discussion. The Daily Kos is a left leaning media outlet and Xenophrenic was using a little irony in referring to the fact that you provided that source to me in a conversation about the Tobacco Control article. I fail to see where it reaches the

7339:

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

4288:

When there is a controversial topic, there are going to be tense discussions, and at times these may spill out into incivil remarks. What we do is impose sanctions when incivility starts to get out of hand. The difficulty is in judging when it has got out of hand. It is a perennial problem on

4263:. What I think we would need, in order to consider a topic ban for any of the editors, is signs of disrupting the process of working toward consensus. Signs of an editor (or group of editors) forcing their view in an unreasonable manner, being excessively obstructive, ignoring consensus, etc. 992:

Neutrality does not mean that the content of an article is not going to present views that might offend the sensibilities of someone with an emotional attachment to the topic. Neutrality is defined in relation to sources, and the attempt by advocates to deprecate sources is one of the largest

14391:

3) The burden of compliance with a topic ban or interaction ban will be on the editor who was found to be in violation of Knowledge policy or principle, where this violation led to the topic ban or interaction ban. However, once an interaction ban has been imposed, an editor protected by the

13752:

This is starting to sound like a 'let's get Malke line' and there is no justification for this. I don't agree at all with Silk Tork's reasoning here. I don't at all deserve any kind of sanction. I got swept up in an overheated argument that KC was having with North. This whole thing has been

11134:

Xenophrenic's comments consistently show a lack of respect for other editors. His lengthy and repetitive arguments wear out editors. He often uses trivial comments in sources he finds on Google books to source his arguments. Right now he's claiming sources show that the tea party movement is

10368:

The Tea Party contains a welter of oftentimes conflicting Agendas... Yet within this confusing constellation of ideas and viewpoints, there is a relatively stable ideological core to the Tea Party. This core is particularly evident when one focuses on the vision of the Constitution regularly

7033:

Arthur, I will grant that you have basically shown reasonableness--though stopped short of actually acceding that Hunt is a reliable source--in disussions relating to sources after the AN/I case, and I am not here seeking bogus punitive blocks or bans for anyone. On the other hand, I have to

6078:

If you mean not providing proving diffs every time that one makes a comment about behavior, yes. If that were not the norm, you would be long gone from Knowledge because you have done it many times. However, I held myself to a very high standard, only being sure enough after two years of

5903:

I would suggest that the details of how it is in bad shape are relevant. If the article contains a lot of trivial factoids, who inserted them, and why? That will say a lot about responsibility for the state of the article. This is especially true if there was a significant battle over the

5327:

I'm going to have a stab at it: Rubin has doubts about the suitability of a source, and you and others feel that his doubts are not reasonable, and that he is deliberately attempting to suppress a legitimate source in order to bias the Tea Party article. I think the Committee might need more

965:

Apparently, this was a brand new claim and had not been picked up by the mainstream media as yet. When an editor questioned the source, Goethean informed the editor that his comments were "strictly partisan, had no relation to Knowledge policy and could be ignored as irrelevant." And then he

2925:, and so perhaps felt that KC was taking sides. I suspect that is what North means by "involved". An explanation that the matter was investigated as requested, and a fair and accurate judgement that North's behaviour was incivil and disproportionate compared to goethean's, would be helpful. 2738:

He added to the started section (North8000 calling for my desysoping) instead. The edit conflict exonerates nothing. I don't doubt it; I do believe Rubin when he stated that he'd been planning to start a section calling for sanctions against me, especially as he promptly doubled-down on the

2486:

The parallel push for eliminating whole sections of the article and “nuking out” material seem noteworthy with respect to attempts at WP:OWN. Though not actually editing the article, it appears that an effort to build some sort of pseudo consensus was being made to eliminate material deemed

2451:

It strikes me as a little unusual for an editor with no contributions whatsoever to the article or related discussions to start such a thread. Malke was the first to respond to the IP's opening edit, and that response on 2 March 2012 represented her first edit to the article Talk page since

1296:

It seems to me that perhaps something about that incident should be described on the article, as it appears to have received a fair amount of attention in the media. However, because the statements of the fund raiser problematized the possibility of presenting the incident with the sort of

16269:

move? Maybe this needed to come to arbcom, maybe it didn't, but in the future the committee should definitely provide more encouragement for community discussion before getting involved. (Unless there's insufficient workload to keep it busy, but I've always inferred that is not the case.)

8338:

In the above edit, Malke introduces another reference to the constitution by a legal scholar--a very good reference--and attempts to relegate the content thereof to a single sentence paraphrase, basically, while removing the content I'd introduced from other similar sources related to the

6236: 3763:

I not would call happenings at the core of this whole case thing to be a dead horse, but I think we both finished saying what we wanted to say. Except that if you think that I'm wrong on any matters of fact you should provide specifics. Of course a few items (such as #5 & #7) must be

4231:(cur | prev) 20:47, 18 February 2013‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (164,978 bytes) (+3,793)‎ . . (ret sourced content on Koch funding & org support (no cmt yet on suggested move to 'History' section); ret McAllister sentence; rem unsupported "first event" wording) (undo) 6006:

4) TE editing is a pattern established over a long period of time, and investigating requires a review of such. KC erred in (on Feb 19th, on the same day that they first said they'd look into it) immediately dismissing TE as being a concern; far too quickly to have investigated it.

11299:

And that's tame compared to some of his other comments to other editors. Imagine having to deal with this day in and day out while trying to AGF, and get along with others on a very contentious topic. This behaviour is not collegial and it's not fair to any of the others editing there.

10380:

Malke's second revert incorporated what could be construed as a WP:BOLD edit insofar as it introduced a new source--even though it sequestered the source and eliminated the Constitution subsection. That would be closer to policy-based reality than calling it a "compromise edit", at any

10202:

I've worked hard on Knowledge in the last 2.5 years improving articles despite being very busy in RL. I've recently created several articles, improved several more over several topics. I've got several more articles in the works but no time now to do anything with them in the immediate

9357:

violation). Freedomthinker, North8000, and Darkstar1st were all responsible for a serious BLP violation, and the latter two cases are aggravated by edit-warring to restore a BLP violation. Frankly, the fact that North8000 is defending this edit tells me that it's not stale at all - his

7427:

5) The verifiability policy is at the heart of one of the five pillars 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.

2200:

3212:

and I have had no reason until now to do a similar study of my interactions with Xeno but I would not be surprised to find a similar non-history. And Rubin, I'd think you'd be about done calling for sanctions and measures against me. Don't you think you've done yourself enough damage?

4368:

SilkTork, North8000 often takes a mediator role on TPM. My recollection is that from the beginning of his participation there he has tried to negotiate less negativity. If you like I could point you to some archive threads so you don't have to scroll through three years of talk page.

13735:

I think that your underlying analysis is sound (as has been the case all along). But I think that singling out past active editors is a mis-fire. It already misses one that most needs it (Ubikwit). It would be better to say no reverts in general on material once it is contested.

4237:(cur | prev) 16:00, 18 February 2013‎ Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (161,163 bytes) (-3,143)‎ . . (Undid revision 538869884 by Goethean (talk) yes, it is (or should be) covered in history, as there is no claim that Koch-related groups _presented_ support the TPM) (undo) 2983:

What, I was involved in being an uninvolved admin? There was no "dustup." There was me telling you to stop accusing others with no diffs, and telling you to stop the personal attacks, and there was you arguing. That's not a "dustup" that's a poor choice on your part. I have already

16204:

Just compare the tone of the editors on the moderated discussion Silk Tork opened, to the talk page discussions. Very different behaviour between the two. That's because Silk Tork is there. His presence is a very steadying influence. Having ArbCom around will keep things on track.

12581:(cur | prev) 00:34, 6 April 2013‎ The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (168,607 bytes) (+40)‎ . . (Undid revision 548911718 by Phoenix and Winslow (talk)There is no BLP issue as you were told before. Bring it up at wp:BLPN like told before or drop it.) (undo) 10683:" That is to say, the amount of difference between the Commentaries section as it stood in December 2010 and August 2011 appears to be almost negligible. The list of corresponding references (153-173; 195-223) is similar, showing only a relatively small expansion (+8) therebetween. 3054:

Erroneously implying that my commenting on behavior without supplying DIFFS (not without basis, but specifically without DIFFS) was improper behavior. And despite the fact that a specific case was the immediate item under discussion. Is one supposed to provide diffs to the current

10718:

In retrospect, I feel inclined to acknowledging that the above-quoted remark I made at the Moderated discussion, though intended as a comment on the content of the relevant edits by Malke, was phrased it in a manner that addresses the editor to a degree that likes runs afoul of

9177:

If anything, the below discussion only reinforces my point. The edit war is meaningless, but there was a huge violation of BLP there that charged living individuals of crimes, which was never adequately excised by North8000. Honestly, he kept a statement referring to them being

4169:

Malke, my assumption of all users is that they are here to assist the project, so I'm not that interested in dif which support my assumption, I would be more interested in difs which support a view that North8000 has been disruptive in the topic area and so needs topic banning.

3016:

the article on that topic and it went stale, what was your basis for going to ANI based on one comment in an unrelated area? IMHO the dominant force in the course of events was a dustup between you and me on my talk page, not anything that happened at the article. Sincerely,

4789:

In short, the behavior at issue is generally speaking of a more subtle manifestation of battleground mentality in the form of passive obstructionism as opposed to aggressive anti-social outbursts, and it is manifest in the group dynamic as much as in the conduct of individual

10443:

is probably true on some level, but the her assertion about making a "compromise edit" is duplicitous, because she did not even respond to two queries I made to her on the article Talk page related to her ongoing reversions of my edits under the Agenda section addressing the

12671:

before me, in which I see edit wars on the article until I protected it, and little involvement in the moderated discussion, but continued complaints about other users. Not everyone is doing all or some of these things, but enough are to cause me some concern at this stage.

13328:

I am going to propose additional topic bans for everyone listed here (with the exception of Arthur Rubin) as well as North8000. I may not support all of them, but I am considering proposing site bans for some of them so I feel it is only proper to offer topic bans as well.

5919: 14264:

1) After an editor has become involved in a content dispute or other dispute with another editor, following that editor's contributions in an effort to harass or badger that editor in retaliation for the dispute is prohibited. Editors who engage in this behavior, known as

13410:

Do you know how much I care about people falsely thinking I am partial to one side or another? None. I see my entire job with respect ot this article as creating an editing environment where editors who agree to abide by our policies can do so in peace. There will be no

5749:

1RR restriction rewards tendentious editing more than the standard one. However, I, personally, think the standard 1RR would make it worse, as an active POV-warrior can add multiple contentious statements, and the "reverting" editor might only be able to remove one. —

10257:

I'm revising the following section of comments, redacting portions, etc., having reviewed policy and found portions of my text that were simply incorrect, written in a sleep-deprived state, which is an occupational hazard I've been trying to rectify lately with minimal

8577:. In short, Xenophrenic did it the most, and Goethean jumped in at key moments. I see no meanness and seldom nastiness in Xenophrenic, just a person on a mission. I have seen and endured many abrasive comments from Goethean, and they shredded one of my olive branches. 12548:(cur | prev) 13:39, 7 April 2013‎ Arzel (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (168,612 bytes) (-28)‎ . . (→‎Agenda: This is NOT supported by the sources, especially the word "Generally" which means in most cases when very view, if any, sources are using the statement.) (undo) 10283:

then let the person who disagrees with the change revert the edit. Do not revert verifiable changes that may be an improvement just to maintain status quo or to comply with the "discuss all changes first" approach, which may run counter to the Knowledge be bold policy.

16183:

Agree. And doubly so in this case....it ended the mob violence (ANI) that usually ensues on AN's ANI's that are on non-specific items. Hate to say it, but there is nobody except Arbcom who does that.....look at evidence instead of listening to shouts from the mob.

12077:, and was blocked in twice in 2010, once in 2011, and once in 2012 for edit warring on other articles; and once in 2011 for personal attacks. Darkstar1st has made 333 edits to the talkpage. Evidence for combative and pointy behaviour mainly relates to 2011. There was 11198:

without a doubt, the single most disruptive and incivil editor at Tea Party movement. The article would definitely have a chance to improve in his absence. Absolutely it would. There's no need to topic ban anybody else. Nobody else is doing what Xenophrenic is doing.

3510:

was added here by me for proposing sanctions on active editors on the article, on an ANI thread. There is absolute consistency here. The only person I listed here due to their actions on ANI (and talk pages) is Arthur Rubin, who did something else. Now, I'm done with

4386: 3168:

KC, you could be seen as involved since you have not included Goethean and Xenophrenic. Please see evidence page re: Goethean. You moderated a dispute after Goethean contacted you. I looked that over. That seemed fine. But now, you don't seem to be seeing Goethean's

1388:

We can disagree as to which editors may have violated this. It would also be a good suggestion that participating editors accurately interpret what has been said and done, and to note that unjust attacks may also further inflame the issues, even if done civilly. —

13454:

I'd like to see the evidence from my editing record that supports this. I don't see any diffs. I see one revert that I made in over two years. That's right. That was my first revert in years. So please, show me diffs that show a pattern of edit warring on Tea Party

9745:. The violation occurred 2 years ago, as you point out. I haven't looked at any of your subsequent editing, and looked at this particular diff only because NW highlighted it. I have no idea whether your subsequent editing record has been free of BLP violations. I 5346:

more blessed with extra spare time and energy than any other volunteer! I'm not sure NYB has finished looking at the evidence yet. We said we'd look at it and discuss our thoughts this week, but I know that he has been absorbed by some internal Committee matters.

11693:

apologized for repeatedly calling for serious sanctions against me when I was acting in the capacity of uninvolved admin and had not even used my tools, and for his repeated accusation that I have acted improperly, nor for effectively calling me a bitch; these I

13669:

And I've only got 13 reverts out of 512 edits, 3 of which were either self-reverts and or for vandalism as Silk Tork himself stated earlier in the Malke 2010 thread. I could be wrong, but I don't think 10 reverts over 3 years constitutes tag-team edit warring.

9068:

since September 2010 and is the third main contributor with 195 edits - 38 of which were reverts; of those, 10 are identified as self-reverts or removing vandalism. North8000 is the main contributor to the talkpage with 1374 edits. In the topic ban discussion

8352:

I fail to see how such editing can be assumed to be constructive or collegial. I would also be inclined to question whether the edits were made in good faith, since the reverting editors didn't even have the courtesy to respond to the related Talk page queries

12578:(cur | prev) 03:32, 6 April 2013‎ Arzel (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (168,567 bytes) (-40)‎ . . (Undid revision 548912272 by The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk)"Generally" and "Strongly" r not supported by the sources, it is both WP:WEASEL and synth.) (undo) 12968:

The Talk page thread is related to Malke's editing at the Tea Party movement article (numerous diffs for reverts are presented), but I don't know if the enforcement actions against violations by Malke referred to in that thread related to editing at the TPm

6729:. The same sections, the same edits. Over and over. In the meantime, the article has not improved and working together to improve it doesn't seem to factor into talk page discussions. Banning one editor won't solve that. North8000 does not edit in a vacuum. 5809:

reverting to do so summarily without thought, to avoid being prevented (by 1RR) from making other constructive reverts and partial reverts. Perhaps if 0RR/self is added (you may not revert any edit which restores an edit you previously made), together with

4074:

After the course of the past month of interaction in these proceedings and in editing the article, I've come to view my earlier proposal of something like temporary topic bans as an unrealistic remedy, but I suppose I should leave the suggestion up, for the

3247:

I wasn't saying you were being biased, Malke, I was saying no one should accuse you of being biased because you only added a couple of editors - which is what AR is doing to me. Using you as an example is all. Apologies if I was unclear and confused things.

7046:

effort to counteract actual popular movements that they see as a threat to their bottom line. It just so happens that their examination of the PR related undertakings tobacco industry uncovered the fact that the TPm is in part an outgrowth of those efforts.

15556:

from other editors and accused me of Wikistalking so I declined to take any further part in that particular dispute, basically to shut him up and avoid conflict. Seven weeks later another editor started a new section on another matter and I replied to him.

9551:) It is as if he is adding bad content to the article as a bargaining chip, the predictable removal of which will give him cover to remove the controversy material that he has vociferously opposed, and continues to oppose, for years ("junk" "trivia", etc). 5092:

i do not plan to make any more edits to the tea party article or talk page. yesterday i brought a source about teaparty.net supporting the starbucks boycott because the starbucks CEO is opposed to gay marriage, the source was rejected as insignificant and

8431:. Perhaps I should apologize for describing it in a manner that caused some confusion. I did not intend to assert that policy with respect to trivia removal or the like had been directly cited. The statement made by Xeonphrenic is fairly self-explanatory. 3459:

thought an ANI you started and i was added to not by you but never diffed was all about me, perhaps you are confused again? this convo has been helpful as it established you require difs from some, but not others, which is what started the ANI, now here.

3605:

the prince slays the dragon. I not only feel you are in error, I've told you that you're dead wrong several times now, and yet you persist. Are you calling me a liar? You're edging into badgering now. IDHT wears pretty thin after the first 3 or 4 times.

5868:

The same 'coherent united front' argument holds for those arguing against inclusion of material related to the so-called 'Astro-turf' aspects, with a shift in the locus of meaning to the opposition between characterizations as grass-roots vs. corporate

2678: 14392:

interaction ban must not deliberately start editing any Knowledge page where the editor found to be in violation is known to be actively editing, as shown by the recent history of the page. This may be seen as provocation and, in extreme cases, may be

7617:

This is generally sound, but it might be read as going too far in suggesting that administrators are acting as administrators even when they are simply content-editors on an article rather than performing administrator actions concerning it. Perhaps:

6079:

observation, and then only to make a "push-back" against the behavior for the sake of the article, not to take them somewhere to try to get them into trouble. And TE is a special case in this respect, because by its definition it is very dispersed.

12554:(cur | prev) 13:30, 7 April 2013‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (168,598 bytes) (-53)‎ . . (rem sentence not conveyed by cited sources; returned reliably sourced content per WP:NOTCONSENSUS, and per admonishment at ANI & BLPN) (undo) 11977:

Your link shows it was another editor who suggested Collect be added. You linked me clerking; you apparently failed to read the edit summary or look at the prior edit by Binksternet which actually added Collect, as well as Thragar Orlando and Arthur

9817:

it does appear North was in the process of rectifying the issue and was simply interrupted. One can fault him for not getting his ducks in a row beforehand, but I don't think that is a basis for any serious action, especially not two years after the

7607:

9) Administrators are expected to lead by example. An administrator is expected to know the policies and guidelines and any action taken by them may be influential on other editors, who trust the administrator to know what is and is not appropriate.

12616:

as the evidence above shows. I think you may be feeling that as long as you don't violate 3RR it's not an edit war. But when you join in with others to revert the same material you are engaged in edit warring. When several people do it, it's called

4007:

When more than one individual is fervently intent on supporting a particular POV on a given article relating to a controversial topic, it would seem that they are on a course that is almost inevitably going to lead to their violating one policy or

3058:

Created an impossible / certain-to-fail situation for me, knowing that it takes an immense amount of history to establish Tendentiousness, and knowing that trying to show it with a few diffs is a recipe for certain failure, you said I needed to do

15677:

both articles and found that Phoenix and Winslow had added derogatory claims to both (without references) the previous day to support his edit in the Franklin article. I placed cite tags on both articles and other editors later reverted his edits.

5393:

ST: as I said, I don't see this one passing. I put it forward for consideration because it appears to me that Rubin is enabling problem editors. If the committee feels that is not grounds for such a remedy, then that's perfectly acceptable to me.

3032:

We disagree rather thoroughly on this. I think the only error I might have made was the one Malke 2010 pointed out, in that it might have been simpler just to block you rather than to go to ANI. I certainly don't recall you "trying to engage" me.

8240:

is a representative thread from 2012 where you are using a metadiscourse based on an anti-trivia approach, supported by Malke, while others are resisting (citing recourse to dispute resolution and policy) your proposed "nuking" of content (i.e.,

5490: 5287:

What is the basis for this? I can understand that some kind of response and closure would be helpful for Arthur Rubin's involvement in the ANI discussion, but is his editing in the topic area problematic? I don't think there's evidence for that.

10454:

Thirdly, Malke attempts to portray herself as inactive on the article during 2011 and 2012, but I have provided a link to substantial discussion in which she is involved in a sort of tag team Talk page POV pushing with North8000--hardly one-off

9145:(cur | prev) 12:49, 12 July 2011‎ Darkstar1st (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (138,507 bytes) (+974)‎ . . (Undid revision 438957801 by Fat&Happy (talk)if racial issues are going to remain part of this article, lets include both sides) (undo) 1322:

7) Articles may be placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee or the community. When an article is under probation, editors making disruptive edits may be subject to various administrative sanctions, depending on the terms of probation.

8001: 7553:

8) Articles may be placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee or the community. When an article is under probation, editors making disruptive edits may be subject to various administrative sanctions, depending on the terms of probation.

7511:

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.

6152: 4666:

I've made it very clear that in my opinion your comments to others are at the root of the problem, as well as how they've responded to you. In my opinion, North8000 should have been blocked for his disruption. You should have been warned of

9773:

knowing BLP violation to work on, there is a phrase in the article right now which implies that Ron Paul (the guy who wants to legalize trade with Cuba) is an isolationist, which is exactly opposite to his deeply held beliefs. Sincerely,

3050:

Immediately declaring that Goethean had not been doing Tendentious editing, that self-check ostensibly being the reason tat they approached you on this. Tendentiousness takes a huge amount of work to check out, how could you have done that

12976:

bearing for not having done so. The Talk page discussion demonstrates that she has been warned by admins about such behavior on the same article, and has been sanctioned for the same types of behavior whether on that article or another.--

9843:

Listen to what you just said. North's edit states that an individual was charged with a crime. As you recognize, the source doesn't even mention that individual's name. That's more than a cosmetic issue. I suspect that if someone claimed

2505:

Instead of diffs, I’m going to post the passages from the Talk page discussion in which she makes the abovementioned comment about Viriditas. Note that the comment was made during the course of discussions at Malke’s Talk page in 2010 on

11380:

Since this relates to sources and the use thereof, I'll make this belated reply to Malke's last comment above. The statement about "right wing corporations" was cited as a block quote on the Talk page because I took it directly from the

4945:

I'm seeing revert editing and negative comments on the talkpage, but I'm not seeing significant problems. The question of whether the reverts are keeping out inappropriate content, or suppressing legitimate content, is open to editorial

1004:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable

13651:

edit could be considered to be a revert. (I once had somebody say that an edit was a "revert" of something done three years before, and somebody said "technically, yes".) I think that Malke's data and summaries are very informative.

2603: 10544:

For what it's worth, here is some information facilitating a comparison of the versions of the article from the point in time in 2010 of Malke's last edit to the article before a long break and her comment of March 2, 2012 on the Talk

9263:

has anything to do with edit-warring. Look at the diff again. North8000 inserted language stating that two private individuals had been charged with serious crimes, with no supporting source. That's a canonical, egregious violation of

3957:

So you infer "collusion" and a secret "affinity group" acting to promote POV editing. Having suggested this hitherto unknown group actually exists, you propose to a "nominal" topic ban on its members. This is indeed a novel approach.

1275:

First, due to the fragmented nature of the TPM, it is inevitable that there is going to be a fair amount of piecemeal editing related to one aspect or another of the activities or the like of one group or another affiliated with "the

9118:(cur | prev) 15:03, 12 July 2011‎ North8000 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (124,945 bytes) (-12,588)‎ . . (→‎Racial issues: No double standard for this section, based on TFD deletion. Either balanced or out. Let's start over.) (undo) 8304:

I was not involved in editing this article prior to the AN/I, basically, but there has been WP:OWN related behavior recently demonstrated on the article. See my comment on this page with time stamp "12:57, 13 April 2013" under Malke

6895:

Geothean, what you described above (making it sound like the issue and effort was to "remove a source" is very misleading, at least with respect to your involvement of me. My core argument was that the material you were warring in

6799:

Your claims of neutrality ring a little hollow seeing as when I tried to add an article from a peer-reviewed public policy journal to the article, Arthur Rubin used every tendentious argument he could think up in order to remove the

1768:. I think the remedy should include the category; it will make determining whether an article comes under DS very simple. Should you feel that is too broad, then I would think some care will need to be taken to determine the scope. 14827:

The above statement is a combination of self-serving claims and exaggerations. First, it was January to June 2011 not January and February 2010. In regards to this article, another editor took Phoenix and Winslow to the Wikiquette

9525:

unsourced content on living persons in violation. Arzel, I advise you that calling another editor "juvenile" may be construed as a personal attack, and suggest your speculations about the supposed motives of others is not helpful.

3627:, difs were the focus of your ANI wording, no matter your intent, which appears to be selective as you did not tell other editors making far more serious allegations the same. North was on a talk page, Xenophrenic was in your ANI. 13624:, I reverted Ubiwit who went to the article and reverted my edit after he became angry on his talk page where he made it plain he was going to take his anger out on that edit. Talk page comment about Malke’s edit at 0726 13 April 11115:(cur | prev) 15:06, 27 April 2013‎ Malke 2010 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (69,438 bytes) (+9)‎ . . (Undid revision 552320189 by Xenophrenic no, you cannot redact my comments. I'm not responsible for the "order" of your answer) (undo) 11039: 5099:, was the reason it was rejected. I also agree most of the problem here is combining hundreds of groups into a "movement", which none claim individually to belong. OWS makes no mention of members who attempted to blow up a bridge 3288:

this appears to be the beginning of things going bad. KC is demanding difs concerning a talk page post by North hours later, yet a week later has yet to demand difs from Xenophrenic who was seeking a topic ban for me at KC's ANI.

14494:

at "several other articles related to U.S. politics." At the above finding of fact proposed by ST regarding Xenophrenic, both on this page and the Proposed Decision page, the final sentence should be edited to read as follows:

9763:

I reverted blanking of the entire two paragraph section. Two year later you or NW are saying that one piece of what I restored was not supported by the source. Looking back, I think that everything about any named individuals

9605:

Good link, if one reads it carefully, on sees that it refutes what you said and implied about me. And having to go back 2 years to find even something that weak (that needs ginning up here to make it sound bad) says even more.

8070:

Thanks for correcting that. I note you omitted that after North8000 proposed desysopping me, Rubin proposed a topic ban instead. I have no quarrel with leaving it out if you wish, but that did occur prior to my filing an RFAR.

5550: 5306: 4700:

Xenophrenic, but your comments often tend to be more abrasive than theirs. As you may have noted with my last olive branch, although I am often very direct /blunt when trying to improve the situaiotn, but harbor no ill will.

2467:

My idea was to start nuking out the trivia and items not ABOUT the TPM per above. Then's we'd have an article 1/2 the size of the current one. And then rbuild with quality relevant stuff. North8000 (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2012

9670:

The first clause of your sentence made me think the natural progression of your comment was "and thus should be banned per the general "At wit's end" principles that the Committee has passed". But different ideas I suppose.

8149:

Neither side has yet been "run off" in the TPM article. Of course this is "caused" by the RW contest/conflict, but in Knowledge terms this is caused by weaknesses and problems with the policies and guidelines. Sincerely,

2951:

I realized if this isn't a finding of fact, I might be considered involved due to this case. A ruling on this is necessary for me moving forward; I must know how the committee views this, and I prefer to know pre-emptively.

15746:

Looking in detail at the first evidence field presented by Goethean under 2/23, at Talk:TPM; (No offense intended, but I will replace "Goethean" by "G", "Malke2010" by "M", "North8000" by "N", and "Arthur Rubin" by "AR" in

7927:. The topic is sensitive, high profile, and attracts polarising views, so editing has been problematic from the start with a combination of vandal edits, edit warring, and concerns about POV. In November 2010, there was an 2701:

give him the benefit of the doubt. The issue was not about you and any posts to suggest you were acting in bad faith should have been redacted by the editors involved. IMHO, there was no proof of bad faith behavior by you.

13439:

i do not think you or arbcom are partial to a pov/editor, nor do i think there are sides. many editors above have made arguments opposite of all the other editors above at one time or another in relation to this article.

3581:. cherry-picking not applicable, i post the quote with ellipses to save space here with the hope those interested will see the context after clicking the link. feel free to post the entire quote if you feel i am in error. 2060:

Baseless. Darkstar has probably the most gentle wording style of any of the editors there. Their style (very very brief wording) is unique which can get misread. Even when they are "hanging tough" they are not uncivil.

15216:

I'm not "presenting evidence", I'm replying to the ridiculous claims you are making. What has this got to do with TPM anyway, it should have been lodged at a more appropriate noticeboard if you think you have a problem.

14694:

as to why this is in the Tea Party Movement workshop as I have made no edits to the Tea Party Movement article and only eight edits to the Talk page, six in section "Closure request" and two in section "17th Amendment."

6827:

Arzel, Darkstar1st, Collect, ThargorOrlando. And of course this journal said nothing about Klansmen or racism, it simply use good sources to analyze the financial sources of the organizations that funded the movement. —

5719:"the 1RR restriction ... tends to reward tendentious editing" and "an active POV-warrior can add multiple contentious statements, and the "reverting" editor might only be able to remove one". Are there examples of this? 15046: 8259:", which sort of sounds like an arbitrary assertion. Was it your intention to accuse them of being "editors inappropriately dominating an article to their preferred POV"? Where are the diffs? Why do you blame them for " 8092:

Silktork, if you would like to really understand, you must realize that there isn't one locus, are really three different topics involved here; one begat the other but they are in reality best understood as unrelated.

12439: 4349:

ST: Clearly I should not have spent so much of my evidence space on AR, leaving none for N8. That said, editors are regularly topic banned for personal attacks and creating a hostile atmosphere - battleground behavior

1696:

There was discussion that the scope of this case should include US politics rather than just the Tea party movement. But I don't think that is what you mean by "related articles". Do you mean the articles mentioned by

4065: 15724: 9558:

is a write-up of how that "union thug" story entered the news media and what has happened to it since. Quite a story, esp. considering that this is the type of content that North8000 would have in the TPM article. —

9490:

I think you just gave away any authority to do any of that. Your actions here seem juvenile and vindictive to say the least. You seem more interesting in "getting" North than trying to improve WP or this article.

14449: 10093:

since January 2010, and is the main contributor with 512 edits - 13 of which are reverts; of which, 3 are identified as self-reverts or removing vandalism. Malke 2010 has made 1129 edits to the talkpage. There was

10007:

on Arzel, and somebody may consider doing that as there are concerns regarding his editing. The other Committee members will also be casting their eye over Arzel's conduct and may have a different opinion to mine.

4823:

Even topic bans of a week for the editors I've suggested would give Gothean and Xenophrenic a chance to try to rework the article in a manner that might prove productive after the ban expired and the other editors

14534: 11807:

have basically zero concern about someone occasionally making an obvious quip about an editor's username and I think it is far less "helpful" to use it as the basis for some crusade against the offending editor.--

5854:

becomes fragmented, and it is a formidable task to craft a coherent narrative out of the activities and utterances emanating from the agglomeration of groups that often betray contradictory stances to one another.

10820:

As with most other contributors to this article, there is an unfortunate tendency at times to revert, but I am not seeing anything significant considering the amount of time Xenophrenic has spent on the article.

10354:

Maybe this is primarily a content dispute related material, but the edit summaries by Malke and Arzel skewed policy in ways that seem to represent conduct issues as much as content, and they refused to engage in

8940:

since 2010, making 43 edits - 24 of which have been reverts. Goethean has edited the talk page 191 times. After a break for nearly a year, talkpage involvement restarted in Feb in 2013 with a tense discussion on

2029: 9136:(cur | prev) 14:36, 12 July 2011‎ North8000 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (138,485 bytes) (+952)‎ . . (Undid removal by PhGustaf. Starting point...I'll upgrade and cite this during the next 15 minuutes.) (undo) 6682:

Please note, I've removed Xenophrenic from my proposed remedy. I mistakenly attributed two threads with tendentious editing to him. In going back to find diffs, I discovered this mistake and have apologized to

15856: 14425: 9797:, which makes clear that one individual had not yet been charged with anything, while the second individual isn't even mentioned. You keep saying that this is just "one piece", or just "5%" of your edit - thus 5861:

To editors attempting to present the fractured nature of the TPM, such so-called trivia are key pieces of information to serve that purpose insofar as such content demonstrates a lack of cohesion and agreement.

3718:

I didn't start them up again. It was over. Then Goethean made a very nasty comment on a totally different topic and I noted that such nastiness was against guidelines. Then you want after me for saying

2008:

one edit to the article since August 2012, which was reverted, am I really battling? The incivility claims are from 2011 when I attempted to remove grossly offensive terms from the article, which remain still.

14614: 12566:(cur | prev) 06:14, 6 April 2013‎ Snowded (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (168,598 bytes) (+31)‎ . . (Well it was a compromise by an uninvolved editor, restore pending proper resolution on the talk page) (undo) 10196:

In hindsight, it likely would have been better to not engage with Ubikwit, because I can now see the long run. But in the moment, the problem is you always want to AGF and you think commenting might solve the

9115:(cur | prev) 15:06, 12 July 2011‎ The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (137,533 bytes) (+12,588)‎ . . (Undid revision 439089070 by North8000 (talk)rv. tit-for-tat mass blanking) (undo) 7081:

In the moderated discussion — moderated by SilkTork — as well as on the main Talk page, Xenophrenic has been tendentious and pushing a POV. Fighting to keep negative trivia in the article, and give it greater

3820: 3065:(arguable) I would think that you would know by now that vague behavior-related topic at AN and ANI nearly always turn into chaotic mob-violence, so taking it there in a vague fashion was an arguably an error. 2194:

9127:(cur | prev) 14:42, 12 July 2011‎ North8000 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (138,523 bytes) (+27)‎ . . (→‎Alleged racist attacks by opponents of the tea party: + phrase from reference, reference coming) (undo) 6918:

North and Arthur, do you have any comment on topic banning Goethean and Xenophrenic? Because I think we're suppose to keep the comments to the relevant topic. Forgive me, but this seems like talk page stuff.

5422:

This workshop page is due to close today. The evidence page is already closed. I'm not sure whether you're asking me to find and post more evidence here, or simply politely saying this isn't going to happen.

3109:

Yes, the original accusations by you were a little stale. It is too bad you started up with them again, and then accused me of being involved due to my trying to get a diff from you, and warning you, earlier.

14900:

Here it is two years later and Phoenix and Winslow is still edit-warring to not only keep the Republican mention out but also adding the false claim that a source was "self published" in order to lower it's

14553: 16169:

filing is a Bad Idea(tm). I forsee endless wikilawyering about what is active or not, and gaming by two or three editors making sure the "discussing" continues. This is RulesCreep, and I advise against it.

13593:

I don't see anywhere in my editing record here that I engage in edit warring. I'd like to point out that my last edit to TPm prior to this was on December 9, 2010 and it was to add a wikilink. Recent edits

10187:

and Dylan Flaherty. At some point, Jpgordon reminded Izauze on his talk page to sign in when editing and not use his IP. Eventually Dylan was indef blocked by LessHeard vanU. Izauze was blocked for socking

9121:(cur | prev) 14:48, 12 July 2011‎ The Four Deuces (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (137,533 bytes) (-1,125)‎ . . (→‎Alleged racist attacks by opponents of the tea party: Remove section - see talk page) (undo) 4228:(cur | prev) 20:50, 18 February 2013‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (164,401 bytes) (-577)‎ . . (rem moneybomb party; no indication in source of any relation to the "Tea Party movement") (undo) 4216:(cur | prev) 23:23, 18 February 2013‎ Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (165,368 bytes) (+836)‎ . . (Add content tag; much of this is subject to edit wars, without any credible discussion.) (undo) 2782:

I am taking everything said in that random mob-violence snake-pit situation (the ANI) by those while they were being eaten as being only in that context, and not having any meaning outside of that context.

2185:

5255:

Even assuming that Arthur Rubin was wrong, no one should be admonished for good faith mistakes. Editors should be allowed to voice their opinions without fear of admonishment simply for having an opinion.

5158:

7) Arthur Rubin is reminded that as an administrator, he must be responsive to requests for information, especially when he has called for sanctions or other administrative actions against another editor.

3686:

By the same day that you said you were going to look at it (Feb 19th) you already said to Goethean that it that it appeared that my coments were motivated by a content dispute rather than concern about TE

3305:":I don't know how clear I can make this. If you cannot make a case to someone else, you need to hush up about it. Otherwise you're just slinging around unsubstantiated allegations, which might rebound on 2293:

I admit that the comment was improper, but it was made after reverts by Malke and Arzel to the same content with no responses to Talk page queries and I was a little frustrated and a rather sleep-deprived.

96: 4950:

then topic-banning the current editors may just be shifting the problem onto the next batch of editors. If it is the topic, then the current restrictions are not working well enough to overcome problems.

4243:(cur | prev) 13:28, 18 February 2013‎ Darkstar1st (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (161,163 bytes) (-3,143)‎ . . (→‎Influence of Koch Industries: removed redundant section already covered in history) (undo) 3853: 2890:

While past admonishments and or sanctions oftentimes do show evidences of problematic behavior, the evidence that Arthur Rubin has abused his tools or position in this situation are exceptionally weak at

1014:

It definitely is the case that RS/N should be used more in relation to such indirect content disputes, but the discussion related to the tobacco article there shows that even there making progress can be

14386: 10678:

There is one relatively simple comparison to make in the above versions of the article, and that relates to the Commentaries section in relation to Malke's article Talk page comment of 28 August 2011 to

9426:

Sheesh. I have the luxury of walking away at this point, but I'm starting to understand what it must be like to be engaged in a content dispute with you, and why other editors rapidly become frustrated.

14954:

article where Phoenix and Winslow was involved in a content dispute in good faith. WLRoss eventually became aggressively involved in the content dispute against Phoenix and Winslow and other editors at

13781:

My comment is probably just a sidebar on this, but my post sort of accidentally indirectly mis-implied that you are an active editor there. I know that you have not been, and didn't mean to imply that.

13415:; if an editor has committed misconduct, then they deserve to go. If it so happens that the bulk of those editors end up on one "side" (and your thinking of the topic like that doesn't help you against 5068: 1010:

Dealing with repeated and persistent irrational opposition regarding sources is not a joke, as it prevents anything from getting done on the article that would actually reflect the state of what RS are

12717:

I'd like to point out that USER:UBIKWIT's slow-moving edit war contributed to the article being locked. He needs to be included. He's participated here and that makes him subject to sanctions as well.

14561:

1.1) Since the initiation of this Arbitration Committee proceeding, substantial evidence has been provided here and at an RfC/U proving that Xenophrenic has violated the Knowledge principle regarding

4602:

than simply saying, "I've found an RS that should settle the matter." It would seem that if North8000 is to be banned or sanctioned for one outburst, which was a response to another Goethean comment,

11827: 2677:

That's a rather sweeping accusation. Are you certain it is "most" and not merely "some"? I only counted two, out of a total of at least 34 editors (some commented before it was moved to the subpage),

14454:

1) Since the initiation of this Arbitration Committee proceeding, substantial evidence has been provided here and at an RfC/U proving that Xenophrenic has violated the Knowledge principle regarding

14028: 13964:

1) Administrators are expected to be leading examples of compliance with regards to conduct policies. This means maintaining a collaborative and civil composure when interacting with other editors.

1764:

SilkTork, I mean at least that. Unfortunately, due to space and time constraints, I was unable to do so, but I believe it would be fairly easy to document similar issues on all articles included in

15539: 11118:(cur | prev) 12:42, 27 April 2013‎ MiszaBot III (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (69,429 bytes) (-18,161)‎ . . (Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 28d) to User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2013.) (undo) 5763:

with. And that is an enduring problem on TPM. And I'm not speaking to the 1RR, I'm responding to policy in general. As for 1RR, the need for it speaks to the larger issues which 1RR can't resolve.

5701: 3488:

yes, you started the ANI about North providing no difs, Xenophrenic added me without difs, you ask for the difs then oppose my topic ban when none provided, yet take no action against Xenophrenic?

2487:

undesirable (or irrelevant) by Malke and North8000, as it were. It also struck me that the respective section titles are somewhat similar: “This article is a train wreck”, and “Worst article EVER”.

14732:

was being perceived as Wikistalking, and you indicated that you had stopped editing the page "as soon as was brought up," you waited six weeks for the heat to die down, and returned to the page,

12563:(cur | prev) 06:48, 6 April 2013‎ Malke 2010 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (168,571 bytes) (-27)‎ . . (rmv no per no WP:RS plus consensus on talk page is against use of 'anti-immigration') (undo) 6698:

I have subsequently gathered evidence to show Xenophrenic's behaviours on the article. I've removed the strike outs I previously added for that reason. The material is posted under "Xenophrenic."

4234:(cur | prev) 20:20, 18 February 2013‎ North8000 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (161,185 bytes) (+22)‎ . . (→‎Commentaries on origin: +"organizations within" . The movement is not an entity) (undo) 3899:

ST: It is something to decide, but it's not necessarily a two-choice decision. There is always the possibility it is both. The topic is a problem, and there are problem editors editing the topic.

2412:

1) Eliminate the "Commentaries" section. 2) Summarize everything that comes after it. The racism, Islam monkey comment, etc., are all WP:Undue weight. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

2371:

I don’t know whether she is insinuating that maybe I am a sock of one of the editors she mentions, but it seems possible. What does she mean by "the long run"? It sounds somewhat incoherent to me.

11619:

since 2010 and is a significant contributor with 131 edits - 50 of which have been reverts; of those, 8 are identified as self-reverts. Arthur Rubin has made 298 edits to the talkpage. There was

8170:

of diffs on each that I gave in the AN/I. This is only to support the accuracy of what I said, it is NOT to take action (other than something like a caution or warning) against either of them.

5528: 5265: 2885: 2304:

cases pending, and perhaps she is trying to prevent edits to the article until that discussion takes place, but I don't believe we have been requested to stop editing the article in the interim.

527: 91: 12328: 10686:

That begs the question as to why the call for such a radical course of action such as eliminating the section when there had been no corresponding radical change to the article in the interim?--

8615:

I just noticed something in the initial "locus2" wording which may reflect a misunderstanding of what happened / the sequence of events. The discussion at the article about my TE statement was

7563:

In recent years, the ArbCom has typically used the "discretionary sanctions" terminology rather than "probation," although some community-based remedies (as in this case) still use "probation."

4222:(cur | prev) 21:34, 18 February 2013‎ North8000 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (165,109 bytes) (+577)‎ . . (Undid revision 538921568 by Xenophrenic (talk) Material is obviously relevant.) (undo) 927:, and requires that editors strive to (a) ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources and (b) ensure that viewpoints are not given 10184:

I do not know Ubikwit. I've never edited with him. I try to avoid replying to him now because he seems to have a similar fixation with me as did User:Izauze and his two socks, which were an IP

9686: 6043: 5731: 3506:

bringing here the people whom I had already decided were the problems on that article, which was not resolved at ANI. I added you when I saw some of your edits while searching the history. But

2717:

I said one of those sentences backwards, but as I got the rest right I trust everyone knew it was a typo. Fixed from "I see no reason to think most were" to "I see no reason to think most were

2182:

I do not know Ubikwit. I've never edited with him. I try to avoid replying to him now because he seems to have a similar fixation with me as did User:Izauze and his two socks, which were an IP

14070:

You are in error. You made an uncivil comment regarding Goethean; I brought this to your attention. As the first instance was of you accusing Goethean without evidence or willingness to offer

14065: 8349:

I read some of the reference introduced by Malke and incorporated a substantial amount of content that seemed highly relevant to the TPm agenda, only to meet with yet another banket reversion.

6693: 2641:

6) Arthur Rubin has disrupted Knowledge to prove a point; has failed to respond to requests for rationale and evidence while continuing to assert sanctions on another editor were called for.

15659: 12569:(cur | prev) 04:54, 6 April 2013‎ Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (168,567 bytes) (-31)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Xenophrenic (talk): Actually, that one isn't sourced. (TW)) (undo) 6073: 4488:

and Goethean responds with his view of apparently why they'll never agree and ends with the suggestion that his view is the Knowledge view or rather the view that is acceptable on Knowledge:

15761:

AR's comment: Malke2010 suggests subarticle on about the fiscal issues, stating that "the new article wouldn't resemble the kluge that exists right now." That's not the usual reason for a

12263: 12090:

As with a number of contributors to this article, I see heated behaviour, but most of the more questionable stuff is two years ago, and there's not enough recent stuff to warrant sanctions.

11216:". . .And not to change the subject, but did I just see you link to Talking Points Memo, and DailyKos yesterday? You did wash your hands afterward, right? People are going to talk, you know. 6194: 15057: 15019: 14680: 14106: 12248: 11721: 9893: 9665: 8876: 5432: 5417: 5403: 4633:

meritless) accusations should tell readers exactly where you stand on this issue. You are heavily involved, and you have no objectivity on the subject. You are just arguing for one side. —

4441: 4398: 4363: 3908: 3800: 1797: 858:

1) The purpose of Knowledge is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the encyclopedia to advance

16326:

Schmidt, Christopher W., The Tea Party and the Constitution (March 18, 2011). 39 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 193 (2011); Chicago-Kent College of Law Research Paper, p. 194 (2011)

15312:

that Ugg boots was edited by us both before the Franklin dispute and that I was editing Franklin before you, he "warned" both of us as he couldn't determine if you were instead stalking me

14814: 14172: 13712: 10162:

With regard to the edits he's talking about below, the article history speaks for itself, but I attempted to make a compromise edit with a better source that quoted the tea party directly.

9650: 6001: 2160:

With regard to the edits he's talking about below, the article history speaks for itself, but I attempted to make a compromise edit with a better source that quoted the tea party directly.

1282:

This, in turn, point to the main division relating to the topic disputes that drive a good deal of the tendentious editing. That is, namely, the so-called "astro-turf" vs authentic divide.

13730: 13396:. this may or may not be necessary for all of us, yet if all of the above editors are included, it would be impossible to finger point later or suggest arbcom is partial to a pov/editor. 12947: 12551:(cur | prev) 13:33, 7 April 2013‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (168,640 bytes) (+42)‎ . . (replace original link from arch; (still looking to see where NYT moved it)) (undo) 12408: 11801: 11712:

TDA, I don't expect to be called a bitch due to my uName any more than I expect to be raped due to a short skirt; in both cases I think "she was asking for it" is not a helpful approach.

9879: 9854: 9838: 9017: 8676: 4090: 85: 74: 12991: 6867:

There is still good reason to believe that the article represents the views of the authors outside their particular field of expertise and outside the field of expertise of the journal (

3222: 2695: 2615: 1364:

8) While wider community participation can help resolve disputes and issues, participating editors are expected to remain civil, to assume good faith, and to avoid disruption to prove a

12310: 12280: 12003: 11989: 11972: 9848:

committed a crime on a widely read, highly Google-ranked website, using your real name, you'd be a little less blase about getting one's ducks in a row before making an edit like that.

7105: 6794: 6779: 5087: 3636: 3615: 3590: 3570: 3550: 3524: 3497: 3483: 3469: 3454: 3432: 3418: 3402: 3385: 3356: 3342: 3298: 3144: 2895: 2045: 2018: 15695: 15594: 15568: 15441: 15383: 15324: 15274: 15226: 15187: 15149: 15104: 15068: 14916: 14875: 14848: 14745: 14703: 13449: 13434: 11735: 9534: 9211: 6752: 5446: 4808:

North has repeatedly argued that the article is in bad shape, and that is an incontrovertible fact. However, I find North's comportment as an editor to have contributed to that status.

4473: 4457: 4412: 4378: 3894: 3271: 3257: 3242: 2764: 2750: 2730: 2710: 2142: 1859: 1845: 1827: 1777: 1648: 1633: 1615: 16195: 15494: 14132: 14092: 9700: 7340:

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.

6653: 5913: 5820: 5136: 5007: 4914: 4342: 3775: 3758: 3126: 3087: 3042: 3027: 3010: 2978: 2864: 2848: 2072: 1944: 1620:

I think you were definitely right to close that thread and come here. I wonder if it was a full moon that night. I still think a block was in order. Next time, remember you have that

12365: 12350: 11948: 11707: 10799:

since March 2010, and is the second main contributor with 397 edits - 63 of which have been reverts; 5 of which are identified as self-reverts or removing vandalism. Xenophrenic was

10146: 9576: 9563: 9228: 9124:(cur | prev) 14:44, 12 July 2011‎ North8000 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (138,658 bytes) (+135)‎ . . (→‎Alleged racist attacks by opponents of the tea party: + ref and cite) (undo) 8080: 8065: 6988:

That basically instantiates a scenario where editors not supportive of the TPM can only introduce piecemeal bits that address only one of the constitutive parts of the non-whole TPM.

5513: 5388: 4985: 4324: 3924:

I have a somewhat novel--perhaps--proposal that doesn't fit under any of the categories in this section, so I'm going to beg your pardons and be so presumptuous as to post this here.

2961: 2539:

previous enforcement actions. Nobody wants to see a repeat of those. Again I request that you please read and closely follow WP:OWN. Will Beback talk 09:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

15882: 14367: 13344: 11963:

you brought this case to arbcom after North did not supply diffs for a talk page accusation of TE. wouldn't failing to provide diffs for a topic ban be a far more serious omission?

10987: 10973: 9280: 9197: 9172: 6970: 6890: 5772: 5116: 4554: 3445:

behavior are on the evidence page here. And now I'm going to ask you to cease this off topic line of discussion here; this has nothing to do with whether I was or was not involved.

3370: 3203: 1289:. In that case, there was an incident in which the CEO resigned because of statements made by an executive heading the fund raising department in a sting set up by (TPM?) activists. 13464: 11225: 5837: 5103:(they even pushed the detonator) and even deleted the OWS/Cleveland chapter article, yet if a dog barks it is included on the TP article, i give up and am moving on to topics like 5029:

6) Darkstar1st is topic banned from the Tea party movement, broadly construed, including talk pages, indefinitely. He may apply to have the ban lifted after a period of one year.

1517:

and "respond promptly and civilly to queries", and be prepared to provide evidence in the form of diffs, and be open to discussion, when they call for sanctions on other editors.

975: 16229: 14298: 13776: 12726: 11323: 11309: 11044:

Recent edit wars over comments Xenophrenic either doesn’t like, or wishes to rearrange without the editor’s permission: On Tea Party movement talk page: First, Arthur Rubin said:

8535:

dominating an article. All the time what I am seeing is people editing an article and disagreeing - but the actual nuance of one side being worse than the other, is not emerging.

6738: 6707: 5804:(to SilkTork). I don't have a specific example. Hypothetically, if editor X adds contentious material A and B and removes contentious material C and D, in an article subject to 5757: 5049:

5 and 6 are "pick one". This is my first choice; I believe it will encourage editing in other areas of Knowledge, and picking up some much needed experience working with others.

4614: 4565: 4541: 4519: 3982: 3967: 16246: 16214: 13807: 13793: 13762: 13679: 13405: 13377: 13360: 12665: 11207: 11121:(cur | prev) 19:36, 26 April 2013‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)‎ . . (87,590 bytes) (-9)‎ . . (returning the order of my responses to the order in which they were made) (undo) 11112:(cur | prev) 15:09, 27 April 2013‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)‎ . . (69,429 bytes) (-9)‎ . . (returning the order of my responses to the order in which they were made) (undo) 11109:(cur | prev) 15:12, 27 April 2013‎ Malke 2010 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (69,438 bytes) (+9)‎ . . (Undid revision 552425922 by Xenophrenic (talk) STOP. Yu are edit warring.) (undo) 10847: 9910: 9733: 9469: 9139:(cur | prev) 14:16, 12 July 2011‎ PhGustaf (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (137,533 bytes) (-952)‎ . . (Reverted 2 edits by Darkstar1st (talk): Rv uncited illiteracy. (TW)) (undo) 9133:(cur | prev) 14:37, 12 July 2011‎ North8000 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (138,493 bytes) (+8)‎ . . (→‎Racist attacks by opponents the tea party: npov the section header) (undo) 8650: 8481: 8403: 7654: 6928: 6911: 6846: 6832: 5789: 4885:

3 and 4 are "pick one". This is my first choice; I beleive it will encourage editing in other areas of Wikipeida, and picking up some much needed experience working with others.

4865:

4) North8000 is topic banned from the Tea party movement, broadly construed, including talk pages, indefinitely. He may apply to have the ban lifted after a period of one year.

4017: 3998: 3229:(e/c) I was merely pointing out that not including Goethean and Xenophrenic could be seen as involvement, i.e., showing a bias. That's why I pointed out Goethean's violations of 3068:

With the original topic having gone disengaged and stale, going to ANI on the basis of a single comment on an unrelated topic, my comment about a nasty comment that Goethen made.

1836:. Click on the category for a list. Or look at the categories in any given article to see if that category is present, and if the category is there, then it is in that category. 12912: 12683: 12634: 12607: 11163: 10953: 10921: 10889: 10871: 9485: 8588: 8207: 6861: 5058: 4793:

If I had more time, I would make the effort to explicate an instance or two further, but I have provided a couple of diffs to threads where such behavior can be seen, I believe.

4680: 4661: 4652: 4637: 4594: 3876: 2672: 1759: 520: 69: 16281:

time for more people in the long run, on the one hand, and hopefully actually make some progress on rectifying the problems that motivated the conflagration in the first place.

14959:

and related articles in October 2011, and continued the content dispute for the next two years. This editing activity included his improper closure of a Request for Comment at

13747: 12757: 12651: 12425: 11369: 11184: 10425: 9807: 9785: 9756: 9517: 9450: 9433: 9421: 9405: 9385: 9368: 8858: 8607: 8568: 8459:

Disagree. I prefer to abide by Knowledge's dispute resolution process, instead of your proposal to edit war your POV edits upon the article over the objection of other editors.

8284:

ignoring what I just wrote and and trying to put words in my mouth that I didn't say or intend, and mis-stating what I just said, so on those I'll just say see what I wrote.

8181: 8160: 8139: 8038:

The post to which you link was me organizing and listing proposed topic bans, rather than proposing myself. I would appreciate a tweak to the verbiage to reflect this, thanks.

6997: 6090: 5470: 4749: 4732: 4711: 2319: 1024: 16306: 11922: 11544: 11410:

Look, it's true that many of the same players involved with CART back then are involved with Freedomworks and Americans for Prosperity groups now. But the truth is, the whole

11291: 10722:

Had I been more circumspect, I would have pointed out a corollary between the "mired in excessive details" comment and the previous references to "nuking out the trivia", etc.

10701: 10663: 10527: 10358:

It bears noting that even though Malke did not respond to the queries on the Talk page of the article, she did attempt to engage me in a different manner on my User Talk page

10003:

its reach beyond the case pages; and this case is not about Arzel, but about conduct related to the Tea Party movement article. There is mention on the AN/I page of opening a

9302: 8623:

topic, a response to Goethean's comment/accusations to Malke on their sub-article idea. In the locus above, it appears that the these were thought to be the same situation.

8547: 8466:

Xenophrenic didn't exactly cite policy or quote it, but referred to it indirectly with respect to making recourse to WP dispute resolution in opposition to POV edit warring.--

8295: 7062: 7014: 5894: 5499: 5358: 5340: 5322: 4894: 4850: 4833: 4301: 4275: 4200: 4182: 4034: 1734: 1639:

admin abused their tools" etc. Most of those are because admins remembered they had "special admin Twinkle". It is often best to be slow and sure, rather than quick to block.

11955:, it was you, KillerChihuahua, who added Collect, which is especially troubling since you obviously cannot remember. also troubling is the fact you would propose a topic ban 11256: 5878: 3952: 2794: 11515:

Thargor Orlando is not named as a party, and has no significant part to play. Information placed here as Thargor Orlando was one of those for whom a topic ban was proposed.

11451: 11128:

Here is the comment I made on his talk page. Note he changed the section title I'd made and he also did the same thing to me there that he did on Arthur Rubin's talk page.

10744: 10502: 10470: 8375: 7382:

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

6116:

6) North asked KC a question regarding resolving the dilemma posed by finding #5. KC erred by refusing to address or respond to the reasonable point of the question.

3190: 2557: 16290: 16202:

thing that this case came to ArbCom. It doesn't sound like there will be sanctions, but the article should still come under ArbCom control at least for the next six months.

11103:(cur | prev) 15:28, 27 April 2013‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,684 bytes) (+3,005)‎ . . (+responses to individual comments again, for readability; +cmt) (undo) 9500: 5241: 3741: 2686:

battlefield mindset, others very probably due to frustration at a long running problem on the article. I believe many editors were genuinely trying to resolve the problem.

1606:

would hardly be the case if you thought North8000 were the sole issue. As he is not the sole issue, I contend my decision to take this to ANI was the appropriate decision.

1037:

3) Knowledge users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct from all sides of a dispute, such as

15617: 15455: 14241: 5909: 4805:

I would seriously hope that you take into consideration my proposal of a novel sanctions regime even on an experimental basis, as this problem is not unique to this topic.

4225:(cur | prev) 20:56, 18 February 2013‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (164,532 bytes) (+131)‎ . . (a little more relevant than other talking heads; +ref) (undo) 2937: 1806:

except that 3 years ago it was voted to keep separate from TPM. I don't believe they have issues over there. I'm not familiar with any other tea party articles other than

405: 15036:

with him. While I did return it was in March 2011 and I had little interaction with him. The content dispute in question did not occur until October 2011. In regards to

14015: 9130:(cur | prev) 14:38, 12 July 2011‎ North8000 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (138,496 bytes) (+3)‎ . . (→‎Alleged racist attacks by opponents the tea party: grammar) (undo) 5188: 2597: 12560:(cur | prev) 15:27, 6 April 2013‎ Phoenix and Winslow (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (168,567 bytes) (-4)‎ . . (→‎Agenda: CORRECTING GRAMMAR. Don't tase me bro) (undo) 11503: 11040:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Archive_20#Al_Hunt.27s_.22Letter_from_Washington.22_shouldn.27t_be_attributed_to_the_New_York_Times.2C_but_Bloomberg_News

5582: 63: 7078:

anyone else; and the conduct of everyone else would require, at the most, a 0RR restriction for a few months, and continued obedience to the terms of article probation.

4403:

SilkTork, the only time I've seen North8000 disruptive is that incident on the TPM talk page that lead to the ANI and here. I will go back and search out the archives.

3196:

That would be KC showing bias, not KC being involved. It's still good grounds for removal from taking administrative and quasi-administrative actions on the topic. —

1713: 1300:

Most of the tendentious interaction I've seen has been on the Talk page, and much of it relates to sources and the application thereof in the above-described context.--

16178: 14941: 14633: 13573: 13546: 12963:

referred to below involving Viriditas and Will Beback, which would seem to indicate that she had been sanctioned for behavior relating to reverts and violating WP:OWN.

10301:

A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.

10219: 8047: 5300: 4205:

I have looked again, because what I missed is the tag teaming, and also - of course - the revert restriction on the article. I think 18 Feb is a representative sample:

2217: 1600: 442: 274: 14777:. WLRoss and Apostle12 relied on a book written by Nick Bryant as their primary source. Phoenix and Winslow brought this dispute to the attention of the community at 13559: 13520: 12709: 11620: 11089: 6330: 4962: 4499: 2330:

Since I've already invested a fair amount of time in these proceedings, and have been compelled to look more closely at various things, I’m going to note the results.

14768: 13492: 12078: 11698:

feel require an apology. In short, he has offered an apology for his least offense, while ignoring his greater ones. One presumes he still feels justified in those.

10808: 4774: 15686:

As per previous section I first edited Tea Party movement, which Phoenix and Winslow was already editing, on 22 April 2013 but I never went there by following him.

13533: 13047:

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.

12539: 10095: 7572: 7096:

it. A topic ban is appropriate, to protect all articles related to U.S. politics. There are literally millions of other articles that he could constructively edit.

6648:

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.

6284:

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.

6111: 4802:

Silk Tork, I would say that it is a combination of the topic of the TPM itself as well as the conduct of editors in relation to the problematic nature of the topic.

4574: 4164: 4101:

2) All involved editors in the Tea party movement topic area are encouraged to try to collaborate and work constructively instead of accusing others of misconduct.

3815:

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.

3726:

You immediately proposed topic bans, and immediately defended Goethean against bans. Later that mob violence situation ensued, probably more than anyone intended.

1396: 13506: 13096: 12557:(cur | prev) 03:48, 7 April 2013‎ RichardBond (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (168,651 bytes) (+84)‎ . . (→‎On issues of race, bigotry and public perception) (undo) 12176: 11093:

And on Arthur Rubin's talk page just today. He moved my comments and I moved them back and when he kept reverting, I told him to re-edit his own comments instead.

10111:

I see no problems with this editor who - other than recently - appears to be mainly using discussion rather than reverting as a means to address content disputes.

9070: 8246:

the editor who has done the most "have been reverting to their preferred state" (but normally reverting by editing rather than the "revert" button) is Xenophrenic

4240:(cur | prev) 13:46, 18 February 2013‎ Goethean (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (164,306 bytes) (+3,143)‎ . . (Undid revision 538868096 by Darkstar1st (talk)) (undo) 1687:

article and related articles have been subject to edit warring, partisan editing, and generally incivil behavior. This has at times spilled out into noticeboards.

1241:

of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from the affected articles. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.

1182: 1050: 13949: 13587: 8946: 5519:

faith. Further, I don't see any evidence to support this sanction. Indeed, Arthur Rubin is attribute to Knowledge and should be thanked for his contributions.

1286: 1272:

Though not a party to this action and having minimal experience editing the article and participating in related discussions, I have gleaned a couple of insights.

13642: 11881: 8634: 8505: 8120: 7636: 5905: 2810: 207: 16154: 14023: 13663: 8528: 8328:

Can this be seen as tag teaming? The "unbelievable POV pushing" I am accused of in the edit summary was never explained, even though I requested an explanation.

3097:

I don't know what you think the error is here. If you want to complain about disruption (or any misbehavior) to an admin, you need to provide at least one diff.

2003: 1309: 519:

which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the

13323: 12208: 9986: 9101: 8278: 7256:

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.

3705:

You completely missed or misheard the point. I said that it was impossible to show TE editing with one or a few diffs, such requires hundreds of observations.

1297:

high-impact POV that was apparently being sought, everything was nixed, leaving something of a hole in the article, certainly not informing the reading public.

910: 58: 29: 16275: 15362:

I don't have to defend my behavior, I'm having to refute the false claims you are making about my behavior, claims you are making without providing any diffs.

14083:

deaf to my reasons for opening the ANI thread; you have repeatedly tried to paint this as a "dispute" between the two of us. Nothing could be less accurate.

13854: 12456:

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.

10216: 9859:

If it were up there for a grand total of fifteen minutes before being balanced and made accurate as North stated was his intent then I really wouldn't care.--

8439:

We need to delete that. And over the objections of the approx 2 folks who have kept this article locked down in POV junk status because they like it that way.

8428: 8237: 2917:

I don't see that KC is involved. I have a question for KC, though, which may be underlying what North is concerned about. When approached for advice, KC gave

2214: 1928: 12888: 12445: 11893:

Collect is not named as a party, and has no significant part to play. Information placed here as Collect was one of those for whom a topic ban was proposed.

11527: 11065: 10191:. The IP hounded me and was warned by an admin. Izauze was eventually unblocked, but has not edited in over a year. He appears to have abandoned his account. 2993:

involved if all they do is act in an administrative capacity. You can repeat your belief until the cows come home, but it won't hold water. I quote from the

2189:. The IP hounded me and was warned by an admin. Izauze was eventually unblocked, but has not edited in over a year. He appears to have abandoned his account. 843: 436: 10243: 7720: 3135:

you asked for difs, which have yet to be provided, wouldn't that be the greater violation of not diffing? North didn't even bring charges against Goethean.

14249: 13839:

had not been no bigger a blip on the radar screen than any of the other editors I have described in these proceedings as being part of an affinity group.--

12102: 11647:

10:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC) The main complaints against Arthur Rubin appear to be in relation to his behaviour at the AN/I thread, and his responses to KC.

11144: 9182:. The fact that he (and Darkstar1st) are still defending edits like this is prima facie evidence that they have zero proper understanding of NPOV and BLP. 5883:

I have consistently argued against trivia and for broader level information. So I was in favor of including coverage of the astroturf assertions, as such.

4570:, which started the current dispute, was constructive, and what you would have advised the accused parties to do in response to his accusations. Thanks. — 2819:, closed 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC), Arthur Rubin was "admonished for threatening to use his administrator tools to advance his position in a dispute." 2636: 2335:

First, I've been compelled to look more closely because Malke made some unusual comments about me above (17:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)), including the following.

14444: 12587:(cur | prev) 23:47, 4 April 2013‎ AzureCitizen (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (168,607 bytes) (+62)‎ . . (Restored some non-controversial edits.) (undo) 11675: 10123: 9617: 9343: 3791:

I don't see how KC is involved. It sounds to me like one (or more?) editors simply disagree with their admin actions. That doesn't make them involved.

2241: 2128: 14033:

1) Over the course of her interaction with the other parties KillerChihuahua has conducted herself in an uncivil fashion and impeded collegial behavior.

12959:

which she has been previously blocked (possibly in relation to the same article), and that she "made reverts based on policy". The deeper context is the

10833: 3361:

what is more confusing is why you insist on a dif here, and not from Xenophrenic which was actually part of an ANI, not just some idle talk page dustup.

7470:

them through practices such as excessive repetition, monopolization, irrelevancy, advocacy, misrepresentation of others' comments, or personal attacks.

1722:, or that it is present in US politics articles, but only in Tea Party movement does the behaviour become serious enough for possible ArbCom sanctions? 7086:

than it deserves; arguing that one or two academic sources are more reliable than dozens of articles published by fact-checked news organizations (see

2903: 1673: 1082: 989:

I think that the tone of your remark belies the tendentious nature of the discussions over reliable sources, which really should not be so tendentious.

14831:

where he was told to strike out comments and not to bring my editing of this article up again in disputes. I myself have taken him to two noticeboards

11953: 10862:

He's edit warred and never makes concessions on the talk page. Currently, he refuses to participate in the moderated discussion opened by Silk Tork.

9985:

since April 2010, and is a significant contributor with 158 edits - 63 of which have been reverts. Arzel has edited the talkpage 270 times. There was

8971: 5904:

material. In fact, I would argue that such battles are more significant than the behavioral indicators the Arbitrators seem to be most interested in.

2119:

I investigated further I would have seen that the real issue was about something that had occurred at an earlier date, and had nothing to do with me.

1818:

which don't appear controversial, or even edited much. The thread on your talk page about Single Payer healthcare, is that what you're talking about?

16221: 16206: 15874: 13799: 13768: 13754: 13671: 13634: 13456: 13231: 12904: 12812: 12718: 12701: 12657: 12599: 12506: 12200: 11905: 11727: 11315: 11301: 11199: 11136: 10979: 10945: 10863: 10235: 10225:

I think the best thing that has happened to the article is Silk Tork moderating a discussion which seems to be working well, and ArbCom taking it on.

10056: 9885: 9692: 9657: 9461: 8732: 8684: 8642: 6920: 6853: 6730: 6699: 6685: 5764: 5696: 5438: 4672: 4644: 4606: 4586: 4533: 4511: 4491: 4465: 4449: 4404: 4370: 3868: 3263: 3234: 3182: 2816: 2756: 2702: 2233: 2223:

I think the best thing that has happened to the article is Silk Tork moderating a discussion which seems to be working well, and ArbCom taking it on.

2120: 1851: 1819: 1751: 1625: 1592: 1566:

Such requests for community input, if they are made in a spirit of good faith and neutrally presented, are permitted and should not be discouraged.

1110:. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always 1074: 967: 400: 14834: 13954: 2839:

Precedent set by C68-FM-SV#FeloniousMonk, and I presume other cases, to note prior instances of remedies by ArbCom in the case of an administrator.

15174:

The constant distortions by this editor, which are obvious when closely examining a few of the things he's described — for example, this "warning"

10020: 9814: 9148:(cur | prev) 20:14, 11 July 2011‎ Fat&Happy (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (137,533 bytes) (-974)‎ . . (rv NPOV, ungrammatical coatrack) (undo) 4811:

If I had time--which I don't--I would try to flesh out a workable framework for this article, first and foremost, taking into the consideration the

4738:

abrasive towards th individuals. But it does not meet the highest level of "constructive" which is e.g. criticism blended with compliments. etc.

1558:

12) In cases where there are longstanding complex behavioral and content issues, an uninvolved editor may seek community assistance via posting at

1173:

It may make for an interesting opportunity for word play, but I, for one, am not of a mind that it is not possible to address the TPM as a whole.--

432: 228: 220: 12269: 11979: 11430:

But this study provides zero evidence that big tobaccos was the client that pulled the trigger on the "Operation Tea Party" in the spring of 2009.

10838:

Minor copyediting nit (applies to all of these proposals, placed here for visibility): Change "main" to "leading". Still reviewing the substance.

9142:(cur | prev) 12:55, 12 July 2011‎ Darkstar1st (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (138,485 bytes) (-22)‎ . . (→‎Dale Robertson racial slur sign) (undo) 8015: 8012: 8009: 8005: 1285:

In the single section of the article I engaged in editing, I recall that there appeared to be an attempt to misappropriate a source related to an

14317: 11124:(cur | prev) 19:02, 26 April 2013‎ Malke 2010 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (87,599 bytes) (+9)‎ . . (→‎Re: "Anti-immigration": restoring edit) (undo) 10587: 10210: 6241:

9) Reviewing / transferring this to a venue (Arbcom) which operates on evidence and careful analysis of evidence is itself an important outcome

5601: 2391: 2208: 1678: 14180: 8997:

his conduct. As their interaction is the source of this case, I think it should get ample consideration with regards to findings and remedies.--

8619:(and I had dis-engaged on that topic) before the exchange between me and KC even began. The subsequent linked comment about Goethean was on a 8236:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are admitting that Malke has the most edits but claim she has been "absent". Since when? Again,

3561:

why I started that thread for it to sink in? You are in error. You have mistaken my intent and reason. You are, in short, wrong. I'm done here.

3100:

I am sorry you found it impossible to provide even the one single diff I asked for. However, that was your lookout when you made the accusation.

2284:, but not offering a policy-based rationale or even mentioning specific material. She accuesd me of making a personal attack for commenting that 11421:) is a big, incestuous crowd. Many go in the same circles, draw from the same talent pool, and work for all the same corporate interest groups. 11012:

Xenophrenic is currently focused on claiming the tea party movement is 'anti-immigration' and also incorporates the term 'nativism' with that.

10807:, and was blocked twice in 2007 and once in 2013 for edit warring on other articles. Xenophrenic has made 573 edits to the talkpage. There was 7981: 7909: 2918: 15052:(closure board) which was ignored. Because a Good Article review was suspended pending the resolution of the RFC, I closed the RFC myself per 14254: 6289: 3502:

Yes, I am taking no action against anyone for merely listing someone who edited the article for sanctions on that ANI thread. None of them. I

14906: 14904: 14902: 14462:

and related articles, as well as several other articles related to U.S. politics. In the course of this tendentious editing, Xenophrenic has

14259: 11129: 9572:

is the talk page discussion in which North8000 defends the inclusion of the material as better sourced than the material which he opposes. —

7034:

reiterate my disagreement regarding the status of the authors of the tobacco industry article and the relationship of the article to the TPM.

5965:

3) Goethean's stated reason for approaching KC was for KC to review whether or not Goethean has engaged in tendentious editing as alleged.

5544: 5024: 3928:

a shared disposition toward the topical matter of the article (what I've referred to as an "affinity group") that violates various policies.

3579: 3210: 2740: 2736: 2565: 2282: 374: 14221:

Much less than a desysop and is something that I think should be considered given the various complaints about her conduct on this matter.--

13311:

The slow moving tag team edit warring must stop. Concerns regarding content must be resolved on the talkpage, not via force on the article.

11382: 9260: 9084: 6237:

Reviewing / transferring this to a venue (Arbcom) which operates on evidence and careful analysis of evidence is itself an important outcome

920: 15623: 14774: 13827:

I should point out that Malke appears to make another false assertion (this time directly related to my behavior) in this section as well:"

12492: 10155:

I've previously commented on Ubikwit and suggested he be included in any edit restriction/sanctions under the section "Edit restrictions."

7050:

the publication itself--which you seem to have acknowledged at one point--to a disqualification of the authors to be somewhat disingenuous.

2153:

I've previously commented on Ubikwit and suggested he be included in any edit restriction/sanctions under the section "Edit restrictions."

848: 15133:

You also violated WP policy by altering the Rfc question to give support to your vote which resulted in requests that the Rfc be abandoned

13365:

Are you thinking of a time-limit or a lesser editing restriction? If time limit: allow an automatic return after six months or on appeal?

12572:(cur | prev) 04:46, 6 April 2013‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (168,598 bytes) (+31)‎ . . (wording per cited sources) (undo) 11994:

i read both, perhaps it is you who failed to gather evidence before asking for several editors to be topic banned in an ANI you created?

10436:

Malke seems determined to get the last word in here, and I would just as soon let her have it if she weren't making fallacious assertions.

9794: 224: 14235: 14166: 14009: 13706: 12941: 12402: 12242: 11821: 11795: 9873: 9832: 9644: 9011: 7984:

was in line with policy. KillerChihuahua advised that the matter be dealt with in a low key; offering to speak with North8000. Following

6459: 4860: 1698: 394: 239: 217: 12268:

You need not be concerned about me, since it was Binksternet who actually proposed Collect, as well as Thragar Orlando and Arthur Rubin.

11106:(cur | prev) 15:15, 27 April 2013‎ Malke 2010 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (69,679 bytes) (+241)‎ . . (→‎Re: "Anti-immigration": cmt) (undo) 10958:

I was going to say that the status of the page, itself, adequately indicates disruption (although I wouldn't necessarily say disruptive

3841:

I think something that the Committee will need to decide is if it is the topic itself that is problematic, or certain editors. Or both.

12575:(cur | prev) 03:54, 6 April 2013‎ Phoenix and Winslow (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (168,567 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Current status) (undo) 6820: 6818: 6816: 6814: 6812: 6810: 6808: 5273: 5074:

in the ANI waiting for Xenophrenic to support his allegation. Minutes after i noted the inconsistency here, KC amended her response to

3808: 2456:

on 29 August 2011, approximately 7 months earlier. Malke made 15 edits in that thread, including the following exchange with North8000.

475: 427: 365: 284: 212: 11013: 10213: 5960: 4056:

would be wise. The admins at AE do a much better job handling difficult disputes than AN/I which has a Lord of the Flies mentality.

2437: 2211: 1564:"reporting and discussing incidents on the English Knowledge that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." 1428:

and any action taken by them may be influential on other editors, who trust the administrator to know what is and is not appropriate.

13052: 8018:. North8000 proposed desysopping KillerChihuahua. A clear consensus was not emerging from discussions, so the matter came to ArbCom. 7241: 5826:

there has been zero scrutiny or enforcement on that point. Thus, anyone who is willing to conduct slow motion edit wars always wins.

4931: 3973:

interests does not need to have had signed a charter or take an oath to be considered to constitute a group by an outside observer.--

1553: 390: 15175: 15139: 15136: 15131: 13574:

http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=AzureCitizen&page=Tea+Party+movement&server=enwiki&max=100

13547:

http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=Arthur+Rubin&page=Tea+Party+movement&server=enwiki&max=500

10966:

as a "personal attack" is also disruption. I'm afraid I'm busy in real life, also; my wife is having surgery Monday (29 April). —

5212:

8) Arthur Rubin is admonished for calling for sanctions against an uninvolved administrator on an article which he actively edits.

2735:

Malke, in the post where he said he had an edit conflict, he said he'd been planning to start a section to call for sanctions on me.

2530:, but it seems to me that further engagement here won't solve whatever it is. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC) 15716: 15134: 14724:

were the result of Wikistalking me to that page, in retaliation for previous content disputes; more significantly because you were

13560:

http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=Darkstar1st&page=Tea+Party+movement&server=enwiki&max=100

13521:

http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=Xenophrenic&page=Tea+Party+movement&server=enwiki&max=500

9456:

This diff is from July 2011. I don't see anyone coming up with diffs from all his time editing that shows he consistently violates

7971: 7246: 5207: 5100: 1101: 501: 370: 15793:, assuming she would then replace the comments in the main article with an NPOV summary. There is no reason to believe otherwise. 13493:

http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=Malke+2010&page=Tea+Party+movement&server=enwiki&max=500

11058:

disregarding the obvious meaning of Malke's comments (in the "anti-immigration" section) in favor of an absurd interpretation. . .

7868: 5278:

9) Arthur Rubin is topic banned from the Tea party movement, broadly construed, including talk pages, for a period of six months.

2535:

There is also this comment from Will Beback, leading me to believe that this is a repeat performance by Malke on the same article.

13534:

http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=North8000&page=Tea+Party+movement&server=enwiki&max=500

12640:

I can think of, the anti-TPM "side" was the most persistent on the article page and in the end that/they determined the content.

11212:

Case in point: I provided a well-sourced alternative to the anti-immigration argument. This is how Xenophrenic responded in part:

9569: 6641: 4259:, that a middle path can be found. An article can sometimes benefit from having editors with differing views. And I do note that 4137: 380: 360: 243: 13507:

http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=Goethean&page=Tea+Party+movement&server=enwiki&max=500

12960: 12742:

I'm not going to engage you in some tit-for-tat tete-a-tete, but I am available for comment, as the Committee deems necessary.--

12453: 11726:

I agree with you, Killer Chihuahua. TDA that's a highly offensive and outrageous comment. You should withdraw it and apologize.

10811:

for a topic ban, Xenophrenic is not named as a party, and there is little evidence presented in the case to point to sanctions.

10447:

It takes two to edit war, and it takes two to compromise. Rather, she attempted to Wikilawyer and intimidate me on my Talk page.

5408:

You may wish to also consider the evidence given by Stephan Schulz, and the observations by MastCell on the evidence talk page.

2511: 2496:

I don’t know if the above-described points quite form a pattern, but the activity and parallels seems somewhat suspicious to me.

16126: 13588:

http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=Ubikwit&page=Tea+Party+movement&server=enwiki&max=500

13057: 13040: 11029: 8257:

Xenophrenic/Goethean has been the dominant force in determining what has ended up in the article in each of the contested areas

7694:

the nature of any possible involvement, and to ensure they are not being influenced by any of the editors or the topic matter.

7548: 7386:

back-and-forth to competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes.

5153: 4936:

5) Darkstar1st is topic banned from the Tea party movement, broadly construed, including talk pages, for a period of one year.

3698:

to an admin. I only wanted to note the behavior at the article talk page in an effort to try to reduce that behavior. It was

385: 298: 279: 13829:

reverted my edit after he became angry on his talk page where he made it plain he was going to take his anger out on that edit

7091: 6758:

negative trivia, what was left out? i can think of no example of a negative passage has been successfully removed to date ex:

3749:

North8000, several of your point items are wrong, and none of them make me involved. You're really beating a dead horse here.

1750:

I think it would be helpful to name the related articles, because I am not aware of what is related beyond Tea Party rallies.

1190: 348: 14832: 12778: 12132: 11459: 10102:

to KillerChihuahua. Malke 2010 was blocked twice in 2009 and five times in 2010 for disruptive editing and personal attacks.

8826: 8770: 8196:. Again, this is ONLY to establish the accuracy of what I was sayng for the good of the article, NOT to get anbody smacked. 4255:

negative comments in order to present the Tea Party in a more favourable light? I tend to find in such disputes that as long

4188:

resolved by people examining their behaviour, realising what mistakes they themselves made, apologising, and then moving on.

4142:

3) North8000 is topic banned from the Tea party movement, broadly construed, including talk pages, for a period of one year.

3939:

Naturally, after the nominal ban period has expired the no-longer-banned editors could rejoin the editing practice as normal.

1232: 419: 310: 13995:

This reflects the basic underlying issue as there is no evidence of actual tool misuse, but just evidence of poor conduct.--

9989:. Arzel's edits in other articles have been questioned, but insufficient evidence has been provided that conduct on editing 9106:

Could you explain your concerns with that dif. It's from two years ago, and was part of an edit war involving several users:

7932: 5920:

Content results in disputed areas have largely been determined by tendentious editing rather than the results of discussions

4820:

that seem to be topical aspects that perpetuate the state of suspended animation of a disjointed and unintelligible article.

3991:

with "a number of individuals acting in a similar manner in view of shared interests" which should lead to restrictions? —

3409:

Around 40 people offered different views and many of them posted diffs. I don't think you're looking at the same page I am.

14097:

Note to Arbs: I am, yet again, not going to engage TDA; please let me know if you wish my thoughts on any of this, thanks.

10261:

These comments were initiated in response to certain policy related assertions by Malke in different sections on this page.

10156: 6158:

that North had said it was a one time comment (i.e. over with) only to try to improve the situation at the article.

2154: 1359: 1279:

That in itself seems to be a cause of friction against with editors that want to present a united front for "the movement".

343: 15754: 13767:

And I am NOT a major player and have NOT been since December 2010, and there is NO evidence that I am a major player now.

12876:

This would only be needed if there were to be bans of some sort. I don't think this is needed for an editing restriction.

11078: 11072: 9738:

You stated that two living people had been charged with serious crimes, without any supporting references for that claim (

8308:

For easy reference, here are the diffs for the edits (i.e., reverts) requiring scrutiny and the associated edit summaries:

7977: 4505:

Here again, North explains an earlier comment he made: North explains to Goethean what he meant earlier in the discussion

4489: 14185: 13959: 13183: 12510: 12026: 11100:(cur | prev) 16:15, 27 April 2013‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,866 bytes) (+182)‎ . . (+sig & wl) (undo) 10365:

The final version of the text I posted incorporated material from the source introduced by Malke, including the following

7602: 2207:

the talk page once in 2011, and again in 2012. All comments were regarding article improvement. 2011 Opened new section:

269: 198: 25: 15782: 13126: 11017:

Xenophrenic became upset with Malke’s edit that said the real issue is “Immigration reform” and makes personal attacks

10209:

the talk page once in 2011, and again in 2012. 2011 All my comments were about article improvement. Opened new section:

8358: 8356: 8354: 7997: 7989: 6963:

were overweighted, but one cannot honestly say that the mainstream news coverage of the Occupy movement is positive. —

6806: 6804: 6802: 6554: 5493:, I'm much more concerned by editors who continue repeating false statements even after they've been shown to be false. 3882: 2987: 2260: 14773:

3) In January through June 2011, WLRoss and Apostle12 became involved in a content dispute with Phoenix and Winslow at

13269: 12850: 12334:

frustration. When you brought the matter to ANI you presented the matter in language that could be seen to be biased: "

11880:

since March 2012, contributing 16 edits - of which 7 are reverts. Collect has made 53 edits to the talkpage. There was

11632: 11576: 10050: 9555: 8784: 2424: 10388:

for different text and references each time. I have left out the diff to what appears to be a tag-team revert by Arzel

6837:

Do you have difs of North8000, Arzel, Darkstar1st, Collect, ThargorOrlando joining? everything above is linking to AR?

4485:

Silk Tork, here are two diffs which I think say a lot about the situation. North makes a comment in a long discussion

3286: 1508: 1463: 145: 13283: 13255: 13140: 13067: 12864: 12836: 10756: 9025: 8812: 8756: 8427:

I'm not sure what you mean by "back-edited", but here is the passage I was referring to from the archived discussion

4053: 3943:

case of topic areas with Arbcom sanctions, that would represent a substantial barrier to unreasonable POV advocacy.--

3826: 3441:

and you thought it was all about you. It wasn't. There were sections for at least half a dozen editors. The diffs of

14416:

This explains how involved editors should conduct themselves once a topic ban or interaction ban has been imposed.

13625: 11247:

The Cruz piece is in the context of Illegal Immigration which is seperate from the general anti-immigration issue.

10944:

Silk Tork, I will get diffs. I'm very busy in RL at the moment, but I will get around to it sometime today. Thanks.

10174: 10099: 8849:

North8000 proposed the desysopping; I see no reason to use passive voice as though we weren't certain who that was.

7928: 2172: 15827: 15815: 15799: 15770: 13628: 13241: 12822: 11351: 11075: 10625: 10549: 10405: 10398: 10391: 10177: 9790: 9739: 9540: 9287: 8942: 8742: 8342: 8331: 8321: 8311: 7980:

that Xenophrenic and Goethean were tendentiously editing in favour of their POV. Goethean asked KillerChihuahua to

4603: 4584: 4581: 4568: 4531: 4528: 4525: 4509: 4506: 4486: 2922: 2908:

8) KillerChihuahua is an uninvolved admin, and has been acting in that capacity regarding the Tea party movement.

2453: 2440: 2301: 2299: 2297: 2175: 1961: 1815: 15313: 11689:

He apologized for "accusing KC of misinterpreting policy" - not something I consider requiring an apology. He has

10541:

sections of the article that one feels need work? It is not unreasonable to consider that as somewhat tendentious.

8945:, some difs from which were used in evidence to indicate uncivil behaviour. In the community discussion there was 7750: 6372: 6069:

This is key. North8000 continues to claim the right to make unsubstantiated accusations against fellow editors. —

3094:

Didn't do that. I asked for diffs, so I could determine whether he had. You refused to provide even a single diff.

1514: 14230: 14161: 14004: 13835:

was also not encouraging, I read the source she cited, and made the edit incorporating material from the source.

13701: 13213: 12936: 12397: 12254:

KC asking for diffs from North over a talk page comment, yet apparently not as concerned of diffs in topic bans?

12237: 11816: 11790: 11660: 10332:(recently strengthened) 3RR policy and get good-faith editors blocked even during a productive editing exchange. 9868: 9827: 9639: 9332:

search two years to find and bring up something even that weak would be a sign of exemplary behavior on my part.

9151:

cur | prev) 20:00, 11 July 2011‎ Freedomthinker (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (138,507 bytes) (+974)‎ . . (undo)

9006: 8714: 6959:

statement can be added without challenge, but negative entries are removed on sight. Some of the negative items

6785:

appropriate, and you may list those you think are appropriate. Your "why?" question can only be answered by you.

5524: 5489:

is in fact peer-reviewed, he did back off his statement to the contrary. As is probably evident from my comments

5261: 4061: 4004:

to some sort of group-think autopilot support of a POV, has to be drawn by those assessing the behavior at issue.

3796: 2967:

lit, AN and ANI's on vague behavioral charges tend to turn into random mob violence situations all on their own.

2881: 2661:

The "disruption" due to my actions was minimal. It would have done quite well without me. I admit to violating

2089: 1107: 859: 838: 335: 175: 13147:

on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning. The existing Community sanctions are superseded.

13074:

on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning. The existing Community sanctions are superseded.

11018: 10451:

have posted the comment on this page already and recognize that it was improper, even if not a violation of NPA.

9506:

by everybody, NOT mis-behavior. I never did and never will knowingly commit a wp:blp violation. End of story.

6871:

field is the politics of the Tobacco industry, and the field of the statement made is the Tea Party). There is

5606: 5094: 3867:

Whatever is in place on The Troubles would likely be effective for the Tea Party movement and related articles.

533: 530:

page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

15861: 14525:

to point to sanctions." This edit would accommodate the later development of the evidence against Xenophrenic.

13199: 12794: 8897: 8700: 7684: 5924:

2) Content results in disputed areas have largely been determined by TE rather than the results of discussions

3062:

Refusing to answer my very reasonable question on the above dilemma, instead just saying that you "have spoken"

2985: 1886: 871: 321: 264: 21: 9656:

show the Knowledge policy that would allow you to block North at any time in future, without warning. Thanks.

9271: 7154: 3106:

ANI sometimes a drama-fest. It is still the appropriate place for an admin to seek input on a complex problem.

2360:

In hindsight, it likely would have been better to not engage with Ubikwit, because I can now see the long run.

15655: 15590: 15535: 15379: 15270: 15183: 15100: 15015: 14871: 14829: 14810: 14741: 14676: 14610: 14530: 14421: 14363: 14294: 13848: 12985: 12751: 11837: 11445: 11363: 10738: 10695: 10657: 10496: 10464: 10419: 8798: 8672: 8475: 8369: 8272: 7101: 4084: 2551: 2313: 2281:

She has also made a comment in the early stages of the moderated discussion to reduce content of the article

1238: 1038: 256: 15138:

You also copy pasted a comment from another editors discussion to the Rfc as a support vote from that editor

13900: 13618:, I rewrote the material Ubikwit had added yet again, to reduce to fit due weight and added a better source. 7251: 6464: 6277: 2755:

Okay, I didn't read that section thoroughly at the time. The thread title was still banging around my head.

14960: 12388:

As I stated, I do not think desysopping is warranted at all either, but an admonishment seems reasonable.--

12293:

actually created. it was you who added his name to the ANI and it was you who claimed you did not know who

7003:

level or regarding contests for elected offices. So one local guy's twitter comment would not be in there.

2590:

Not active, really, unless the standards for being "active" have devolved considerably. Involved, yes. —

2256:

regarding claims that my edits were WP:OR, violated WP:DUE etc., and have received no response from either.

494: 306: 204: 15834:

AR's comment: I don't fully agree with N, but it's a reasonable hypothesis. G may merely be ignorant of

12452:

per twenty-four (24) hour period", (my bold), makes assessment of edit warring difficult. Added to which,

7914: 7873:

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

7506: 7292: 15680: 15041: 13291: 13227: 13136: 12808: 10516:

impressions given by Ubikwit in these types of creations should be given little credibility. Sincerely,

10334:

Any such edits must be clear attempts to try another solution, not ones that have been tried and rejected

10314:"it should be made clear if an initial edit modifying a page (edited by the other person/persons) counts" 9942: 9539:

Actually, the most disturbing thing about North8000's behavior on that day is that he would subsequently

9286:

Thanks for that. I was seeing an edit war over the material. The material itself had been added earlier:

8728: 7993: 7985: 1833: 1765: 1719: 1046: 316: 234: 11024: 10277: 15806:

AR's comment: G can accurately view his own statements, but it represents the textbook definition of a

15428:"I do traditionally oppose anyone who has a history of supporting fringe theories on this website." - ( 15265:

the relentless, tendentious POV-pushing and Wikistalking displayed by certain editors. So here we are.

14222: 14153: 13996: 13693: 12928: 12389: 12229: 12070: 11808: 11782: 9860: 9819: 9631: 9549:

No double standard for this section, based on TFD deletion. Either balanced or out. Let's start over.

8998: 8188:

The (large amount of) diffs, one week samplers from my ~150 weeks of observation at the article are at

5520: 5257: 4057: 3792: 2877: 2268: 1115: 355: 14898: 12448:

that the wording of the community sanctions, which says: "No editor may make more than one (1) revert

12175:, nor had meaningful previous contact with the main contributors, other than with Goethean. There was 11394:...But the fact is, CSE wasn't just funded by big tobacco. Like all these groups, they were funded by 4763:

There is absolutely NO basis for any such action. Nothing has been shown, just vague impugning of me.

853: 664: 16173: 15803:

G's analysis: Goethean says that proposed new article would be the textbook definition of a POV fork.

14101: 14087: 12360: 12323: 12275: 12163: 12147: 11984: 11943: 11716: 11702: 11490: 11474: 10141: 9529: 8871: 8853: 8820: 8764: 8075: 8042: 7814: 6789: 6747: 5577: 5508: 5427: 5412: 5398: 5383: 5236: 5183: 5053: 4980: 4889: 4436: 4393: 4358: 4319: 3903: 3889: 3753: 3610: 3565: 3519: 3478: 3449: 3413: 3380: 3337: 3252: 3217: 3121: 3037: 3005: 2956: 2843: 2745: 2725: 2690: 2610: 2264: 2137: 2040: 1998: 1923: 1840: 1792: 1772: 1643: 1610: 1032: 14836:

over his behaviour where I was advised to take out a RFC/U against him. I drafted a case for a RFC/U

11023:

Xenophrenic argues for the use of the word “Generally” since he wants to use it to support his edit

8101:

A dustup between KC and me on my talk page which was ostensibly about the article but really wasn't.

7376: 2296:

Malke has continuously--up to and including today--refused to engage in discussion on the Talk page

15684:

article. It took four months and two RFCs to resolve the resulting dispute (resolved 29 June 2013).

15651: 15586: 15531: 15375: 15266: 15179: 15096: 15059:

and it was closed by an uninvolved admin with the same majority oppose result as the previous RFC.

15011: 14867: 14806: 14737: 14672: 14606: 14526: 14417: 14359: 14322:

2) All Knowledge articles must be written in obedience to several fundamental principles including

14290: 14078:). As an admin asked to look at the situation, I would be remiss if I ignored your actions and did 13427: 13337: 9679: 9190: 9094: 8668: 8000:

they felt KillerChihuahua was involved/siding with Goethean, so KillerChihuahua took the matter to

7619: 7097: 4626:

yet Goethean was the one who sought an admin instead of responding to North, or simply disengaging.

2133:

You might want to take this as a lesson learned, and not attack editors out of hand in the future.

1933:

This has no basis. This is centered around two accurate useful comments. Please see the evidence.

1421: 164: 11607: 10189: 6766:, (the only movement in WP described as such, although the majority could be described the same), 2187: 620: 579: 15496: 15371: 15261: 14729: 14721: 12151: 12057: 11478: 10800: 10787: 6985:

a whole without being wrong with respect to one of the constitutive non-parts of a phantom whole.

3963: 2989:

to you that I am not involved just because I warned you about behavior. An admin is specifically

2876:

Arthur Rubin hasn't accused of misusing his admin tools, so I fail to see how this is relevant.

2095: 1967: 1892: 487: 10644: 10606: 10568: 10359: 10081: 7792: 6852:

come up with a diff that shows me "joining this effort," please strike your comment. Thank you.

4096: 2276: 1317: 15853: 13416: 13263: 12844: 12622:

patience for that process should step away rather than attempt to assert their views by force.

12613: 12159: 11591: 11486: 11062: 10970: 9202:

exactly which edits am i still defending? i support trimming the article, not adding material.

9160:

I'm still looking into conduct by North8000 so any additional insights would be very valuable.

9056: 8778: 8400: 6967: 6887: 5817: 5754: 4551: 3995: 3200: 2669: 2594: 2524:

Now, please I think it's best to end this discussion, as I don't know what's upset you, or why

1393: 1135: 526:

Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the

13083:

I think we need to be a little more clear as to how the transition is to work. Please see the

12143: 11595: 11470: 8928: 8384:

that those in opposition to Malke and North (in removal of trivia) were citing policy. As it

8318:

The edit summary would seem to reflect a refusal to allow material other than primary sources.

7627:

capacity." Or is this too much a counsel of perfection, that we would be better off dropping?

3071:

At the ANI, immediately defending Goethean against any action, while "stoking it" regarding me

2346:

I do not know Ubikwit. I've never edited with him. I try to avoid replying to him now because

538: 16302: 16242: 16191: 15506:, becoming involved in the content dispute against Phoenix and Winslow and other editors. 14128: 14061: 13789: 13743: 13659: 13445: 13401: 13356: 13277: 13249: 13092: 12858: 12830: 12647: 12421: 12306: 12259: 12045: 12041: 11999: 11968: 11868: 11287: 11221: 11180: 11130:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Xenophrenic#Edit_warring.2Fredacting_the_comments_of_others

10843: 10775: 10771: 10523: 9906: 9781: 9729: 9613: 9513: 9446: 9417: 9381: 9339: 9224: 9207: 8806: 8750: 8630: 8603: 8584: 8564: 8501: 8291: 8203: 8177: 8156: 8116: 7716: 7632: 7568: 7010: 6907: 6842: 6775: 6086: 5890: 5833: 5785: 5466: 5437:

It sounds like SilkTork is asking for help in locating evidence to support the proposed ban.

5132: 5112: 5083: 5003: 4910: 4846: 4770: 4745: 4707: 4448:

But where are the diffs? I'm reading threads but can't find this. Where should I be looking?

4338: 4030: 3771: 3737: 3632: 3586: 3546: 3493: 3465: 3428: 3398: 3366: 3352: 3294: 3140: 3083: 3023: 2974: 2860: 2790: 2068: 2014: 1940: 792: 751: 710: 669: 194: 139: 17: 15553: 12999: 12287:

I would add Thargor Orlando, Arthur Rubin and Collect to the proposed topic ban. Binksternet

11603: 10069: 8004:, stating that they had checked for tendentious editing by Goethean, found no problems, and 6600: 6559: 6153:

Error in implying that a comment about behavior without proof in diffs was improper behavior

2439:. The edit starting that thread was the sole edit to the TPm Talk page made by the IP, ever. 924: 16225: 16210: 16170: 15878: 15557: 14098: 14084: 13803: 13772: 13758: 13675: 13638: 13460: 13235: 12908: 12816: 12722: 12705: 12661: 12603: 12357: 12320: 12272: 12204: 12138: 12053: 11981: 11940: 11731: 11713: 11699: 11587: 11465: 11319: 11305: 11203: 11140: 11086: 10983: 10949: 10867: 10783: 10394:(rmv WP:OR. No tea parties mentioned. This is the agenda section. That means their agenda.) 10239: 10138: 10065: 9993:

warrants sanctions. Arzel was blocked in 2008 and 2010 for edit warring on other articles.

9973: 9889: 9696: 9661: 9526: 9465: 9044: 8868: 8850: 8816: 8760: 8736: 8646: 8314:(rmv WP:OR. No tea parties mentioned. This is the agenda section. That means their agenda.) 8104:

The vague random mob-violence ANI which was ostensibly about the article but really wasn't.

8072: 8039: 6924: 6857: 6786: 6744: 6734: 6703: 6689: 6294:

1) Above-described errors by KC to be noted. Just noting them is sufficient input to KC.

5768: 5574: 5505: 5442: 5424: 5409: 5395: 5380: 5233: 5180: 5050: 4977: 4886: 4676: 4648: 4610: 4590: 4537: 4515: 4495: 4469: 4453: 4433: 4408: 4390: 4374: 4355: 4316: 3900: 3886: 3881:

TROUBLES is under standard discretionary sanctions, which is what I am proposing here. See

3872: 3750: 3607: 3562: 3516: 3475: 3446: 3410: 3377: 3334: 3267: 3249: 3238: 3214: 3186: 3118: 3034: 3002: 2953: 2840: 2760: 2742: 2722: 2706: 2687: 2607: 2237: 2134: 2124: 2037: 1995: 1920: 1855: 1837: 1823: 1789: 1769: 1755: 1640: 1629: 1607: 1596: 1078: 971: 15789:

AR's comment: Accurate, but Malke2010's statement would also be accurate. It would be a

15622:

6) The editing activities by WLRoss described above, subsequent to the content dispute at

12037: 10767: 10077: 8916: 1415: 833: 49: 8: 15053: 14728:

and most significantly of all because, after you were clearly aware that your editing of

13420: 13330: 13207: 11856: 10061: 9801:

an extremely serious violation, regardless of what percentage of your edit it comprised.

9672: 9183: 9087: 9052: 9040: 8708: 7826: 7298:

on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle.

5104: 159: 113: 15364:

The diffs are on the Evidence page where they belong, and your behavior is indefensible.

12927:

a year ago, and all other editors only had blocks from around three years ago or more.--

12301:. it was also you who neither provided diffs, nor asked for diffs from Blinkernet, why? 12199:

The whole desysop bit was utter nonsense. Killer Chihuahua did nothing to deserve that.

11282:

And that has what to do with this? And is that the best Malke impersonation you can do?

11028:

Archives regarding ‘racism’ in the article which is a special interest of Xenophrenic’s

9036: 8924: 3529:

exactly, you started an ANI because North failed to provide difs concerning a talk page

1287:

Talk:Tea_Party_movement#Racism.2C_Resignation_of_NPR_CEO_Vivian_Schiller NPR controversy

16151: 15527: 15503: 15178:

appropriate page) has long expired. This may be reasonably viewed as abuse of process.

14602: 14566: 14555: 14459: 13905: 13727: 13374: 13320: 13287: 13193: 13132: 13063: 12885: 12788: 12680: 12631: 12618: 12536: 12514: 12347: 12289:, yet he did not add Collect, rather stated what he would do if he had created the ANI 12172: 12099: 12074: 12066: 11919: 11902: 11877: 11864: 11672: 11656: 11644: 11616: 11541: 11524: 11499: 11160: 11034: 10886: 10830: 10804: 10796: 10120: 10090: 10017: 9990: 9982: 9961: 9299: 9169: 9065: 8968: 8937: 8912: 8908: 8694: 8544: 8525: 8422: 8136: 8062: 7924: 7920: 7818: 7690: 7651: 7200: 7159: 7074: 6418: 6377: 5728: 5355: 5337: 5319: 5297: 4959: 4298: 4272: 4197: 4179: 4161: 3959: 3850: 3832:

This remedy supersedes the limited sanctions that were put in place by the community.

2994: 2934: 1811: 1731: 1710: 1684: 1130:, is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the 1042: 128: 41: 15045:

Regarding the “improper closure of a Request for Comment,” I had made a formal request

14866:

in tag-team editwarring to protect poorly sourced negative material in a BLP article.

11848: 11081: 6510: 6469: 16286: 16085: 16047: 16009: 15971: 15933: 15895: 15850: 15839: 15835: 15807: 15790: 15762: 15127: 15092: 14720:

The dates have been corrected. You are being listed here because your eight edits to

14570: 14463: 14190:

1) KillerChihuahua is admonished for uncivil conduct unbecoming of an administrator.

13692:

relative to other edits. That is a very different situation from the other parties.--

13412: 13259: 12840: 12319:

Regarding TDA's comments, I'm going to ignore them unless an Arb asks me to respond.

11852: 11582: 11059: 10967: 10962:, just disruption), not just diagreement. In addition, his blanking of the comments 9969: 8949:. Goethean was blocked in 2006 and twice in 2010 for edit warring on other articles. 8792: 8774: 8397: 7087: 7058: 6993: 6964: 6884: 5874: 5814: 5751: 4829: 4548: 4052:

If the committee decides that the topic itself is problematic, then place them under

4013: 3992: 3978: 3948: 3197: 2666: 2591: 1807: 1803: 1390: 1305: 1178: 1020: 999:

Oh yeah, I was going to quote this passage from one of the above-referenced policies.

15422:"We both know that you would support the sky being green if it were against me." - ( 13859: 12972:

I have already addressed her claim to having had made a "compromise edit" elsewhere.

12517:

since the ArbCom case opened, and contributed to the article being fully protected.

12155: 11482: 10098:, and insufficient evidence provided in the case for applying sanctions. Malke 2010 9953: 9460:. Even if he did violate BLP in that diff, a one-off isn't grounds for a topic ban. 8573:

BTW, my comment was about and to push back on the Xenophrenic/Goethean TE situation

7464: 7113: 6200:

against North while immediately defending Goethean against possible sanctions.

5652: 5611: 16271: 15691: 15564: 15451: 15437: 15320: 15222: 15145: 15064: 14912: 14844: 14699: 13441: 13397: 13352: 13273: 13245: 13088: 12854: 12826: 12502: 12302: 12255: 12032: 11995: 11964: 11343: 11283: 11217: 10839: 10762: 10487:

to the article that said article is "a train wreck" or the "worst article ever"? --

9203: 8802: 8746: 7712: 7703:

Generally sound, but the last clause is a bit too vague. Do we mean "influenced by

7628: 7564: 7083: 6838: 6771: 5549:

1) All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at

5108: 5079: 3628: 3582: 3542: 3489: 3461: 3424: 3394: 3362: 3348: 3290: 3174: 3136: 2010: 1971: 1896: 867: 134: 12739:

Yes, that's right, Malke, I own that--slow-moving edit war--lock stock and barrel.

12069:

since 2010, making 64 edits - 21 of which have been reverts. Darkstar1st has been

7334: 6883:

in the article, even though it was there for 2 months before being challenged. —

4567:, I would be very interested in knowing whether you think that North8000's comment 3474:

No, that is not what it has established. We'll have to just disagree on that one.

3131:

your insistence on difs is inconsistent. When Xenophrenic added me to your ANI to

15765:, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to create an NPOV subarticle of a POV article. 15627: 15049: 14778: 14642:

2) For several months leading up to October 2010, Phoenix and Winslow edited the

14569:

and related articles. In the course of this tendentious editing, Xenophrenic has

14266: 13221: 12802: 11623:. Arthur Rubin was blocked four times in 2008 and once in 2012 for edit warring. 11599: 11252: 10004: 9957: 9543:

the removal of that BLP-violating "union thug" material as a rationale to remove

9496: 8722: 7623: 4668: 4580:

You could have ignored it. Or, you could have handled it the way I handled this:

3230: 3170: 2662: 1621: 1425: 1365: 1123: 1119: 928: 12049: 11009:

Here are links to sections on the current talk page and a few of the archives.

10779: 7422: 4657:

It seems that no matter who says what, in your opinion it is always my fault. —

3423:

perhaps not, could you post the difs of my behavior submitted at your ANI here?

1994:

You might want to split this one into two parts and treat each part separately.

1919:

You might want to split this one into two parts and treat each part separately.

14323: 13295: 13203: 10073: 9031: 8704: 7931:

on content. At about the same time community sanctions were imposed, following

7802: 7798: 2393:, had 4 edits and started the following subsection, making the sole edit there: 916: 863: 108: 13351:

This amounts to a "0RR forever" restriction. That might be a little bit much?

9048: 993:

hindrances I have come across in trying to contribute content to this website.

459: 16144: 15087: 14782: 14574: 14498: 14467: 14393: 14335: 13720: 13367: 13313: 13189: 12878: 12784: 12673: 12624: 12529: 12340: 12092: 11912: 11895: 11665: 11649: 11637: 11534: 11517: 11153: 10918: 10879: 10823: 10326: 10295: 10113: 10010: 9850: 9803: 9752: 9742: 9573: 9560: 9481: 9457: 9429: 9401: 9396: 9364: 9359: 9354: 9292: 9276: 9265: 9162: 8961: 8920: 8903: 8690: 8537: 8518: 8129: 8055: 7822: 7810: 7644: 6829: 6722: 6070: 5721: 5495: 5348: 5330: 5312: 5290: 4952: 4729: 4658: 4634: 4571: 4291: 4265: 4190: 4172: 4154: 3843: 3178: 2927: 1724: 1703: 1559: 1127: 153: 123: 15032:

Phoenix and Winslow claims I returned to UGG Boots on March 2010 and became

13298:

may result in a topic ban and/or block by an uninvolved administrator as an

12527:

there is a big question about how they will behave once the case is closed.

11860: 9741:). That is a serious violation of both the letter and the ethical spirit of 5551:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Tea Party movement#Log of blocks and bans

3825:

1) Articles relating to the area of the Tea Party movement are placed under

2405:

Please list things you like to see eliminated for summerized in the article.

463: 16282: 15374:, that made it all crystal clear, as his subsequent comments demonstrated. 14598: 14562: 14491: 14455: 14331: 13840: 13299: 13144: 13071: 12977: 12743: 11843: 11437: 11355: 11051: 10730: 10687: 10649: 10488: 10456: 10411: 8788: 8664: 8467: 8361: 8264: 7383: 7054: 6989: 6726: 6718: 5870: 4825: 4076: 4009: 3974: 3944: 2543: 2475:

Okay with me on the nuke thing. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

2305: 2094:

4) Malke 2010 has engaged in incivility and failed to assume good faith on

1301: 1174: 1016: 12440:

Concerns have been raised regarding the wording of the Community Sanctions

9965: 7622:

are expected to lead by example. An administrator is expected to know the

7073:

Until now, I've stayed out of this because I'm a relative newcomer to the

3533:, yet you did nothing when an editor made a baseless charge asking for a 3515:

dead horse. This has nothing to do whatsoever with whether I am involved.

2351:

as did User:Izauze and his two socks, which were an IP and Dylan Flaherty

1424:

are expected to lead by example. An administrator is expected to know the

15687: 15560: 15552:

I began editing the Talk page at Tea Party movement on 22 April (not May)

15447: 15433: 15423: 15316: 15218: 15141: 15060: 14908: 14840: 14695: 14327: 7806: 1131: 1111: 15758:

G's analysis: Malke2010 suggests "new article about the fiscal issues".

9410:

I asked you first. This is much more relevant to the topic at hand.

7992:

that Goethean was "being rude as usual", KillerChihuahua gave North8000

3708:

Answering your question, My question that you wouldn't answer was that,

3117:

I think we'd best let this drop at this point, and let the Arbs decide.

2570:

5) Arthur Rubin is involved as an active editor of Tea party movement.

15429: 14839:

but chose not to continue as Phoenix and Winslow stopped harassing me.

13217: 12798: 12498: 11248: 9948: 9492: 8718: 8248:" is somewhat incoherent. Perhaps you could clarify what you meant by " 5067:

the topic ban Xenophrenic called for after he failed to provide diffs.

4583:. I simply assumed good faith and explained and clarified what I meant. 2892: 2381:

to her edit count ("one-off edits") and the involvement of IP accounts.

1718:

Would you say that this is an issue which is particular to articles in

13600:, I rewrote the agenda section after discussion. Goethean reverted it. 9395:

simple: do you believe now, two years later, that these edits violate

7053:

That seems to represent a trait resembling a battleground disposition.

1469:

learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

16140:

a case request cannot be opened while community discussion is ongoing

15007: 14956: 14951: 14943: 14668: 14643: 14635: 14358:

Basic statement of principle regarding protection of whistleblowers.

11038:

Here Xenophrenic tells editors they are misstating what he has said:

8324:(Undid revision 549538619 by Ubikwit (talk)Unbelievable POV pushing.) 183: 8494:

oppose any sanctions against the individuals that I was discussing.

2423:

An IP account which was an SPA that was active for exactly six days

16325: 8250:(but normally reverting by editing rather than the "revert" button) 3393:, incorrect, not a single dif was offered before or after you ask. 461: 148: 15777:

AR's comment: Yep; links, without explaining potential relevance.

14289:

Basic statement of principle regarding Wikistalking/Wikihounding.

8396:

policy, but that that policy had little referent to the facts. —

15672:

When the timeline is taken into account this claim is ridiculous.

11781:"We must topic ban ALL the editors!" approach is the way to go.-- 10917:

editors exactly, who you believe have been open to compromise? —

9793:, in which you said that two people were charged criminally. And 9691:

Yes, different ideas. But I appreciate your dry sense of humour.

7923:

article. The article was created in January 2010 as a split from

15725:

Talk:TPm subthread on creating a subarticle on the fiscal issues

15721:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

15040:

all but two of the “other editors” were found to be sockpuppet’s

13606:, Removed the word "anti-immgration" after talk page discussion. 11763:

Apparently, the selfless consistency of my ethics is not enough.

10185: 2183: 12867:) have block records for edit warring and/or personal attacks. 10586:

This article is a train wreck section created on 28 August 2011

3932:

editing practice/behavior I've characterized as obstructionism.

1891:

2) North8000 has engaged in incivility and personal attacks on

464: 14837: 10907:

He's edit warred and never makes concessions on the talk page.

8380:

Ubikwit has back-edited his comment in regard Malke, adding a

7996:

for uncivil behaviour. At this point North8000 and Malke 2010

7976:

2) Following a content disagreement on 18 Feb, North8000 made

7919:

1) This case addresses concerns related to the editing of the

3821:

The Tea Party movement is placed under discretionary sanctions

3283:

you need to hush up about it...puppy has spoken; puppy is done

465: 15368:... as he couldn't determine if you were instead stalking me. 9884:

MastCell, it's two years on now, and he's not done it since.

9374:

restored was only 95% supported by the reference I supplied.

8388:

backedited, later comments discussing it are problematic. A

1784: 14503:

there was no community support for a topic ban. Xenophrenic

14450:

Tendentious editing by Xenophrenic on U.S. politics articles

11770:

time, but it is the cross I bear for the pseudonym I chose.

8557:

action (other than a warning) should be taken against them.

6195:

Error in opening a general ANI with proposed broad sanctions

5097:

We already say that the Tea Party opposes same sex marriage.

1802:(e/c)But what articles would that be? I'm not familiar with 1114:

use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in

931:, and are kept in proportion with the weight of the source. 15043:

and those two geolocated to Phoenix and Winslow’s hometown.

13143:. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an 13070:. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an 11347:

incivil, even if you don't appreciate the attempt at humor.

10312:

The reason given for the request for clarification is that

7988:

regarding evidence for tendentious editing, North8000 made

6002:

Error in immediate dismissal of tendentious editing concern

4464:

Silk Tork, I'm working on getting diffs for your question.

2681:

there, and I see no reason to think that most parties were

15674:

Ugg Boots was the first article we both edited (Oct 2010).

15260:

consider this abuse of process. By Wikistalking me to the

14987:

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

10369:

professed by movement leaders, activists, and supporters.

10218:

worst article ever subsection 2nd attempt and Discussion:

9547:

of the race-related controversies in the entire article. (

4354:

prohibited. And this is one of the worst cases I've seen.

3112:

Really? That's not how I'd characterize what I did at ANI.

2216:

worst article ever subsection 2nd attempt and Discussion:

15751:

comments. I will not change quotes from other editors.)

14387:

Burden of compliance with topic bans and interaction bans

10401:(reduced content for relevance per WP:UNDUE added w/cite) 8334:(reduced content for relevance per WP:UNDUE added w/cite) 7756:

sanction, the greater the need for appropriate evidence.

6762:(how does a verbal attack inform readers about the TP?), 5813:

1RR restriction, it might help stabilize the article. —

5504:

Good to know; thank you for taking the time to add that.

4728:

So you still think that your comment was constructive. —

15786:

G's analysis: Malke2010 says it would not be not a fork.

15502:

5) In April 2013, WLRoss began editing the Talk page at

11391:

I posted on the TPm Talk page in the above-cited thread.

8006:

proposed topic bans for North8000, Azrel, and Malke 2010

6823:

He was of course joined in this effort by North8000 and

5706:

1) The Tea party Movement article is in very bad shape.

4427:(after ec) SilkTork, there were repeated NPA violations 10729:

At any rate. I apologize for the disruptive comment. --

10274:

The following passage (and entire page) seems relevant:

8261:

the fact to no debate ever gets resolved at the article

15831:

G's analysis: North8000 says Goethean violated WP:AGF.

15626:, were in violation of Knowledge principles regarding 15526:

Proposed. Involvement by WLRoss in content dispute at

9439:

behavior by me. That is why my question is relevant.

7038:

adverse health effects of which they were fully aware.

3936:

have a chance to rework the article into better form.

3326:

that I was refusing to consider evidence; it was that

3315:" and this was after I asked for a diff two times and 996:

Now then, where was I at before distraction took over?

923:

for any particular viewpoint is prohibited. NPOV is a

15559:

Phoenix and Winslow took no part in that discussion.

8392:

version would be that the editors in opposition were

15819:

G's analysis: Malke2010 says it would not be a fork.

10624:

Talk page “Worst article EVER” discussion March 2012

6331:

General warning against TE and slow motion edit wars

5745:

I think, perhaps Viriditas may be correct that this

4023:Xenophrenic, backed up by Goethean at key moments. 3625:...either provide diffs, or cease the accusations... 2665:, as did most editors in the ANI thread/subpage. — 14667:Proposed. Initial brief participation by WLRoss at 11085:Xenophrenic then went to Arthur Rubin’s talk page: 9362:is still active, and he'd do the same again today. 5702:

The Tea party Movement article is in very bad shape

3577:...I asked the accusing editor to provide a diff... 3347:you are confused, you have never ask me for a dif. 12356:to be more verbose and long winded in the future. 11033:Xenophrenic’s comments under Neutrality section: 8109:already fixed #3 by ending the mob violence ANI. 6743:I see insufficient justification for this remedy. 4976:5 and 6 are "pick one". This is my second choice. 4315:3 and 4 are "pick one". This is my second choice. 2271:might be apply to the situation with this article. 14029:KillerChihuahua's interactions with other parties 12228:some form of admonishment should be considered.-- 6044:Error in requiring the near-impossible from North 2817:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking 1106:4) All Knowledge articles must be written from a 15048:for closure 40 days after the RFC was opened at 14805:Proposed. Locus of dispute at Franklin article. 13647:But by the flawed definition of "revert" nearly 13286:) are advised and warned that making an edit on 6654:Topic bans must include Goethean and Xenophrenic 5778:rather than (just) a requirement for inclusion. 4524:And here: Goethean opens a new thread about it: 3764:acknowledged as matters of opinion. Sincerely, 3303:Wow. Cherry picking is not helpful. Full quote: 15446:BTW, what's the "evidence page" you mentioned? 14336:protection of the reputations of living persons 11071:Xenophrenic argued and edit warred in response: 10483:How can one make an assertion in good faith as 9348:The fact that you were edit-warring to restore 7813:); or to evade procedural restrictions such as 6112:Error in refusing to answer reasonable question 868:philosophical, ideological or political dispute 15038:against Phoenix and Winslow and other editors, 11050:there is strong evidence toward Xenophrenic's 7801:. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies ( 14736:This is crystal clear Wikistalking behavior. 11498:8) Thargor Orlando has made few edits to the 11278:And this is how Xenophrenic responded to him: 10913:...and this is as opposed to the behavior of 10096:no consensus for a topic ban by the community 8244:Your statement about Xenophrenic's editing, " 6760:neo-Klansmen and knuckle-dragging hillbillies 5310:guidance on what it is you folks are seeing. 3621:...vague accusations but not a single diff... 3391:Multiple people were offering diffs and views 495: 15624:Franklin child prostitution ring allegations 14775:Franklin child prostitution ring allegations 14726:joining the other side in a content dispute; 13586:First three edits ever on TPm were reverts: 12073:in 2011 for breaking community sanctions on 11659:10:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Arthur Rubin has 10212:and in 2012 commented at Worst article ever 9630:the named parties on all sides have acted.-- 8461:Xenophrenic (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC) 6770:, (is this not offensive to those groups?). 2261:Malke is the main contributor to the article 1966:3) Darkstar1st has engaged in incivility on 15774:G's analysis: Goethean links to WP:POVFORK. 10408:(rmv WP:UNDUE/WP:OR/and redundant material) 8451:Malke 2010 (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC) 8345:(rmv WP:UNDUE/WP:OR/and redundant material) 2349:he seems to have a similar fixation with me 15034:aggressively involved in a content dispute 14992:The following discussion has been closed. 11436:only quoted in block form) the article. -- 9813:the phrasing of the content. Judging from 9259:@SilkTork: I don't think the concern over 8441:North8000 (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC) 5305:The Schulz evidence consists of a link to 4671:and reminded the article is on probation. 2527:you seem to have an unusual interest in me 523:, and for general discussion of the case. 502: 488: 14950:4) In March 2011, WLRoss returned to the 14734:on the other side in the content dispute. 14512:in this Arbitration Committee proceeding, 12961:discussion from 2010 on Malke's Talk page 10386:three reverts over a period of three days 10325:There is also the following passage from 6875:reason to believe the statement Goethean 6768:even less liked than Muslims and atheists 4817:2) the Astro-turf - authentic bifurcation 3682:Hello KC, Responding on those 7 items: 16235:vague accusation/innuendos and "vote". 10137:I accepted the apology from Malke 2010. 6659:remain active for more than one year. 6290:Above-described errors by KC to be noted 5865:with respect to the handling of sources. 5101:Brecksville-Northfield High Level Bridge 3557:How many times do I have to say that is 2436:This thread was started by an IP account 13004:16) {text of proposed finding of fact} 12299:I don't even remember who added Collect 10548:December 2010 Malke edit to the article 10441:"the article history speaks for itself" 10294:There is also another statement on the 7825:over articles; or otherwise to prevent 7797:12) Tag teams work in unison to push a 6879:added, attributing it to that article, 5459:There is absolutely NO basis for this. 5125:There is absolutely NO basis for this. 4996:There is absolutely NO basis for this. 4903:There is absolutely NO basis for this. 4814:1)fragmentary character of the TPM, and 4331:There is absolutely NO basis for this. 2269:Knowledge:OWN#Multiple-editor_ownership 1368:to avoid further inflaming the issues. 14: 15618:WLRoss violated Wikistalking principle 14597:Proposed. Alternate version. Includes 14554:Tendentious editing by Xenophrenic on 14521:little evidence presented in the case 14490:Proposed. Preferred version. Includes 13627:Reverts Malke’s edit at 0811 13 April 13294:that could reasonably be construed as 12285:no one claimed you suggested Collect, 12177:no community support for a desysopping 11504:no community consensus for a topic ban 10176:Reverts Malke’s edit at 0811 13 April 8943:The tobacco industry and the Tea Party 6605:2) {text of proposed finding of fact} 6564:1) {text of proposed finding of fact} 4389:for this from the ANI thread as well. 2263:, and I'm beginning to wonder whether 2174:Reverts Malke’s edit at 0811 13 April 1513:11) Administrators are expected to be 13612:, I reverted Ubikwit's undue content. 11910:This finding need not be moved over. 11532:This finding need not be moved over. 10681:Eliminate the "Commentaries" section. 5063:actually this was your 3rd choice as 2265:Knowledge:OWN#Single-editor_ownership 13798:No, I didn't think you'd done that. 13087:decision for some possible wording. 12079:no community support for a topic ban 11882:no community support for a topic ban 11621:no community support for a topic ban 11506:, and no further evidence offered. 10803:for breaking community sanctions on 9268:- it's hard to think of a worse one. 3309:and will cause no sanctions against 1970:and in edit summaries. He has shown 911:Neutrality and conflicts of interest 275:Clarification and Amendment requests 14769:Content dispute at Franklin article 12171:12) KillerChihuahua has not edited 10978:Hope everything goes well, Arthur. 10173:Talk page comment at 0726 13 April 7817:or to violate behavioural norms by 3313:. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. 2427:also participated, voicing support. 2171:Talk page comment at 0726 13 April 534:Motions and requests by the parties 35: 15650:Proposed. Wikistalking by WLRoss. 15420:MONGO's opinion carries no weight. 10278:Knowledge:Reverting#When_to_revert 8815:). A desysopping was proposed for 8689:2.1) Topic bans were proposed for 7205:2) {text of proposed enforcement} 7164:1) {text of proposed enforcement} 6423:2) {text of proposed enforcement} 6382:1) {text of proposed enforcement} 4257:as editors are prepared to discuss 2811:Arthur Rubin previously admonished 2425:Special:Contributions/76.20.32.102 925:non-negotiable, fundamental policy 36: 16339: 15838:, although he states he has read 14571:pushed a particular point of view 14464:pushed a particular point of view 13950:Proposals by The Devil's Advocate 10215:worst article ever subsection 1: 9987:community support for a topic ban 7869:Role of the Arbitration Committee 5232:7 and 8 are probably "pick one". 5179:7 and 8 are probably "pick one". 3575:the opening sentence of the ANI: 2510:related to the Tea Party movement 844:Proposals by User:KillerChihuahua 14250:Proposals by Phoenix and Winslow 12612:You were clearly involved in an 6955:I've given up on), in which any 6515:2) {text of Proposed principle} 6474:1) {text of Proposed principle} 5961:Stated reason for approaching KC 5657:2) {text of Proposed principle} 5616:1) {text of Proposed principle} 4385:ST: You may wish to examine the 4261:discussion has been taking place 3437:Ah, I see the confusion. I said 2721:". Apologies for any confusion. 2213:worst article ever subsection 1: 1850:LOL, it has its own category! 1816:Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund 1191:Good-faith participation welcome 182: 15126:for you which is prohibited by 11502:article or talkpage. There was 11096:And Arthur Rubin’s talk page. 11088:Not satisfied, he went to ANI: 10384:Here are the diffs for Malke's 8863:I see you've addressed this in 8144:Answering your final question, 2637:Arthur Rubin has violated POINT 2508:“Reverts and Article ownership” 16319: 15006:Proposed. Locus of dispute at 13300:arbitration enforcement action 13145:arbitration enforcement action 13072:arbitration enforcement action 9272:inserted a citation to FoxNews 6721:and exhibits tendency towards 3541:case, continuity non existit. 3322:failed to provide one. It was 665:Proposed temporary injunctions 13: 1: 13864:4) {text of proposed remedy} 13419:allegations), then so be it. 12271:I merely clerked afterwards. 9270:Two minutes later, North8000 8016:to include other contributors 7815:community revert restrictions 7118:2) {text of proposed remedy} 2904:KillerChihuahua is uninvolved 15130:and you were given a warning 14961:Ugg boots trademark disputes 14318:Whistleblowers are protected 10643:This version of the article: 10605:This version of the article: 10567:This version of the article: 10360:User_talk:Ubikwit#Suggestion 9769:from. BTW, if you want an 9073:. North8000 has no blocks. 8947:no consensus for a topic ban 7829:prevailing – is prohibited. 6764:They are predominantly white 5025:Darkstar1st topic banned (2) 4564:Silktort, given your remarks 3712:, what did you want me to do 3333:failed utterly to give any. 1788:question in greater detail. 1509:Administrator responsiveness 1464:Disruption by administrators 406:Conflict of interest reports 7: 15681:Ugg boots trademark dispute 15595:11:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC) 15456:11:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC) 15442:11:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC) 15384:20:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC) 15370:When you Wikistalked me to 15325:15:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC) 15275:21:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC) 15227:11:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC) 15188:14:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC) 15150:15:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC) 15105:11:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC) 14917:14:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC) 14876:11:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC) 14746:11:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC) 14615:18:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC) 14535:18:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC) 13292:Category:Tea Party movement 13137:Category:Tea Party movement 13127:Tea Party movement articles 12065:11) Darkstar1st has edited 11959:submitting diffs, which is 11615:9) Arthur Rubin has edited 9071:60% were in favour of a ban 8685:Calls for sanctions on AN/I 8255:Meanwhile, you state that " 7707:with any of the editors or 7705:prior personal interactions 6864:15:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 5602:Proposals by User:North8000 3047:IMHO the errors made were: 1834:Category:Tea Party movement 1766:Category:Tea Party movement 1720:Category:Tea Party movement 1132:guiding editorial principle 870:– or to publish or promote 235:Search archived proceedings 10: 16344: 16307:16:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC) 16291:03:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC) 16276:18:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC) 16215:03:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 16196:19:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC) 16179:19:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC) 16155:02:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC) 15883:05:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 15857:00:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 15696:09:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC) 15569:08:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC) 15069:08:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC) 14849:08:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC) 14704:08:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC) 14260:Wikistalking is prohibited 13713:06:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 13680:22:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 13664:20:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 13643:18:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 13465:15:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 13450:07:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 13435:06:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 13406:05:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 13345:06:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 13324:05:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 12948:22:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 12913:19:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 12758:16:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 12727:15:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 12710:18:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 12684:16:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 12666:11:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 12652:11:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 12635:11:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 12608:10:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 12540:09:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 12426:11:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 12409:21:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 12366:12:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 12351:09:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 12329:07:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 12311:12:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 12281:07:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 12264:01:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC) 12249:00:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC) 12209:18:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 12103:23:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC) 12004:12:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 11990:07:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 11973:01:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC) 11949:15:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 11906:23:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC) 11828:21:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 11802:01:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC) 11736:20:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 11722:07:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 11708:15:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 11676:10:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 11528:23:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC) 11370:03:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 11324:11:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 11310:01:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 11208:01:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 11185:22:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC) 11164:22:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC) 11145:21:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC) 10988:21:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC) 10974:14:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC) 10954:18:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 10922:16:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 10890:16:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 10872:15:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 10834:09:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 10795:7) Xenophrenic has edited 10471:19:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 10426:05:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 10244:18:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 10147:15:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 10124:23:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC) 10021:21:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC) 9911:01:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 9894:22:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 9880:21:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 9855:21:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 9839:20:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 9808:19:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 9786:18:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 9757:17:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 9734:11:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 9701:21:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 9687:06:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 9666:14:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 9651:02:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC) 9618:20:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC) 9577:19:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC) 9564:19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC) 9535:19:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC) 9518:18:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC) 9501:18:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC) 9486:18:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC) 9470:22:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 9451:19:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 9434:18:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 9422:18:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 9406:18:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 9386:17:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 9369:17:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 9344:17:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 9303:17:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 9281:16:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 9229:11:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 9212:07:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 9198:06:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 9173:16:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 9102:12:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 9018:02:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC) 8972:20:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC) 8877:16:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC) 8859:16:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 8608:12:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 8589:12:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 8569:12:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 8548:20:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC) 8529:19:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC) 8506:17:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC) 8482:17:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC) 8404:16:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC) 8376:12:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC) 8296:15:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC) 8279:14:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC) 8208:18:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC) 8182:11:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC) 8161:11:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC) 8140:23:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 8121:21:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 8081:16:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC) 8066:12:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 8048:23:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC) 7986:an inconclusive discussion 7063:14:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 7015:14:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 6998:18:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 6971:20:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 6929:19:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 6912:17:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 6898:was not even in the source 6891:16:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 6862:17:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 6847:13:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 6833:13:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 6795:12:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 6780:12:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 6753:08:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 6739:18:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 6708:12:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 6694:01:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC) 6091:14:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 6074:14:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 5895:15:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC) 5879:14:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC) 5838:13:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 5821:16:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 5790:11:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 5773:04:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 5758:01:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 5732:16:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 5583:20:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 5514:22:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 5500:21:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 5471:18:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC) 5447:21:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 5433:14:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 5418:19:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 5404:18:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 5389:20:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 5359:17:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 5341:12:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 5323:11:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 5301:16:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 5242:23:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 5189:23:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 5137:18:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC) 5117:09:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 5088:09:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 5059:20:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 5008:18:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC) 4986:20:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 4963:14:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC) 4915:20:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 4895:09:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 4861:North8000 topic banned (2) 4851:15:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC) 4834:15:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC) 4775:18:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC) 4750:19:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC) 4733:18:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC) 4712:18:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC) 4681:18:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC) 4662:18:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC) 4653:18:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC) 4638:18:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC) 4615:17:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC) 4595:17:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC) 4575:14:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC) 4555:00:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC) 4542:18:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 4520:18:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 4500:17:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 4474:17:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 4458:18:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 4442:14:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 4413:14:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 4399:19:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 4387:level of community support 4379:18:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 4364:18:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 4343:20:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 4325:09:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 4302:10:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC) 4276:17:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 4201:11:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 4183:10:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 4165:18:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 4072:Agree, strongly support DS 4035:14:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC) 4018:00:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC) 3999:00:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC) 3983:23:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 3968:19:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 3953:16:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 3909:18:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3895:20:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 3877:16:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 3854:17:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3776:21:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3759:20:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3742:20:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3637:08:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 3616:03:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 3591:23:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3571:22:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3551:22:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3525:22:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3498:21:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3484:21:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3470:21:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3455:20:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3433:20:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3419:20:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3403:20:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3386:19:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3371:19:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3357:19:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3343:18:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3299:18:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3272:19:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3258:19:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3243:18:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3223:18:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3204:16:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3191:16:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3145:15:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3127:15:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3088:14:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3043:12:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3028:11:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3011:23:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 2979:21:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 2962:20:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 2938:10:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC) 2896:19:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC) 2865:18:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC) 2849:08:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 2795:18:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC) 2765:15:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 2751:08:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 2731:08:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 2711:05:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 2696:04:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 2673:00:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 2616:08:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 2598:00:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 2320:12:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC) 2143:08:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 2129:05:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 2073:17:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC) 2046:09:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 2028:and you could have titled 2019:09:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 2004:10:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC) 1945:20:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 1929:10:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC) 1860:19:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 1846:18:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 1828:18:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 1798:18:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 1778:15:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 1760:16:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 1735:16:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 1714:14:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 1679:Tea Party movement article 1649:20:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 1634:19:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 1616:20:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 1601:03:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 1397:01:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 1310:09:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 1183:19:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 1083:02:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 1025:17:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 976:02:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 280:Arbitrator motion requests 39: 15660:22:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 15585:Date has been corrected. 15540:22:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 15020:22:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 14815:22:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 14681:22:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 14445:Proposed findings of fact 14426:18:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC) 14368:18:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC) 14299:18:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC) 14024:Proposed findings of fact 13572:Almost entirely reverts: 13519:Almost entirely reverts: 13505:Almost entirely reverts: 11292:02:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC) 11257:02:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC) 11226:19:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC) 11066:20:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC) 11046:“. . . I should add that 10298:page that may be relevant 10089:6) Malke 2010 has edited 7910:Proposed findings of fact 7821:; or to attempt to exert 6555:Proposed findings of fact 5914:06:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC) 5697:Proposed findings of fact 5529:22:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC) 5274:Arthur Rubin topic banned 5266:21:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC) 4066:21:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC) 3801:21:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC) 2886:21:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC) 2390:Malke started this thread 1674:Proposed findings of fact 1622:special admin Twinkle app 15822:AR's comment: See above 14995:Please do not modify it. 14501:thread in February 2013, 13488:: article 512/ talk 1120 13290:and related articles at 13135:and related articles at 9795:here's your cited source 9064:4) North8000 has edited 8677:18:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC) 7799:particular point of view 7709:personal views regarding 7106:05:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC) 6336:scrutiny and analysis. 5491:on the Evidence talkpage 4932:Darkstar1st topic banned 2566:Arthur Rubin is involved 2259:SilkTork has noted that 2210:2012 Worst article ever: 1047:assumptions of bad faith 834:Questions to the parties 16247:20:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 16230:17:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 16133:Comment by Arbitrators: 16092:Comment by Arbitrators: 16054:Comment by Arbitrators: 16016:Comment by Arbitrators: 15978:Comment by Arbitrators: 15940:Comment by Arbitrators: 15902:Comment by Arbitrators: 15731:Comment by Arbitrators: 15635:Comment by Arbitrators: 15511:Comment by Arbitrators: 15497:Talk:Tea Party movement 15372:Talk:Tea Party movement 15262:Talk:Tea Party movement 14968:Comment by Arbitrators: 14790:Comment by Arbitrators: 14730:Talk:Tea Party movement 14722:Talk:Tea Party movement 14652:Comment by Arbitrators: 14605:and related articles." 14582:Comment by Arbitrators: 14475:Comment by Arbitrators: 14401:Comment by Arbitrators: 14343:Comment by Arbitrators: 14274:Comment by Arbitrators: 14242:20:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 14195:Comment by Arbitrators: 14173:20:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 14133:11:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 14107:10:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 14093:02:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 14066:21:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 14038:Comment by Arbitrators: 14016:20:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 13969:Comment by Arbitrators: 13915:Comment by Arbitrators: 13869:Comment by Arbitrators: 13855:04:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC) 13808:17:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC) 13794:16:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC) 13777:16:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC) 13763:15:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC) 13748:10:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC) 13731:08:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC) 13582:: article: 28 /talk 87 13529:: article 195/talk 1374 13378:23:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC) 13361:23:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC) 13307:Comment by Arbitrators: 13152:Comment by Arbitrators: 13141:discretionary sanctions 13097:23:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC) 13079:Comment by Arbitrators: 13068:discretionary sanctions 13053:Discretionary Sanctions 13009:Comment by Arbitrators: 12992:12:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC) 12889:23:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC) 12872:Comment by Arbitrators: 12522:Comment by Arbitrators: 12461:Comment by Arbitrators: 12446:Concern has been raised 12184:Comment by Arbitrators: 12086:Comment by Arbitrators: 11923:23:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC) 11889:Comment by Arbitrators: 11876:10) Collect has edited 11628:Comment by Arbitrators: 11545:23:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC) 11511:Comment by Arbitrators: 11452:04:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 11398:right wing corporations 11385:, which Malke provided. 10848:23:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC) 10816:Comment by Arbitrators: 10745:14:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC) 10702:05:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC) 10664:06:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC) 10528:18:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC) 10503:18:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC) 10485:the leading contributor 10107:Comment by Arbitrators: 9998:Comment by Arbitrators: 9750:future BLP violations. 9078:Comment by Arbitrators: 8954:Comment by Arbitrators: 8936:3) Goethean has edited 8834:Comment by Arbitrators: 8651:16:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 8635:13:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC) 8023:Comment by Arbitrators: 7940:Comment by Arbitrators: 7878:Comment by Arbitrators: 7834:Comment by Arbitrators: 7761:Comment by Arbitrators: 7751:Seeking community input 7721:23:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC) 7699:Comment by Arbitrators: 7655:23:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC) 7637:23:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC) 7624:policies and guidelines 7613:Comment by Arbitrators: 7573:22:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC) 7559:Comment by Arbitrators: 7517:Comment by Arbitrators: 7475:Comment by Arbitrators: 7433:Comment by Arbitrators: 7391:Comment by Arbitrators: 7345:Comment by Arbitrators: 7303:Comment by Arbitrators: 7261:Comment by Arbitrators: 7210:Comment by Arbitrators: 7169:Comment by Arbitrators: 7123:Comment by Arbitrators: 6725:. Xenophrenic violates 6664:Comment by Arbitrators: 6610:Comment by Arbitrators: 6569:Comment by Arbitrators: 6520:Comment by Arbitrators: 6479:Comment by Arbitrators: 6460:Proposals by Malke 2010 6428:Comment by Arbitrators: 6387:Comment by Arbitrators: 6341:Comment by Arbitrators: 6299:Comment by Arbitrators: 6246:Comment by Arbitrators: 6205:Comment by Arbitrators: 6163:Comment by Arbitrators: 6121:Comment by Arbitrators: 6054:Comment by Arbitrators: 6012:Comment by Arbitrators: 5970:Comment by Arbitrators: 5929:Comment by Arbitrators: 5715:Comment by Arbitrators: 5662:Comment by Arbitrators: 5621:Comment by Arbitrators: 5558:Comment by Arbitrators: 5283:Comment by Arbitrators: 5217:Comment by Arbitrators: 5208:Arthur Rubin admonished 5164:Comment by Arbitrators: 5034:Comment by Arbitrators: 4941:Comment by Arbitrators: 4870:Comment by Arbitrators: 4147:Comment by Arbitrators: 4106:Comment by Arbitrators: 4091:04:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC) 4054:discretionary sanctions 3837:Comment by Arbitrators: 3827:discretionary sanctions 3694:want to complain about 2913:Comment by Arbitrators: 2824:Comment by Arbitrators: 2646:Comment by Arbitrators: 2575:Comment by Arbitrators: 2558:01:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC) 2275:blanket reverted today 2242:17:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC) 2103:Comment by Arbitrators: 2096:Talk:Tea Party movement 2026:"Objectionable content" 1979:Comment by Arbitrators: 1968:Talk:Tea Party movement 1904:Comment by Arbitrators: 1893:Talk:Tea Party movement 1692:Comment by Arbitrators: 1571:Comment by Arbitrators: 1554:Seeking community input 1522:Comment by Arbitrators: 1474:Comment by Arbitrators: 1433:Comment by Arbitrators: 1426:policies and guidelines 1373:Comment by Arbitrators: 1328:Comment by Arbitrators: 1246:Comment by Arbitrators: 1201:Comment by Arbitrators: 1143:Comment by Arbitrators: 1058:Comment by Arbitrators: 1051:disruptive point-making 936:Comment by Arbitrators: 879:Comment by Arbitrators: 839:Proposed final decision 802:Comment by Arbitrators: 761:Comment by Arbitrators: 720:Comment by Arbitrators: 679:Comment by Arbitrators: 630:Comment by Arbitrators: 589:Comment by Arbitrators: 548:Comment by Arbitrators: 15432:15:42, 31 March 2013) 15010:and related articles. 14332:reliability of sources 13542:: article 131/talk 298 13515:: article 397/talk 576 13501:: article 43/ talk 191 12511:continued edit warring 12493:Continued edit warring 11432: 11423: 11407: 11245:Then Arzel said this: 10647: 10628: 10609: 10590: 10571: 10552: 10371: 10341: 10303: 10285: 9353:response to a serious 8463: 8453: 8443: 4508:and Goethean responds 4138:North8000 topic banned 3595:And fairy tales begin 2541: 2532: 2477: 2470: 2414: 2407: 2400: 2362: 2355: 2290: 2288:coverage of the topic. 1102:Neutrality and sources 1007: 915:2) Knowledge adopts a 864:advocacy or propaganda 15495:WLRoss began editing 15426:17:06, 30 March 2013) 14324:neutral point of view 13555:: article 64/talk 333 11428: 11415:PR front group racket 11408: 11396:a whole host of big, 11392: 10641: 10622: 10603: 10584: 10565: 10546: 10366: 10329: 10299: 10280: 8456: 8446: 8436: 7803:neutral point of view 7711:the subject-matter"? 7293:Neutral point of view 7242:Proposals by SilkTork 5521:A Quest For Knowledge 5258:A Quest For Knowledge 5154:Arthur Rubin reminded 4285:the article at heart. 4058:A Quest For Knowledge 3793:A Quest For Knowledge 2919:an excellent response 2878:A Quest For Knowledge 2536: 2522: 2521:Comment to Viriditas: 2473: 2465: 2410: 2403: 2396: 2358: 2344: 2285: 2030:your evidence section 1972:battleground behavior 1897:battleground behavior 1108:neutral point of view 1002: 917:neutral point of view 476:Track related changes 336:Arbitration Committee 176:Knowledge Arbitration 18:Knowledge:Arbitration 15717:Analysis of evidence 14225:The Devil's Advocate 14156:The Devil's Advocate 13999:The Devil's Advocate 13901:Proposed enforcement 13696:The Devil's Advocate 13568:: article 42/talk 53 12931:The Devil's Advocate 12392:The Devil's Advocate 12232:The Devil's Advocate 12139:User:KillerChihuahua 11811:The Devil's Advocate 11785:The Devil's Advocate 11466:User:Thargor Orlando 10809:no community support 9981:5) Arzel has edited 9863:The Devil's Advocate 9822:The Devil's Advocate 9634:The Devil's Advocate 9358:misunderstanding of 9001:The Devil's Advocate 8621:completely different 8008:, which were later 7811:no original research 7252:Purpose of Knowledge 7155:Proposed enforcement 6373:Proposed enforcement 5545:Proposed enforcement 2034:"Talk page headings" 854:Purpose of Knowledge 285:Enforcement requests 213:Guide to arbitration 119:Drafting arbitrators 16164:Comment by parties: 16103:Comment by parties: 16065:Comment by parties: 16027:Comment by parties: 15989:Comment by parties: 15951:Comment by parties: 15913:Comment by parties: 15742:Comment by parties: 15652:Phoenix and Winslow 15646:Comment by parties: 15587:Phoenix and Winslow 15532:Phoenix and Winslow 15522:Comment by parties: 15376:Phoenix and Winslow 15267:Phoenix and Winslow 15180:Phoenix and Winslow 15097:Phoenix and Winslow 15012:Phoenix and Winslow 14979:Comment by parties: 14942:WLRoss returned to 14868:Phoenix and Winslow 14807:Phoenix and Winslow 14801:Comment by parties: 14738:Phoenix and Winslow 14673:Phoenix and Winslow 14663:Comment by parties: 14607:Phoenix and Winslow 14593:Comment by parties: 14573:and has engaged in 14563:tendentious editing 14527:Phoenix and Winslow 14486:Comment by parties: 14466:and has engaged in 14456:tendentious editing 14418:Phoenix and Winslow 14412:Comment by parties: 14360:Phoenix and Winslow 14354:Comment by parties: 14291:Phoenix and Winslow 14285:Comment by parties: 14255:Proposed principles 14206:Comment by parties: 14072:any evidence at all 14049:Comment by parties: 13980:Comment by parties: 13955:Proposed principles 13926:Comment by parties: 13880:Comment by parties: 13389:Comment by parties: 13163:Comment by parties: 13106:Comment by parties: 13020:Comment by parties: 12898:Comment by parties: 12593:Comment by parties: 12472:Comment by parties: 12454:there are instances 12450:on the same content 12195:Comment by parties: 12112:Comment by parties: 11934:Comment by parties: 11685:Comment by parties: 11556:Comment by parties: 11052:tendentious editing 10857:Comment by parties: 10133:Comment by parties: 10030:Comment by parties: 9244:Comment by parties: 8981:Comment by parties: 8845:Comment by parties: 8669:Phoenix and Winslow 8034:Comment by parties: 7982:check their editing 7951:Comment by parties: 7889:Comment by parties: 7845:Comment by parties: 7772:Comment by parties: 7730:Comment by parties: 7664:Comment by parties: 7582:Comment by parties: 7528:Comment by parties: 7507:Tendentious editing 7486:Comment by parties: 7444:Comment by parties: 7402:Comment by parties: 7356:Comment by parties: 7314:Comment by parties: 7272:Comment by parties: 7247:Proposed principles 7221:Comment by parties: 7180:Comment by parties: 7134:Comment by parties: 7098:Phoenix and Winslow 6675:Comment by parties: 6621:Comment by parties: 6580:Comment by parties: 6531:Comment by parties: 6490:Comment by parties: 6465:Proposed principles 6439:Comment by parties: 6398:Comment by parties: 6352:Comment by parties: 6310:Comment by parties: 6257:Comment by parties: 6216:Comment by parties: 6174:Comment by parties: 6132:Comment by parties: 6065:Comment by parties: 6023:Comment by parties: 5981:Comment by parties: 5940:Comment by parties: 5741:Comment by parties: 5673:Comment by parties: 5632:Comment by parties: 5607:Proposed principles 5569:Comment by parties: 5374:Comment by parties: 5228:Comment by parties: 5175:Comment by parties: 5105:Camp Chapman attack 5070:(KC was originally 5045:Comment by parties: 4972:Comment by parties: 4881:Comment by parties: 4311:Comment by parties: 4117:Comment by parties: 3863:Comment by parties: 2947:Comment by parties: 2835:Comment by parties: 2657:Comment by parties: 2586:Comment by parties: 2114:Comment by parties: 1990:Comment by parties: 1915:Comment by parties: 1746:Comment by parties: 1582:Comment by parties: 1533:Comment by parties: 1485:Comment by parties: 1443:Comment by parties: 1384:Comment by parties: 1339:Comment by parties: 1257:Comment by parties: 1239:disrupt the editing 1233:Tendentious editing 1212:Comment by parties: 1154:Comment by parties: 1128:"original research" 1069:Comment by parties: 947:Comment by parties: 890:Comment by parties: 849:Proposed principles 813:Comment by parties: 772:Comment by parties: 731:Comment by parties: 690:Comment by parties: 641:Comment by parties: 600:Comment by parties: 559:Comment by parties: 514:The purpose of the 16264:Comment by others: 16127:General discussion 16114:Comment by others: 16076:Comment by others: 16038:Comment by others: 16000:Comment by others: 15962:Comment by others: 15924:Comment by others: 15890:Comment by others: 15707:Comment by others: 15608:Comment by others: 15528:Tea Party movement 15504:Tea Party movement 15485:Comment by others: 15054:WP:RFC#Ending RfCs 14932:Comment by others: 14759:Comment by others: 14624:Comment by others: 14603:Tea Party movement 14567:Tea Party movement 14556:Tea Party movement 14544:Comment by others: 14523:prior to July 2013 14508:was not originally 14460:Tea Party movement 14435:Comment by others: 14377:Comment by others: 14308:Comment by others: 14217:Comment by others: 14147:Comment by others: 13991:Comment by others: 13937:Comment by others: 13891:Comment by others: 13687:Comment by others: 13288:Tea Party movement 13174:Comment by others: 13133:Tea Party movement 13117:Comment by others: 13064:Tea Party movement 13058:Tea Party movement 13031:Comment by others: 12922:Comment by others: 12769:Comment by others: 12515:Tea Party movement 12483:Comment by others: 12218:Comment by others: 12173:Tea Party movement 12123:Comment by others: 12075:Tea Party movement 12067:Tea Party movement 12017:Comment by others: 11878:Tea Party movement 11749:Comment by others: 11633:This is unpleasant 11617:Tea Party movement 11567:Comment by others: 11500:Tea Party movement 11339:Comment by others: 10805:Tea Party movement 10797:Tea Party movement 10253:Comment by others: 10091:Tea Party movement 10041:Comment by others: 9991:Tea Party movement 9983:Tea Party movement 9255:Comment by others: 9066:Tea Party movement 8992:Comment by others: 8938:Tea Party movement 8888:Comment by others: 8865:Locus of dispute 2 8658:Comment by others: 7972:Locus of dispute 2 7962:Comment by others: 7929:informal mediation 7925:Tea Party protests 7921:Tea Party movement 7915:Locus of dispute 1 7900:Comment by others: 7856:Comment by others: 7783:Comment by others: 7741:Comment by others: 7675:Comment by others: 7593:Comment by others: 7539:Comment by others: 7497:Comment by others: 7455:Comment by others: 7413:Comment by others: 7377:Consensus building 7367:Comment by others: 7325:Comment by others: 7283:Comment by others: 7232:Comment by others: 7191:Comment by others: 7145:Comment by others: 7075:Tea Party movement 6980:Comment by others: 6632:Comment by others: 6591:Comment by others: 6542:Comment by others: 6501:Comment by others: 6450:Comment by others: 6409:Comment by others: 6363:Comment by others: 6321:Comment by others: 6268:Comment by others: 6227:Comment by others: 6185:Comment by others: 6143:Comment by others: 6102:Comment by others: 6034:Comment by others: 5992:Comment by others: 5951:Comment by others: 5849:Comment by others: 5684:Comment by others: 5643:Comment by others: 5592:Comment by others: 5476:Comment by others: 5251:Comment by others: 5198:Comment by others: 5144:Comment by others: 5015:Comment by others: 4922:Comment by others: 4781:Comment by others: 4128:Comment by others: 4097:Editors encouraged 3987:Is there anything 3920:Comment by others: 3787:Comment by others: 3599:, but that is not 3262:'kay, no problem. 2872:Comment by others: 2801:Comment by others: 2627:Comment by others: 2602:I refer you to my 2251:Comment by others: 2080:Comment by others: 1952:Comment by others: 1877:Comment by others: 1812:Tea Party Patriots 1685:Tea party movement 1664:Comment by others: 1544:Comment by others: 1496:Comment by others: 1454:Comment by others: 1406:Comment by others: 1360:Fanning the flames 1350:Comment by others: 1268:Comment by others: 1223:Comment by others: 1165:Comment by others: 1134:of Knowledge, and 1092:Comment by others: 1053:, is prohibited. 985:Comment by others: 901:Comment by others: 824:Comment by others: 783:Comment by others: 742:Comment by others: 701:Comment by others: 652:Comment by others: 611:Comment by others: 570:Comment by others: 528:/Proposed decision 307:Contentious topics 205:Arbitration policy 30:Tea Party movement 16274: 15481: 15480: 14963:in April 2013. 14634:Brief editing of 14510:named as a party 14181:Proposed remedies 13413:false equivalence 13184:Edit restrictions 13049: 13041:Proposed remedies 12903:settle a matter. 11774: 11773: 11583:User:Arthur Rubin 11420: 11404: 10338: 9623: 9622: 9474:But North8000 is 9288:by Freedomthinker 8512: 8511: 8426: 7549:Article sanctions 6650: 6642:Proposed remedies 6286: 6278:Proposed remedies 5485:pointed out that 3817: 3809:Proposed remedies 3715:(nothing further) 2398:Editing Wish List 1808:Jenny Beth Martin 1804:Tea Party rallies 1318:Article sanctions 1126:claims, or other 1073:As I said above. 872:original research 512: 511: 479: 447: 317:General sanctions 265:All open requests 195:About arbitration 168: 157: 143: 132: 117: 100: 92:Proposed decision 89: 78: 67: 16335: 16328: 16323: 16300: 16270: 16240: 16189: 16176: 16147: 14997: 14984: 14983: 14238: 14233: 14227: 14169: 14164: 14158: 14126: 14104: 14090: 14059: 14012: 14007: 14001: 13851: 13845: 13844: 13787: 13741: 13723: 13709: 13704: 13698: 13657: 13430: 13370: 13340: 13316: 13139:is placed under 13066:is placed under 13045: 12988: 12982: 12981: 12944: 12939: 12933: 12881: 12754: 12748: 12747: 12676: 12645: 12627: 12532: 12503:User:Xenophrenic 12419: 12405: 12400: 12394: 12363: 12343: 12326: 12278: 12245: 12240: 12234: 12168: 12167: 12095: 12062: 12061: 12033:User:Darkstar1st 11987: 11946: 11915: 11898: 11873: 11872: 11824: 11819: 11813: 11798: 11793: 11787: 11759: 11758: 11719: 11705: 11668: 11661:apologised to KC 11652: 11640: 11612: 11611: 11537: 11520: 11495: 11494: 11448: 11442: 11441: 11418: 11402: 11366: 11360: 11359: 11178: 11156: 10882: 10826: 10792: 10791: 10763:User:Xenophrenic 10741: 10735: 10734: 10698: 10692: 10691: 10660: 10654: 10653: 10521: 10499: 10493: 10492: 10467: 10461: 10460: 10422: 10416: 10415: 10336: 10168:deleted my edit. 10144: 10116: 10086: 10085: 10013: 9978: 9977: 9904: 9876: 9871: 9865: 9835: 9830: 9824: 9791:Here's your edit 9779: 9727: 9682: 9647: 9642: 9636: 9611: 9532: 9511: 9444: 9415: 9379: 9337: 9317:Extended content 9313: 9312: 9295: 9222: 9193: 9165: 9097: 9061: 9060: 9014: 9009: 9003: 8964: 8933: 8932: 8874: 8856: 8628: 8601: 8582: 8562: 8540: 8521: 8499: 8478: 8472: 8471: 8420: 8372: 8366: 8365: 8289: 8275: 8269: 8268: 8224:Extended content 8220: 8219: 8201: 8175: 8154: 8132: 8114: 8078: 8058: 8045: 7793:Tag-team editing 7647: 7008: 6905: 6792: 6750: 6646: 6282: 6084: 5906:William Jockusch 5888: 5831: 5783: 5724: 5580: 5511: 5464: 5430: 5415: 5401: 5386: 5351: 5333: 5315: 5293: 5239: 5186: 5130: 5056: 5001: 4983: 4955: 4908: 4892: 4844: 4768: 4743: 4705: 4439: 4396: 4361: 4336: 4322: 4294: 4268: 4193: 4175: 4157: 4087: 4081: 4080: 4028: 3906: 3892: 3846: 3813: 3769: 3756: 3735: 3710:acknowledging #3 3613: 3597:once upon a time 3568: 3522: 3481: 3452: 3416: 3383: 3340: 3255: 3220: 3124: 3081: 3040: 3021: 3008: 2972: 2959: 2930: 2858: 2853:I see no basis. 2846: 2788: 2748: 2728: 2693: 2613: 2554: 2548: 2547: 2316: 2310: 2309: 2166:deleted my edit. 2140: 2066: 2043: 2001: 1938: 1926: 1843: 1795: 1775: 1727: 1706: 1646: 1613: 1116:reliable sources 1039:personal attacks 860:personal agendas 504: 497: 490: 478: 473: 466: 445: 401:Clerk procedures 393: 351: 322:Editor sanctions 299:Active sanctions 257:Open proceedings 227: 186: 172: 171: 162: 151: 137: 126: 111: 94: 83: 72: 61: 52: 16343: 16342: 16338: 16337: 16336: 16334: 16333: 16332: 16331: 16324: 16320: 16296: 16236: 16185: 16174: 16145: 16129: 16088: 16050: 16012: 15974: 15936: 15898: 15727: 15719: 15620: 15500: 14993: 14948: 14771: 14640: 14559: 14452: 14447: 14389: 14320: 14262: 14257: 14252: 14240: 14236: 14231: 14223: 14188: 14186:KillerChihuahua 14183: 14171: 14167: 14162: 14154: 14122: 14102: 14088: 14055: 14031: 14026: 14014: 14010: 14005: 13997: 13962: 13957: 13952: 13908: 13903: 13862: 13853: 13849: 13842: 13841: 13783: 13737: 13721: 13711: 13707: 13702: 13694: 13653: 13479:Editing records 13428: 13368: 13338: 13314: 13186: 13129: 13060: 13055: 13043: 13002: 12990: 12986: 12979: 12978: 12946: 12942: 12937: 12929: 12879: 12781: 12779:Previous record 12756: 12752: 12745: 12744: 12674: 12641: 12625: 12530: 12507:User:Malke 2010 12495: 12442: 12415: 12407: 12403: 12398: 12390: 12361: 12341: 12324: 12276: 12247: 12243: 12238: 12230: 12141: 12137: 12135: 12133:KillerChihuahua 12093: 12035: 12031: 12029: 11985: 11961:the very reason 11944: 11913: 11896: 11846: 11842: 11840: 11826: 11822: 11817: 11809: 11800: 11796: 11791: 11783: 11775: 11764: 11717: 11703: 11666: 11650: 11638: 11585: 11581: 11579: 11535: 11518: 11468: 11464: 11462: 11460:Thargor Orlando 11450: 11446: 11439: 11438: 11368: 11364: 11357: 11356: 11174: 11154: 10964:about his edits 10880: 10824: 10801:blocked in 2011 10765: 10761: 10759: 10743: 10739: 10732: 10731: 10700: 10696: 10689: 10688: 10662: 10658: 10651: 10650: 10517: 10501: 10497: 10490: 10489: 10469: 10465: 10458: 10457: 10424: 10420: 10413: 10412: 10142: 10114: 10059: 10057:User:Malke 2010 10055: 10053: 10011: 9951: 9947: 9945: 9900: 9878: 9874: 9869: 9861: 9837: 9833: 9828: 9820: 9775: 9723: 9680: 9649: 9645: 9640: 9632: 9624: 9607: 9530: 9507: 9440: 9411: 9375: 9333: 9318: 9293: 9218: 9191: 9163: 9095: 9083:particular was 9034: 9030: 9028: 9016: 9012: 9007: 8999: 8962: 8906: 8902: 8900: 8872: 8854: 8817:KillerChihuahua 8761:Thargor Orlando 8687: 8624: 8597: 8578: 8558: 8538: 8519: 8513: 8495: 8480: 8476: 8469: 8468: 8429:linked to above 8374: 8370: 8363: 8362: 8285: 8277: 8273: 8266: 8265: 8225: 8197: 8171: 8150: 8130: 8110: 8076: 8056: 8043: 7974: 7933:this discussion 7917: 7912: 7871: 7795: 7753: 7687: 7645: 7605: 7551: 7509: 7467: 7425: 7379: 7337: 7295: 7254: 7249: 7244: 7203: 7162: 7157: 7116: 7004: 6953: 6950: 6901: 6822: 6790: 6748: 6656: 6644: 6603: 6562: 6557: 6513: 6472: 6467: 6462: 6421: 6380: 6375: 6333: 6292: 6280: 6239: 6197: 6155: 6114: 6080: 6046: 6004: 5963: 5922: 5884: 5827: 5779: 5722: 5704: 5699: 5655: 5614: 5609: 5604: 5578: 5547: 5509: 5487:Tobacco Control 5460: 5428: 5413: 5399: 5384: 5349: 5331: 5313: 5307:this discussion 5291: 5276: 5237: 5210: 5184: 5156: 5126: 5054: 5027: 4997: 4981: 4953: 4934: 4904: 4890: 4863: 4840: 4764: 4739: 4701: 4527:North responds 4437: 4394: 4359: 4332: 4320: 4292: 4266: 4191: 4173: 4155: 4140: 4099: 4089: 4085: 4078: 4077: 4024: 3904: 3890: 3844: 3823: 3811: 3765: 3754: 3731: 3611: 3566: 3520: 3479: 3450: 3439:diffs and views 3414: 3381: 3338: 3253: 3218: 3122: 3077: 3038: 3017: 3006: 2968: 2957: 2928: 2906: 2854: 2844: 2813: 2784: 2746: 2726: 2691: 2639: 2611: 2568: 2556: 2552: 2545: 2544: 2318: 2314: 2307: 2306: 2138: 2092: 2062: 2041: 1999: 1964: 1934: 1924: 1895:. He has shown 1889: 1841: 1793: 1773: 1725: 1704: 1681: 1676: 1644: 1611: 1556: 1511: 1466: 1418: 1362: 1320: 1235: 1193: 1136:is not optional 1104: 1035: 913: 874:is prohibited. 856: 851: 846: 841: 836: 795: 754: 713: 672: 667: 623: 582: 541: 536: 508: 474: 468: 467: 462: 452: 451: 450: 439: 422: 412: 411: 410: 397: 389: 377: 352: 347: 338: 328: 327: 326: 301: 291: 290: 289: 259: 249: 246: 231: 223: 201: 170: 57: 56: 55: 48: 44: 34: 33: 32: 12: 11: 5: 16341: 16330: 16329: 16317: 16316: 16315: 16314: 16313: 16312: 16311: 16310: 16309: 16260: 16259: 16258: 16257: 16256: 16255: 16254: 16253: 16252: 16251: 16250: 16249: 16160: 16159: 16158: 16157: 16128: 16125: 16123: 16121: 16120: 16119: 16118: 16110: 16109: 16108: 16107: 16099: 16098: 16097: 16096: 16087: 16084: 16083: 16082: 16081: 16080: 16072: 16071: 16070: 16069: 16061: 16060: 16059: 16058: 16049: 16046: 16045: 16044: 16043: 16042: 16034: 16033: 16032: 16031: 16023: 16022: 16021: 16020: 16011: 16008: 16007: 16006: 16005: 16004: 15996: 15995: 15994: 15993: 15985: 15984: 15983: 15982: 15973: 15970: 15969: 15968: 15967: 15966: 15958: 15957: 15956: 15955: 15947: 15946: 15945: 15944: 15935: 15932: 15931: 15930: 15929: 15928: 15920: 15919: 15918: 15917: 15909: 15908: 15907: 15906: 15897: 15894: 15893: 15892: 15887: 15886: 15885: 15871: 15870: 15869: 15868: 15867: 15847: 15846: 15845: 15844: 15843: 15832: 15825: 15824: 15823: 15820: 15813: 15812: 15811: 15804: 15796: 15795: 15794: 15787: 15780: 15779: 15778: 15775: 15768: 15767: 15766: 15759: 15738: 15737: 15736: 15735: 15726: 15723: 15718: 15715: 15714: 15713: 15712: 15711: 15703: 15702: 15701: 15700: 15699: 15698: 15685: 15679:I created the 15678: 15675: 15673: 15665: 15664: 15663: 15662: 15642: 15641: 15640: 15639: 15619: 15616: 15615: 15614: 15613: 15612: 15604: 15603: 15602: 15601: 15600: 15599: 15598: 15597: 15576: 15575: 15574: 15573: 15572: 15571: 15545: 15544: 15543: 15542: 15518: 15517: 15516: 15515: 15499: 15493: 15492: 15491: 15490: 15489: 15479: 15478: 15477: 15476: 15475: 15474: 15473: 15472: 15471: 15470: 15469: 15468: 15467: 15466: 15465: 15464: 15463: 15462: 15461: 15460: 15459: 15458: 15427: 15421: 15401: 15400: 15399: 15398: 15397: 15396: 15395: 15394: 15393: 15392: 15391: 15390: 15389: 15388: 15387: 15386: 15365: 15344: 15343: 15342: 15341: 15340: 15339: 15338: 15337: 15336: 15335: 15334: 15333: 15332: 15331: 15330: 15329: 15328: 15327: 15292: 15291: 15290: 15289: 15288: 15287: 15286: 15285: 15284: 15283: 15282: 15281: 15280: 15279: 15278: 15277: 15242: 15241: 15240: 15239: 15238: 15237: 15236: 15235: 15234: 15233: 15232: 15231: 15230: 15229: 15201: 15200: 15199: 15198: 15197: 15196: 15195: 15194: 15193: 15192: 15191: 15190: 15161: 15160: 15159: 15158: 15157: 15156: 15155: 15154: 15153: 15152: 15114: 15113: 15112: 15111: 15110: 15109: 15108: 15107: 15076: 15075: 15074: 15073: 15072: 15071: 15044: 15025: 15024: 15023: 15022: 14999: 14998: 14989: 14988: 14982: 14981: 14975: 14974: 14973: 14972: 14947: 14940: 14939: 14938: 14937: 14936: 14928: 14927: 14926: 14925: 14924: 14923: 14922: 14921: 14920: 14919: 14885: 14884: 14883: 14882: 14881: 14880: 14879: 14878: 14856: 14855: 14854: 14853: 14852: 14851: 14820: 14819: 14818: 14817: 14797: 14796: 14795: 14794: 14770: 14767: 14766: 14765: 14764: 14763: 14755: 14754: 14753: 14752: 14751: 14750: 14749: 14748: 14711: 14710: 14709: 14708: 14707: 14706: 14686: 14685: 14684: 14683: 14659: 14658: 14657: 14656: 14639: 14632: 14631: 14630: 14629: 14628: 14620: 14619: 14618: 14617: 14589: 14588: 14587: 14586: 14558: 14552: 14551: 14550: 14549: 14548: 14540: 14539: 14538: 14537: 14482: 14481: 14480: 14479: 14451: 14448: 14446: 14443: 14442: 14441: 14440: 14439: 14431: 14430: 14429: 14428: 14408: 14407: 14406: 14405: 14388: 14385: 14384: 14383: 14382: 14381: 14373: 14372: 14371: 14370: 14350: 14349: 14348: 14347: 14319: 14316: 14315: 14314: 14313: 14312: 14304: 14303: 14302: 14301: 14281: 14280: 14279: 14278: 14261: 14258: 14256: 14253: 14251: 14248: 14247: 14246: 14245: 14244: 14229: 14213: 14212: 14211: 14210: 14202: 14201: 14200: 14199: 14187: 14184: 14182: 14179: 14178: 14177: 14176: 14175: 14160: 14142: 14140: 14139: 14138: 14137: 14136: 14135: 14114: 14113: 14112: 14111: 14110: 14109: 14068: 14045: 14044: 14043: 14042: 14030: 14027: 14025: 14022: 14021: 14020: 14019: 14018: 14003: 13987: 13986: 13985: 13984: 13976: 13975: 13974: 13973: 13961: 13960:Administrators 13958: 13956: 13953: 13951: 13948: 13946: 13944: 13943: 13942: 13941: 13933: 13932: 13931: 13930: 13922: 13921: 13920: 13919: 13907: 13904: 13902: 13899: 13898: 13897: 13896: 13895: 13887: 13886: 13885: 13884: 13876: 13875: 13874: 13873: 13861: 13858: 13847: 13825: 13824: 13823: 13822: 13821: 13820: 13819: 13818: 13817: 13816: 13815: 13814: 13813: 13812: 13811: 13810: 13700: 13683: 13682: 13632: 13631: 13619: 13613: 13607: 13601: 13595: 13584: 13583: 13570: 13569: 13557: 13556: 13544: 13543: 13531: 13530: 13517: 13516: 13503: 13502: 13490: 13489: 13476: 13475: 13474: 13473: 13472: 13471: 13470: 13469: 13468: 13467: 13385: 13384: 13383: 13382: 13381: 13380: 13349: 13348: 13347: 13185: 13182: 13181: 13180: 13179: 13178: 13170: 13169: 13168: 13167: 13159: 13158: 13157: 13156: 13128: 13125: 13124: 13123: 13122: 13121: 13113: 13112: 13111: 13110: 13102: 13101: 13100: 13099: 13085:Climate change 13059: 13056: 13054: 13051: 13042: 13039: 13038: 13037: 13036: 13035: 13027: 13026: 13025: 13024: 13016: 13015: 13014: 13013: 13001: 12998: 12997: 12996: 12995: 12994: 12984: 12973: 12970: 12965: 12964: 12953: 12952: 12951: 12950: 12935: 12918: 12917: 12916: 12915: 12894: 12893: 12892: 12891: 12780: 12777: 12776: 12775: 12774: 12773: 12765: 12764: 12763: 12762: 12761: 12760: 12750: 12740: 12732: 12731: 12730: 12729: 12697: 12696: 12695: 12694: 12693: 12692: 12691: 12690: 12689: 12688: 12687: 12686: 12589: 12588: 12585: 12582: 12579: 12576: 12573: 12570: 12567: 12564: 12561: 12558: 12555: 12552: 12549: 12545: 12544: 12543: 12542: 12494: 12491: 12490: 12489: 12488: 12487: 12479: 12478: 12477: 12476: 12468: 12467: 12466: 12465: 12441: 12438: 12437: 12436: 12435: 12434: 12433: 12432: 12431: 12430: 12429: 12428: 12411: 12396: 12377: 12376: 12375: 12374: 12373: 12372: 12371: 12370: 12369: 12368: 12317: 12316: 12315: 12314: 12313: 12236: 12214: 12213: 12212: 12211: 12191: 12190: 12189: 12188: 12134: 12131: 12130: 12129: 12128: 12127: 12119: 12118: 12117: 12116: 12108: 12107: 12106: 12105: 12028: 12025: 12024: 12023: 12022: 12021: 12014: 12013: 12012: 12011: 12010: 12009: 12008: 12007: 12006: 11930: 11929: 11928: 11927: 11926: 11925: 11839: 11836: 11835: 11834: 11833: 11832: 11831: 11830: 11815: 11789: 11772: 11771: 11766: 11765: 11762: 11757: 11756: 11755: 11754: 11753: 11745: 11744: 11743: 11742: 11741: 11740: 11739: 11738: 11681: 11680: 11679: 11678: 11578: 11575: 11574: 11573: 11572: 11571: 11563: 11562: 11561: 11560: 11552: 11551: 11550: 11549: 11548: 11547: 11461: 11458: 11457: 11456: 11455: 11454: 11444: 11433: 11424: 11387: 11386: 11375: 11374: 11373: 11372: 11362: 11348: 11335: 11334: 11333: 11332: 11331: 11330: 11329: 11328: 11327: 11326: 11297: 11296: 11295: 11279: 11267: 11266: 11265: 11264: 11263: 11262: 11261: 11260: 11236: 11235: 11234: 11233: 11232: 11231: 11230: 11229: 11213: 11190: 11189: 11188: 11187: 11167: 11166: 11126: 11125: 11122: 11119: 11116: 11113: 11110: 11107: 11104: 11101: 11007: 11006: 11005: 11004: 11003: 11002: 11001: 11000: 10999: 10998: 10997: 10996: 10995: 10994: 10993: 10992: 10991: 10990: 10929: 10928: 10927: 10926: 10925: 10924: 10911: 10910: 10909: 10897: 10896: 10895: 10894: 10893: 10892: 10853: 10852: 10851: 10850: 10836: 10758: 10755: 10754: 10753: 10752: 10751: 10750: 10749: 10748: 10747: 10737: 10727: 10723: 10720: 10709: 10708: 10707: 10706: 10705: 10704: 10694: 10684: 10671: 10670: 10669: 10668: 10667: 10666: 10656: 10634: 10633: 10632: 10631: 10630: 10629: 10615: 10614: 10613: 10612: 10611: 10610: 10596: 10595: 10594: 10593: 10592: 10591: 10577: 10576: 10575: 10574: 10573: 10572: 10558: 10557: 10556: 10555: 10554: 10553: 10542: 10533: 10532: 10531: 10530: 10510: 10509: 10508: 10507: 10506: 10505: 10495: 10476: 10475: 10474: 10473: 10463: 10452: 10448: 10445: 10437: 10431: 10430: 10429: 10428: 10418: 10403: 10396: 10389: 10382: 10375: 10374: 10373: 10372: 10363: 10356: 10352: 10345: 10344: 10343: 10342: 10320: 10319: 10318: 10317: 10307: 10306: 10305: 10304: 10289: 10288: 10287: 10286: 10275: 10269: 10268: 10267: 10266: 10262: 10259: 10248: 10233: 10232: 10227: 10226: 10222: 10221: 10205: 10204: 10199: 10198: 10193: 10192: 10181: 10180: 10170: 10169: 10164: 10163: 10159: 10158: 10152: 10151: 10150: 10149: 10129: 10128: 10127: 10126: 10100:has apologised 10052: 10049: 10048: 10047: 10046: 10045: 10037: 10036: 10035: 10034: 10026: 10025: 10024: 10023: 9944: 9941: 9940: 9939: 9938: 9937: 9936: 9935: 9934: 9933: 9932: 9931: 9930: 9929: 9928: 9927: 9926: 9925: 9924: 9923: 9922: 9921: 9920: 9919: 9918: 9917: 9916: 9915: 9914: 9913: 9867: 9826: 9815:the discussion 9710: 9709: 9708: 9707: 9706: 9705: 9704: 9703: 9668: 9638: 9621: 9620: 9604: 9603: 9602: 9601: 9600: 9599: 9598: 9597: 9596: 9595: 9594: 9593: 9592: 9591: 9590: 9589: 9588: 9587: 9586: 9585: 9584: 9583: 9582: 9581: 9580: 9579: 9566: 9552: 9522: 9521: 9520: 9503: 9350:someone else's 9320: 9319: 9316: 9311: 9310: 9309: 9308: 9307: 9306: 9305: 9251: 9250: 9249: 9248: 9240: 9239: 9238: 9237: 9236: 9235: 9234: 9233: 9232: 9231: 9214: 9153: 9152: 9149: 9146: 9143: 9140: 9137: 9134: 9131: 9128: 9125: 9122: 9119: 9116: 9112: 9111: 9110: 9109: 9108: 9107: 9032:User:North8000 9027: 9024: 9023: 9022: 9021: 9020: 9005: 8988: 8987: 8986: 8985: 8977: 8976: 8975: 8974: 8899: 8896: 8895: 8894: 8893: 8892: 8884: 8883: 8882: 8881: 8880: 8879: 8841: 8840: 8839: 8838: 8686: 8683: 8682: 8681: 8680: 8679: 8654: 8653: 8613: 8612: 8611: 8610: 8593: 8592: 8591: 8551: 8550: 8510: 8509: 8491: 8490: 8489: 8488: 8487: 8486: 8485: 8484: 8474: 8464: 8454: 8434: 8433: 8432: 8411: 8410: 8409: 8408: 8407: 8406: 8368: 8350: 8347: 8340: 8336: 8329: 8326: 8319: 8316: 8309: 8306: 8302: 8301: 8300: 8299: 8298: 8271: 8253: 8242: 8227: 8226: 8223: 8218: 8217: 8216: 8215: 8214: 8213: 8212: 8211: 8210: 8163: 8106: 8105: 8102: 8099: 8090: 8089: 8088: 8087: 8086: 8085: 8084: 8083: 8030: 8029: 8028: 8027: 7973: 7970: 7969: 7968: 7967: 7966: 7958: 7957: 7956: 7955: 7947: 7946: 7945: 7944: 7916: 7913: 7911: 7908: 7907: 7906: 7905: 7904: 7896: 7895: 7894: 7893: 7885: 7884: 7883: 7882: 7870: 7867: 7865: 7863: 7862: 7861: 7860: 7852: 7851: 7850: 7849: 7841: 7840: 7839: 7838: 7794: 7791: 7790: 7789: 7788: 7787: 7779: 7778: 7777: 7776: 7768: 7767: 7766: 7765: 7752: 7749: 7748: 7747: 7746: 7745: 7737: 7736: 7735: 7734: 7726: 7725: 7724: 7723: 7686: 7683: 7682: 7681: 7680: 7679: 7671: 7670: 7669: 7668: 7661: 7660: 7659: 7658: 7657: 7620:Administrators 7604: 7603:Administrators 7601: 7600: 7599: 7598: 7597: 7589: 7588: 7587: 7586: 7578: 7577: 7576: 7575: 7550: 7547: 7546: 7545: 7544: 7543: 7535: 7534: 7533: 7532: 7524: 7523: 7522: 7521: 7508: 7505: 7504: 7503: 7502: 7501: 7493: 7492: 7491: 7490: 7482: 7481: 7480: 7479: 7466: 7463: 7462: 7461: 7460: 7459: 7451: 7450: 7449: 7448: 7440: 7439: 7438: 7437: 7424: 7421: 7420: 7419: 7418: 7417: 7409: 7408: 7407: 7406: 7398: 7397: 7396: 7395: 7378: 7375: 7374: 7373: 7372: 7371: 7363: 7362: 7361: 7360: 7352: 7351: 7350: 7349: 7336: 7333: 7332: 7331: 7330: 7329: 7321: 7320: 7319: 7318: 7310: 7309: 7308: 7307: 7294: 7291: 7290: 7289: 7288: 7287: 7279: 7278: 7277: 7276: 7268: 7267: 7266: 7265: 7253: 7250: 7248: 7245: 7243: 7240: 7239: 7238: 7237: 7236: 7228: 7227: 7226: 7225: 7217: 7216: 7215: 7214: 7202: 7199: 7198: 7197: 7196: 7195: 7187: 7186: 7185: 7184: 7176: 7175: 7174: 7173: 7161: 7158: 7156: 7153: 7152: 7151: 7150: 7149: 7141: 7140: 7139: 7138: 7130: 7129: 7128: 7127: 7115: 7112: 7111: 7110: 7109: 7108: 7093: 7079: 7071: 7070: 7069: 7068: 7067: 7066: 7065: 7051: 7047: 7043: 7039: 7035: 7022: 7021: 7020: 7019: 7018: 7017: 6986: 6976: 6975: 6974: 6973: 6951: 6948: 6945: 6944: 6943: 6942: 6941: 6940: 6939: 6938: 6937: 6936: 6935: 6934: 6933: 6932: 6931: 6893: 6849: 6801: 6797: 6714: 6713: 6712: 6711: 6710: 6671: 6670: 6669: 6668: 6655: 6652: 6643: 6640: 6639: 6638: 6637: 6636: 6628: 6627: 6626: 6625: 6617: 6616: 6615: 6614: 6602: 6599: 6598: 6597: 6596: 6595: 6587: 6586: 6585: 6584: 6576: 6575: 6574: 6573: 6561: 6558: 6556: 6553: 6551: 6549: 6548: 6547: 6546: 6538: 6537: 6536: 6535: 6527: 6526: 6525: 6524: 6512: 6509: 6508: 6507: 6506: 6505: 6497: 6496: 6495: 6494: 6486: 6485: 6484: 6483: 6471: 6468: 6466: 6463: 6461: 6458: 6457: 6456: 6455: 6454: 6446: 6445: 6444: 6443: 6435: 6434: 6433: 6432: 6420: 6417: 6416: 6415: 6414: 6413: 6405: 6404: 6403: 6402: 6394: 6393: 6392: 6391: 6379: 6376: 6374: 6371: 6370: 6369: 6368: 6367: 6359: 6358: 6357: 6356: 6348: 6347: 6346: 6345: 6332: 6329: 6328: 6327: 6326: 6325: 6317: 6316: 6315: 6314: 6306: 6305: 6304: 6303: 6291: 6288: 6279: 6276: 6275: 6274: 6273: 6272: 6264: 6263: 6262: 6261: 6253: 6252: 6251: 6250: 6238: 6235: 6234: 6233: 6232: 6231: 6223: 6222: 6221: 6220: 6212: 6211: 6210: 6209: 6196: 6193: 6192: 6191: 6190: 6189: 6181: 6180: 6179: 6178: 6170: 6169: 6168: 6167: 6154: 6151: 6150: 6149: 6148: 6147: 6139: 6138: 6137: 6136: 6128: 6127: 6126: 6125: 6113: 6110: 6109: 6108: 6107: 6106: 6098: 6097: 6096: 6095: 6094: 6093: 6061: 6060: 6059: 6058: 6045: 6042: 6041: 6040: 6039: 6038: 6030: 6029: 6028: 6027: 6019: 6018: 6017: 6016: 6003: 6000: 5999: 5998: 5997: 5996: 5988: 5987: 5986: 5985: 5977: 5976: 5975: 5974: 5962: 5959: 5958: 5957: 5956: 5955: 5947: 5946: 5945: 5944: 5936: 5935: 5934: 5933: 5921: 5918: 5917: 5916: 5901: 5900: 5899: 5898: 5897: 5866: 5862: 5859: 5855: 5845: 5844: 5843: 5842: 5841: 5840: 5799: 5798: 5797: 5796: 5795: 5794: 5793: 5792: 5737: 5736: 5735: 5734: 5703: 5700: 5698: 5695: 5693: 5691: 5690: 5689: 5688: 5680: 5679: 5678: 5677: 5669: 5668: 5667: 5666: 5654: 5651: 5650: 5649: 5648: 5647: 5639: 5638: 5637: 5636: 5628: 5627: 5626: 5625: 5613: 5610: 5608: 5605: 5603: 5600: 5599: 5598: 5597: 5596: 5588: 5587: 5586: 5585: 5565: 5564: 5563: 5562: 5546: 5543: 5542: 5541: 5540: 5539: 5538: 5537: 5536: 5535: 5534: 5533: 5532: 5531: 5473: 5457: 5456: 5455: 5454: 5453: 5452: 5451: 5450: 5449: 5391: 5370: 5369: 5368: 5367: 5366: 5365: 5364: 5363: 5362: 5361: 5275: 5272: 5271: 5270: 5269: 5268: 5247: 5246: 5245: 5244: 5224: 5223: 5222: 5221: 5209: 5206: 5205: 5204: 5203: 5202: 5194: 5193: 5192: 5191: 5171: 5170: 5169: 5168: 5155: 5152: 5151: 5150: 5149: 5148: 5141: 5140: 5139: 5123: 5122: 5121: 5120: 5119: 5041: 5040: 5039: 5038: 5026: 5023: 5022: 5021: 5020: 5019: 5012: 5011: 5010: 4991: 4990: 4989: 4988: 4968: 4967: 4966: 4965: 4947: 4933: 4930: 4929: 4928: 4927: 4926: 4918: 4917: 4900: 4899: 4898: 4897: 4877: 4876: 4875: 4874: 4862: 4859: 4858: 4857: 4856: 4855: 4854: 4853: 4821: 4818: 4815: 4812: 4809: 4806: 4803: 4797: 4796: 4795: 4794: 4791: 4787: 4761: 4760: 4759: 4758: 4757: 4756: 4755: 4754: 4753: 4752: 4719: 4718: 4717: 4716: 4715: 4714: 4692: 4691: 4690: 4689: 4688: 4687: 4686: 4685: 4684: 4683: 4630: 4629: 4628: 4618: 4617: 4598: 4597: 4562: 4561: 4560: 4559: 4558: 4557: 4530:Goethean says 4483: 4482: 4481: 4480: 4479: 4478: 4477: 4476: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4420: 4419: 4418: 4417: 4416: 4415: 4383: 4382: 4381: 4346: 4345: 4328: 4327: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4286: 4282: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4245: 4244: 4241: 4238: 4235: 4232: 4229: 4226: 4223: 4220: 4217: 4213: 4212: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4208: 4207: 4206: 4185: 4139: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4132: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4098: 4095: 4094: 4093: 4083: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4047: 4046: 4045: 4044: 4043: 4042: 4041: 4040: 4039: 4038: 4037: 4005: 3940: 3937: 3933: 3929: 3925: 3917: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3913: 3912: 3911: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3822: 3819: 3810: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3804: 3803: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3728: 3727: 3724: 3716: 3713: 3706: 3703: 3702:at that point. 3688: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3373: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3114: 3113: 3110: 3107: 3104: 3103:What question? 3101: 3098: 3095: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3069: 3066: 3063: 3060: 3056: 3052: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2905: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2888: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2851: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2812: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2733: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2638: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2567: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2550: 2533: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2471: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2408: 2401: 2394: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2356: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2332: 2331: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2312: 2294: 2291: 2279: 2272: 2257: 2246: 2231: 2230: 2225: 2224: 2220: 2219: 2203: 2202: 2197: 2196: 2191: 2190: 2179: 2178: 2168: 2167: 2162: 2161: 2157: 2156: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2091: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1963: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1931: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1888: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1762: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1680: 1677: 1675: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1585: 1584: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1555: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1510: 1507: 1505: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1465: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1438: 1436: 1435: 1422:Administrators 1417: 1416:Administrators 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1361: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1319: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1283: 1280: 1277: 1273: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1234: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1192: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1171: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1103: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1034: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1012: 1008: 1000: 997: 994: 990: 981: 980: 979: 978: 960: 959: 958: 957: 950: 949: 943: 942: 941: 940: 912: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 897: 896: 895: 894: 886: 885: 884: 883: 855: 852: 850: 847: 845: 842: 840: 837: 835: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 820: 819: 818: 817: 809: 808: 807: 806: 794: 791: 790: 789: 788: 787: 779: 778: 777: 776: 768: 767: 766: 765: 753: 750: 749: 748: 747: 746: 738: 737: 736: 735: 727: 726: 725: 724: 712: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 697: 696: 695: 694: 686: 685: 684: 683: 671: 668: 666: 663: 661: 659: 658: 657: 656: 648: 647: 646: 645: 637: 636: 635: 634: 622: 619: 618: 617: 616: 615: 607: 606: 605: 604: 596: 595: 594: 593: 581: 578: 577: 576: 575: 574: 566: 565: 564: 563: 555: 554: 553: 552: 540: 537: 535: 532: 510: 509: 507: 506: 499: 492: 484: 481: 480: 470: 469: 460: 458: 457: 454: 453: 449: 448: 440: 435: 430: 424: 423: 418: 417: 414: 413: 409: 408: 403: 398: 388: 383: 378: 373: 368: 363: 358: 353: 346: 340: 339: 334: 333: 330: 329: 325: 324: 319: 314: 303: 302: 297: 296: 293: 292: 288: 287: 282: 277: 272: 267: 261: 260: 255: 254: 251: 250: 248: 247: 242: 237: 232: 222: 215: 210: 202: 197: 191: 188: 187: 179: 178: 160:NuclearWarfare 59:Main case page 54: 53: 45: 40: 38: 37: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 16340: 16327: 16322: 16318: 16308: 16304: 16299: 16294: 16293: 16292: 16288: 16284: 16279: 16278: 16277: 16273: 16267: 16266: 16265: 16262: 16261: 16248: 16244: 16239: 16233: 16232: 16231: 16227: 16223: 16218: 16217: 16216: 16212: 16208: 16203: 16199: 16198: 16197: 16193: 16188: 16182: 16181: 16180: 16177: 16172: 16167: 16166: 16165: 16162: 16161: 16156: 16153: 16152: 16149: 16148: 16141: 16136: 16135: 16134: 16131: 16130: 16124: 16117: 16116: 16115: 16112: 16111: 16106: 16105: 16104: 16101: 16100: 16095: 16094: 16093: 16090: 16089: 16079: 16078: 16077: 16074: 16073: 16068: 16067: 16066: 16063: 16062: 16057: 16056: 16055: 16052: 16051: 16041: 16040: 16039: 16036: 16035: 16030: 16029: 16028: 16025: 16024: 16019: 16018: 16017: 16014: 16013: 16003: 16002: 16001: 15998: 15997: 15992: 15991: 15990: 15987: 15986: 15981: 15980: 15979: 15976: 15975: 15965: 15964: 15963: 15960: 15959: 15954: 15953: 15952: 15949: 15948: 15943: 15942: 15941: 15938: 15937: 15927: 15926: 15925: 15922: 15921: 15916: 15915: 15914: 15911: 15910: 15905: 15904: 15903: 15900: 15899: 15891: 15888: 15884: 15880: 15876: 15872: 15864: 15863: 15862: 15860: 15859: 15858: 15855: 15852: 15848: 15841: 15837: 15833: 15830: 15829: 15828: 15826: 15821: 15818: 15817: 15816: 15814: 15809: 15805: 15802: 15801: 15800: 15797: 15792: 15788: 15785: 15784: 15783: 15781: 15776: 15773: 15772: 15771: 15769: 15764: 15760: 15757: 15756: 15755: 15753: 15752: 15750: 15745: 15744: 15743: 15740: 15739: 15734: 15733: 15732: 15729: 15728: 15722: 15710: 15709: 15708: 15705: 15704: 15697: 15693: 15689: 15682: 15671: 15670: 15669: 15668: 15667: 15666: 15661: 15657: 15653: 15649: 15648: 15647: 15644: 15643: 15638: 15637: 15636: 15633: 15632: 15631: 15629: 15625: 15611: 15610: 15609: 15606: 15605: 15596: 15592: 15588: 15584: 15583: 15582: 15581: 15580: 15579: 15578: 15577: 15570: 15566: 15562: 15558: 15554: 15551: 15550: 15549: 15548: 15547: 15546: 15541: 15537: 15533: 15529: 15525: 15524: 15523: 15520: 15519: 15514: 15513: 15512: 15509: 15508: 15507: 15505: 15498: 15488: 15487: 15486: 15483: 15482: 15457: 15453: 15449: 15445: 15444: 15443: 15439: 15435: 15431: 15425: 15419: 15418: 15417: 15416: 15415: 15414: 15413: 15412: 15411: 15410: 15409: 15408: 15407: 15406: 15405: 15404: 15403: 15402: 15385: 15381: 15377: 15373: 15369: 15366: 15363: 15360: 15359: 15358: 15357: 15356: 15355: 15354: 15353: 15352: 15351: 15350: 15349: 15348: 15347: 15346: 15345: 15326: 15322: 15318: 15315: 15310: 15309: 15308: 15307: 15306: 15305: 15304: 15303: 15302: 15301: 15300: 15299: 15298: 15297: 15296: 15295: 15294: 15293: 15276: 15272: 15268: 15263: 15258: 15257: 15256: 15255: 15254: 15253: 15252: 15251: 15250: 15249: 15248: 15247: 15246: 15245: 15244: 15243: 15228: 15224: 15220: 15215: 15214: 15213: 15212: 15211: 15210: 15209: 15208: 15207: 15206: 15205: 15204: 15203: 15202: 15189: 15185: 15181: 15176: 15173: 15172: 15171: 15170: 15169: 15168: 15167: 15166: 15165: 15164: 15163: 15162: 15151: 15147: 15143: 15140: 15137: 15135: 15132: 15129: 15124: 15123: 15122: 15121: 15120: 15119: 15118: 15117: 15116: 15115: 15106: 15102: 15098: 15094: 15089: 15084: 15083: 15082: 15081: 15080: 15079: 15078: 15077: 15070: 15066: 15062: 15058: 15055: 15051: 15047: 15042: 15039: 15035: 15031: 15030: 15029: 15028: 15027: 15026: 15021: 15017: 15013: 15009: 15005: 15004: 15003: 15002: 15001: 15000: 14996: 14991: 14990: 14986: 14985: 14980: 14977: 14976: 14971: 14970: 14969: 14966: 14965: 14964: 14962: 14958: 14953: 14945: 14935: 14934: 14933: 14930: 14929: 14918: 14914: 14910: 14907: 14905: 14903: 14899: 14895: 14894: 14893: 14892: 14891: 14890: 14889: 14888: 14887: 14886: 14877: 14873: 14869: 14864: 14863: 14862: 14861: 14860: 14859: 14858: 14857: 14850: 14846: 14842: 14838: 14835: 14833: 14830: 14826: 14825: 14824: 14823: 14822: 14821: 14816: 14812: 14808: 14804: 14803: 14802: 14799: 14798: 14793: 14792: 14791: 14788: 14787: 14786: 14784: 14780: 14776: 14762: 14761: 14760: 14757: 14756: 14747: 14743: 14739: 14735: 14731: 14727: 14723: 14719: 14718: 14717: 14716: 14715: 14714: 14713: 14712: 14705: 14701: 14697: 14692: 14691: 14690: 14689: 14688: 14687: 14682: 14678: 14674: 14670: 14666: 14665: 14664: 14661: 14660: 14655: 14654: 14653: 14650: 14649: 14648: 14645: 14637: 14627: 14626: 14625: 14622: 14621: 14616: 14612: 14608: 14604: 14600: 14596: 14595: 14594: 14591: 14590: 14585: 14584: 14583: 14580: 14579: 14578: 14576: 14572: 14568: 14564: 14557: 14547: 14546: 14545: 14542: 14541: 14536: 14532: 14528: 14524: 14520: 14517: 14513: 14509: 14506: 14502: 14500: 14493: 14489: 14488: 14487: 14484: 14483: 14478: 14477: 14476: 14473: 14472: 14471: 14469: 14465: 14461: 14457: 14438: 14437: 14436: 14433: 14432: 14427: 14423: 14419: 14415: 14414: 14413: 14410: 14409: 14404: 14403: 14402: 14399: 14398: 14397: 14395: 14380: 14379: 14378: 14375: 14374: 14369: 14365: 14361: 14357: 14356: 14355: 14352: 14351: 14346: 14345: 14344: 14341: 14340: 14339: 14337: 14333: 14329: 14328:verifiability 14325: 14311: 14310: 14309: 14306: 14305: 14300: 14296: 14292: 14288: 14287: 14286: 14283: 14282: 14277: 14276: 14275: 14272: 14271: 14270: 14268: 14243: 14239: 14234: 14228: 14226: 14220: 14219: 14218: 14215: 14214: 14209: 14208: 14207: 14204: 14203: 14198: 14197: 14196: 14193: 14192: 14191: 14174: 14170: 14165: 14159: 14157: 14150: 14149: 14148: 14145: 14144: 14143: 14134: 14130: 14125: 14120: 14119: 14118: 14117: 14116: 14115: 14108: 14105: 14100: 14096: 14095: 14094: 14091: 14086: 14081: 14077: 14073: 14069: 14067: 14063: 14058: 14052: 14051: 14050: 14047: 14046: 14041: 14040: 14039: 14036: 14035: 14034: 14017: 14013: 14008: 14002: 14000: 13994: 13993: 13992: 13989: 13988: 13983: 13982: 13981: 13978: 13977: 13972: 13971: 13970: 13967: 13966: 13965: 13947: 13940: 13939: 13938: 13935: 13934: 13929: 13928: 13927: 13924: 13923: 13918: 13917: 13916: 13913: 13912: 13911: 13894: 13893: 13892: 13889: 13888: 13883: 13882: 13881: 13878: 13877: 13872: 13871: 13870: 13867: 13866: 13865: 13857: 13856: 13852: 13846: 13836: 13832: 13830: 13809: 13805: 13801: 13797: 13796: 13795: 13791: 13786: 13780: 13779: 13778: 13774: 13770: 13766: 13765: 13764: 13760: 13756: 13751: 13750: 13749: 13745: 13740: 13734: 13733: 13732: 13729: 13728: 13725: 13724: 13716: 13715: 13714: 13710: 13705: 13699: 13697: 13690: 13689: 13688: 13685: 13684: 13681: 13677: 13673: 13668: 13667: 13666: 13665: 13661: 13656: 13650: 13645: 13644: 13640: 13636: 13629: 13626: 13623: 13620: 13617: 13614: 13611: 13608: 13605: 13602: 13599: 13596: 13592: 13591: 13590: 13589: 13581: 13578: 13577: 13576: 13575: 13567: 13566:Azure Citizen 13564: 13563: 13562: 13561: 13554: 13551: 13550: 13549: 13548: 13541: 13538: 13537: 13536: 13535: 13528: 13525: 13524: 13523: 13522: 13514: 13511: 13510: 13509: 13508: 13500: 13497: 13496: 13495: 13494: 13487: 13484: 13483: 13482: 13480: 13466: 13462: 13458: 13453: 13452: 13451: 13447: 13443: 13438: 13437: 13436: 13433: 13431: 13424: 13423: 13418: 13414: 13409: 13408: 13407: 13403: 13399: 13395: 13392: 13391: 13390: 13387: 13386: 13379: 13376: 13375: 13372: 13371: 13364: 13363: 13362: 13358: 13354: 13350: 13346: 13343: 13341: 13334: 13333: 13327: 13326: 13325: 13322: 13321: 13318: 13317: 13310: 13309: 13308: 13305: 13304: 13303: 13301: 13297: 13293: 13289: 13285: 13282: 13279: 13275: 13271: 13268: 13265: 13261: 13257: 13254: 13251: 13247: 13243: 13240: 13237: 13233: 13229: 13226: 13223: 13219: 13215: 13212: 13209: 13205: 13201: 13198: 13195: 13191: 13177: 13176: 13175: 13172: 13171: 13166: 13165: 13164: 13161: 13160: 13155: 13154: 13153: 13150: 13149: 13148: 13146: 13142: 13138: 13134: 13120: 13119: 13118: 13115: 13114: 13109: 13108: 13107: 13104: 13103: 13098: 13094: 13090: 13086: 13082: 13081: 13080: 13077: 13076: 13075: 13073: 13069: 13065: 13050: 13048: 13034: 13033: 13032: 13029: 13028: 13023: 13022: 13021: 13018: 13017: 13012: 13011: 13010: 13007: 13006: 13005: 12993: 12989: 12983: 12974: 12971: 12967: 12966: 12962: 12957: 12956: 12955: 12954: 12949: 12945: 12940: 12934: 12932: 12925: 12924: 12923: 12920: 12919: 12914: 12910: 12906: 12901: 12900: 12899: 12896: 12895: 12890: 12887: 12886: 12883: 12882: 12875: 12874: 12873: 12870: 12869: 12868: 12866: 12863: 12860: 12856: 12852: 12849: 12846: 12842: 12838: 12835: 12832: 12828: 12824: 12821: 12818: 12814: 12810: 12807: 12804: 12800: 12796: 12793: 12790: 12786: 12772: 12771: 12770: 12767: 12766: 12759: 12755: 12749: 12741: 12738: 12737: 12736: 12735: 12734: 12733: 12728: 12724: 12720: 12716: 12715: 12714: 12713: 12712: 12711: 12707: 12703: 12685: 12682: 12681: 12678: 12677: 12669: 12668: 12667: 12663: 12659: 12655: 12654: 12653: 12649: 12644: 12638: 12637: 12636: 12633: 12632: 12629: 12628: 12620: 12615: 12611: 12610: 12609: 12605: 12601: 12596: 12595: 12594: 12591: 12590: 12586: 12583: 12580: 12577: 12574: 12571: 12568: 12565: 12562: 12559: 12556: 12553: 12550: 12547: 12546: 12541: 12538: 12537: 12534: 12533: 12525: 12524: 12523: 12520: 12519: 12518: 12516: 12512: 12508: 12504: 12500: 12486: 12485: 12484: 12481: 12480: 12475: 12474: 12473: 12470: 12469: 12464: 12463: 12462: 12459: 12458: 12457: 12455: 12451: 12447: 12427: 12423: 12418: 12412: 12410: 12406: 12401: 12395: 12393: 12387: 12386: 12385: 12384: 12383: 12382: 12381: 12380: 12379: 12378: 12367: 12364: 12359: 12354: 12353: 12352: 12349: 12348: 12345: 12344: 12337: 12332: 12331: 12330: 12327: 12322: 12318: 12312: 12308: 12304: 12300: 12296: 12292: 12288: 12284: 12283: 12282: 12279: 12274: 12270: 12267: 12266: 12265: 12261: 12257: 12252: 12251: 12250: 12246: 12241: 12235: 12233: 12226: 12221: 12220: 12219: 12216: 12215: 12210: 12206: 12202: 12198: 12197: 12196: 12193: 12192: 12187: 12186: 12185: 12182: 12181: 12180: 12178: 12174: 12169: 12165: 12161: 12157: 12153: 12149: 12145: 12140: 12126: 12125: 12124: 12121: 12120: 12115: 12114: 12113: 12110: 12109: 12104: 12101: 12100: 12097: 12096: 12089: 12088: 12087: 12084: 12083: 12082: 12080: 12076: 12072: 12071:blocked twice 12068: 12063: 12059: 12055: 12051: 12047: 12043: 12039: 12034: 12020: 12019: 12018: 12015: 12005: 12001: 11997: 11993: 11992: 11991: 11988: 11983: 11980: 11976: 11975: 11974: 11970: 11966: 11962: 11958: 11954: 11952: 11951: 11950: 11947: 11942: 11937: 11936: 11935: 11932: 11931: 11924: 11921: 11920: 11917: 11916: 11909: 11908: 11907: 11904: 11903: 11900: 11899: 11892: 11891: 11890: 11887: 11886: 11885: 11883: 11879: 11874: 11870: 11866: 11862: 11858: 11854: 11850: 11845: 11829: 11825: 11820: 11814: 11812: 11805: 11804: 11803: 11799: 11794: 11788: 11786: 11779: 11778: 11777: 11776: 11768: 11767: 11761: 11760: 11752: 11751: 11750: 11747: 11746: 11737: 11733: 11729: 11725: 11724: 11723: 11720: 11715: 11711: 11710: 11709: 11706: 11701: 11697: 11692: 11688: 11687: 11686: 11683: 11682: 11677: 11674: 11673: 11670: 11669: 11662: 11658: 11657: 11654: 11653: 11646: 11645: 11642: 11641: 11634: 11631: 11630: 11629: 11626: 11625: 11624: 11622: 11618: 11613: 11609: 11605: 11601: 11597: 11593: 11589: 11584: 11570: 11569: 11568: 11565: 11564: 11559: 11558: 11557: 11554: 11553: 11546: 11543: 11542: 11539: 11538: 11531: 11530: 11529: 11526: 11525: 11522: 11521: 11514: 11513: 11512: 11509: 11508: 11507: 11505: 11501: 11496: 11492: 11488: 11484: 11480: 11476: 11472: 11467: 11453: 11449: 11443: 11434: 11431: 11425: 11422: 11416: 11414: 11406: 11400: 11399: 11389: 11388: 11384: 11379: 11378: 11377: 11376: 11371: 11367: 11361: 11353: 11349: 11345: 11342: 11341: 11340: 11337: 11336: 11325: 11321: 11317: 11313: 11312: 11311: 11307: 11303: 11298: 11294: 11293: 11289: 11285: 11280: 11277: 11276: 11275: 11274: 11273: 11272: 11271: 11270: 11269: 11268: 11259: 11258: 11254: 11250: 11244: 11243: 11242: 11241: 11240: 11239: 11238: 11237: 11228: 11227: 11223: 11219: 11214: 11211: 11210: 11209: 11205: 11201: 11196: 11195: 11194: 11193: 11192: 11191: 11186: 11182: 11177: 11171: 11170: 11169: 11168: 11165: 11162: 11161: 11158: 11157: 11149: 11148: 11147: 11146: 11142: 11138: 11132: 11131: 11123: 11120: 11117: 11114: 11111: 11108: 11105: 11102: 11099: 11098: 11097: 11094: 11091: 11090: 11087: 11083: 11082: 11079: 11076: 11073: 11069: 11068: 11067: 11064: 11061: 11056:intentionally 11055: 11053: 11049: 11042: 11041: 11036: 11035: 11031: 11030: 11026: 11025: 11021: 11019: 11015: 11014: 11010: 10989: 10985: 10981: 10977: 10976: 10975: 10972: 10969: 10965: 10961: 10957: 10956: 10955: 10951: 10947: 10943: 10942: 10941: 10940: 10939: 10938: 10937: 10936: 10935: 10934: 10933: 10932: 10931: 10930: 10923: 10920: 10916: 10912: 10908: 10905: 10904: 10903: 10902: 10901: 10900: 10899: 10898: 10891: 10888: 10887: 10884: 10883: 10875: 10874: 10873: 10869: 10865: 10860: 10859: 10858: 10855: 10854: 10849: 10845: 10841: 10837: 10835: 10832: 10831: 10828: 10827: 10819: 10818: 10817: 10814: 10813: 10812: 10810: 10806: 10802: 10798: 10793: 10789: 10785: 10781: 10777: 10773: 10769: 10764: 10746: 10742: 10736: 10728: 10724: 10721: 10717: 10716: 10715: 10714: 10713: 10712: 10711: 10710: 10703: 10699: 10693: 10685: 10682: 10677: 10676: 10675: 10674: 10673: 10672: 10665: 10661: 10655: 10646: 10645: 10640: 10639: 10638: 10637: 10636: 10635: 10627: 10626: 10621: 10620: 10619: 10618: 10617: 10616: 10608: 10607: 10602: 10601: 10600: 10599: 10598: 10597: 10589: 10588: 10583: 10582: 10581: 10580: 10579: 10578: 10570: 10569: 10564: 10563: 10562: 10561: 10560: 10559: 10551: 10550: 10543: 10539: 10538: 10537: 10536: 10535: 10534: 10529: 10525: 10520: 10514: 10513: 10512: 10511: 10504: 10500: 10494: 10486: 10482: 10481: 10480: 10479: 10478: 10477: 10472: 10468: 10462: 10453: 10449: 10446: 10444:constitution. 10442: 10438: 10435: 10434: 10433: 10432: 10427: 10423: 10417: 10409: 10406: 10404: 10402: 10399: 10397: 10395: 10392: 10390: 10387: 10383: 10379: 10378: 10377: 10376: 10370: 10364: 10361: 10357: 10353: 10349: 10348: 10347: 10346: 10340: 10337:(my emphasis) 10335: 10328: 10324: 10323: 10322: 10321: 10315: 10311: 10310: 10309: 10308: 10302: 10297: 10293: 10292: 10291: 10290: 10284: 10279: 10276: 10273: 10272: 10271: 10270: 10263: 10260: 10256: 10255: 10254: 10251: 10250: 10249: 10246: 10245: 10241: 10237: 10229: 10228: 10224: 10223: 10220: 10217: 10214: 10211: 10207: 10206: 10201: 10200: 10195: 10194: 10190: 10186: 10183: 10182: 10178: 10175: 10172: 10171: 10166: 10165: 10161: 10160: 10157: 10154: 10153: 10148: 10145: 10140: 10136: 10135: 10134: 10131: 10130: 10125: 10122: 10121: 10118: 10117: 10110: 10109: 10108: 10105: 10104: 10103: 10101: 10097: 10092: 10087: 10083: 10079: 10075: 10071: 10067: 10063: 10058: 10044: 10043: 10042: 10039: 10038: 10033: 10032: 10031: 10028: 10027: 10022: 10019: 10018: 10015: 10014: 10006: 10001: 10000: 9999: 9996: 9995: 9994: 9992: 9988: 9984: 9979: 9975: 9971: 9967: 9963: 9959: 9955: 9950: 9912: 9908: 9903: 9897: 9896: 9895: 9891: 9887: 9883: 9882: 9881: 9877: 9872: 9866: 9864: 9858: 9857: 9856: 9853: 9852: 9847: 9842: 9841: 9840: 9836: 9831: 9825: 9823: 9816: 9811: 9810: 9809: 9806: 9805: 9800: 9796: 9792: 9789: 9788: 9787: 9783: 9778: 9772: 9767: 9762: 9761: 9760: 9759: 9758: 9755: 9754: 9748: 9744: 9740: 9737: 9736: 9735: 9731: 9726: 9720: 9719: 9718: 9717: 9716: 9715: 9714: 9713: 9712: 9711: 9702: 9698: 9694: 9690: 9689: 9688: 9685: 9683: 9676: 9675: 9669: 9667: 9663: 9659: 9654: 9653: 9652: 9648: 9643: 9637: 9635: 9628: 9627: 9626: 9625: 9619: 9615: 9610: 9578: 9575: 9571: 9567: 9565: 9562: 9557: 9553: 9550: 9546: 9542: 9538: 9537: 9536: 9533: 9528: 9523: 9519: 9515: 9510: 9504: 9502: 9498: 9494: 9489: 9488: 9487: 9484: 9483: 9477: 9473: 9472: 9471: 9467: 9463: 9459: 9454: 9453: 9452: 9448: 9443: 9437: 9436: 9435: 9432: 9431: 9425: 9424: 9423: 9419: 9414: 9409: 9408: 9407: 9404: 9403: 9398: 9393: 9389: 9388: 9387: 9383: 9378: 9372: 9371: 9370: 9367: 9366: 9361: 9356: 9351: 9347: 9346: 9345: 9341: 9336: 9330: 9329: 9328: 9327: 9326: 9325: 9324: 9323: 9322: 9321: 9315: 9314: 9304: 9301: 9300: 9297: 9296: 9289: 9285: 9284: 9283: 9282: 9279: 9278: 9273: 9267: 9262: 9258: 9257: 9256: 9253: 9252: 9247: 9246: 9245: 9242: 9241: 9230: 9226: 9221: 9215: 9213: 9209: 9205: 9201: 9200: 9199: 9196: 9194: 9187: 9186: 9181: 9176: 9175: 9174: 9171: 9170: 9167: 9166: 9159: 9158: 9157: 9156: 9155: 9154: 9150: 9147: 9144: 9141: 9138: 9135: 9132: 9129: 9126: 9123: 9120: 9117: 9114: 9113: 9105: 9104: 9103: 9100: 9098: 9091: 9090: 9085: 9081: 9080: 9079: 9076: 9075: 9074: 9072: 9067: 9062: 9058: 9054: 9050: 9046: 9042: 9038: 9033: 9019: 9015: 9010: 9004: 9002: 8995: 8994: 8993: 8990: 8989: 8984: 8983: 8982: 8979: 8978: 8973: 8970: 8969: 8966: 8965: 8959:appropriate. 8957: 8956: 8955: 8952: 8951: 8950: 8948: 8944: 8939: 8934: 8930: 8926: 8922: 8918: 8914: 8910: 8905: 8904:User:Goethean 8891: 8890: 8889: 8886: 8885: 8878: 8875: 8870: 8866: 8862: 8861: 8860: 8857: 8852: 8848: 8847: 8846: 8843: 8842: 8837: 8836: 8835: 8832: 8831: 8830: 8828: 8825: 8822: 8818: 8814: 8811: 8808: 8804: 8800: 8797: 8794: 8790: 8786: 8783: 8780: 8776: 8772: 8769: 8766: 8762: 8758: 8755: 8752: 8748: 8744: 8741: 8738: 8734: 8730: 8727: 8724: 8720: 8716: 8713: 8710: 8706: 8702: 8699: 8696: 8692: 8678: 8674: 8670: 8666: 8661: 8660: 8659: 8656: 8655: 8652: 8648: 8644: 8639: 8638: 8637: 8636: 8632: 8627: 8622: 8618: 8609: 8605: 8600: 8594: 8590: 8586: 8581: 8576: 8572: 8571: 8570: 8566: 8561: 8555: 8554: 8553: 8552: 8549: 8546: 8545: 8542: 8541: 8533: 8532: 8531: 8530: 8527: 8526: 8523: 8522: 8508: 8507: 8503: 8498: 8483: 8479: 8473: 8465: 8462: 8460: 8455: 8452: 8450: 8445: 8444: 8442: 8440: 8435: 8430: 8424: 8423:edit conflict 8419: 8418: 8417: 8416: 8415: 8414: 8413: 8412: 8405: 8402: 8399: 8395: 8391: 8387: 8383: 8379: 8378: 8377: 8373: 8367: 8359: 8357: 8355: 8351: 8348: 8346: 8343: 8341: 8339:constitution. 8337: 8335: 8332: 8330: 8327: 8325: 8322: 8320: 8317: 8315: 8312: 8310: 8307: 8303: 8297: 8293: 8288: 8282: 8281: 8280: 8276: 8270: 8262: 8258: 8254: 8251: 8247: 8243: 8239: 8235: 8234: 8233: 8232: 8231: 8230: 8229: 8228: 8222: 8221: 8209: 8205: 8200: 8195: 8191: 8187: 8186: 8185: 8184: 8183: 8179: 8174: 8169: 8164: 8162: 8158: 8153: 8147: 8143: 8142: 8141: 8138: 8137: 8134: 8133: 8125: 8124: 8123: 8122: 8118: 8113: 8103: 8100: 8096: 8095: 8094: 8082: 8079: 8074: 8069: 8068: 8067: 8064: 8063: 8060: 8059: 8051: 8050: 8049: 8046: 8041: 8037: 8036: 8035: 8032: 8031: 8026: 8025: 8024: 8021: 8020: 8019: 8017: 8014: 8011: 8007: 8003: 7999: 7995: 7991: 7987: 7983: 7979: 7965: 7964: 7963: 7960: 7959: 7954: 7953: 7952: 7949: 7948: 7943: 7942: 7941: 7938: 7937: 7936: 7934: 7930: 7926: 7922: 7903: 7902: 7901: 7898: 7897: 7892: 7891: 7890: 7887: 7886: 7881: 7880: 7879: 7876: 7875: 7874: 7866: 7859: 7858: 7857: 7854: 7853: 7848: 7847: 7846: 7843: 7842: 7837: 7836: 7835: 7832: 7831: 7830: 7828: 7824: 7820: 7816: 7812: 7808: 7807:verifiability 7804: 7800: 7786: 7785: 7784: 7781: 7780: 7775: 7774: 7773: 7770: 7769: 7764: 7763: 7762: 7759: 7758: 7757: 7744: 7743: 7742: 7739: 7738: 7733: 7732: 7731: 7728: 7727: 7722: 7718: 7714: 7710: 7706: 7702: 7701: 7700: 7697: 7696: 7695: 7692: 7678: 7677: 7676: 7673: 7672: 7667: 7666: 7665: 7662: 7656: 7653: 7652: 7649: 7648: 7640: 7639: 7638: 7634: 7630: 7625: 7621: 7616: 7615: 7614: 7611: 7610: 7609: 7596: 7595: 7594: 7591: 7590: 7585: 7584: 7583: 7580: 7579: 7574: 7570: 7566: 7562: 7561: 7560: 7557: 7556: 7555: 7542: 7541: 7540: 7537: 7536: 7531: 7530: 7529: 7526: 7525: 7520: 7519: 7518: 7515: 7514: 7513: 7500: 7499: 7498: 7495: 7494: 7489: 7488: 7487: 7484: 7483: 7478: 7477: 7476: 7473: 7472: 7471: 7458: 7457: 7456: 7453: 7452: 7447: 7446: 7445: 7442: 7441: 7436: 7435: 7434: 7431: 7430: 7429: 7416: 7415: 7414: 7411: 7410: 7405: 7404: 7403: 7400: 7399: 7394: 7393: 7392: 7389: 7388: 7387: 7385: 7370: 7369: 7368: 7365: 7364: 7359: 7358: 7357: 7354: 7353: 7348: 7347: 7346: 7343: 7342: 7341: 7328: 7327: 7326: 7323: 7322: 7317: 7316: 7315: 7312: 7311: 7306: 7305: 7304: 7301: 7300: 7299: 7286: 7285: 7284: 7281: 7280: 7275: 7274: 7273: 7270: 7269: 7264: 7263: 7262: 7259: 7258: 7257: 7235: 7234: 7233: 7230: 7229: 7224: 7223: 7222: 7219: 7218: 7213: 7212: 7211: 7208: 7207: 7206: 7194: 7193: 7192: 7189: 7188: 7183: 7182: 7181: 7178: 7177: 7172: 7171: 7170: 7167: 7166: 7165: 7148: 7147: 7146: 7143: 7142: 7137: 7136: 7135: 7132: 7131: 7126: 7125: 7124: 7121: 7120: 7119: 7107: 7103: 7099: 7094: 7092: 7089: 7085: 7080: 7076: 7072: 7064: 7060: 7056: 7052: 7048: 7044: 7040: 7036: 7032: 7031: 7030: 7029: 7028: 7027: 7026: 7025: 7024: 7023: 7016: 7012: 7007: 7001: 7000: 6999: 6995: 6991: 6987: 6983: 6982: 6981: 6978: 6977: 6972: 6969: 6966: 6962: 6958: 6946: 6930: 6926: 6922: 6917: 6916: 6915: 6914: 6913: 6909: 6904: 6899: 6894: 6892: 6889: 6886: 6882: 6878: 6874: 6870: 6866: 6865: 6863: 6859: 6855: 6850: 6848: 6844: 6840: 6836: 6835: 6834: 6831: 6826: 6821: 6819: 6817: 6815: 6813: 6811: 6809: 6807: 6805: 6803: 6798: 6796: 6793: 6788: 6783: 6782: 6781: 6777: 6773: 6769: 6765: 6761: 6756: 6755: 6754: 6751: 6746: 6742: 6741: 6740: 6736: 6732: 6728: 6724: 6720: 6715: 6709: 6705: 6701: 6697: 6696: 6695: 6691: 6687: 6684: 6680: 6679: 6678: 6677: 6676: 6673: 6672: 6667: 6666: 6665: 6662: 6661: 6660: 6651: 6649: 6635: 6634: 6633: 6630: 6629: 6624: 6623: 6622: 6619: 6618: 6613: 6612: 6611: 6608: 6607: 6606: 6594: 6593: 6592: 6589: 6588: 6583: 6582: 6581: 6578: 6577: 6572: 6571: 6570: 6567: 6566: 6565: 6552: 6545: 6544: 6543: 6540: 6539: 6534: 6533: 6532: 6529: 6528: 6523: 6522: 6521: 6518: 6517: 6516: 6504: 6503: 6502: 6499: 6498: 6493: 6492: 6491: 6488: 6487: 6482: 6481: 6480: 6477: 6476: 6475: 6453: 6452: 6451: 6448: 6447: 6442: 6441: 6440: 6437: 6436: 6431: 6430: 6429: 6426: 6425: 6424: 6412: 6411: 6410: 6407: 6406: 6401: 6400: 6399: 6396: 6395: 6390: 6389: 6388: 6385: 6384: 6383: 6366: 6365: 6364: 6361: 6360: 6355: 6354: 6353: 6350: 6349: 6344: 6343: 6342: 6339: 6338: 6337: 6324: 6323: 6322: 6319: 6318: 6313: 6312: 6311: 6308: 6307: 6302: 6301: 6300: 6297: 6296: 6295: 6287: 6285: 6271: 6270: 6269: 6266: 6265: 6260: 6259: 6258: 6255: 6254: 6249: 6248: 6247: 6244: 6243: 6242: 6230: 6229: 6228: 6225: 6224: 6219: 6218: 6217: 6214: 6213: 6208: 6207: 6206: 6203: 6202: 6201: 6188: 6187: 6186: 6183: 6182: 6177: 6176: 6175: 6172: 6171: 6166: 6165: 6164: 6161: 6160: 6159: 6146: 6145: 6144: 6141: 6140: 6135: 6134: 6133: 6130: 6129: 6124: 6123: 6122: 6119: 6118: 6117: 6105: 6104: 6103: 6100: 6099: 6092: 6088: 6083: 6077: 6076: 6075: 6072: 6068: 6067: 6066: 6063: 6062: 6057: 6056: 6055: 6052: 6051: 6050: 6037: 6036: 6035: 6032: 6031: 6026: 6025: 6024: 6021: 6020: 6015: 6014: 6013: 6010: 6009: 6008: 5995: 5994: 5993: 5990: 5989: 5984: 5983: 5982: 5979: 5978: 5973: 5972: 5971: 5968: 5967: 5966: 5954: 5953: 5952: 5949: 5948: 5943: 5942: 5941: 5938: 5937: 5932: 5931: 5930: 5927: 5926: 5925: 5915: 5911: 5907: 5902: 5896: 5892: 5887: 5882: 5881: 5880: 5876: 5872: 5867: 5863: 5860: 5856: 5852: 5851: 5850: 5847: 5846: 5839: 5835: 5830: 5824: 5823: 5822: 5819: 5816: 5812: 5807: 5803: 5802: 5801: 5800: 5791: 5787: 5782: 5776: 5775: 5774: 5770: 5766: 5761: 5760: 5759: 5756: 5753: 5748: 5744: 5743: 5742: 5739: 5738: 5733: 5730: 5729: 5726: 5725: 5718: 5717: 5716: 5713: 5712: 5711: 5707: 5694: 5687: 5686: 5685: 5682: 5681: 5676: 5675: 5674: 5671: 5670: 5665: 5664: 5663: 5660: 5659: 5658: 5646: 5645: 5644: 5641: 5640: 5635: 5634: 5633: 5630: 5629: 5624: 5623: 5622: 5619: 5618: 5617: 5595: 5594: 5593: 5590: 5589: 5584: 5581: 5576: 5572: 5571: 5570: 5567: 5566: 5561: 5560: 5559: 5556: 5555: 5554: 5552: 5530: 5526: 5522: 5517: 5516: 5515: 5512: 5507: 5503: 5502: 5501: 5498: 5497: 5492: 5488: 5483: 5482: 5481: 5480: 5479: 5478: 5477: 5474: 5472: 5468: 5463: 5458: 5448: 5444: 5440: 5436: 5435: 5434: 5431: 5426: 5421: 5420: 5419: 5416: 5411: 5407: 5406: 5405: 5402: 5397: 5392: 5390: 5387: 5382: 5377: 5376: 5375: 5372: 5371: 5360: 5357: 5356: 5353: 5352: 5344: 5343: 5342: 5339: 5338: 5335: 5334: 5326: 5325: 5324: 5321: 5320: 5317: 5316: 5308: 5304: 5303: 5302: 5299: 5298: 5295: 5294: 5286: 5285: 5284: 5281: 5280: 5279: 5267: 5263: 5259: 5254: 5253: 5252: 5249: 5248: 5243: 5240: 5235: 5231: 5230: 5229: 5226: 5225: 5220: 5219: 5218: 5215: 5214: 5213: 5201: 5200: 5199: 5196: 5195: 5190: 5187: 5182: 5178: 5177: 5176: 5173: 5172: 5167: 5166: 5165: 5162: 5161: 5160: 5147: 5146: 5145: 5142: 5138: 5134: 5129: 5124: 5118: 5114: 5110: 5106: 5102: 5098: 5095: 5091: 5090: 5089: 5085: 5081: 5077: 5073: 5069: 5066: 5062: 5061: 5060: 5057: 5052: 5048: 5047: 5046: 5043: 5042: 5037: 5036: 5035: 5032: 5031: 5030: 5018: 5017: 5016: 5013: 5009: 5005: 5000: 4995: 4994: 4993: 4992: 4987: 4984: 4979: 4975: 4974: 4973: 4970: 4969: 4964: 4961: 4960: 4957: 4956: 4948: 4944: 4943: 4942: 4939: 4938: 4937: 4925: 4924: 4923: 4920: 4919: 4916: 4912: 4907: 4902: 4901: 4896: 4893: 4888: 4884: 4883: 4882: 4879: 4878: 4873: 4872: 4871: 4868: 4867: 4866: 4852: 4848: 4843: 4837: 4836: 4835: 4831: 4827: 4822: 4819: 4816: 4813: 4810: 4807: 4804: 4801: 4800: 4799: 4798: 4792: 4788: 4784: 4783: 4782: 4779: 4778: 4777: 4776: 4772: 4767: 4751: 4747: 4742: 4736: 4735: 4734: 4731: 4727: 4726: 4725: 4724: 4723: 4722: 4721: 4720: 4713: 4709: 4704: 4698: 4697: 4696: 4695: 4694: 4693: 4682: 4678: 4674: 4670: 4665: 4664: 4663: 4660: 4656: 4655: 4654: 4650: 4646: 4641: 4640: 4639: 4636: 4631: 4627: 4624: 4623: 4622: 4621: 4620: 4619: 4616: 4612: 4608: 4604: 4600: 4599: 4596: 4592: 4588: 4585: 4582: 4579: 4578: 4577: 4576: 4573: 4569: 4566: 4556: 4553: 4550: 4545: 4544: 4543: 4539: 4535: 4532: 4529: 4526: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4517: 4513: 4510: 4507: 4504: 4503: 4502: 4501: 4497: 4493: 4490: 4487: 4475: 4471: 4467: 4463: 4459: 4455: 4451: 4447: 4446: 4445: 4444: 4443: 4440: 4435: 4430: 4426: 4425: 4424: 4423: 4422: 4421: 4414: 4410: 4406: 4402: 4401: 4400: 4397: 4392: 4388: 4384: 4380: 4376: 4372: 4367: 4366: 4365: 4362: 4357: 4353: 4348: 4347: 4344: 4340: 4335: 4330: 4329: 4326: 4323: 4318: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4309: 4308: 4303: 4300: 4299: 4296: 4295: 4287: 4283: 4277: 4274: 4273: 4270: 4269: 4262: 4258: 4253: 4252: 4251: 4250: 4249: 4248: 4247: 4246: 4242: 4239: 4236: 4233: 4230: 4227: 4224: 4221: 4218: 4215: 4214: 4204: 4203: 4202: 4199: 4198: 4195: 4194: 4186: 4184: 4181: 4180: 4177: 4176: 4168: 4167: 4166: 4163: 4162: 4159: 4158: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4126: 4125: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4115: 4114: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4092: 4088: 4082: 4073: 4070: 4069: 4068: 4067: 4063: 4059: 4055: 4036: 4032: 4027: 4021: 4020: 4019: 4015: 4011: 4006: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3997: 3994: 3990: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3980: 3976: 3971: 3970: 3969: 3965: 3961: 3960:Capitalismojo 3956: 3955: 3954: 3950: 3946: 3941: 3938: 3934: 3930: 3926: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3918: 3910: 3907: 3902: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3893: 3888: 3884: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3874: 3870: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3861: 3860: 3855: 3852: 3851: 3848: 3847: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3835: 3834: 3833: 3830: 3828: 3818: 3816: 3802: 3798: 3794: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3785: 3784: 3777: 3773: 3768: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3757: 3752: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3743: 3739: 3734: 3725: 3722: 3717: 3714: 3711: 3707: 3704: 3701: 3697: 3693: 3689: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3638: 3634: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3614: 3609: 3604: 3603: 3598: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3588: 3584: 3580: 3578: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3569: 3564: 3560: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3548: 3544: 3540: 3536: 3532: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3523: 3518: 3514: 3509: 3505: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3495: 3491: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3482: 3477: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3467: 3463: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3453: 3448: 3444: 3440: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3430: 3426: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3417: 3412: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3400: 3396: 3392: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3384: 3379: 3374: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3354: 3350: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3341: 3336: 3332: 3329: 3325: 3321: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3296: 3292: 3287: 3284: 3281: 3273: 3269: 3265: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3256: 3251: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3240: 3236: 3232: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3221: 3216: 3211: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3202: 3199: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3188: 3184: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3146: 3142: 3138: 3134: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3125: 3120: 3116: 3115: 3111: 3108: 3105: 3102: 3099: 3096: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3085: 3080: 3075: 3070: 3067: 3064: 3061: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3048: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3041: 3036: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3025: 3020: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3009: 3004: 3001: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2986: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2976: 2971: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2960: 2955: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2945: 2944: 2939: 2936: 2935: 2932: 2931: 2924: 2920: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2897: 2894: 2889: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2857: 2852: 2850: 2847: 2842: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2833: 2832: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2818: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2792: 2787: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2749: 2744: 2741: 2737: 2734: 2732: 2729: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2708: 2704: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2694: 2689: 2684: 2679: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2671: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2655: 2654: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2625: 2624: 2617: 2614: 2609: 2605: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2596: 2593: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2584: 2583: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2559: 2555: 2549: 2540: 2534: 2531: 2529: 2528: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2512: 2509: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2476: 2472: 2469: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2455: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2441: 2438: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2426: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2413: 2409: 2406: 2402: 2399: 2395: 2392: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2361: 2357: 2354: 2352: 2350: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2334: 2333: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2321: 2317: 2311: 2302: 2300: 2298: 2295: 2292: 2289: 2283: 2280: 2278: 2273: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2244: 2243: 2239: 2235: 2227: 2226: 2222: 2221: 2218: 2215: 2212: 2209: 2205: 2204: 2199: 2198: 2193: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2181: 2180: 2176: 2173: 2170: 2169: 2164: 2163: 2159: 2158: 2155: 2152: 2151: 2144: 2141: 2136: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2112: 2111: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2097: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2065: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2047: 2044: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2002: 1997: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1988: 1987: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1973: 1969: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1937: 1932: 1930: 1927: 1922: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1913: 1912: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1898: 1894: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1875: 1874: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1844: 1839: 1835: 1832:Articles in 1831: 1830: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1796: 1791: 1786: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1776: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1761: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1744: 1743: 1736: 1733: 1732: 1729: 1728: 1721: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1712: 1711: 1708: 1707: 1700: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1686: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1662: 1661: 1650: 1647: 1642: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1614: 1609: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1583: 1580: 1579: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1565: 1562:. ANI is for 1561: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1542: 1541: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1531: 1530: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1516: 1506: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1494: 1493: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1483: 1482: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1452: 1451: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1434: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1427: 1423: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1404: 1403: 1398: 1395: 1392: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1382: 1381: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1367: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1348: 1347: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1337: 1336: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1288: 1284: 1281: 1278: 1274: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1266: 1265: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1255: 1254: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1240: 1237:6) Users who 1226: 1225: 1224: 1221: 1220: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1210: 1209: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1163: 1162: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1152: 1151: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1122:. Relying on 1121: 1120:proper weight 1117: 1113: 1109: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1090: 1089: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1067: 1066: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1013: 1009: 1006: 1001: 998: 995: 991: 988: 987: 986: 983: 982: 977: 973: 969: 964: 963: 962: 961: 954: 953: 952: 951: 948: 945: 944: 939: 938: 937: 934: 933: 932: 930: 926: 922: 918: 904: 903: 902: 899: 898: 893: 892: 891: 888: 887: 882: 881: 880: 877: 876: 875: 873: 869: 865: 861: 827: 826: 825: 822: 821: 816: 815: 814: 811: 810: 805: 804: 803: 800: 799: 798: 786: 785: 784: 781: 780: 775: 774: 773: 770: 769: 764: 763: 762: 759: 758: 757: 745: 744: 743: 740: 739: 734: 733: 732: 729: 728: 723: 722: 721: 718: 717: 716: 704: 703: 702: 699: 698: 693: 692: 691: 688: 687: 682: 681: 680: 677: 676: 675: 662: 655: 654: 653: 650: 649: 644: 643: 642: 639: 638: 633: 632: 631: 628: 627: 626: 614: 613: 612: 609: 608: 603: 602: 601: 598: 597: 592: 591: 590: 587: 586: 585: 573: 572: 571: 568: 567: 562: 561: 560: 557: 556: 551: 550: 549: 546: 545: 544: 531: 529: 524: 522: 517: 505: 500: 498: 493: 491: 486: 485: 483: 482: 477: 472: 471: 456: 455: 444: 441: 438: 434: 431: 429: 426: 425: 421: 416: 415: 407: 404: 402: 399: 396: 392: 387: 384: 382: 379: 376: 372: 369: 367: 364: 362: 359: 357: 354: 350: 345: 342: 341: 337: 332: 331: 323: 320: 318: 315: 312: 308: 305: 304: 300: 295: 294: 286: 283: 281: 278: 276: 273: 271: 270:Case requests 268: 266: 263: 262: 258: 253: 252: 245: 241: 238: 236: 233: 230: 226: 221: 219: 216: 214: 211: 209: 206: 203: 200: 196: 193: 192: 190: 189: 185: 181: 180: 177: 174: 173: 169: 166: 161: 155: 150: 147: 146:from Aug 2013 144: 141: 136: 130: 125: 120: 115: 110: 106: 102: 98: 93: 87: 82: 76: 71: 65: 60: 51: 47: 46: 43: 31: 27: 23: 19: 16321: 16297: 16263: 16237: 16200: 16186: 16163: 16150: 16143: 16139: 16132: 16122: 16113: 16102: 16091: 16075: 16064: 16053: 16037: 16026: 16015: 15999: 15988: 15977: 15961: 15950: 15939: 15923: 15912: 15901: 15889: 15851:Arthur Rubin 15748: 15741: 15730: 15720: 15706: 15645: 15634: 15628:Wikistalking 15621: 15607: 15521: 15510: 15501: 15484: 15367: 15361: 15037: 15033: 14994: 14978: 14967: 14949: 14931: 14800: 14789: 14772: 14758: 14733: 14725: 14662: 14651: 14641: 14623: 14592: 14581: 14560: 14543: 14522: 14518: 14515: 14511: 14507: 14504: 14496: 14485: 14474: 14453: 14434: 14411: 14400: 14390: 14376: 14353: 14342: 14321: 14307: 14284: 14273: 14267:Wikistalking 14263: 14224: 14216: 14205: 14194: 14189: 14155: 14146: 14141: 14123: 14079: 14075: 14071: 14056: 14048: 14037: 14032: 13998: 13990: 13979: 13968: 13963: 13945: 13936: 13925: 13914: 13909: 13890: 13879: 13868: 13863: 13837: 13833: 13828: 13826: 13784: 13738: 13726: 13719: 13695: 13686: 13654: 13648: 13646: 13633: 13621: 13615: 13609: 13603: 13597: 13585: 13579: 13571: 13565: 13558: 13552: 13545: 13540:Arthur Rubin 13539: 13532: 13526: 13518: 13512: 13504: 13498: 13491: 13485: 13478: 13477: 13425: 13421: 13417:battleground 13393: 13388: 13373: 13366: 13335: 13331: 13319: 13312: 13306: 13280: 13266: 13260:Arthur Rubin 13252: 13238: 13224: 13210: 13196: 13187: 13173: 13162: 13151: 13130: 13116: 13105: 13084: 13078: 13061: 13046: 13044: 13030: 13019: 13008: 13003: 12930: 12921: 12897: 12884: 12877: 12871: 12861: 12847: 12841:Arthur Rubin 12833: 12819: 12805: 12791: 12782: 12768: 12698: 12679: 12672: 12642: 12630: 12623: 12592: 12535: 12528: 12521: 12496: 12482: 12471: 12460: 12449: 12443: 12416: 12391: 12346: 12339: 12335: 12298: 12294: 12290: 12286: 12231: 12224: 12217: 12194: 12183: 12170: 12136: 12122: 12111: 12098: 12091: 12085: 12064: 12030: 12016: 11960: 11956: 11933: 11918: 11911: 11901: 11894: 11888: 11875: 11844:User:Collect 11841: 11810: 11784: 11748: 11695: 11690: 11684: 11671: 11664: 11655: 11648: 11643: 11636: 11627: 11614: 11580: 11577:Arthur Rubin 11566: 11555: 11540: 11533: 11523: 11516: 11510: 11497: 11463: 11429: 11412: 11411: 11409: 11397: 11395: 11393: 11344:This thread 11338: 11281: 11246: 11215: 11175: 11159: 11152: 11133: 11127: 11095: 11092: 11084: 11070: 11060:Arthur Rubin 11057: 11047: 11045: 11043: 11037: 11032: 11027: 11022: 11016: 11011: 11008: 10968:Arthur Rubin 10963: 10959: 10914: 10906: 10885: 10878: 10856: 10829: 10822: 10815: 10794: 10760: 10680: 10642: 10623: 10604: 10585: 10566: 10547: 10518: 10484: 10440: 10407: 10400: 10393: 10385: 10367: 10333: 10330: 10313: 10300: 10281: 10252: 10247: 10234: 10231:contributor. 10132: 10119: 10112: 10106: 10088: 10054: 10040: 10029: 10016: 10009: 9997: 9980: 9946: 9901: 9862: 9849: 9845: 9821: 9802: 9798: 9776: 9770: 9765: 9751: 9746: 9724: 9677: 9673: 9633: 9608: 9548: 9544: 9508: 9480: 9475: 9441: 9428: 9412: 9400: 9391: 9376: 9363: 9349: 9334: 9298: 9291: 9275: 9269: 9254: 9243: 9219: 9188: 9184: 9179: 9168: 9161: 9092: 9088: 9077: 9063: 9029: 9000: 8991: 8980: 8967: 8960: 8953: 8935: 8901: 8887: 8864: 8844: 8833: 8823: 8809: 8795: 8781: 8775:Arthur Rubin 8767: 8753: 8739: 8725: 8711: 8697: 8688: 8657: 8625: 8620: 8616: 8614: 8598: 8579: 8575:collectively 8574: 8559: 8543: 8536: 8524: 8517: 8514: 8496: 8492: 8458: 8457: 8448: 8447: 8438: 8437: 8398:Arthur Rubin 8393: 8389: 8385: 8381: 8344: 8333: 8323: 8313: 8286: 8260: 8256: 8249: 8245: 8198: 8172: 8167: 8151: 8145: 8135: 8128: 8111: 8107: 8091: 8061: 8054: 8033: 8022: 7975: 7961: 7950: 7939: 7918: 7899: 7888: 7877: 7872: 7864: 7855: 7844: 7833: 7819:edit warring 7796: 7782: 7771: 7760: 7754: 7740: 7729: 7708: 7704: 7698: 7688: 7674: 7663: 7650: 7643: 7612: 7606: 7592: 7581: 7558: 7552: 7538: 7527: 7516: 7510: 7496: 7485: 7474: 7468: 7454: 7443: 7432: 7426: 7412: 7401: 7390: 7384:edit-warring 7380: 7366: 7355: 7344: 7338: 7324: 7313: 7302: 7296: 7282: 7271: 7260: 7255: 7231: 7220: 7209: 7204: 7190: 7179: 7168: 7163: 7144: 7133: 7122: 7117: 7005: 6979: 6965:Arthur Rubin 6960: 6956: 6947:To Ubikwit; 6902: 6897: 6885:Arthur Rubin 6880: 6876: 6872: 6868: 6824: 6767: 6763: 6759: 6683:Xenophrenic. 6681: 6674: 6663: 6657: 6647: 6645: 6631: 6620: 6609: 6604: 6590: 6579: 6568: 6563: 6550: 6541: 6530: 6519: 6514: 6500: 6489: 6478: 6473: 6449: 6438: 6427: 6422: 6408: 6397: 6386: 6381: 6362: 6351: 6340: 6334: 6320: 6309: 6298: 6293: 6283: 6281: 6267: 6256: 6245: 6240: 6226: 6215: 6204: 6198: 6184: 6173: 6162: 6156: 6142: 6131: 6120: 6115: 6101: 6081: 6064: 6053: 6047: 6033: 6022: 6011: 6005: 5991: 5980: 5969: 5964: 5950: 5939: 5928: 5923: 5885: 5848: 5828: 5815:Arthur Rubin 5810: 5805: 5780: 5752:Arthur Rubin 5746: 5740: 5727: 5720: 5714: 5708: 5705: 5692: 5683: 5672: 5661: 5656: 5642: 5631: 5620: 5615: 5591: 5568: 5557: 5548: 5494: 5486: 5475: 5461: 5373: 5354: 5347: 5336: 5329: 5318: 5311: 5296: 5289: 5282: 5277: 5250: 5227: 5216: 5211: 5197: 5174: 5163: 5157: 5143: 5127: 5096: 5075: 5071: 5064: 5044: 5033: 5028: 5014: 4998: 4971: 4958: 4951: 4940: 4935: 4921: 4905: 4880: 4869: 4864: 4841: 4780: 4765: 4762: 4740: 4702: 4625: 4563: 4549:Arthur Rubin 4484: 4428: 4351: 4333: 4310: 4297: 4290: 4271: 4264: 4260: 4256: 4196: 4189: 4178: 4171: 4160: 4153: 4146: 4141: 4127: 4116: 4105: 4100: 4071: 4051: 4025: 3993:Arthur Rubin 3988: 3919: 3862: 3849: 3842: 3836: 3831: 3824: 3814: 3812: 3786: 3766: 3732: 3729: 3720: 3709: 3699: 3695: 3691: 3681: 3624: 3620: 3601: 3600: 3596: 3576: 3558: 3538: 3534: 3530: 3512: 3507: 3503: 3442: 3438: 3390: 3330: 3327: 3323: 3319: 3316: 3312: 3308: 3304: 3282: 3198:Arthur Rubin 3167: 3133:topic ban me 3132: 3078: 3076:Sincerely, 3051:immediately? 3018: 2998: 2990: 2969: 2946: 2933: 2926: 2912: 2907: 2871: 2855: 2834: 2823: 2814: 2800: 2785: 2781: 2718: 2682: 2667:Arthur Rubin 2656: 2645: 2640: 2626: 2592:Arthur Rubin 2585: 2574: 2569: 2537: 2526: 2525: 2523: 2507: 2474: 2466: 2411: 2404: 2397: 2359: 2348: 2347: 2345: 2286: 2250: 2245: 2232: 2229:contributor. 2113: 2102: 2093: 2079: 2063: 2033: 2025: 1989: 1978: 1965: 1951: 1935: 1914: 1903: 1890: 1876: 1745: 1730: 1723: 1709: 1702: 1691: 1682: 1663: 1581: 1570: 1563: 1557: 1543: 1532: 1521: 1512: 1504: 1495: 1484: 1473: 1467: 1453: 1442: 1437: 1432: 1419: 1405: 1391:Arthur Rubin 1383: 1372: 1363: 1349: 1338: 1327: 1321: 1267: 1256: 1245: 1236: 1222: 1211: 1200: 1194: 1164: 1153: 1142: 1118:determining 1105: 1091: 1068: 1057: 1036: 1003: 984: 946: 935: 929:undue weight 914: 900: 889: 878: 857: 823: 812: 801: 796: 782: 771: 760: 755: 741: 730: 719: 714: 700: 689: 678: 673: 660: 651: 640: 629: 624: 610: 599: 588: 583: 569: 558: 547: 542: 525: 515: 513: 122: 118: 104: 103: 101: 80: 14575:editwarring 14468:editwarring 13553:Darkstar1st 13513:Xenophrenic 13442:Darkstar1st 13398:Darkstar1st 13353:Newyorkbrad 13274:Darkstar1st 13246:Xenophrenic 13089:Newyorkbrad 12855:Darkstar1st 12827:Xenophrenic 12336:Sure enough 12303:Darkstar1st 12256:Darkstar1st 12027:Darkstar1st 11996:Darkstar1st 11965:Darkstar1st 11419:my emphasis 11403:my emphasis 11284:Xenophrenic 11218:Xenophrenic 10840:Newyorkbrad 10757:Xenophrenic 10455:comments.-- 10355:discussion. 9204:Darkstar1st 9180:union thugs 8803:Darkstar1st 8747:Xenophrenic 8190:Xenophrenic 7713:Newyorkbrad 7691:WP:INVOLVED 7685:Involvement 7629:Newyorkbrad 7565:Newyorkbrad 6839:Darkstar1st 6772:Darkstar1st 5109:Darkstar1st 5093:unreliable. 5080:Darkstar1st 5065:you opposed 4824:re-engaged. 3730:Sincerely, 3629:Darkstar1st 3583:Darkstar1st 3543:Darkstar1st 3490:Darkstar1st 3462:Darkstar1st 3425:Darkstar1st 3395:Darkstar1st 3363:Darkstar1st 3349:Darkstar1st 3291:Darkstar1st 3137:Darkstar1st 3055:discussion? 2995:policy page 2011:Darkstar1st 1962:Darkstar1st 1124:synthesized 240:Ban appeals 218:Noticeboard 135:Newyorkbrad 16222:Malke 2010 16207:Malke 2010 15875:Malke 2010 15840:WP:POVFORK 15836:WP:SPINOFF 15808:WP:SPINOFF 15791:WP:SPINOFF 15763:WP:SPINOFF 15128:WP:CANVASS 15093:WP:CANVASS 14514:and there 14394:disruptive 14334:, and the 13800:Malke 2010 13769:Malke 2010 13755:Malke 2010 13672:Malke 2010 13635:Malke 2010 13486:Malke 2010 13457:Malke 2010 13232:Malke 2010 12905:Malke 2010 12813:Malke 2010 12719:Malke 2010 12702:Malke 2010 12658:Malke 2010 12600:Malke 2010 12499:User:Arzel 12201:Malke 2010 11728:Malke 2010 11413:right wing 11316:Malke 2010 11302:Malke 2010 11200:Malke 2010 11137:Malke 2010 11077:and again 11074:and again 10980:Malke 2010 10946:Malke 2010 10864:Malke 2010 10236:Malke 2010 10051:Malke 2010 9949:User:Arzel 9886:Malke 2010 9799:minimizing 9693:Malke 2010 9658:Malke 2010 9462:Malke 2010 8867:, thanks. 8733:Malke 2010 8643:Malke 2010 8241:"trivia"). 8098:this case. 7465:Talk pages 7088:WP:NEWSORG 6921:Malke 2010 6877:originally 6854:Malke 2010 6731:Malke 2010 6700:Malke 2010 6686:Malke 2010 5765:Malke 2010 5747:particular 5573:Standard. 5439:Malke 2010 4673:Malke 2010 4645:Malke 2010 4607:Malke 2010 4587:Malke 2010 4534:Malke 2010 4512:Malke 2010 4492:Malke 2010 4466:Malke 2010 4450:Malke 2010 4405:Malke 2010 4371:Malke 2010 3869:Malke 2010 3531:discussion 3264:Malke 2010 3235:Malke 2010 3183:Malke 2010 3171:incivility 2757:Malke 2010 2703:Malke 2010 2234:Malke 2010 2121:Malke 2010 2090:Malke 2010 1852:Malke 2010 1820:Malke 2010 1752:Malke 2010 1626:Malke 2010 1593:Malke 2010 1515:responsive 1276:movement". 1112:verifiably 1075:Malke 2010 1043:incivility 1015:difficult. 968:Malke 2010 862:– such as 446:(pre-2016) 433:Statistics 366:Procedures 105:Case clerk 16298:North8000 16238:North8000 16187:North8000 16175:Chihuahua 15008:Ugg boots 14957:Ugg boots 14952:Ugg boots 14944:Ugg boots 14671:article. 14669:Ugg boots 14644:Ugg boots 14638:by WLRoss 14636:Ugg boots 14601:only at " 14124:North8000 14103:Chihuahua 14089:Chihuahua 14057:North8000 13785:North8000 13739:North8000 13655:North8000 13455:movement. 13204:North8000 12643:North8000 12509:have all 12417:North8000 12362:Chihuahua 12325:Chihuahua 12277:Chihuahua 11986:Chihuahua 11945:Chihuahua 11718:Chihuahua 11704:Chihuahua 11176:North8000 10519:North8000 10143:Chihuahua 9902:North8000 9777:North8000 9725:North8000 9609:North8000 9531:Chihuahua 9509:North8000 9476:defending 9442:North8000 9413:North8000 9377:North8000 9335:North8000 9261:that diff 9220:North8000 9026:North8000 8873:Chihuahua 8855:Chihuahua 8705:North8000 8626:North8000 8599:North8000 8580:North8000 8560:North8000 8497:North8000 8287:North8000 8199:North8000 8173:North8000 8152:North8000 8112:North8000 8077:Chihuahua 8044:Chihuahua 8013:by others 7994:a warning 7990:a comment 7978:a comment 7827:consensus 7823:ownership 7084:WP:WEIGHT 7006:North8000 6903:North8000 6825:Malke2010 6791:Chihuahua 6749:Chihuahua 6082:North8000 5886:North8000 5829:North8000 5781:North8000 5579:Chihuahua 5510:Chihuahua 5462:North8000 5429:Chihuahua 5414:Chihuahua 5400:Chihuahua 5385:Chihuahua 5238:Chihuahua 5185:Chihuahua 5128:North8000 5055:Chihuahua 4999:North8000 4982:Chihuahua 4906:North8000 4891:Chihuahua 4842:North8000 4766:North8000 4741:North8000 4703:North8000 4438:Chihuahua 4395:Chihuahua 4360:Chihuahua 4334:North8000 4321:Chihuahua 4075:record.-- 4026:North8000 3905:Chihuahua 3891:Chihuahua 3767:North8000 3755:Chihuahua 3733:North8000 3612:Chihuahua 3567:Chihuahua 3535:topic ban 3521:Chihuahua 3480:Chihuahua 3451:Chihuahua 3415:Chihuahua 3382:Chihuahua 3339:Chihuahua 3254:Chihuahua 3219:Chihuahua 3175:WP:BATTLE 3123:Chihuahua 3079:North8000 3039:Chihuahua 3019:North8000 3007:Chihuahua 2984:explained 2970:North8000 2958:Chihuahua 2856:North8000 2845:Chihuahua 2786:North8000 2747:Chihuahua 2727:Chihuahua 2692:Chihuahua 2612:Chihuahua 2454:this edit 2139:Chihuahua 2064:North8000 2042:Chihuahua 2000:Chihuahua 1936:North8000 1925:Chihuahua 1887:North8000 1842:Chihuahua 1794:Chihuahua 1774:Chihuahua 1699:Viriditas 1645:Chihuahua 1612:Chihuahua 521:/Evidence 371:Elections 109:Callanecc 50:WP:ARBTPM 16146:SilkTork 16086:Template 16048:Template 16010:Template 15972:Template 15934:Template 15896:Template 15050:WP:ANRFC 14779:WP:NPOVN 14497:"At the 14076:as usual 13906:Template 13860:Template 13722:SilkTork 13622:April 13 13616:April 12 13499:Goethean 13369:SilkTork 13315:SilkTork 13296:a revert 13284:contribs 13272:), and 13270:contribs 13256:contribs 13242:contribs 13228:contribs 13214:contribs 13200:contribs 13190:Goethean 13000:Template 12969:article. 12880:SilkTork 12865:contribs 12853:), and 12851:contribs 12837:contribs 12823:contribs 12809:contribs 12795:contribs 12785:Goethean 12675:SilkTork 12626:SilkTork 12619:tag team 12614:edit war 12531:SilkTork 12342:SilkTork 12094:SilkTork 11914:SilkTork 11897:SilkTork 11667:SilkTork 11651:SilkTork 11639:SilkTork 11536:SilkTork 11519:SilkTork 11155:SilkTork 10919:goethean 10881:SilkTork 10825:SilkTork 10258:success. 10197:problem. 10115:SilkTork 10012:SilkTork 10005:WP:RfC/U 9851:MastCell 9804:MastCell 9753:MastCell 9574:goethean 9561:goethean 9482:MastCell 9430:MastCell 9402:MastCell 9365:MastCell 9294:SilkTork 9277:MastCell 9164:SilkTork 8963:SilkTork 8898:Goethean 8827:contribs 8813:contribs 8799:contribs 8785:contribs 8771:contribs 8757:contribs 8743:contribs 8729:contribs 8715:contribs 8701:contribs 8691:Goethean 8539:SilkTork 8520:SilkTork 8194:Goethean 8168:samplers 8131:SilkTork 8057:SilkTork 8010:extended 7689:10) The 7646:SilkTork 7423:Sourcing 7201:Template 7160:Template 7114:Template 6957:positive 6830:goethean 6601:Template 6560:Template 6511:Template 6470:Template 6419:Template 6378:Template 6071:goethean 5858:article. 5806:standard 5723:SilkTork 5653:Template 5612:Template 5496:MastCell 5350:SilkTork 5332:SilkTork 5314:SilkTork 5292:SilkTork 4954:SilkTork 4790:editors. 4730:goethean 4669:WP:CIVIL 4659:goethean 4635:goethean 4572:goethean 4293:SilkTork 4267:SilkTork 4192:SilkTork 4174:SilkTork 4156:SilkTork 4008:another. 3845:SilkTork 3696:anything 3687:editing. 3231:WP:CIVIL 2929:SilkTork 2663:WP:POINT 2604:evidence 2308:Ubikwit 2195:problem. 2032:here as 1726:SilkTork 1705:SilkTork 1005:sources. 921:advocacy 793:Template 752:Template 711:Template 670:Template 621:Template 580:Template 539:Template 516:workshop 124:SilkTork 81:Workshop 70:Evidence 42:Shortcut 28:‎ | 24:‎ | 22:Requests 20:‎ | 16283:Ubikwit 14946:article 14901:weight. 13843:Ubikwit 13610:April 9 13604:April 6 13598:March 1 13580:Ubikwit 13394:support 12980:Ubikwit 12746:Ubikwit 12152:history 12046:history 11957:without 11857:history 11838:Collect 11596:history 11479:history 11440:Ubikwit 11427:issue". 11358:Ubikwit 10776:history 10733:Ubikwit 10719:WP:NPA. 10690:Ubikwit 10652:Ubikwit 10491:Ubikwit 10459:Ubikwit 10439:First, 10414:Ubikwit 10203:future. 10070:history 9962:history 9818:fact.-- 9568:P.P.S. 9045:history 8917:history 8801:), and 8789:Collect 8470:Ubikwit 8394:quoting 8390:correct 8364:Ubikwit 8267:Ubikwit 7335:Decorum 7055:Ubikwit 6990:Ubikwit 6800:source. 5871:Ubikwit 5869:funded. 5076:support 5072:neutral 4946:debate. 4826:Ubikwit 4079:Ubikwit 4010:Ubikwit 3975:Ubikwit 3945:Ubikwit 2891:best.-- 2546:Ubikwit 2201:future. 1683:1) The 1302:Ubikwit 1175:Ubikwit 1033:Decorum 1017:Ubikwit 1011:saying. 443:Reports 381:History 361:Members 356:Contact 344:Discuss 208:(CU/OS) 16272:NE Ent 16171:Killer 15854:(talk) 15088:WP:RSN 14783:WP:RSN 14505:is not 14499:WP:ANI 14237:cntrb. 14168:cntrb. 14099:Killer 14085:Killer 14011:cntrb. 13708:cntrb. 12943:cntrb. 12505:, and 12404:cntrb. 12358:Killer 12321:Killer 12273:Killer 12244:cntrb. 11982:Killer 11978:Rubin. 11941:Killer 11823:cntrb. 11797:cntrb. 11714:Killer 11700:Killer 11383:source 11063:(talk) 10971:(talk) 10960:intent 10327:WP:BRD 10296:WP:3RR 10139:Killer 9875:cntrb. 9834:cntrb. 9771:actual 9743:WP:BLP 9646:cntrb. 9527:Killer 9458:WP:BLP 9397:WP:BLP 9392:really 9360:WP:BLP 9355:WP:BLP 9266:WP:BLP 9013:cntrb. 8869:Killer 8851:Killer 8449:Agree. 8401:(talk) 8073:Killer 8053:page. 8040:Killer 7809:, and 6968:(talk) 6888:(talk) 6787:Killer 6745:Killer 6723:WP:OWN 5818:(talk) 5755:(talk) 5575:Killer 5506:Killer 5425:Killer 5410:Killer 5396:Killer 5381:Killer 5234:Killer 5181:Killer 5051:Killer 4978:Killer 4887:Killer 4552:(talk) 4434:Killer 4391:Killer 4356:Killer 4317:Killer 3996:(talk) 3901:Killer 3887:Killer 3751:Killer 3692:didn't 3608:Killer 3563:Killer 3537:in an 3517:Killer 3508:no one 3476:Killer 3447:Killer 3411:Killer 3378:Killer 3335:Killer 3250:Killer 3215:Killer 3201:(talk) 3179:WP:Own 3177:, and 3119:Killer 3035:Killer 3003:Killer 2954:Killer 2841:Killer 2815:7) In 2743:Killer 2723:Killer 2688:Killer 2670:(talk) 2608:Killer 2595:(talk) 2277:Agenda 2135:Killer 2038:Killer 1996:Killer 1921:Killer 1838:Killer 1790:Killer 1770:Killer 1641:Killer 1608:Killer 1560:WP:ANI 1394:(talk) 1170:glory. 1049:, and 919:, and 386:Clerks 244:Report 158:& 15866:were. 15688:Wayne 15630:. 15561:Wayne 15448:Wayne 15434:Wayne 15430:MONGO 15424:Wayne 15317:Wayne 15219:Wayne 15142:Wayne 15061:Wayne 14909:Wayne 14841:Wayne 14828:board 14696:Wayne 14599:WP:TE 14492:WP:TE 13850:見学/迷惑 13649:every 13527:North 13218:Arzel 12987:見学/迷惑 12799:Arzel 12753:見学/迷惑 12297:him, 12295:added 12160:watch 12156:links 12054:watch 12050:links 11865:watch 11861:links 11604:watch 11600:links 11487:watch 11483:links 11447:見学/迷惑 11365:見学/迷惑 11350:This 11249:Arzel 10915:which 10784:watch 10780:links 10740:見学/迷惑 10697:見学/迷惑 10659:見学/迷惑 10545:page. 10498:見学/迷惑 10466:見学/迷惑 10421:見学/迷惑 10381:rate. 10078:watch 10074:links 9970:watch 9966:links 9943:Arzel 9554:P.S. 9493:Arzel 9053:watch 9049:links 8925:watch 8921:links 8719:Arzel 8665:WP:TE 8477:見学/迷惑 8382:claim 8371:見学/迷惑 8305:2010. 8274:見学/迷惑 8146:every 6961:there 6727:WP:TE 6719:WP:PA 4429:prior 4086:見学/迷惑 3989:wrong 3059:that. 2893:MONGO 2739:call. 2553:見学/迷惑 2468:(UTC) 2315:見学/迷惑 1785:Fetus 1366:point 420:Audit 16:< 16303:talk 16287:talk 16243:talk 16226:talk 16211:talk 16192:talk 15879:talk 15692:talk 15656:talk 15591:talk 15565:talk 15536:talk 15452:talk 15438:talk 15380:talk 15321:talk 15271:talk 15223:talk 15184:talk 15146:talk 15101:talk 15065:talk 15016:talk 14913:talk 14872:talk 14845:talk 14811:talk 14781:and 14742:talk 14700:talk 14677:talk 14647:it. 14611:talk 14531:talk 14422:talk 14364:talk 14295:talk 14232:tlk. 14163:tlk. 14129:talk 14062:talk 14006:tlk. 13910:1) 13804:talk 13790:talk 13773:talk 13759:talk 13744:talk 13703:tlk. 13676:talk 13660:talk 13639:talk 13594:are: 13461:talk 13446:talk 13429:Talk 13402:talk 13357:talk 13339:Talk 13278:talk 13264:talk 13258:), 13250:talk 13236:talk 13222:talk 13208:talk 13194:talk 13093:talk 12938:tlk. 12909:talk 12859:talk 12845:talk 12839:), 12831:talk 12817:talk 12803:talk 12789:talk 12783:15) 12723:talk 12706:talk 12662:talk 12648:talk 12604:talk 12497:14) 12444:13) 12422:talk 12399:tlk. 12307:talk 12260:talk 12239:tlk. 12205:talk 12164:logs 12148:talk 12144:edit 12058:logs 12042:talk 12038:edit 12000:talk 11969:talk 11869:logs 11853:talk 11849:edit 11818:tlk. 11792:tlk. 11732:talk 11608:logs 11592:talk 11588:edit 11491:logs 11475:talk 11471:edit 11352:diff 11320:talk 11306:talk 11288:talk 11253:talk 11222:talk 11204:talk 11181:talk 11141:talk 10984:talk 10950:talk 10868:talk 10844:talk 10788:logs 10772:talk 10768:edit 10524:talk 10240:talk 10082:logs 10066:talk 10062:edit 9974:logs 9958:talk 9954:edit 9907:talk 9890:talk 9870:tlk. 9829:tlk. 9782:talk 9730:talk 9697:talk 9681:Talk 9662:talk 9641:tlk. 9614:talk 9570:here 9556:Here 9541:cite 9514:talk 9497:talk 9466:talk 9447:talk 9418:talk 9390:You 9382:talk 9340:talk 9225:talk 9208:talk 9192:Talk 9096:Talk 9057:logs 9041:talk 9037:edit 9008:tlk. 8929:logs 8913:talk 8909:edit 8821:talk 8807:talk 8793:talk 8779:talk 8765:talk 8751:talk 8737:talk 8723:talk 8709:talk 8695:talk 8673:talk 8647:talk 8631:talk 8617:over 8604:talk 8585:talk 8565:talk 8502:talk 8292:talk 8263:"?-- 8238:here 8204:talk 8192:and 8178:talk 8157:talk 8117:talk 7998:said 7717:talk 7633:talk 7569:talk 7102:talk 7059:talk 7011:talk 6994:talk 6925:talk 6908:talk 6869:that 6858:talk 6843:talk 6776:talk 6735:talk 6704:talk 6690:talk 6087:talk 5910:talk 5891:talk 5875:talk 5834:talk 5811:this 5786:talk 5769:talk 5525:talk 5467:talk 5443:talk 5262:talk 5133:talk 5113:talk 5084:talk 5004:talk 4911:talk 4847:talk 4830:talk 4771:talk 4746:talk 4708:talk 4677:talk 4649:talk 4611:talk 4591:talk 4538:talk 4516:talk 4496:talk 4470:talk 4454:talk 4409:talk 4375:talk 4339:talk 4062:talk 4031:talk 4014:talk 3979:talk 3964:talk 3949:talk 3883:here 3873:talk 3797:talk 3772:talk 3738:talk 3721:that 3700:over 3633:talk 3587:talk 3547:talk 3513:this 3494:talk 3466:talk 3443:your 3429:talk 3399:talk 3367:talk 3353:talk 3295:talk 3268:talk 3239:talk 3187:talk 3141:talk 3084:talk 3024:talk 2975:talk 2923:here 2882:talk 2861:talk 2791:talk 2761:talk 2707:talk 2238:talk 2125:talk 2069:talk 2015:talk 1941:talk 1856:talk 1824:talk 1814:and 1756:talk 1630:talk 1597:talk 1306:talk 1179:talk 1079:talk 1021:talk 972:talk 866:and 797:4) 756:3) 715:2) 674:1) 625:3) 584:2) 543:1) 437:Talk 428:Talk 395:Talk 375:Talk 229:Talk 199:Talk 165:Talk 154:Talk 140:Talk 133:and 129:Talk 114:Talk 97:Talk 86:Talk 75:Talk 64:Talk 26:Case 14565:at 14519:was 14458:at 14080:not 13302:. 13244:), 13230:), 13216:), 13202:), 13131:2) 13062:1) 12825:), 12811:), 12797:), 12513:on 12291:you 12225:was 11691:not 11080:. 11054:in 11048:now 9846:you 9766:was 9545:all 8787:), 8773:), 8759:), 8745:), 8731:), 8717:), 8703:), 8386:was 8360:.-- 8002:ANI 6949:The 6881:was 3602:why 3559:not 3539:ANI 3328:you 3324:not 3317:you 3311:him 3307:you 2991:not 2719:not 2683:not 2353:... 2267:or 1974:. 1899:. 1420:9) 311:Log 149:AGK 16305:) 16289:) 16245:) 16228:) 16213:) 16194:) 15881:) 15873:- 15849:— 15749:my 15694:) 15658:) 15593:) 15567:) 15538:) 15530:. 15454:) 15440:) 15382:) 15323:) 15273:) 15225:) 15186:) 15148:) 15103:) 15095:. 15067:) 15018:) 14915:) 14874:) 14847:) 14813:) 14744:) 14702:) 14679:) 14613:) 14577:. 14533:) 14516:is 14470:. 14424:) 14396:. 14366:) 14330:, 14326:, 14297:) 14131:) 14064:) 13806:) 13792:) 13775:) 13761:) 13746:) 13678:) 13662:) 13641:) 13481:: 13463:) 13448:) 13422:NW 13404:) 13359:) 13332:NW 13188:3) 13095:) 12911:) 12725:) 12708:) 12664:) 12650:) 12606:) 12501:, 12424:) 12309:) 12262:) 12207:) 12179:. 12162:| 12158:| 12154:| 12150:| 12146:| 12081:. 12056:| 12052:| 12048:| 12044:| 12040:| 12002:) 11971:) 11884:. 11867:| 11863:| 11859:| 11855:| 11851:| 11734:) 11696:do 11663:. 11635:. 11606:| 11602:| 11598:| 11594:| 11590:| 11489:| 11485:| 11481:| 11477:| 11473:| 11405:). 11322:) 11308:) 11290:) 11255:) 11224:) 11206:) 11183:) 11143:) 11020:. 10986:) 10952:) 10870:) 10846:) 10786:| 10782:| 10778:| 10774:| 10770:| 10648:-- 10526:) 10410:-- 10242:) 10080:| 10076:| 10072:| 10068:| 10064:| 9972:| 9968:| 9964:| 9960:| 9956:| 9909:) 9892:) 9784:) 9747:do 9732:) 9699:) 9674:NW 9664:) 9616:) 9516:) 9499:) 9468:) 9449:) 9420:) 9399:? 9384:) 9342:) 9227:) 9210:) 9185:NW 9089:NW 9086:. 9055:| 9051:| 9047:| 9043:| 9039:| 8927:| 8923:| 8919:| 8915:| 8911:| 8829:) 8675:) 8649:) 8633:) 8606:) 8587:) 8567:) 8504:) 8294:) 8252:"? 8206:) 8180:) 8159:) 8119:) 7805:, 7719:) 7635:) 7571:) 7104:) 7061:) 7013:) 6996:) 6927:) 6910:) 6873:no 6860:) 6845:) 6778:) 6737:) 6706:) 6692:) 6089:) 5912:) 5893:) 5877:) 5836:) 5788:) 5771:) 5553:. 5527:) 5469:) 5445:) 5264:) 5135:) 5115:) 5107:. 5086:) 5078:) 5006:) 4913:) 4849:) 4832:) 4773:) 4748:) 4710:) 4679:) 4651:) 4613:) 4593:) 4540:) 4518:) 4498:) 4472:) 4456:) 4411:) 4377:) 4352:is 4341:) 4064:) 4033:) 4016:) 3981:) 3966:) 3951:) 3885:. 3875:) 3799:) 3774:) 3740:) 3690:I 3635:) 3623:, 3589:) 3549:) 3504:am 3496:) 3468:) 3431:) 3401:) 3369:) 3355:) 3331:he 3320:he 3297:) 3285:, 3270:) 3241:) 3189:) 3173:, 3143:) 3086:) 3026:) 2997:: 2977:) 2884:) 2863:) 2793:) 2763:) 2709:) 2542:-- 2240:) 2127:) 2098:. 2071:) 2017:) 1943:) 1858:) 1826:) 1810:, 1758:) 1701:? 1632:) 1624:. 1599:) 1308:) 1181:) 1138:. 1081:) 1045:, 1041:, 1023:) 974:) 121:: 107:: 90:— 79:— 68:— 16301:( 16285:( 16241:( 16224:( 16209:( 16190:( 15877:( 15842:. 15810:. 15798:. 15690:( 15654:( 15589:( 15563:( 15534:( 15450:( 15436:( 15378:( 15319:( 15314:. 15269:( 15221:( 15182:( 15144:( 15099:( 15063:( 15014:( 14911:( 14870:( 14843:( 14809:( 14740:( 14698:( 14675:( 14609:( 14529:( 14420:( 14362:( 14293:( 14265:" 14127:( 14060:( 13802:( 13788:( 13771:( 13757:( 13742:( 13674:( 13658:( 13637:( 13630:. 13459:( 13444:( 13432:) 13426:( 13400:( 13355:( 13342:) 13336:( 13281:· 13276:( 13267:· 13262:( 13253:· 13248:( 13239:· 13234:( 13225:· 13220:( 13211:· 13206:( 13197:· 13192:( 13091:( 12907:( 12862:· 12857:( 12848:· 12843:( 12834:· 12829:( 12820:· 12815:( 12806:· 12801:( 12792:· 12787:( 12721:( 12704:( 12660:( 12646:( 12602:( 12420:( 12305:( 12258:( 12203:( 12166:) 12142:( 12060:) 12036:( 11998:( 11967:( 11871:) 11847:( 11730:( 11610:) 11586:( 11493:) 11469:( 11417:( 11401:( 11318:( 11304:( 11286:( 11251:( 11220:( 11202:( 11179:( 11139:( 10982:( 10948:( 10866:( 10842:( 10790:) 10766:( 10679:" 10522:( 10362:. 10339:. 10316:. 10238:( 10179:. 10084:) 10060:( 9976:) 9952:( 9905:( 9888:( 9780:( 9728:( 9695:( 9684:) 9678:( 9660:( 9612:( 9512:( 9495:( 9464:( 9445:( 9416:( 9380:( 9338:( 9223:( 9206:( 9195:) 9189:( 9099:) 9093:( 9059:) 9035:( 8931:) 8907:( 8824:· 8819:( 8810:· 8805:( 8796:· 8791:( 8782:· 8777:( 8768:· 8763:( 8754:· 8749:( 8740:· 8735:( 8726:· 8721:( 8712:· 8707:( 8698:· 8693:( 8671:( 8645:( 8629:( 8602:( 8583:( 8563:( 8500:( 8425:) 8421:( 8290:( 8202:( 8176:( 8155:( 8115:( 7715:( 7631:( 7618:" 7567:( 7100:( 7057:( 7009:( 6992:( 6952:A 6923:( 6906:( 6856:( 6841:( 6774:( 6733:( 6702:( 6688:( 6085:( 5908:( 5889:( 5873:( 5832:( 5784:( 5767:( 5523:( 5465:( 5441:( 5260:( 5131:( 5111:( 5082:( 5002:( 4909:( 4845:( 4828:( 4769:( 4744:( 4706:( 4675:( 4647:( 4609:( 4589:( 4536:( 4514:( 4494:( 4468:( 4452:( 4407:( 4373:( 4337:( 4060:( 4029:( 4012:( 3977:( 3962:( 3947:( 3871:( 3795:( 3770:( 3736:( 3723:. 3631:( 3585:( 3545:( 3492:( 3464:( 3427:( 3397:( 3365:( 3351:( 3293:( 3266:( 3237:( 3185:( 3139:( 3082:( 3022:( 2973:( 2880:( 2859:( 2789:( 2759:( 2705:( 2442:. 2236:( 2177:. 2123:( 2067:( 2013:( 1939:( 1854:( 1822:( 1754:( 1628:( 1595:( 1304:( 1177:( 1077:( 1019:( 970:( 503:e 496:t 489:v 391:+ 349:+ 313:) 309:( 225:+ 167:) 163:( 156:) 152:( 142:) 138:( 131:) 127:( 116:) 112:( 99:) 95:( 88:) 84:( 77:) 73:( 66:) 62:(

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

Knowledge

:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop - Knowledge

Index