Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive10

2047:." The admin did not say that it should result in yet another "try." The culmination of all this trying, which if you look at the discussion on the baseball talk page, the mediation cabal page, Tecmo's page, and my talk page, is a dizzying series of conversations (which I could quite properly characterize, in more than one sense, as "trying" conversations), has been Tecmo's above-expressed intention to continue to ignore Wiki rules. Even his expressions over the past month of adherence to any wiki rules have only been to his interpretations of WP:Bold and WP:EL -- which are clearly at odds, from his behavior, with Knowledge. He believes, or at least argues, that these policies in fact allow him to engage in the disruptive editing that he has engaged in. I think we should respect all of the admins and editors who have tried so much this month, devoted their time and effort to resolving this by other means, and finally give us all a break by putting in place an indefinite ban. The time for trying has to end sometime, so that people can be freed up to pursue helpful activities on Knowledge, rather than spend more time on this banned-5-times-this-month sockpuppet who is "fucking done with trying to follow due process." I agree with the sentiments of SashaNein and some others above as, "Please, just get this over with." There has been no rush to justice here. Quite the contrary. We have tried for 4 weeks. Any further trying makes a mockery of the Wiki system. Ater 4 weeks of all the above trying, he has continued his disruptive editing and thumb-nosing. I would submit that the time to act is now. -- 2254:

he'd been involved with, and then a checkuser came back negative. His edits, good and bad are clumped together and written off as coming from him. Epeefleche managaed to successfully avoid discussion, and win through reversion for almost three weeks. He was able to say "no, I don't want to talk" and keep another editor from editing. No wonder Tecmo got blocked again and again for 3RR. He believed in his edits, and no one would explain why they disagreed. Tecmo might have reacted badly, but no one should be forced to wait three weeks for an explanation. People talk about consensus and Tecmo, but that's not the way it works. Tecmo cited consensus and if someone disagrees, "I'm too busy to tell you why" isn't an adequate explanation. I believe that Tecmo really wants to improve Knowledge. He just started running out of ways how. Tecmo may have problems--problems getting along with other people, just problems in general, but he can be handled. I don't think any of the big issues that came from this would come to pass if it weren't for simply abysmal behavior on the parts of other editors. And while Tecmo's actions may have instigated things, I'm not ok with banning one editor because of communal jackassery.

9529:. The only dispute is about what language should be used. No matter what the article, no matter what the issue, I favor language that is easily understandable, that leaves no room for misunderstanding. That is why I say in the last example that the language should use more words, more commas, and spell out a description of the sorts of people found in the Messianic Judaism movement. The counter-argument is that the term "ethnic Jews" does this quite nicely. No matter whether Jews are an ethnicity or not is not the issue. The insistence on the term ethnic Jews constitutes point of view pushing. In what way does it help the reader to understand the constituents of this movement? All that we have to do is spell out descriptions of sorts of people who comprise the movement. There is a good deal of unclarity in a term such as ethnic Jews. Are they Jews? Why are we dabbling in that issue when we are ostensibly describing the constituents of the Messianic Judaism movement? That is exactly what point of view pushing is. I oppose that. I am in favor of using however much language is called for to simply and unequivocally convey information. I hate the choosing of language to advance a personal agenda. 846:

well as T.Anthony, who opposes inclusion, but accepts the validity of the voting results. JJay, Drumpler, Ttiotsw, zadignose, Moralis, Gustav von Humpelschmumpel, and Tendancer are, as far as I know, all non-Christians, and they all more or less support the inclusion of these individuals. That being said, I don't see a Christian majority in any case, so I don't see why you're trying to paint that picture. Concerning Bus stop's edits, this is not a "dirty trick"- I'm sorry, but this user has been continuously disruptive, and this discussion is going nowhere but in circles with his involvement. He is extremely uncooperative and unrealistic, and decides that only his opinion of a matter is to be taken seriously, even deciding that his interpretation of reliable sources is more weighty than the sources themselves. I'm pressed for time, so I may just add to this later. Hopefully, supportive diffs will be extremely easy to find. Have a nice night, anyway.--

2143:

removed on lots of articles and started reverting. His reverts included putting back in dead links and double links (even the most cursory of checks would have revealed those). Tecmo had already provided an edit summary--and Epeefleche was bahaving as though Tecmo's edits were obvious vandalism. If he didn't see how why they were WP:EL (open wikis, not on topic, not unique), he should have asked. Could Tecmo have behaved better? Gone above and beyond? Provided step by step explanations on talk pages when it was clear that Epeefleche was just going to keep reverting? Sure. But he did what was necessary, and it was Epeefleche, upon reverting who feel short. In return Tecmo did the same, hitting the undo button just as Epeefleche did, acting this time as though Epeefleche's edits were obvious vandalism (though Tecmo could actually attempt to make a case for it, unlike Epeefleche, he should also have made more of an effort here).

1131:. While it is perhaps possible that he could in time become a good and productive editor, it is also possible that involvement in such disputes may be one of this editor's primary interests in wikipedia. He has in fact recently said on his talk page that wikipedia is ulimately based, from beginning to end, on what he calls "idealism", which from the context in which it was used seems to me to be, as he uses the term, a synonym for "opinion" or "point of view". If this is the case, and he was indicating that it is his belief that wikipedia is supposed to be made to conform to an individual point of view, then I believe that there may be sufficient cause to say that his goals in editing wikipedia are perhaps at least potentially in conflict with wikipedia's own goals of providing objective, neutral, verifiable information, and that it may be possible that the conflict in these two goals may not be reconcilable. 2043:

disruptive editing. Each time, despite the trying, he was blocked because he ignored Wiki rules. Without contrition. Quite the opposite. He received more advice from admins as to the innappropriateness of his behavior each of the 5 times that he was blocked. They "tried." He has also been advised independently by a series of admins and editors, both on his talk page and on the baseball talk page, to stop disruptive editing. They "tried." A straw poll has been "tried." Conversation has been "tried." Mediation has been "tried." It led to the meditor suggesting that the matter be brought here for Tecmo to be banned, because despite the mediator trying it was clear that he would not change Tecmo's behavior. When Tecmo was found guilty of being a sockpuppet (not the sort of behavior one "mentors" a person out of), the admin wrote: "

2318:

website like this is that it's one-dimensional. All we know about anyone is how they operate here. Tecmobowl could be a sweet guy in real life. But this, here, is all we have to go on. It occurs to me that, technically, he may be right in a number of his citations of wikipedia guidelines, in addition to flagrantly violating other wikipedia rules. There is more to wikipedia than content. There is also the issue of getting along. And since it's assumed that wikipedia editors are adults, or at least reasonably mature, the question arises as to how much "coddling" we can do for an editor. Well, maybe a good deal of it, if necessary. But the editor has to show a willingness to cooperate with everyone, not just the ones who agree with him. OK, I told Irishguy I wouldn't comment on this anymore. But the thing is, I

2149:

stop following Tecmo and reverting him. He wanted Tecmo to stop editing all ELs, even though he wouldn't say why he disagreed with Tecmo, except on one link. He wanted the project to discuss the fangraph issue first, and then the rest of the links--though he wouldn't explain why the project even needed to discuss Tecmo's other edits as they differed on each biography. I tried again, a week latter, and still he refused to discuss the issue--he thought that he had the right to demand another editor not edit because he disagreed with the edits, but that he would explain why at his leisure. Finally, after getting a third opinion, he stopped wholesale reverting Tecmo (at least from the little I saw).

4426:. Look through his block history, many of the 3RR violations were warring. Why exactly did you call it alleged? Frankly he has reverted vandals, but many times it's his personal view of what he wants in the article against anyone that he doesn't agree with. Why do you seem to be against this sanction? TJ Spyke has done this behaviour for a while, been warned and told to stop. Yet he continues, and gets blocked again, warned again, and it just repeats over and over. A sanction must happen here, otherwise the cycle will just continue. TJ could promise to change, but history shows he doesn't change his ways. Many blocks and he's still at it, that's a big sign something big (a sanction) 9386:-- Feel free to rewrite the sentence to suit your semantics. I am not specifically opposed to the assertion of Jews being an ethnicity. But there is a time and a place for that assertion. Point of view pushing is a sophisticated thing. No intelligent writer on Knowledge pushes a personal agenda in a forthright way. It is always by subterfuge that one begins the erosion of an impediment to one's message. In this case we are talking about the people who comprise the Messianic Judaism movement, are we not? Why must we retreat into the language of "ethnic Jews?" Isn't it equally possible to articulate a full description of all the people involved? Couldn't we say that 806:

editor involved in the discussion is a Christian evangelist, from what I can tell. There are at least two irreligious editors (myself included) and one of Jewish heritage (a former mediator) who support including ex-converts in the list. User T. Anthony, a Catholic, does not believe ex-converts should be listed, but agrees that the current consensus ought bo be respected for now. Bus stop decided to take no part in the latest attempt to find a compromise. Cleo chose not to continue in the last stage of the compromise effort. Your own preference in the last stage of the polling was to include ex-converts, though in a separate section of the article.

3540:) is desysopped, but is welcome to apply for reinstatement at RfA at any time. As always, administrators should not use their administrative powers in conflicts or disagreements they are involved in. Administrators who are parties to this case are reminded that they should find an uninvolved admin to determine if blocks or other actions against any other parties to the case are appropriate, and should under no circumstances take such actions themselves. Any party that violates the ban on admin actions imposed in this case will be summarily desysopped once the violation is brought to the attention of the Arbitration Committee. 9242:, I am the only one not pushing a point of view. Nor am I overly concerned with whether Judaism is an ethnicity or not. What I stand for is the full application of language to articulate whatever the issue is at hand. I am opposed to shorthand. I am opposed to terse language that obfuscates. It would be my contention that the many editors who dislike my input have a point of view to push. That point of view involves dissolving the distinction between the Jewish religion and the Christian religion. They dislike my insistence that terse terms be replaced by language used in its full capacity to articulate any given situation. 6924:

about 2 years ago mainly because arguing with ScienceApologist was actually more bizarre and disheartening than arguing with a fundamentalist Creationist (which is a hilarious way to waste ten minutes, try it some time). There is a lot of sloppy thinking going on in Knowledge, with many unable to engage in debate where separation of the debate from the debater is essential. I am sad to see the same sloppy thinking going on here. I think banning Iantresman is just more confirmation that Knowledge is turning into yet another homogenised manifestation of mobtruth and yet another mouthpiece for the status quo. /me steps down

2264:

lot that he could learn from being adopted, and I think it could help the situation overall. When Tecmo is right, and it's more often then people think, he has no legitimacy, and so people run roughshod over him. Adoption might really help the situation. Personally, I'd like to see the wikiproject adopted. It's not just Tecmo who avoids article talk pages and makes personal attacks. And I don't think that the general behavior that I've seen by other editors is really related. No one acted better when Tecmo was banned any other time--I don't see why it would help (in regard to general behavior) now.

902:

a mistake and I should have been more patient. I am skeptical of that, but I'm open to the possibility. Also it's true I found the resolution disappointing because it is essentially the exact opposite of "compromise." Still I'll tolerate it because I said I would and because consensus or agreement or whatever you want to call it can change. Anyway I'm interested in what you think we should have done instead because perhaps there's something I'm not seeing. What do you think could've resulted in a true consensus? And what do you do when people are too stubborn or secure to come to any compromise?--

9832:

have to say on the matter. Fred Bauder was kind enough to offer to adopt Bus stop so that he could be unbanned. It is signficant that even his adopter believes a rebanning of Bus stop is now in order. That Bus stop has chosen not to heed the warnings of the banning admin further indicates that Bus stop's attitude and methods have changed little, if any, since he was banned. To prevent all of these Judaism-related articles from going any further down the long path of dispute through which the Bob Dylan and Christian convert articles went, a topic-wide ban (including on talk pages) is in order.

7068:

had he been willing to do so in a more temperate manner we would not be having this discussion, for most WPedians would not treat the repeated but polite expressions of even extreme views to be objectionable. Unfortunately, it is by now equally obvious that there is no way of ameliorating his manner of participation, so I do not suggest we do otherwise than proposed here, but I think it necessary to acknowledge the benefits to NPOV that did accompany the disruption. Sound science can well afford to let itself be challenged, even ignorantly, even by the biased, and certainly by the impolite.

9579:

and article talk pages, I presume Bus stop could still contact whatever WikiProjects in wikipedia space were relevant to a given article, and make his opinions known there, as well as propose any changes s/he might wish to make. That may not actually solve the problem, unless he could be banned from mainspace and talk pages relating to Judaism, and allowed only one post per day on the relevant WikiProject pages? Could that be done? Also, I would be very gratified if we could see the user's adopter, who also happens to be one of our most respected editors, weigh in here.

8548:

answer seems to be an indefinite block (with the proviso that if he undertakes to change, to understand what the issues about his approach are, and to contribute productively, it could be lifted.) Hats off to Chairboy for volunteering to implement the block and to mentor. I'm also willing to implement it if need be. so... sadly... endorse indefinite block. If this goes through someone perhaps should update the ArbCom case (log of blocks and bans) pointing to this discussion. Oh, and Akradecki... the check's in the mail, trust me. Now get back to work! ++

7438:, bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. This is not the same thing as saying that only the previous Ian-related matters that Arbcom has reviewed have any weight in the matter. The discussion here has weight as well, though this thread is still open for further discussion of the wisdom of a ban. If Arbcom looks over this particular discussion thread, they will certainly be looking into its thoroughness and the amount of data presented. It might not hurt if an advocate of the ban would try to sum up the thread so far. 6631:

sweet reason while insisting that others justify the mainstream view to his satisfaction - which of course is never forthcoming since the fundamental problem is that he simply prefers the fringe or pseudoscientific point of view. This refusal to bend on demands which are rejected for good reason by other editors, or to drop them, makes him a prolific source of wasted effort for editors who would much prefer to be doing something else, but he also interprets silence as assent, so argument is necessary. I had enough of him a long time ago.

1986:

items deleted from the hundreds of articles he went through. Some of the items he has deleted included obituaries and other newspaper articles about the players, invaluable sources that are unavailable anywhere else. I would support any remedy that would allow Tecmobowl to continue with his positive edits and would exclude him from removing content. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any way to implement this solution. Given Tecmobowl's flagrant ignorance of consensus there seem to be few alternatives to an indefinite block.

9116:. There's potential for a very good editor in there somewhere, and I really hope one day he appreciates how hard other editors work to build consensus and cite sources and resolve disagreements, and realize his POV doesn't necessarily have to be the only right one...but as is evident from his "Oppose:" statement, his anti-consensus attitude still has not changed even after given a second chance, and there's no reason to believe he'll edit in a different way any time in the near future. 3335:

provide some input from the top of my head. Thus I recommend to put this request here on hold or to reject the case for now. Kingjeff (and I, and others) have to learn first about the proper procedures and ways to present such a case with more patience and thorough preparation. Yet, I am convinced that someone somewhere will angrily call for a block of Rex again sooner or later, though, as Rex has made himself many enemies, and will continue to make new ones, there is few doubt. --

1528:. Specifically, he has engaged in gross, obvious, and repeated violations of fundamental policies. Most importantly, he rejects community input: he resists moderation, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and administrators. He is tendentious: he continues editing a group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from a number of other editors. He violates 8775:

escalated over the years to having a martyr complex and being extremely passive aggressive - he never does anything wrong, it's everyone else who's wrong, and they're attacking him; but he'll never actually do anything about these perceived wrongs, he'll just mutter to himself or make a list and whine, but not do anything about it. It's sad that it's come to this, and I won't support a community block, but I won't oppose one either. I look at Tobias like I do

916:

disruptive and grating. This individual is the one repeatedly removing my comments right now without proper details and reasoning, as well as T. Anthony's comment. And pardon the long response, but I kept it rather short- I think that what needs to be covered should be covered, and we shouldn't encourage others to constrict their comments to the point where they would be neglectful of important points. I will try to keep it trim in the future, however.--

6088:. I was accused of wikistalking. The user had referenced his edit history in a talk page post (defending the value of his contributions). I looked at a couple of his edits, and found that the article had plenty of room for improvement (links in headings, attempted link to an external image, an out of date external link). Despite me politely explaining this to him, he still believes that I only edited the page to "annoy him". 3406:

however more often the aggressive/stubborn form of his editing rather than the ideas that he is adding that lands him in problems. While Rex makes enemies this way, and is not always as constructive as possible this is hardly a reason for a permanent block. Actually proposing such a block and posting this discussion seems like a directed effort to demonise an editor by the original poster (KingJeff) of this discussion.

1250:, and when others disagree with his opinions then basically he'll stay there to disrupt--for months if necessary, come hell or high water. I had been thinking that with time, his conduct would become more civil and less original research/soapboxing as there had been occasions where he made positivie contributions on other pages; however consider the rarity of those occasions and the sheer disruption he caused on the 3969:. Someone created an article for a single (unreleased-at-the-time, if I remember correctly) channel of the Wii Menu. It contained no more information than was in the Wii Channels article. He tried to nominate it for deletion or redirect it. Steve HP refused to allow the redirect to the correct location. Realizing that he was in trouble of getting blocked for perceived edit-warring, spyke then tried to add a tag 8779:- An extremely valuable contributor who just ended up going crazy or something, becoming absolutely incompatible with the community. His obsession with 'transparency' and harassment of board members, past and present, and finally his IP hopping, is the final straw. He seems to have given up any pretense of wanting to work on the encyclopedia, and his entire purpose is to complain about his valid blocks. -- 9625:(to John Carter) I contacted Fred Bauder with the same set of links and diffs last night and received the go-ahead from him before I opened this thread. There's already been community consensus for a full siteban on Bus stop so I view this proposal as one last ditch attempt to retain this person as an editor. If he or she tries to circumvent a second article/topic ban I'm prepared to use the banhammer. 2561:

question of counting edits has been raised but not pursued, for the very reason you suggest, that the vandal can simply make enough edits to get past the count. Full protection of the page will stop all of that, but permanent full protection is against wikipedia policy, a policy loophole that vandals try to exploit. Never underestimate the patience of some vandals. We've been dealing with the

874:

on every point, because he is the perfect example of a disruptive editor. He will never discuss, nor agree to abide by anyone else's judgment, and he can not participate in mediated discussion. Consensus, meanwhile, has been established, by agreement among many from both sides of the issue. Consensus doesn't mean unaninimity. You are one of the few who reject the established consensus.

9390:? My point is that we should be using language in its full capacity to say exactly what we want to say. Instead we are falling back on terse terms like "ethnic Jews." All that does is cast doubt on the definitional integrity of the word Jew. That is the point of view pushing. That is why they would like to see me banned. I favor opening up language; they favor shutting down language. 754:

can solve this dispute at this point. We can resort to dirty tricks like this one, trying to block editors as being disruptive for having a different POV as yours and taking out your enemies one at a time like many throughout history have done, or we can do the right thing, and hope arbcom reconsiders our case. Otherwise, I don't know if this dispute will end. But please, be fair.--

8499:

my talk page, he listed a definition of corruption as inappropriate activities done for personal gain. I don't know about the rest of you, but I get absolutely no personal gain from adminship, and a small amount of personal loss (headaches, time my wife and daughter think I should be spending with them, etc, etc)...so who here's getting those big paychecks that I'm missing out on?

9197:. I looked at three or four of the diffs presented as "Recent disruption" (not in order), without perceiving any of them as particularly disruptive. This bothered me and put me off looking at the rest of the diffs, because my time is short. Can someone present a diff for the "nigger" comment referred to above and a few examples of recent, really disruptive behaviour. Thank you. -- 7448:

enemies, but that of itself is not a justification for a ban. If he is as bad as these editors feel, then it should be easy to list a half-dozen violations of policy and to cite one example of each. It should be practically trivial for KillerChihuahua to demonstrate "flagrant violation of an Rfar ruling". Although I would welcome a summary from anyone, I think the one who is

6313:

your argumentative and contentious flouting of the Rfar ruling. 3) Productive is not an issue; it is even irrelevant. "Look at my articles started" is a separate issue from "Watch me disrupt in flagrant violation of an Rfar ruling". 5) Ma's actions are not relevant either. We are not discussing a community sanction of Ma, we are discussing a community sanction of Iantresman.

1263:, till eventually even more editors and mediators had to be pulled in...I have to say I think this user may just be irredeemable--he will never believe in WP policies, he'll never believe that WP is for replicating what verifiable sources say and not for him to treat as his blog of his views on the world, and he's better off not editing wikipedia. He just needs his own blog. 10022:

something up on Google the first hit you get is the Knowledge article in many cases. That is a good thing, and as a user of Knowledge I appreciate it. But these articles and lists are a disgrace. If these articles were all that Knowledge were about there would not be any Knowledge phenomenon. These articles are anything but encyclopedic. These articles are playgrounds for

9934:-- We are not concerned with the identities of the editors. For all we care, they could be from Mars, and believe the universe was created by Google. It will be appreciated if you will please keep your comments confined to that which is relevant. By the way, you haven't the foggiest idea what my religious affiliation is, or if I have any religious affiliation at all. 2126:

understood--still don't. I dislike punishing editors when I don't believe the fault lies with them, and I'm not entirely sure it does in this case. But I'm not sure what to do. It would seem that the easiest thing would be to get rid of Tecmobowl. It would certainly solve a lot of problems. But I don't think it would be getting rid of the real problem.

2341:(above). I was involved in only one article, with only one EL. By the time I got there, virtually everyone was behaving badly and nobody was listening to anyone. The EL that I saw seemed to contain some very good information which I believe added value to the article in a way that could not otherwise be included directly without taking up too much space. 2510:

next admin they incounter's lack of knowledge of the situation. By IP and account hopping they have been able to keeep it going where people unfamiliar with their past actions will cut them slack as a brand new user. And then once more they "accidentally" edit the Lucy page to claim that she is still alive. At one point I even had a fairly extensive

2530:'established' or 'targeted' articles from being edited by anyone other than a serious editor. And if someone 'new' really wanted to edit one of those articles, they only need to 'go forth and edit' in mainspace for a week or so (probably not something a vandal would be willing to do, simply to be caught in his first vandalism and have to start over). 8677:

disruptive in his editing making 100s of moves while refusing to consult, he has ignored all attempts to steer him in the right direction, and has now apparently made 20 socks to get around a block. Yet still here now people are defending and excusing him. Seriously, what contributions does he make that are so important to the project? --

9365:

articles alone would not preclude this behavior. Personally, I would be sad to see Bus stop banned from any more articles than he already is; but alas, I fear you more experience editors are already doing all you can to positively encourage him to collaborate more fruitfully and within WP guidelines of attribution, etc.--

3524:

terms that Knowledge is an encyclopedia and not a forum for conspiracy, personal attacks, nor the continuation of ethnic disputes by other means. "Parties who continue such behaviour, and parties who consider it their moral duty to call out such behaviour, will be hit on the head with sticks until the situation improves."

8652:

setting the block bit to indefinite, so rushing a conclusion doesn't serve the best interests of the project. Tobias has invested a lot in us over the years before the recent unpleasantness, it's our duty to invest something back now in the form of allowing this discussion to reach a solid, time agnostic decision. -

2777:

done lightly. I'm open to other approaches or venues (RFC?) but I'm not sure it would help- he knows exactly what the problem is, and he chooses to continue being unresponsive anyway. I've seen this general issue as an ongoing problem for probably at least a year, but apparently it's getting worse lately. See also

1001:. They will argue it is also about two other names of non Christians. But this list shouldn't be use to "showcase" anyone who ever had an interest in Christianity. It should be a compilation of those Christians who found Christian identity by way of conversion, as opposed to the only other way -- by way of birth. 2326:. He dismissed my questions with comments like "la dee da". Sorry, but when you cop that kind of attitude, you're not going to make friends. There is no inherent right to work in wikipedia, and he gives no indication that he plans to change anything. That's why I have to support an administrative sanction. 5116:. Endorse Hybrid's proposal for a six-month ban and indefinite revert parole. "Likely" is enough to impose sanctions. Only reason I didn't suggest a straight-out indef is because of questions about the legitimacy of one of his blocks. I take it it's understood that if he slips up again, it's indef. 9222:

including others not mentioned above. Considering that these actions are as frequent as they are, as the editor has never that I can see cited a single source other than himself for his edits, and consistently impugns those who disagree with him, I believe his actions can be seen as being unacceptable.

10352:

I support the ban as it stands, and would like to offer my meaningless apologies to Durova for the comments that have been removed from the now-banned user's talk page. Considering how Durova went out of his way to create the situation wherein the editor in question was allowed to be reinstated after

9987:

understand that there is more than one vantage point from which to view these issues? My overriding point is that language should be crafted for these articles, if these articles should be allowed to exist at all, that states what is known, and doesn't employ language to surreptitiously advance a pet

9707:

I don't seriously object to the topic ban. Editing is a privilege, not a right, and he's been given his share of second chances. I'm on from time-to-time throughout the day as a necessary distraction at work (even though recently I seem to be doing more reading than actual editing) so I could check

9553:

Talk page issue: my reasoning for proposing a prohibition from talk pages is that this editor essentially uses them for soapboxing, which distracts attention from article-building discussions. This editor returned from a siteban and accepted a two article ban, only to initiate a very similar pattern

9263:

For someone who claims to oppose "terse language that obfuscates", your use of the word "recent" is frankly nonsensical. And your intimation that opposing your edit on the basis of it being "too specific" and "too accurate" is also inherently prejudicial and equally nonsensical, considering the group

9107:

approach to editing has not changed since the last ban when it comes to editing Judaism-related articles, and it hurts consensus-building and discourages/frustrates other editors from contributing. To avoid ambiguity I think it should be made clear the ban extends to religion-related edits on Jewish

8687:

Evidently he has been a valuable contributor in the past. I can understand the reservations about removing the existing total block on him, particularly taking into account all the IPs he's been using. But maybe would it be possible for him to edit his user talk page, so that we could have statements

8210:

was sidelined because of the arbitration case against Conradi. Conradi basically ignored the case while it was active, and has been biterly compalining about the outcome since it ended. A few days back he was blocked 48 hours for incivility. After continued incivility on his talk page this grew to

8076:

article, he has recently jumped in and started edit warring with me AGAIN. I've had to have another article locked 2x because of this. I have just personally attacked him in the hopes that drives him away. Nobody here is stepping up to get this guy to behave civily. After filing WA, RFC, RFM's, i

7246:

Durova, I can understand if you think that you have sufficient evidence to abandon the assumption of good faith for Ian. I can also understand if you judge the preponderance of evidence to indicate that the risk of damage by a speedy banishment is less than the risk of damage of waiting too long. But

6985:

ScienceApologist's resignation was of his own choice and should not be held against Ian Tresman. There is also strong evidence that SA was involved in illegal and underhand attacks on IT. Numerus admin also clearly bear a grudge. This behaviour is unnacceptable for admin staff, who have now resorted

6510:

This is an issue that needs addressing. This is the issue behind Ian's recent ArbCom request against FeloniousMonk {sp?}, which really should have been resolved prior to a ban (and which some have used as specious "evidence" of malfeasance; defending oneself against perceived false allegations is not

6453:

opinion! I'm sorry, but a refusal to respond to valid questions and a legitimate defense of his actions is nothing short of that. I still hold that Ian has a right to defend his actions and question charges leveled against him. To deny that right is to deny due process and make a mockery of the legal

6042:

This one is petty, and I'm ashamed to have been involved in it, but the article has been fine for years, and the change was briefly discussed on the talk page. The user wants references to "Rugby league" changed to "Rugby league football", apparently because "Australian rules football" uses the word

5325:

That could work. Blocking his IP address is good and all, but watching the articles is still a likely idea to do. Who is to say he wont use a public computer at a library, school or wherever? That's a whole new IP to worry about. He had the Lrrr account for a while and it finally got caught. So I can

5288:

I agree with it. To find out he is evading: we need a patrol for articles that TJ regularly edits. Edit warring/revert warring on these articles of users/IP's, should be instantly checked to see if it matches with him. I would say just new users/new IP's...but who knows if he has some other sock that

4715:

If TJ Spyke hasn't gotten the point that revert warring is bad yet, then a revert parole seems to be the most appropriate course of action to make him realize that he needs to discuss changes he makes and makes sure that consensus and conventions are in line with what he's doing rather than reverting

4684:

that I cited. It doesn't matter if it was vandalism or not. He thought that he was edit warring, and tried to skirt the system by not going over 3RR. The circumstances to this particular case, which is not the only one cited by the blocking admin, are irrelevant. The confession shows intent; it shows

4559:

edit. That summary can basically count as a confession to edit warring on that article. The summary of the diff that I just provided shows that he clearly thought that he was edit warring, but continued to do so up to a point that he feared he would be blocked if he continued. That is very worrisome.

3765:

Closing debate as discussion is detering off here. If TJ Spyke would like to request an unblock and provide an explanation to the community and/or to willing administrator(s) that he could behave in according to policy, then he should do so on his talk page. The blocking admin, who placed the current

3366:

I have likewise a long history with Rex. This is a problem user, but not one that should be banned without going through rfar. If he continues in his present vein, he will end up with a longish block, but this is not a case of blatant abuse or one requiring instant action. His blocks will increase in

3334:

Wow, that was "kurzer Prozeß". Here's what I wanted to write in the meantime: I have a much longer history with Rex than Kingjeff does, and I'm also a little surprised that this here is the fourth initiative of Kingjeff vs. Rex within a week or so, with the other two still going on, with me trying to

2776:

He's apparently determined to consistently dismiss any communications from other editors. I see this as being fundamentally incompatible with a collaborative project. Thus, I recommend an indefinite block until he changes his approach, but as he's a long-time contributor, this probably shouldn't be

2519:

One thing though. I have to wonder exactly what good a community ban would be on the situation. At this point, as soon as the vandal makes his signature edit, he/she is being blocked. A ban would not make this happen any faster. A ban will almost certainly not persuade the vandal to stop. If the

2242:

What was the point of this little instigation? I don't know. Everyone is always talking about Tecmo's bad behavior, so that's the person to pick a fight with because it takes him longer than three minutes to leave a comment? Everyone should know better. An admin especially. And calling Tecmo out

2208:

article, Tecmo reverted Irishguy at 19:17 with an edit summary that said "see talk page". Irishguy didn't wait for Tecmo's comment and at 19:20 commented on Tecmo's talk page to let him know there was no comment on the talk page and then reverted him at the article at 19:21. Tecmo's talk page comment

1667:

You and baseball bugs are the ones that started this. You won't focus on the content, you keep getting back to this petty ass stupid discussion. You can't have a centralized focused discussion on content. I am in fact SUPPORTING one of the links presented. You just can't seem to get over the fact

1246:

to a tee. I do believe he edits in "good faith"--in the sense that he probably doesn't consider himself disruptive and thinks he is making positive contributions to articles--however over the past 6 months his behavior has not changed: he continues to be unable to listen to and work with others, he

901:

Possibly my voting suggestions sounded too much like democracy. However it seemed clear a concensus was just not going to happen. We had been through two informal mediation and a month of debate. I felt like we needed a way to get people really working on some way to end the stalemate. Maybe this was

10021:

These articles don't exist for the readers, primarily. They exist for the editors, primarily. The articles we are talking about exist as a filthy backwater of Knowledge. I don't think many readers come to such articles for information. I use Knowledge a lot. One can't help use Knowledge. If you look

9880:

on Knowledge. There is an infinite variety of language to express anything. But you are all obsessed with choosing the language that will promote your personal point of view, which is often antisemitic. Certainly you can have your Knowledge. I am not an administrator. All you do is demean Knowledge,

9831:

Durova, the banning admin, was kind enough to offer Bus stop to continue editing under certain conditions. Bus stop has violated the spirit, if not the letter, of those conditions by pushing his own POV in several articles concerning Jewish identity, regardless of what consensus and reliable sources

9695:

Would you seriously object to the topic ban as I've proposed it? I left the door open to this editor as an act of good faith, but really it would have saved all of our time to have just imposed the full siteban and walked away. This becomes a time management issue at some point and it's burdensome

9408:

All that this is about, all that this has ever been about, is the full articulation of situations with no holds barred on language, and the constriction of language into incomprehensible or incorrect statements. When it was the Bob Dylan issue, I never objected to any descriptions of his involvement

8697:

I would not have a problem with unprotecting his talk page in general, but I suspect that such will quickly return to personal attacks and incivility, which is what he has been doing while IP hopping. Might be worth trying, as a last resort before he's banned, but I hold little hope that it'll have

8676:

What contributions to Knowledge does Tonbias make that are just so positive and indispensable, such that he is allowed to continuously stick his finger up at the rest of the community? He has proven over and over that he has no ability to work in a collaborative manner - only disruptive. He is rude,

8341:

with Tobias on my talkpage where he was complaining about his original block on 24 February 2006 and he essentially rejected my comment that by sockpuppeting he is only making it worse for himself. I don't know enough about Tobias to say if his behavior outweighs the value of his contributions, but

7509:

I'm not saying he made the wrong call. I presume he spent a reasonable amount of time examining the case and brooding over the proper course of action. I think it would be helpful if he would take a few percent of the time he spent coming to a decision to tell us what his reasoning was. I think this

7195:

community ban. Strong disagreement. I believe this is a biased decision for some of the reasons listed above. Apparently no right to due process in defending his actions. However, it appears the mob has spoken. Though I still disagree with the mob mentality. Users do have rights and admins/"experts"

6382:

does not have an entry of "Catastrophism", let alone designate it as "pseudoscience". Which begs the question, why was the article tagged as pseudoscience? Additionally, there is no reliable source linking catastrophism with pseudoscience. (Velikovsky also covers astronomy, mythology and geology; do

5646:

No, right now it is indefinite, meaning he's blocked until he's proven that he would be able to edit constructively without sockpuppets, without revert warring and without vandalism like he has done in the past. He's blocked until that block is undone and sockpuppets are not a way around that. If he

4391:

I agree with this sanction, as he revert wars/edit wars and 3RRs too much. He has been warned about this behavior many times, but ignores it. In my opinion, he is claiming ownership on many of the articles he reverts many times. I believe he has been warned about article controlling and ownership in

3405:

I am not at all happy being drawn into this by Kingjeff through a post on my user page. I feel strongly for putting some restrictions on his canvassing as proposed above. For the rest, indeed I have encountered Rex, and IMHO he is stubborn and tends to overreact on German (nationalist) issues. It is

2529:

I'm curious about something here. We have protection to prevent non-accounts from editing. I 'think' we have protection to prevent 'new' accounts from editing. What about protection to prevent anyone with less than x mainspace edits from editing? It seems that something along this line would protect

2296:

even though the tag asked that pertinent information be added back into the article. When I added back some information, he continuously deleted it. He finally deleted it saying "rv see talk page" even though there was nothing at all on the talk page. When I contacted him on his talk page, he simply

2142:

Tecmo started by going through tons of baseball articles and doing EL cleaning. Most of it was very good and very straightforward. He was reverted wholesale by Epeefleche, and I am pretty sure that Epeefleche didn't bother to look at the edits before reverting them. He just saw lots of ELs being

1624:

This is highly disruptive. I have requested that he stop. He has refused. Instead, he writes that "WP:EL supersedes that discussion. That's all there is to it. You and the other editors that have a problem with me (and you know who i'm talking about) - absolutely refuse to focus on the content of

805:

In response to Sefringle: Your implication that there is some sort of evangelical Christian conspiracy to include Bob Dylan in the list does not stand up to scrutiny. There's little incentive for a Christian evangelist to crow over Dylan's conversion, as his current religious status is ambiguous. No

753:

in the article, so they declared consensus. His blocks were 3RR violations, which seem to have stopped. Stop trying to tilt the scale of the dispute in your favor by calling others disruptive and asking for a block. It looks like the arbcom case isn't going to pass; there really are only two ways we

728:

Two MedCab mediations have been attempted, with the latest mediator ending the mediation as irresolvable through that means. The user refuses to accept formal mediation. The latest attempt at reaching compromise, in which the user chose to take no part, resulted in 9 votes for including all converts

677:

concerning the inclusion criteria for the list, and insists that only persons who are presently Christians, and whose conversion conforms with his own strict criteria may be listed. He has made it clear through his words and actions that he will never accept any compromise measures on these matters.

10187:

You're not being stuffed into an oven, or made to stand all night in the snow stripped naked. You have qualities that are worth keeping around. But you are also disruptive. My suggestion offers a way for you to learn and grow, and regain your freedom to edit any topic you wish. It's all in your own

9901:

You're singing the same old tune. Could you elaborate as to how your current vendetta against the term "ethnic _____" is in combat with "Christian antisemitism"? It seems that you're more content with digging anywhere possible until you can find a cause for which you can "come to the rescue" with a

9822:

This issue cannot be understood without examining the context of Bus stop's long history of disruptive editing that led to the earlier indefinite banning. Considered alone, Bus stop's recent campaign to excise references to Jews as an ethnicity may just seem misguided and quarrelsome. However, this

9738:

So just to be clear, are you accepting my proposal that the topic ban include talk pages or making a counterproposal of a one-post-per-day limit, per talk page, with a pledge to monitor those contributions? It's not so much violation as subversion of the spirit of the thing that concerns me. That

9321:

of words (Jews are not an ethnic group). Anyone who sees himself as a "bulwark" is asking for trouble in a community that works on consensus. Nevertheless, a full-topic ban seems more restrictive than necessary to cure the disruption and he sometimes raises valid points. I would support a ban on

9211:

The diffs Durova presented, IMO, are not, when taken alone, disruptive. However the relentlessness with which he reverts and bickers in an attempt to advance his POV (namely, that "Jewish" is not an ethnicty) in a large number of articles--without backing his ideas up with sources--is perceived by

9138:

True. His activities there seem to be centered on Richards' "He's a nigger" comments, indicating to me that the editor in question deals more with "ethnic" issues than religious ones. Presumably this proposed ban would be for all content relating to Jews as either an ethnic or religious group. With

9082:

These topics are highly contentious in the best of times. I think we should have a particularly low tolerance for disruption on them, because things escalate and spiral out of control so quickly. I seriously doubt that anti-Semitism will go unchallenged on Knowledge if Bus stop is banned from these

8774:

It's sad. I've been working with Tobias for years now, and yes, he's done a lot of good for the encyclopedia, but his civility issues have only gotten worse. It started a long time ago when he seemed to think he was always right, and anyone who criticized him was wrong and somehow against him. This

8498:

Thanks...that'd probably be best. Isotope and I have been involved, with my part being the "corrupt" individual who extended his block to the current month, so a third party is probably appropriate. A consensus seems to exist. As a curious aside, in one of his rants that someone (John?) reverted on

8280:

Tobias has been rather disruptive here over the past few months - I think our only option here now is an indef block. His behaviour is now becoming too much for mediocore blocks to stop. It is most unfortunate that I believe that the positives far outweigh the negatives of Tobias being removed from

6973:

demonstrated a fanatical, almost religious devotion to mainstream theories. Science progresses by developing new ideas and challenging existing theories. ScienceApologist was in the habit of launching vitriolic attacks on all ATM ideas, thus contravening this ideal, and it was therefore appropriate

6923:

was hardly a saint, and would frequently resort to personal attacks, litigious slight-of-hand, and outright schoolyard bully tactics if he couldn't be bothered (or simply couldn't, it was sometimes hard to tell which) to engage in rational debate. I gave up editing plasma astronomy related articles

6630:

I find Iantresman to be superficially reasonable but ultimately obdurate. He flatly refused to suggest any kind of compromise in at least one dispute, on an article where he was already subject to ArbCom sanction, and his demands rapidly became vexatious. His technique is repeatably to pretend at

6503:

If there is no "rule of law" here, then how can it be considered a fair and unbiased place to live, work, make edits, etc? As it were. People (especially admins or self-proclaimed "experts") can't simply go around making unfounded statements/accusations that may have direct negative consequences on

5134:

he edits from about 8pm to 8am, so I think that IP might not be Spyke (unless he's editing it from work etc..). I think he should be blocked but as you can see from the contributions he does make fairly good edits. I think he should be blocked, but then unblocked in about a month. I then think that

4801:

where sure enough there is TJ Spyke revert warring. Please note that editors can be blocked for partial reverts as well. Just because there is another few minor edits in a revert doesn't mean it's not a revert and revert warring under your IP address can get you blocked as well, which here TJ Spyke

3894:

Oh, fair enough, hadn't thought about the block. He can still post on his talk page, though, and that can be posted here. He's been blocked, what 12 times now, all of those for revert-warring, and most of those this year. The time I blocked him was for 9RR, just ridiculous. I don't actually dispute

3867:

I'm not saying that he hasn't made mistakes, but he's been doing the best he can, has gone from flagrant 3RRs to trying very hard not to break it (To some, that's gaming the system. But when it comes to outright unsourced info from anonymous ips, it's still understandable, even if you don't approve

2803:

This is a dispute over the user of administrator powers, not editing. The level of concerns has been drawn to his attention increasingly within the past couple of days, and already he has made some adjustments in his behavior, though there is more that needs to change. If problems persist, the only

2560:

This kind of problem has been discussed before, and your points are on the mark. Users can set up "sleeper" accounts to get around semi-protected pages, either by simply waiting or by performing innocuous edits until the "new user" time period elapses, and then jump into their previous pattern. The

2345:

behaved badly at the end, but it was not without provocation and I think he should be given the opportunity to participate in the community in a cooperative way. Whether he chooses to agree to that, and subsequently honor his agreement, should be up to him. Though I fear that the damage may already

2317:

You raise many good points, but it's misleading to say the checkuser was negative. It was revisited and it confirmed that El redactor was Tecmobowl's sockpuppet. That came as no surprise to at least three admins who are well versed in sockpuppet behavior and saw the similarities. The problem with a

2248:

There are so many things wrong with this situation that I don't know where to begin. Tecmo is a problematic editor. I don't think that he's as problematic as everyone else, but if he is, why is an admin starting a fire and then dousing it with gasoline? Why is Tecmo the one who has to remind the

2163:

It does not aid your standing in a discussion to tell people that the pace and scope of the discussion will be dictated by you, and only you. Of course it is preferable to keep the scope as narrow as possible, but when asked numerous times to expand the discussion, there is no good reason not to do

1985:

from me and other editors went ignored and have resulted in blocks. Repeated pleas to respect consensus and to stop deleting links were rejected multiple times. This is not an issue of politeness; this is a situation where content was removed hundreds of times without any critical evaluation of the

1153:

That's great, but his participation in the Dylan issue has become disruptive, and has been so for quite a while. That's what this notice was about. Bus stop is certainly capable of making constructive edits on Knowledge, but I think he's amply demonstrated that he will not be similarly constructive

960:

is not a convert. He is not a Christian. He is a Jew. (He was born a Jew to two Jewish parents.) He has had nothing to do with Christianity in 27 years. He has been involved religiously with Orthodox Jews. Yet they want to list him with wording next to his name that he has left Christianity. He has

873:

Your point is simply off the mark. I am not an "evangelist," nor a Christian, and I resent your lable, but not as much as I resent the never ending accusations of anti-semitism from Bus Stop. The question of Bob Dylan aside, I would move to ban Bus Stop even if he was in perfect agreement with me

9750:

I don't object to your proposal and I understand why an overwhelming consensus is forming for it. I had just been thinking that the limit to one post a day (which I would prefer be for the whole of the Judaism article talk pages and not just one page) would solve the disruption concerns. If that

9643:

criticism of you or anyone else is consciously implied or expressed in that statement, but I couldn't think of any other way to say it. And, if the proposal would need the subject to be under constant oversight, then I guess I have no reservations to the subject ban. Thank you for the information.

9642:

I do not in any way doubt your word, and note that you had said as much earlier. I was just stating a belief that I would like to see whatever statement he might like to make, given his almost unmatched reputation as a fair and objective party, and my apologies if it were seen as anything else. No

9578:

That possibility of one post per day on multiple pages seems, at least to me, to have been already to an extent realized. And I assume it would really difficult to devise the system such that Bus stop can't continue to abuse the system in that way. Having said that, if the ban were only to article

9437:

Plenty of sources "existed" for the use of the term "conversion"- all the reliable sources used it explicitly, and literally. You, on the other hand, persisted in the inane argument in which you chose to split hairs over terminology and attempted to argue that "his full-blown conversion" was to be

9427:

The advice of many of this community has been: forget about what may or may "not necessarily be true" and stick with what can be attributed to a reliable source. Maybe if you posted a link to a source espousing the facts as you see them, then someone else could post a reference to a contradictory

9417:

article. It is the same issue. It is the same theme. All of my conflicts with a large group of editors here is that I stand opposed to the compacting of information into language and forms (Lists) that imply things that may not necessarily be true. I am in favor of using language to articulate the

8641:

I see that this individual has presumably used 22 socks so far. I don't know if I even have that many socks. I can agree that it might be a good idea to wait a bit longer, but based on the current behavior, I can see how an indefinite block might be called for. Out of curiosity, would there be any

8450:

If the consensus is to block indefinitely, I'll take the responsibility of implementing it. I've worked with him in the past, tried to counsel him away from this precipice, and I've never blocked him. If the group comes to agreement that it's appropriate, I'll implement the block and document it

7447:

Yes, please. I just re-read the whole discussion, thinking I could try to throw together a summary, even though or especially because I have not yet taken sides on the issue, but the arguments flowed through my fingers like sand. It is clear that Ian has somehow managed to make himself a number of

7353:

Art, if you're talking about notification and opportunity for defense I'm in agreement. I wish you had been around in March and April when this was discussed at the policy level. As you advised me, please garner consensus if you want the standard to change. I would not consider it canvassing if

7067:

I altogether dislike both Iantresman's manner, and his ideas of what constitutes science. Nonetheless he represents a minority position, and minority positions should be represented, and I am very reluctant to ban one of the very few people who are willing to maintain views such as his. Obviously,

6312:

1) Evidence is the Rfar against you, this is already linked. 2) Your Rfar request against FM was not even mentioned until you brought it up, but now that you have, yes I find it further evidence you are more interested in spurious charges and harassment against those who do not turn a blind eye to

5521:

Good editor or not, TJ refused to change his ways. He had what...12 blocks for 3RR? He refused to change his ways, after numerous warnings and blocks. That's more than enough to show, that it's very doubtful he will change his ways with a longer block and/or revert patrole. The indef block is very

3573:

I would just like to say that if Fayssal thinks that the ruling means that a long story has come to an end, then he is almost certainly gravely mistaken, given ArbCom's decision not to hand out sanctions. We will only move on, as NYB would like, if people stop violating policy with impunity. (This

3523:

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The parties to the case are strongly encouraged to enter into mediation arrangements regarding any disputes over article content that may still be outstanding. All parties are reminded in the strongest possible

2509:

article to claim that Lucy is still alive. But other regular patterns from this vandal include mass blankings of the user and talk page of those opposing him, repeated claims, once confronted, that the Lucy edits were mistakes or accidents, and various general claims of innocence to appeal to the

2263:

What's the solution? I don't know. I think Tecmo being adopted by an administrator who is calm, patient and really willing to invest a little time would be great. He listens, as long as he's being talked to the right way. When people are being rude or dissmissive, he's out the door. There's a

2253:

No wonder Tecmo went to IAR as a way of life. He wasn't able to improve the encyclopedia when he followed the rules, at least that's the way he saw it. He comments and no one responds to him except to either rise to the bait he set or to bait him. He got blocked for sockpuppeteering by an admin

2129:

Tecmobowl is a difficult editor. When people snipe at him, he snipes back. He is touchy, very sensitive, and he has a particular view of the world. So when he reads WP:EL, sees an article that doesn't follow and makes an edit, and is reverted and reverted and reverted (without explanation)--and

1976:

I first saw Tecmobowl's edits in a player article on my watchlist and was stunned to see the trail of link deletions he left in his wake. Even after repeated efforts to establish that there was a consenus for retention of this links, Tecombowl persisted with his deletions. He is clearly capable of

1895:

quote was just the last straw. I've seen him cripple hundreds of articles and destroy many more valid articles. This guy can't get slaps on the wrist anymore. He's a detriment to the entire site. I don't want him, his socks, or any of his future socks ruining articles any more. It's guys like this

1197:

page, where he likewise continuously made edits over the objections of other editors. His m.o. back then was always saying "use talk page" as a reason to revert other people's edits, then ignore everyone else's discussion on the talk page even if e.g. it was 5 vs 1 against him--in short, it seems

845:

Christian evangelists? Yikes. I'll have to expand this comment in the future, but I take a bit of offense to that labeling, as it is a misrepresentation of me, and as far as I can see, almost all other editors involved. For example, the only clearly Christian fellows are myself and John Carter, as

815:

I didn't say it was a conspiracy. Almost all of you are Christians however, not that that matters, but you have outnumbered us to declare consensus. Please read my comments more carefully in the futute. My vote was not consensus; it was simply taking the best of the two options. Now can you please

9212:

many as a disruptive pattern. And, lest anyone misunderstand, Bus stop didn't make a "nigger" comment; he (and others, including yours truly) merely squabbled for a very long time about whether to include a particular quote in the Michael Richards article. It's probably not that relevant here.--

8651:

An indefinite block on his user account will not stop his use of sockpuppets, so it doesn't matter if it happens right now or in the near future. A decision is being made regarding whether the community shuns this once productive user or not, and that's much more important than the actual act of

8547:

I'm on his list of corrupt admins (no doubt near the top), I got one of his missives too, I usually do. I've always hoped that there was some way to avoid indefinitely blocking him but the chasm between his perception of us and our perception of him at this time seems too wide to bridge. The only

8351:

This very discussion is evidence that the sock puppetry has made it worse for him. I had been for a couple of days, in my mind, lightly debating whether I should open a discussion like this. The sock puppetry report on WP:AN was the last straw for me. It's what made me say "Enough is enough".

8071:

for some time. I have opened up a variety of RD's, and the guy refuses to enter into mediation. I have reported his violations of NPA and OWN and nothing was done. I have tried to be civil and nice with this person, I have tried to avoid him and he follows me. I have finally lost all patience

7132:

Am I missing something here? The official checkuser result is "inconclusive", since there is no technical evidence to tie Iantresman to Girls4girls. You may well conclude on the basis of the timing and content of the two edits by Girls4girls that the preponderance of evidence points to it being a

6835:

I oppose a close. Although I think that wikipedia is better without Mr. Tresman's participation and endorse Tom Harrison's block, I think for form's sake, the process should not seem hasty. JoshuaZ opened this discussion less than 12 hours ago. I would like these discussions to stay open for a

5045:

being found out as being a TJ Spyke sockpuppet, I did a WHOIS search on the IP address that vandalized my userpage amd it came from Rochester, New York, same location as TJ Spyke, and Jpgordan as I cross-posted above, has done a CheckUser that, despite definitive evidence, says it probably was TJ

5002:

Despite agreeing with many of his edits, his behavior shouldn't be taken lightly. I support the one month ban and further revert parole. Despite him being a heavy contributer to the Wikiproject and making many constructive edits, he went and sockpuppeted. I've lost a of the respect I had for him.

4184:

He's been blocked repeatedly for fighting vandals. At least twice, possibly thrice (depending on your take on his current block). In fact, fighting vandals, and forcing people to source information, is one of his contributions to wikipedia. An inability to revert if someone removes a {{fact}} tag

3936:

First, the danger of the 'block log'. While although they can be valuable for keeping track of actual disruptive influences, they're also a way to propagate error. For example, Spyke has been wrongly blocked at least three times (Yes, I intend to prove that). However, those blocks were still used

3435:

Looking at Kingjeff's block log, one has to wonder ... is it time for community sanctions on Kingjeff? Five 3RR blocks, two harassment blocks ... from my perspective as an uninvolved user, the only answer can be yes. I propose that he be given a one-month ban, and be placed on indefinite revert

2872:

I don't think that an indefinite block is at all neccessary. We usually reserve such measures for people who have solely used their accounts for "trolling" or who are long-term abusers of Knowledge policy with extensive block logs. I think that a reasonable solution to this issue would however be

2499:

This user was originally an AOL IP vandal. Back in November or October of last year is when I first remember encountering them. The Lulu3 account is far from their first actual account, but it's been a handy central focus for tracking this vandal. They eventually moved off of AOL IPs, and were

2148:

Eventually he did. He explained his edits on the WikiProject Baseball page--Epeefleche ignored the explanation. He was focused on one removal. He could have partially reverted. But he didn't. So then I took an edit that Epeefleche was complaining about and explained it, and he still wouldn't

9292:

It is disruptive in that you ignored the discussion in the talk page where you were in a minority of one, the other four of us (consisting, I believe, of a Christian, a Messainic, a mainstream Jew and a "lapsed" Jew) all opposed such a change. Exactly how the other four of us would have a shared

4487:

unacceptable. I take his recent edit warring without going over 3RR as spitting in the face of Knowledge policies. He isn't stupid. He understands full well that he is not supposed to revert edits made in good faith anymore if the revert is contested, and if the person refuses to talk that he is

3382:

I wonder if this entire fuss could go for libel. Because That Kingjeff tries to list my name on nearly every Wiki noticeboard there is. If anyone is seriously thinking about undergoing action note that User:Matthead is the real problem user, and a history to show for it. His anti Polish and anti

1879:

Tecmo's dismissive responses to that admin's admonition, and his expressions of his intent to continue his disruptive editing once his block is lifted, are accurately captured by Irishguy and Baseball Bugs above. Under the circumstances, the only appropriate course that I can see is to impose a

996:

converted to Christianity." That is just a contrivance. Just as it is just a contrivance to change the name of the article a few days ago. There are 200 other people on that list for whom the name change is irrelevant, because they are all Christians, or were Christian at time of death. The name

10427:

I support the reinstated ban. I've come to know Bus stop exclusively through several frivolous unblock requests related to blocks for disruptive editing about whether or not Bob Dylan converted to Judaism, or something. Quite a waste of time, all this. And now it seems the disruption continues.

9565:

Although I'm not absolutely opposed to some one-talk-page-post-a-day solution if that's what other editors prefer, this editor's pattern of behavior leads me to suspect he or she would comply in a manner that subverts the opportunity, such as posting once a day to each of a large number of talk

9464:

Not one source existed asserting that Dylan ever converted to Christianity. The opinion of a biographer is all that supports that contention. That is an opinion. No time, place or witness to any conversion exists. That is for a good reason -- that Dylan never converted. It is the bogus claim of

6746:

Per my comments to RfArb, I support this block. Knowledge should never have been allowed to become a game wherein tendentious editors drive off mainstream experts by sheer perseverance accompanied by the superficial appearance of civility (per JzG above - and continuous litigation is not civil,

4676:

The block was preventative. There is a clear pattern of behavior with this guy, so it is logical to assume that he will continue edit warring just like he has done since he got here. Saying the block was punitive is like saying that we should never block vandals because they may suddenly have a

4168:

If I thought he was a negative influence here overall, I'd want him banned outright. I don't. I want to help him. I think not letting him revert ad nauseam is more likely to help Knowledge, and him, than not. And, by the way - I blocked for 9RR, so if you don't mind, I think that was completely

3801:

Therefore, I suggest that as a community we place TJ Spyke on revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. If he violates this, he may be blocked for any

3420:. On a side note, I have interacted with Rex G when we were both more or less newbie editors (solved a conflict via MSN chat) and based on that experience I agree with everything Arnoutf is saying above. (I could hardly miss this situation since I have a number of noticeboards on my watchlist). 1491:

is indefinitiely blocked. I've read his points, and I do agree with some of them, but there is no excuse at all for sockpuppetry and continued violations of 3RR. I will say this: If Tecmobowl agrees to join some kind of Mentorship program and agrees to a six week topic ban from baseball related

9615:

Is it possible to set up the system so that it could limit him to only one post per day for Judaism-articles as a whole, or just one post per day to any specific individual page? I honestly don't know what the capabilities of the system are here, but wouldn't mind seeing the former possibility

9364:

Durova could best answer that question, but I presume it has something to do with the fact that much of the allegedly disruptive behavior has occurred on talk pages and the perception that Bus stop often engages in unproductive, long-drawn-out disputes on said talk pages. Banning him from the

4362:

And, there we have it. Five edits across a couple days. Two were to add fact tags (not edit-warring, and at least one was in response to direct vandalism). Two were correcting minor (separate) issues (also not edit-warring). One was to fix a link to a redirect into a link to the actual article

4350:

is the fifth and final (most recent) edit. Adding fact tags. (Incidentally, moreschi, I was wrong on your talk page, THIS was an identical edit to a previous one) This is the closest he came to edit-warring on that article. Adding a fact tag that was previously removed without the other editor

2969:

I don't think reporting another administrator at a noticeboard and suggesting an immediate indefinite block is productive at all, and is only likely to produce drama. Such an act of insensitivity would only inflame the situation, and likely drive away a contributor, rather than solve anything.

1247:

continues to ignore sources (unless they support his opinions) and insist on committing original research, he does not care about how WP works and treats all articles as a blog for him to voice his own opinions (alarmingly even rhetoric-ed rules should be ignored and it's opinions that matters

9696:

to follow up on one difficult user to the extent that your suggestion would entail. If you're willing to put forth that effort yourself and contact me with diffs if troubles arise, I'll back your idea. I just caution to be on the lookout for actions that subvert the spirit of the agreement.

9221:

Agreed that the Richards issue is not really relevant here. The editor in question, looking at his recent edits, seems to have made roughly 84 edits, counting main and talk page edits, pushing his POV that Jews do not qualify as an ethnic group over the past seven days, on a variety of pages,

7221:

guideline was created because some individuals had successfully gamed the dispute resolution process to exhaust the patience of others until productive editors either abandoned certain topics or abandoned Knowledge. It does not serve the site's interests when such tactics succeed in creating

6981:

has the right to support the work of scientists and engineers in the field of Plasma Cosmology, providing he does so in a fair and reasonable way. I am yet to see any evidence that he has been blinkered or unreasonable, although there are no lack of unsubstantiated allegations to this effect.

4482:

I whole-heartedly support this sanction. If I assume that what everything Bladestorm said is true, then 6 of those blocks are entirely legit, and in 3 others he got blocked for a legitimate reason in spite of the fact that the admins were taking tainted data into account. So in 9 instances he

3904:

Personally, I'm not swayed by that justification of his actions, but I'd fully support leaving this open until he is unblocked or letting him respond on his talkpage and someone posting it here. As Moreschi said, I don't think anyone is arguing that TJ is trying to be malicious or disruptive

2386:

Tecmobowl has been incredibly incivil and tendentious but notwithstanding this behaviour I think this case may need to go to arbitration. Considering Miss Mondegreen's points and FunPika's clarified suggestion (that parties should come here for a topic ban or go to Arbcom for "a more binding

1821:

His most recent comment on his own talk page was this: "I'll be back in a week and unless a good discussion has taken place, my behavior will remain the same." His last block was nearly a week long, and it did nothing to change his attitude, and it's obvious this temporary block won't either.

8945:

Since that time Bus stop has caused additional disruption at several Judaism-related articles and talk pages. This editor attempts to dictate content without supplying references and refuses to compromise. Another administrator has protected the "Jew" article, in part because of Bus stop's

4212:

thinking of this in terms of punishment: I honestly think this is best for him, and for Knowledge. He must learn to discuss and involve others, get consensus, rather than flat revert. I blocked him for 9RR - 9 reverts on one article in one day! - left him a sermon - and he's straight back to

2042:

We have already "tried" repeatedly for a month, though I recognize that some here are new to the trying game in this case. Tecmo has been blocked 5 times this month for violating Wiki policy. Each time, only after one or more admins and/or editors "tried" -- by warning him to not engage in

1896:

that remind me that I only need to stay here for my short project, and then never edit here again. It's not worth my time and energy to deal with people like this, especially if they're allowed to continue to harrass and stalk people for such an extended period of time. God knows that if you

1377:

This is not a content dispute, but a systematic pattern of WP policy violations by a single disruptive editor over a span of ~8 months. Yes on occasion he can contribute positively; but personally I find Bus Stop's sheer volume of disruption, personal attacks, complete flaunting of WP rules

915:

Like I said, I wouldn't call this a 'dirty trick'. Many individuals involved find this course of action reasonable and expected. You disagree, of course, and I understand. Cleo, I'm sure, would as well. However, you should not discount the other editors who find Bus stop's behavior extremely

883:

I do not reject the consensus. I have simply been outvoted, and I still stand where I do. I'm sorry if I offended you with the Christian evangalist label, but my point is there was no consensus to begin with. Knowledge is not a democracy after all; it strives to build consensus. If it were a

4646:

that way. You know full well that if someone were to try making a silly claim like, "The opening theme for Family Guy is now Gangsta's Paradise", without sourcing it, you'd tend to not believe them. And, if you were to assume good faith, and simply add a 'fact' tag to that, and they deleted

1998:

Perhaps we can suggest mentoring and a short term (4-6 week) baseball topic ban as an alternative to a long term block? I am definitely not encouraged by his statements that he's going to keep on keeping on, so to speak, but hopefully he would see that his behavior has not been up to snuff.

1628:

Tecmo, who deleted Fangraphs ELs claiming that they did not contain unique info, still refuses to recognize the consensus of their uniqueness, or the evidence of their uniqueness. Tecmo continues instead to delete such ELs. He has not agreed to restore urls that he has deleted where, upon

6670:

Hearsay is invalid rhetoric akin to "a friend of a friend of a friend said something specious about someone else, so you should believe it." It's not notable/verifiable and has no place being used as support of an argument here. Cite specific issues or conversations. Please, and thank you.

6541:

That's an interesting proposal you have there, Mgmirkin. Can you give us any examples of other websites that have successfully implemented their own court system, complete with promise of "due process"? I'm trying to wrap my head around exactly how that would work within the context of a

2970:

Premature block requests instead of dispute resolution look like nothing more than drama-seeking, and are likely to drown out the legitimate concerns at hand. I suggest this thread be archived to prevent that outcome, and the people involved pursue a constructive line of discourse instead.

1390:

to post long rants of his opinions without sources) outrageous. This user should be banned from editing all Judaism-related topics if not wikipedia altogether, as he has indicated no willingness to adapt to wiki rules or build consensus with others unless other's views agree with his own.

1104:

I've protected the article several times due to edit disputes. Regardless of the content disputes at the article, in my opinion at least there is some very disruptive editing patterns at the article and talkpage (given the recent silliness over deleted comments) as well as quite a bit of

8338: 2125:

The most compeling reason, for a permanent block against Tecmobowl is in fact how badly other editors react to him. I have defended Tecmobowl--if not for his actions, because another editor's actions were worse or equal, and Tecmo was getting the brunt of every punishment--which I never

1094:

It should be noted that Bus Stop has now received his fourth block related to this issue, this time for a three revert violation (actually about seven reverts) on the TALK PAGE, where he has repeatedly removed other editor's comments. How much of this kind of behavior must be tolerated?

1913:

I would have been inclined to support an indefinite topic ban on all baseball-related articles, but after seeing that quote, it's obvious that this won't end any other way. All we'll get is more disruption, more grief and more sockpuppetry. He needs to be shown the door--now. Ban.

9823:

is just a continuation of the type of chronically tenditious editing that got him banned, and against which he has been warned repeatedly. Now, as then, Bus stop insists on editing articles so that they conform with his own view on the issue, nevermind what the reliable sources say.

9506:

article too, for some unexplained reason.) Yes, I am difficult for the editors of these articles to deal with. That is a healthy thing for Knowledge. If they succeed in banning me from more articles there will be yet more unopposed point of view pushing at these and other articles.

8609:

to rush anything. While a consensus seems to be emerging, a WP:CS 'ban' is big medicine, and it is in the best interests of all involved to make sure that all sides have a chance to make their opinion known. If that means waiting a few days, then that's the right thing to do. -

4194:

Well then, get someone else to revert. He can talk to me. If he's got a problem, he can come to me, and I'll have a look at the issue at hand. He can involve others. You can do this sort of thing. Knowledge will not fall apart if you wait for a bit. Use the talk page. Just don't

2234:

it is not advisable to post comments to a user talk page that are about an article. Many people, who do not read individual talk pages, would be left out of a potentially beneficial discussion. In the meantime, I have commented regarding the Kevin Youkilis situation on that talk

9264:

has existed for about 200 years. It also once again sees you glorifying your own POV. Also, your edit would seem to rule out the possibility of non-religious Jews converting to Messianic Judaism, which is not supported by any sources of which I am aware. I probably could go on.

7251:

as a principle. A community like Knowledge agrees on rules and procedures, and due process just means following them all the time, not just when you feel like it. If you think the rules and precedures in place are too costly, then you can try to get a consensus to change them.

7478:

guideline. I've never dealt with Ian (except for his inappropriate jubilation over the fact that ScienceApologist had left the project), and I don't claim to be the arbiter of whether such a consensus has been reached, but the disruptive editing guideline exists for a reason.

4595:

So... you're suggesting that, on the 8th, after several apparently legitimate edits on the eighth, the blocking admin extended back a day or so to find "edit-warring" for which to block? Yeesh, I sure as heck hope not, because that'd be crossing the line to a rather ludicrous

9279:" with ""recent converts from Judaism" dramatically changes the semantics of that sentence; moreover, it fits along with your pattern (which is perceived as disruptive) of excising references to ethnic Jewishness w/o providing a source for your peculiarly worded reasoning.-- 8719:

made constructive edits. The only problem is - how do we get him back to productive editing?? It hasn't worked right now, but that's not to say it won't work in the future. Maybe his talk page should be unprotected to allow an appeal. But then again, he can always appeal to

1236:

days) was often prodding and encouraging him, including advising him to refuse moderation and twice attacking mediators ad hominem. His m.o. now seems to have changed from "use talk page" to "anti-semitic" as his reason for discrediting all other's input whom he disagrees

9316:

have said, and also from a deeply emotional involvement in issues of Jewish identity that prevents him from editing certain articles in an NPOV manner. He tries to make sure articles reflect his ideosyncratic notions (Bob Dylan never really converted to Christianity) and

7452:

to present his arguments is Tom Harrison. He laid an indefinite block on Ian 4 days ago and has neither before nor since wasted a single word to justify it. This goes beyond Ian. It is a question of how this community lives up to its ideals of civility and accountability.

6213:

If you see "I've left because of harassment from Foo", and you are Foo, then its fairly clear the editor isn't interested in your argumentative posts, on talk or user page. That said, this is one tiny bit of the situation, and not the defining one, merely the most recent.

6062:

that the ban of Rugby league in France during the war years was part of a nazi conspiracy to promote "reactionary sports like soccer and rugby union". He cited an image on imageshack, which was a scan of a French letter. Another editor disputed the interpretation of the

2574:

That type of vandal will also sometimes latch onto a particular article or subject for no apparent reason other than to cause trouble. For example, many of the "Ron Liebman" sockpuppets may in fact be copycats that are just enjoying the "game". There was an editor on the

1198:

like "use talk page" was just being used as a shield/weapon to revert other users' contributions back to his changes, which often are the very definition of original research. We had content conflicts back then, and he continuously falsely accused me as a sockpuppet (of

9465:

Christians (some) that when a Jew explores Christianity he becomes a Christian. That view can have validity in some quarters, but it doesn't warrant inclusion on a list of converts because a list implies finality of the issue, and the issue is anything but resolved. The

8410:

is tracking them now. Five of those are from his breif sock-puppeting rampage a year or so ago, the rest are from today. And predictibally, he's now attacking me for bringing this up, and for being one of the first to block him for incivility, well over a year ago. -

2168:. User:Epeefleche could have prevented twenty kilobytes of wasted discussion by writing "I agree with deleting those five links, please get to the disputed four now." Stubbornness to this level is annoying, and as the frequent use of caps lock below shows, enraging too. 7196:

should be held to a higher standard when presenting evidence, due to their positions of greater authority. The fact that they refuse to respond to legitimate questions and calls for citations/clarification of statements speaks volumes about the bias they have against

9992:

understand that there are a multiplicity of points from which to view the contested issues in these articles, and that the resident editors should be a little less pigheaded in their insistence that there is only one set of language with which to convey information?

7230:

Unsubstantiated accusations of bias and kangaroo court contribute nothing to this discussion. We're assessing damage caused and the likelihood of substantial damage continuing. This is a textbook example of disruptive editing; I'll stand behind this community ban.

6715:

after the RFAR but that doesn't mean he has stopped causing problems, and Guy's statement is quite accurate. It can be very seductive trying to argue with someone like Iantresman, and as a result a lot of editors end up doing it, a lot, and yet it solves nothing.

6175:

which has reduced but by no means eleminated his POV pushing. In summary, Ian is an incorrigible POV pusher and harasser who has in my opinion exhausted the community patience. Since the ArbCom's probation has not stopped him, we should consider a community ban.

9708:

on his contrib logs. He seems to have complied with his promise to stay away from Dylan-related edits, so I would anticipate he would do the same here. I briefly interacted with him on the Dylan thing. He doesn't seem to be editing in bad faith, he just has

7317:

I am not saying that Ian's behavior is above reproach, but despite many disagreements I have always been able to work with him. I do not wish to take a position at this time on whether Ian should ultimately be banned, but I find the following points important:

5566:

Plus all the sock puppetry TJ has used in his time on Knowledge. The most recent sock was been used, when he was blocked for a long period of time. Block evading by use of socks (and using other accounts to be sneaky in general) isn't acceptable behavior here.

2748:

Because the dispute being arbitrated has resolved and any restrictions on the involved editors have been lifted, this arbitration case has been closed with no further action being taken. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee.

4392:

the past as well. The fact he refuses to listen, is a sign a sanction must happen. If it doesn't happen, he will probably continue his warring ways. I see no other way to change his ways at this point. After many failed warnings, this is the right next step.

4685:

that he intended to revert until he was at risk of being blocked, and then stop. The intent shows that he has a problem, and that if we don't send him a strong message right here and now, he will continue, and eventually get himself blocked indefinitely.

991:

They are proper parameters because they are elemental parameters. They are restrictive parameters. They are parameters that prevent point of view pushing. The editors at that article have been arguing that the parameters are "all those notable people who

10277:

to other areas. Volunteer time is finite and this editor barely deigned to accept mentorship when a member of the arbitration committee extended an unsolicited offer. This person has had more chances than anyone deserves. Time to wrap up and move on.

5589:

Nope, that's not fair. Did you even read what Moe posted, or what I posted? He has been given many chances, as well as longer blocks: neither have changed his editing ways. He still reverts, still uses other accounts to be sneaky/evade blocks and so on.

1072:

No one, to my knowledge, has ever tried to portray Dylan as a Christian, but has desired to state that he was a Christian convert and believe the article should reflect that. Likewise, this user has demonstrated behaviour unbecoming of an editor to both

7578:"yet another mouthpiece for the status quo". Any user refusing to acknowledge that and resorting to protracted campaigning instead has no place here. I am pleasantly surprised that this "community sanction" process can in fact produce tangible results. 5990:

have the ability to make a positive contribution to WP, but this user continually disrupts wikipedia with his constant reverting. I'd like to suggest that this user be banned from performing reverts in sporting articles (except for obvious vandalism).

10377:

Ouch. I assumed the name was taken out of respect for the person, and made the apparently stupid mistake that it was a male editor showing respect for the female. I beg your pardon in this matter. After running around with the sundry weird critters of

4374:. I think going back a smidge further was more than adequate. But this raises a problem. The block summary said he was edit-warring in that article. However, he wasn't (at least, not when he was blocked. You're more than welcome to go back further if 925:

I don't care much where you move my comments. Although I think people should get my permission before removing/deleting my comments. In the one case Bus stop could've removed the part where I quoted the post he withdrew about as easily as deleting it

2885:

and attempts to engage him on his talk page have resulted in the user going as far as to delete his talk page in order to remove diffs of these engagements. I think that if this were not an admin user we would have all demanded at least a block long

8438:. It seems that the guy goes in spurts ... you never know when he's gonna snap. I'm not as familiar with the case as most of the people who have commented, but a cursory reading of the events indicates that this guy is too unstable for Knowledge. 1755:

I don't see how more attempts at discussion will make any difference at all. He has made it clear in comment and action that what he desires/demands/expects is for everyone else to leave him alone so he can ignore policy and do whatever he pleases.

1929:

A more expedient process would be to show a recent declaration by Tecmobowl of the intent to disrupt Knowledge, coupled by some diffs which show the implementation of the declaration. Admins have the power to block indefinitely (and hence impose a

10290:

I've full protected the editor's user space for some choice words that remain available through the history file, and I've made the editor aware that any future appeals of the ban can be made via e-mail to another sysop or an arbitration clerk.

7762:

is either asserting himself as being a sock/meatpuppet of "Mainstream astronomy", which would make suggesting that Mainstream astronomy is a pseudonym of ScienceApologist far less of a stretch, or... it means that Velikovsky was inappropriately

6934:

Not overlooked; completely irrelevant. "made contributions" is a separate issue from "Watch me disrupt in flagrant violation of an Rfar ruling". SA's actions are not relevant either. We are not discussing community ban of SA, but of Iantresman.

5531:

He was just doing what was right. I almost got into a edit war with him , a couple years back, but I was wrong, and so are most of the 3RR oppositions who argue against him. A 1 month block is way more than enough if your going to block him. --

1625:

the discussion in a simple and focused matter." As to the alleged failure to focus on the content of the discussion, nothing could be further from the truth. A glance at the baseball project discussion page at the above url demonstrates that.

1520:

has engaged in disruptive editing over a long period of time, requiring IMHO a community ban for disruption. This comports with the suggestions of the admin in his sockpuppetry case this month, and a mediator today, as is discussed below.

7720:

and was redirected. Redirecting your talk page to your user page is never a good idea (the converse is fine, of course, but never direct your talk page to your user page!), and was clearly more MainstreamAstronomy's mistake more than Ian's.

9851:

is excellent documentation of that). A topic ban is definitely called for, though I expect to read of him being indefinitely blocked again in the near future, judging by his demonstrated inability to comprehend any viewpoint but his own.

7677:

The justification for the block appears to be on this page. The community seems to be making a clear expression that this user has been excessively disruptive. We can keep discussing the permanent ban while the indefinte block is in place.

7265:

principle. And I have gotten a consensus to change the procedures that were previously in place: I was one of the principal coauthors of the disruptive editing guideline that applies here. I see no consensus for the argument you propose.

1364:

when the Mediation Cabal finally had to be invited, and two different mediators decided his obsession with one point had no merit (each time after another week of discussion to build a rough consensus), he personally attacked the mediators

1123:, Bus stop has had at best a total of 397 edits to mainspace content that was not directly involved in one of the two controversies over which he has expended over 1000 of his total 3000 edits to date on, those two controversies being over 10248: 3858:

He's been blocked at least twice for fighting vandalism. (That's how I choose to describe an action which includes removing a deletion notice simply because "articles have souls" and spyke must not have a soul for wanting to delete them)

1672:) and am creating new articles that provide good information to the community. JUST MAKE THE CONTENT BETTER - FANGRAPHS DOESN'T DO THAT WHEN WE ALREADY HAVE 5 STATS SITES TO CHOOSE FROM! And thanks for misrepresenting the information. // 4260:

still breaking the rules? I had really hoped that you'd look into whether or not he's been given a raw deal. Yes. Nine is insane. It's stupid and inexcusable. But that's why he was blocked for that. He did his time. CS is for an ongoing

2623:

Well, in fact, I think this user is "old school banned," which is indef. blocked when reverting to the evidence that Lucy is alive part. This proposal will only formalize the situation. By the way, the user has made an additional sock,

1109:

at the talk page (and this has spilled over onto various involved editors' talkpages too). I don't care one way or another about the core content issue here, but the disruptive behavior needs to stop before this page is unprotected for

8631:

Agreed. No rush. Though his continuing IP hopping to drop accusations and attacks around is getting old very fast. (Latest this morning/last night was all over the User and Talk pages of his various IPs and the tracking category.) -

6619:

and his resulting probation. Seems addicted to conflict and unwilling to contribute elsewhere, so considering that he's been ignoring his probation and misrepresenting its terms, a community ban not only seems warranted but inevitable.

4492:

doesn't apply to him anymore. This has been explained to him on too many occasions for him to not get it. He is an adult, and he must be reprimanded like an adult who constantly harasses his coworkers would be. This behavior is absurd.

7338:(There may be a different or a better place for me to air these concerns, perhaps in a policy discussion or as a complaint against Tom harrison. If someone more familiar with Knowledge processes has a suggestion, please let me know.) 3664:

The above named arbitration case has closed. All involved parties are granted an amnesty over the edit-warring that had been ongoing but has given the administrators the ability to sanction anyone who begins disruptive editing again.

3392:

Also, for your information. And this I swear with my hand on my heart, I do not make or seek enemies as allegated here, they find me, and when they get in the way of wikipedia being or continueing to be reliable, then problems arise.

4252:

exceed 3 per day, across three articles, at least one of which he'd recently been fighting vandalism, by an admin with a past history of blocking him because he didn't realize spyke was fighting a vandal. With no further explanation

4929:

In light of the confirmed sockpuppetry, I propose a one-month ban, and indefinite revert parole once he comes off that block. Now that he's got two confirmed socks, he's got little choice but to accept if he wants to keep editing.

4001:

So, um, yeah... It's very hard to assume good faith when the other person is insisting that articles have souls (even if you don't have one). And yet, this block was effectively used against him the next time someone saw his block

10026:. Private visions are promoted in these articles. Oversight is unwelcome at these articles. Fresh input from people of diverse backgrounds is unwelcome. These articles are for the private enjoyment of the editors that write them. 2958:

These kinds of situations are really why we need a mandatory recall process for all admins. Regardless, I too suggest a voluntary wikibreak and users should just avoid (at least from the time being) responding on this user's talk

6047:

trying to change "Rugby union" in the same way). This user feels that every other editor's opinion is flawed by other users' bias, and this his position is the only right one, and that he is therefore justified in going against

4716:

being the immediate course of action. I also suggest that after this 250-hour block is over that someone moniter that reverting more heavily than before, because somehow I don't think that the reverting will cease completely. —

2064:

I initially thought he should be indefblocked right away--do not pass Go, do not collect $ 200. But now that I think of it more, I look on it as a booby trap--we know he's going to be disruptive, so let the guy hang himself.

8735:

Do you feel that he's likely to come back a productive editor after the one year block? If that remedy is followed, it should be with the expectation that it will be a real solution instead of a half-hearted 'compromise'. -

3700:

is reminded to to avoid generating drama by making public proclamations of misbehavior before attempting private discussion and resolution of the issue. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee.

855:

Apparently you didn't read my last comment asking for shorter responses, but Oh well; I'll start. Obviously this discussion is going nowhere, which is why dirty tricks are being resorted to. My point is simple. There is no

8998:

Fred Bauder has responded to my query offline and supports banning. I propose a full Judaism topic ban for Bus stop as an alternative to sitebanning. Bus stop would not be welcome to post to talk pages on this subject.

8755:

The conversation seems complete, there was the one comment above, but no response to a followup question as of yet. I'll close this in about half a day if there are no further developments, the consensus seems clear. -

3614:

Um, remonstrating about what happened in the past, especially by a user who is no longer editing, is exactly the sort of comment that the arbitrators (and I agree with them) have concluded is not needed. Please desist.

7832: 4488:

supposed to go through the dispute resolution process. Why he refuses to do so is anyone's guess, but the reason for his refusal is irrelevant. He continues to ignore the policies, and a stronger message must be sent.

3793:

I've about had it with this fellow. I blocked him a while back for 9RR. At the time I left him a big message about needing to watch his step in future. Clearly, he did not pay attention, because he's just been blocked

1890:

I'm not directly involved, but the way I've seen him openly harrass editors of baseball articles, blow off all administrators, and seemingly take ownership of every article he edits is frustrating to even look at. His

7490:

Quite right. Ian must be held accountable for his editing style. You and I must be held accountable for the arguments and tone we bring to this discussion. Tom must be held accountable for his administrative actions.

7142:

The checkuser result showed that the new account which showed up out of the blue to defend Ian was using open proxies, which they wouldn't be if they were simply a legitimate new user who showed up at an odd moment.

10437:

Support: It happened a little sooner than I expected, but it's pretty much what I predicted. His tendency to accuse editors of antisemitism, then claim that he didn't when confronted with it, was getting old fast.

8215:, Conradi is now up to three IP socks as he continues to lash out against various admins, with no end in sight. I think that it's time we said enough is enough, and let him know that he is no longer welcome here. - 9588:

Then how about a limit of one post (defined as one edit: no going back and editing his previous posts) to any Judaism-related talk page. I have to say that I understand your frustration in dealing with him though.

9216: 4767:

Note that those of us coming in here demanding that something be done have been editing with this person for months, if not more than a year. That is a very powerful statement, and one that you should take note of.

8157:

asking for arbitration if indeed all other forms of dispute resolution have failed as you say, but remember they'll look at the behavior of all editors involved in the issue if they accept the case, including you.

3895:

his good faith, but it's just not working at the moment. We can't really have edit-warring like this. Trying to be disruptive or not, he seemingly will not stop edit-warring. Hopefully, this will end that problem.

2301:

with the edit summary "how many idiots are there in one day?" As he had already blanked his talk page numerous times that day I assume I am just one of many "idiots" who have the gall to disagree with his actions.

9943:

Likewise, Bus stop, I ask you to strikethrough your comment about Christian antisemitism. You no more know the affiliations of the other editors here than we know yours, much less what biases any of us my have.

7797:

No arguments about how he's "exhausted the community's patience"... No nonsense about how he's "driven away editors", without a lick of support or proper discussion. None of that at all. Does anyone here have any

2098:

Having read all the above, and despite my earlier conciliatory suggestion, I agree with the proposal to permanently end Tecmobowl's ability to edit wikipedia, by whatever administrative means is most appropriate.

1615:

and despite lack of consensus for his deleting wholesale ELs where no consensus for their deletion exists -- Tecmo is back deleting the ELs that are the very subject of the discussion on the baseball talk page.

10401: 9283: 9226: 9143: 2130:

editors won't talk with him, he'll keep breaking 3RR. He has tried to get help--he's gone to WP:ANI, and MedCab, but every place he's gone, either he's been ignored, or his own bad behavior has been focused on.

9056:

ban based on above information with regrets that the user seems incapable of keeping himself from this topic, and hope that this problematic behavior doesn't spread to content regarding other religions as well.

6448:

I'm sorry, Odd nature, but that's bull. You've obviously made up your mind in advance. Iantresman has raised valid issues, and you (and others) have avoided answering his specific direct questions. Talk about a

9409:

with Christianity. Conversion is a specific term that no source exists for, and a List is a format that asserts factuality. Therefore I have always argued for the description of Dylan's Christian phase in the

6166:

who eventually left the project over a variety of issues, including Ian's behavior. SA was a very productive editor with over 16,000 edits. Ian is now repeating the exact same thing with a relatively new user

10284: 9902:

distinct sense of self-righteousness. I don't know if you've noticed, but it's already been explained to you that many of the individuals who have opposed your recent changes concerning "ethnicity" have been

4447:

merely illustrates that you weren't actually addressing what I said. And, no, it isn't a fact unless you prove it. I say, "alleged", because the admin who imposed the current block cited an article where he

10471: 9347: 7891:

and any other editor who is involved professionally or avocationally in the paranormal is cautioned regarding aggressive editing of articles which relate to the particular subjects they are involved with.

4827:

to Rochester, New York, so unless there was two editors from Rochester making the same edit to TNA Victory Road, TJ Spyke committed 3RR there, and judging from his block log, this wasn't the only place. —

4272:, even though at least two admins were doing the exact same thing spyke was to fight that vandal? Because that's a very important issue in terms of whether or not it's fair to say he's still edit-warring. 3474:

I'd rather not go there for the moment. There seems to be agreement that Rex can sometimes be a problem but that these problems don't warrant blocking at the present time. Kingjeff should be pointed to

2579:

page about a year ago that kept posting unsubstantiated conspiracy-theory stuff until he finally was either dispatched or got tired of the game after many, many weeks at it. That is, it's not really about

9133: 2753: 9432: 7817: 2435: 9446: 10412: 9369: 9359: 5986:

been constructive, but the majority are blatant edit warring and trolling. You can literally count off the constructive edits on one hand. I'm not suggesting an all out ban here, as I feel this user

5170:

Only one month longer added on to his current block seems a bit light. An unrepentant edit warrior with a very long history using socks to dodge a block warrants a six month time-frame, in my opinion.

5135:

if he steps out of line again (3RR etc.) he is blocked indefinitely. That's what I'm currently on, if I sware of vandalise on Knowledge again - I'm blocked indef. This is my proposal (only a proposal):

3077: 7474:

One of the community's ideals of accountability is that editors who persistently, incorrigibily disrupt Knowledge, in the consensus of the community, may be blocked. This principle is codified in the

2704: 6863:

Precedents have already been set. In this particular case, I see that Admins do not have to account for their claims, Admin are not required to answer questions, Admins may give one editor "leeway",

3705: 2736: 9566:

pages. There are better ways to spend time than check up on someone to that extent and then craft yet another topic ban. So if someone has a counterproposal that's immune to gaming I'm all ears.

6529:

I personally would have been a bit more open to hearing Ian's arguments, but when you engage in meatpuppetry rather than request an unblock to let yourself be heard, your credibility here is nil.

9251:

Here is another one for everyone's consideration. This is my most recent edit. It is to Messianic Judaism. Here it is. Check it out. Tell me if it is disruptive, or problematic in some other way:

8384: 7533:

I'd be willing to endorse a mere topic ban, but I can't get past the fact that he drove two users off the project. The community simply can't tolerate someone who creates a poisonous atmosphere.

2913: 7943: 7510:

would be good for several reasons. One of them is that being able to refer to a clear set of arguments on this case may save us time and lead to better decision on similar cases in the future. --

6939: 6615:

Iantresman strikes me as a pseudscience POV pusher who is quick to resort to attacks, abuse of process and endless demands for evidence against anyone who dares to reminds him of the findings of

8305: 6186:

I would not object to a community ban. After Mainstream astromony posted on his user page that he was leaving directly as a result of Iantresman's harassment, Iantresman actually posted on MA's

3547: 10144: 8702: 8646: 2863: 2843: 10357: 9620: 9174:

His m.o. back then was always saying "use talk page" as a reason to revert other people's edits, then ignore everyone else's discussion on the talk page even if e.g. it was 5 vs 1 against him.

8042:

is advised to take into account the length of time between previous blocks when blocking users, and to treat all editors violating the three-revert rule fairly. For the Arbitration Committee,

6810: 5508: 8046: 6799: 3680: 2514:

with the vandal, in which he agreed to stop vandalizing, create a new account, and just edit without vandalism. It was not long before the promise was broken, and the Lucy vandalism resumed.

1148: 9572: 9163: 9005: 5732: 5710: 5701: 5664: 5626: 5561: 4328:

a bad edit, spyke still didn't revert it, out of fear of 3RR. Instead, he added a 'fact' tag. It should have been reverted, but that's beside the point. Adding a fact tag isn't edit-warring.

2628:. As a result, I don't think this user is cooperating to edit constructively on the encyclopedia. With the last two socks, I have noticed that {{unblock}} was never used by the puppeteer. 2260:

It's a pity too, because from what I've seen, the people involved in this are on the whole, good editors, and they can get along if they can just learn to put their personal issues aside.

1948:

It's gonna be hard to track down anything ... he's cleared his talk page several times. I would think that given his history of disruption, that should be considered an aggravating factor.

1607: 1135: 9542: 9268: 9258: 8664: 8423:- I blocked several of his earlier ip's and they all apepar to be in the /16 for a range block. If he becomes prolific enough with the ip hopping I might reccomend a 24 hours block or so. 8275: 6772: 6404: 6317: 6218: 6208: 4058:

for my take on the subject at the time. The person he was 'edit-warring' with got mad that he couldn't add a fansite to an article. He then decided to make wp:points by constantly deleting

10242: 8692: 8415: 4786: 3647: 3619: 3397: 10386: 10372: 9658: 9647: 9637: 9583: 9061: 9044: 9029: 7818: 6870: 5641: 5604: 5594: 5584: 5536: 4845: 4758: 2565:

sockpuppet army for 6 months now, with semi-protection of various pages at various times, and as soon as they go off protection he's back at it again, like a perverse hobby of some kind.

681:

Locking the article multiple times and discussing the dispute has not yielded any resolution, since the user will revert the consensus-supported edits made after the article is unlocked.

8523: 8512: 7688: 7664: 7514: 7504: 6694: 6199: 5499: 4899: 4703: 4659: 2942: 2024: 2012: 1696: 10343:

I fully support this reinstatement of the indefinite siteban, as Bus stop did not abide by the conditions of the unbanning (that is, he was not receptive to mentorship by his adopter).

8867: 8542: 8491: 8445: 8427: 8398: 8356: 8346: 8251: 8238: 8164: 7457: 7292: 7123: 7060: 6755: 5007: 3609: 3387: 2890: 2588: 2569: 2373: 2330: 1764: 1167: 1158: 794: 607: 602: 597: 592: 10347: 10030: 9885: 9187: 8636: 8622: 8463: 8321: 7702: 7587: 7540: 7374: 7354:

you notified me of any relevant discussion that takes place over there. I argued rather passionately for something similar but got overruled. Now I abide by the policy as it stands.

7208: 7179: 7162: 7137: 7041: 6518:). Makes for bad policy to ban someone before they are given a chance to utilize their right to redress grievances that have possible direct impact on said sanctions, etc. My opinion. 6427: 5937: 5237: 5123: 4915: 4587: 4578: 4564: 4546: 3483: 3200: 2555: 2540: 2350:

could step back let the neutral community evaluate and deal with it. BBB, I sympathize, truly. But please stop pushing so hard. Once it becomes this 'personal', its time to step back.

961:

no place on the list. People (living people) who are not Christians should be excluded from the list. That is what the old title clearly implied. And those are the parameters that the

828: 810: 766: 10306:

Sad to say, but this seems about the only solution possible now. Someone who responds to a final chance with the kind of diatribes seen above is not here to write and encyclopedia.

10125: 9469:

article is a fine place to go into all the details of Dylan's Christian period. But inclusion on a list of converts to Christianity is point of view pushing. Conversion is unsourced.

9297: 9159:- It should also be noted that his earlier refusal to abide by policy in citing any verifiable sources for his changes to content has continued unchangingly in the above discussions. 8842: 8748: 7622: 7495: 7485: 6854: 6727: 6706: 5571: 5439: 5406: 5389: 5106: 5081: 5063: 4970: 4875: 4386: 3973:

it be merged with the correct article. That, too, was summarily removed. But this doesn't even cover the frustrating part. Here are some of the edit summaries that he was faced with:

3913: 3564: 3496: 3469: 3457: 3360: 3219: 3121: 2659: 2524: 2399: 2051: 1904: 1835: 1826: 1676: 906: 580: 575: 570: 565: 560: 555: 550: 545: 540: 27: 10442: 9856: 8730: 8121:

If you could provide diffs or links to the RFCs, ANIs RFMs (the only one I can find is a mediation rejection today with a different user) it might help your case. You should try to

7962: 7004:

Since he's continued the same behavior since the last ArbCom case, albeit a bit more subtle and seems highly disinclined to change his behavior, I'd have to support the indef block.

6593: 6561: 6536: 6458: 5927: 5462: 5361: 5330: 5320: 5199: 5188: 4468: 4434: 4409: 4396: 4276: 4217: 4189: 4173: 3899: 3582: 3322: 3187: 2088: 2033: 1921: 1434: 1425: 1408: 896: 878: 10327: 10192: 10180: 10162: 9836: 9798: 9772: 9745: 9733: 9702: 9690: 9610: 8330: 8082: 7644: 7412: 7360: 7272: 7256: 6741: 6675: 6653:

Considering the discussion I saw elsewhere about Iantresman using alternate accounts and trying to get help in his recent edit wars.. I can't help but to agree with the originator.

6522: 6486: 5474: 5293: 5283: 5224: 5212: 3922: 3829: 3820: 2993: 2778: 2072: 2003: 1831:

As far as the "adopt a user" idea is concerned, Tecmobowl has been on wikipedia for a year now, so the probability of him submitting to that program "for newbies" is not promising.

1395: 1114: 1099: 930: 8569:

Indefinite doesn't mean infinite. If this is the result here I'd like to think that Tobias would be welcomed back if he resolved to work on how he deals with his fellow editors.--

8187: 7442: 6158:

This user is a general POV-warrior of all sorts of pseudoscience and fringe science ideas who seems to have overstayed his welcome on Knowledge. His block record includes a 3RR on

5961: 5526: 5164: 4340:

is the fourth edit. This, too, is merely a minor correction, with a nice edit summary explaining it. (Note to anyone who doesn't follow the links: This is NOT the same correction.

3850: 3272: 3232: 3148: 2963: 2450: 2360: 1085: 920: 868: 850: 10448: 10432: 10338: 10228: 9938: 9120: 8829: 8768: 8560: 8380: 7561: 7553:) with the full backing of the existing Arbcom decision. But on top of that Arbcom enforcement are supposed to be making another decision about Iantresman's probation violation-- 7092: 7079: 2808: 2417: 1968: 1955: 10099: 10060: 9997: 9954: 9896: 9533: 9511: 9473: 9422: 9394: 9089: 9075: 8939: 8812: 8148: 7828:

has not edited for several weeks. Should Certified.Gangsta return to editing, the review may be reopened. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee.

7386: 7237: 6172: 5417: 3114: 2650: 2618: 1816: 9910: 9201: 8037: 6644: 6145: 6133: 5220:

I agree, one month seems too light. His history of sock puppetry (and so on, already mentioned by others) should be enough to justify a 3 month block (or longer) in my opinion.

10297: 8594: 8573: 7423: 6657: 4268:

you personally believe that the previous block by the same admin was valid? Even though he was fighting a vandal? Even though another admin had already caught the problem, and

3741: 3305: 3288: 3261: 3161: 1476: 10104:

Tom's comment is incredibly unfair, especially to Durova, who came up with a solution to allow him to edit after the community decided to siteban him. Look at his talk page.

8101: 7394: 4542:

behaviour in general are you referring to? (But, seriously, which of those edits are proof of serious edit-warring, to the point of skipping the waiting-for-a-fourth-revert?)

2741: 2310: 1558:.... Telling by the behavior of Tecmobowl, it is virtually impossible to create a compromise. I am going to close this mediation cabal request. My suggestions are to either 8342:

it seems clear to me he doesn't accept the validity of the ARBCOM sanctions, he doesn't intend to follow them, and he sees the enforcement of the sanctions as illegitimate.--

7402: 3424: 2948:

I suggest desysopping with the user remaining in good standing. I think a nice rest (no, not an enforced Wikibreak) away from Knowledge is probably a good idea at this time.

2798: 2693: 8938:

article. I full protected that page for a week and left messages for Bus stop and Fred Bauder. Bus stop's reaction was so negative that I opened my decision for review at

3443: 2932: 2823: 2193: 4114:

This current block includes "edit-warring" (though not 3RR) in an article that's been incredibly heavy in both vandalism and outright unsourced nonsense from anonymous IPs.

2978: 674:

He contends that Bob Dylan never converted to Christianity, despite the existence of multiple reliable sources reporting the contrary. He refuses to accept broad consensus

10456: 6109:

It sounds to me like this issue is localized to a few articles, and that the user hasn't caused nearly enough havoc to merit a community ban. I'd suggest taking this to a

4090:

Eleventh block, presumably valid. However, even the block summary acknowledges that his past blocks (including at least three outright invalid ones) were used against him.

1566:

or go to Knowledge:Community sanction noticeboard for a binding solution, one that the Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee can not give. FunPika 18:38, 27 June 2007

736:. It is clear that no progress can be made on this article as long as the user is allowed to edit it, since he will not respect consensus, or accept any compromise offer. 9669:

I seem to have trouble expressing myself today. I meant to say one post per day total for him on all of the Judaism talk pages, not one post per page. Is that clearer?

2788: 21: 8207: 8133:. User:Jddphd has advised both you & Chrisjnelson to take a break, I second that proposal - you should temporarily disengage from each other's articles of interest. 8081:

Is this the right place for this message? I have no idea.... but I'm so fed up with this...please just get him off my back. You can see the majority of this dispute at

7748: 6284: 6250: 6168: 5504:

Bummer. TJ Spyke was one of our leading contributors for our WWE PPV's. He's usually the back bone of our editing. Is their a way you can un-block him for our PPV's? --

2900: 2830: 2759: 8854:, including a statement where he declares his intentions to continue his disruptive editing. After another user reverted this response, I protected the page for 30 days 8642:

way that this individual could, under his own identity, make a comment here in his own defence and/or to agree to terms to allow him to continue in a limited capacity?

6820:

I move to close. It's safe to say this guy is done editing here--driving someone from Knowledge by means of harassment is by itself a bannable offense, in my opinion.

5541:

Right is the most wrong thing I can think of to describe TJ anymore. He got more that a few chances to shape up and didn't, then resorted to committing petty vandalism

3948:

The second one, I also assume to be valid. Same reason. (He was unblocked less than an hour later, but without knowing the details, I still assume it was a valid block)

3735:

Continued block evasion through a different IP address only weighs against the chances of any appeal succeeding. I have semiprotected this page. Use proper channels.

2952: 10216:. For these two topics I was approached for help by user C Logan so a number of people were having difficulties with him. This is a disruptive editor judging by their 8800:. I've sent a copy of that message to him via e-mail as well. When this item is archived, the link on his talk page should be updated appropriately to reflect it. - 8407: 5946:

Personally, I would just recommend to them they create a new account, tell them that their existing accounts will not be unblocked, and protect their user talk pages.

4181:

My concern with imposing extreme punishments on him (beyond the current 10+ day block, which I still think is outrageous), is very much connected to my overall thesis.

281: 276: 271: 266: 261: 256: 251: 246: 241: 236: 229: 224: 219: 214: 209: 204: 199: 194: 189: 184: 8711:

I do not think he should be banned, but blocked for 1 year instead. However, seeing as he's now editing as an IP-hopping editor, it looks like he may become the next

7939:

is cautioned to extend good faith to Dradin if he edits and to avoid including disparaging material about Dean Radin on his user page. For the Arbitration Committee,

3061: 2103: 10353:

the previous discussion, he deserves much better treatment than he has received, and has my thanks for the efforts he has made to be more than symphatethic to date.

9712:

problems and a hard time maintaining perspective on issues and articles related to Jewish identity. I fully agree he should not be editing articles on this topic.

8916: 8219: 6928: 3110: 2669: 2425:

The above named arbitration case has closed. Tajik's indefinite ban is endorsed; additionally he is banned by the Arbitration Committee for one year (concurrently).

1026: 7310:

had blocked him indefinitely. It is not clear to me whether the block was intended as tightening the reins while the decision is being made, or as a try-it-and-see

6103: 5678: 3839:. That was says the summary of the first block on 31 August 2006 by Voice of All. This means that now it is OUT of control². A revert parole sounds appropriate. -- 3449:

My only thought on the matter is that he's already currently blocked. There's no harm in seeing how he behaves once that block expires. If he causes more problems,

1052: 10449: 10383: 10354: 10093:

guideline. Dispute resolution is fruitless when one party sets himself or herself above fundamental policies and declares all opposition to be rooted in bigotry.

9644: 9617: 9580: 9539: 9265: 9223: 9160: 9140: 9058: 9026: 8689: 8643: 7825: 4733: 3997:

There is a place on the internet where the souls of deleted pages go. This place is called "SomethingAwful." Can you really subject a page to that sort of torture?

3787: 3685: 1884: 1867:

with other users on baseball related articles. You have been blocked several times for 3RR violations, and today you have reverted several articles 3 times.....

1660: 1132: 740: 6910: 5647:

was blocked forever from the site, that means he would be banned, as in he can't edit period and no administrator would be willing to do an unblock ever again. —

4497: 4162: 3888: 2115: 1496: 7008: 4295: 3729: 2709: 2219:"Actually, you didn't bother to comment on my talk page until after you had blanked your talk page twice and called me an idiot. Yes, that is ignoring comments." 1990: 171: 8681: 7671: 7345: 6952: 6864: 5372:

Support block until December 1st. He'll be unblocked in a week or so, so we may want an administrator come in and finalize the consensus and place the block. —

3806: 3376: 2984:

Yes, please close this thread. If dialogue with Jeffrey doesn't result in a positive outcome, then start an RfC. The suggestion of an indef block is premature.

1005: 816:

respond to the rest of my comment? And can we please try to keep our comments shorter and more to the point in the future; it is kind of discouraging to read.--

746:

It most certianly is a content dispute. There certianly is no consensus in the article. Me, Bus stop, and Cleo123 have simply been outnumbered by the numerous

8783: 7812: 6624: 6304: 3346: 3251: 3242: 3173: 3131: 3100: 3040: 2742: 1942: 9906:. If that is the case, I find it unusual that they wouldn't join your crusade if the terms you have such a problem with were actually, really "antisemitic".-- 6827: 4961: 3410: 1460: 690:

The user's participation in the discussion has largely consisted of repeating the same argument that he has already posted many times to the discussion page.

8900: 7837: 6288: 5270: 4996: 3721:. If the editor wishes to appeal under these circumstances then the proper channel is to e-mail the Wikimedia Foundation. Here's their contact information. 2677: 1613: 884:

democracy, then yes, I'd simply be out of luck, and this discussion would be over. But it is not. Though I must admit talk page edit warring is disruptive.--

531: 521: 516: 511: 506: 501: 496: 491: 486: 481: 476: 469: 464: 459: 454: 449: 444: 439: 434: 429: 424: 297: 175: 53: 8895: 6180: 4937: 3057: 2493: 726: 724: 717: 715: 713: 711: 709: 707: 705: 703: 701: 699: 697: 695: 693: 10213: 8924: 6946:::Deleting two category tags looks like a harsh interpretation of "flagrant violation of an Rfar ruling", or as FM described it "aggressive biased editing" 6907: 6867: 6796: 3657: 3516: 3026: 2258:

There are methods for dealing with problem editors. The biggest one is to NOT add fuel to the fire and that was done at almost every possible opportunity.

1540:, and engages in sockpuppetry on a level that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on baseball articles. 664: 403: 398: 393: 388: 383: 378: 373: 368: 363: 358: 351: 346: 341: 336: 331: 326: 321: 316: 311: 306: 9442:. In any case, let's not resurrect that issue if at all possible- I don't believe you want to argue for another 70-80 days or so about this whole thing.-- 8256:

When a user is unwilling to accept blocks and resorts to changing IPs to avoid them, it is time to take a harder stance. I regretfully support this move.

7314:

ban. Either way, the reasons a ban might be necessary have not been clearly formulated, nor has the evidence in questions of fact been clearly presented.

7088:

Maybe I have been greedy. Please, adjust your watchlist a bit and enjoy greater exposure to those extreme views, with their attendent blessings and mine.

1900:

finally drop the ban hammer, I expect my talk page to be littered with condescending word jumbles and threats in 6 days. Please, just get this over with.

1163:

Oh sure. Just trying to not to get too hostile or something like that. Anyway I've probably spent too much time on this, I think I'm getting slap-happy.--

6966:

Talk about mob rule! The indefinite suspension of Ian Tresman represents a clear example of censorship and suppression by those with a fixed world view.

5302:

This sounds quite reasonable to me. Perhaps we could have a CheckUser block his IP address for that duration in order to prevent sockpuppetry. Thoughts?

5020: 4755: 4656: 4324:

is the second edit. The article has had quite a few people constantly trying to change the 'opening theme'. They're always unsourced. Even though it was

3268:

Nice try at wiggling out: won't work. Stop forum shopping and canvassing, please. As I think has been pointed out on ANI, your claims have little merit.

288: 9498:

transpired for Bob Dylan. This is another example of point of view pushing. I stand opposed to this. That is what the original ban on my editing of the

8451:

both on his user talk and via e-mail. If the consensus is not to remove him from the project, I'll be available to assist in any remediation needed. -

5974:

I'm not sure if this is even the right place to take this one, but here goes. If anyone can suggest a better way to handle this, I'd be keen to hear.

9538:

Despite, as indicated above, having chosen language to advance your own personal agenda, that Jews should not be counted as an ethnic group, yourself?

9294: 9184: 5755:

Looks like this dropped off the admin noticeboard without comment; I'll try bringing it here. User has been blocked following sockpuppetry revealed by

5483:

and played a huge part in getting it to featured article status. I would support changing it to a multi-month block... He hasn't had one of those yet.

4966:

I support it as well. He shouldn't think he is above Knowledge policies. Block evading by using another account is simply a sign he refuses to listen.

4150:

I can't count the number of times I've argued with spyke. The number of edits of his that I didn't like. But what I've come to learn is that he really

415: 293: 6378:

was removed because the only mention of pseudoscience in the article relates directly to Immanuel Velikovsky, not to the subject "Catastrophism". The

3992:

So then you don't have a soul? =( I guess that's why you'd want to hurt a poor, defenseless, little page. You may not have a soul, but these pages do!

2108:

Wow ... given the long, rambling response to Foz' proposal, I don't see any further need for leniency (though I had a hunch he'd turn it down). Ban.

10460: 8919:

I applied an indefinite block, also offering to restore editing privileges if Bus stop obtained formal mentorship and pledged to avoid two articles:

8712: 8435: 7968: 7759: 7740: 2670: 1352: 1344: 1248: 787: 722: 720: 688: 686: 684: 682: 159: 154: 149: 144: 139: 134: 129: 124: 119: 114: 107: 102: 97: 92: 87: 82: 77: 72: 67: 62: 10176:

By the way, the citizens of Germany, and Poland, exercised good impulse control when the Jews were led off to the ovens of the concentration camps.

9554:

of disruption at another article until it had to be full protected. When I posted polite cautions this editor blanked them with spurious claims of

8352:

Without the socks, I would likely still be thinking about it, and quite possibly would never have reached the point of launching this discussion. -

6567: 6504:

other users (such as bans), then completely ignore a user's right to defend their action or ask valid pointed questions toward the end of peaceable

2520:

vandal did somehow decide to stop, create an account, and edit correctly, I would be fine with that outcome. I just want the vandalism to stop. -

667:

and other articles mentioning Bob Dylan's conversion to Christianity. He has been blocked three times for edits relating to Bob Dylan's conversion.

10042:: This is a grossly inappropriate effort to limit the contributions by an editor who opposes the POV of another group of editors. Please revisit 7050: 6616: 5756: 5013: 4213:

edit-warring. I don't want him blocked: I want him to become a better Wikipedian. I tried talking to him, and that hasn't worked. This just might.

4128:

There are only 6 blocks that aren't either immediately invalid, and that don't at all cite previous blocks that include invalid blocks. That is, a

3816:

blocks. I have to agree, revert parole is the way to go here. Just to clarify though, how long of a period of revert parole are you suggesting?--

3686: 3257:

Wrong. Anybody with "This user can do no wrong, especially when it comes to editing Knowledge." on their userpage badly needs to be blocked, IMHO.

2418: 1901: 1414: 1355: 885: 857: 817: 755: 166: 6977:

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, as they say, and freedom of speech has always been a powerful driving force behind the world-wide-web.

9318: 9083:

articles, and based on the evidence presented by Durova and the failure to respond to mentorship, a topic ban sounds reasonable and appropriate.

8724:

anyway, if he feels his indefinite block is wrong. There's no right or wrong answer here, really, we'll just have to see how things pan out... --

5403: 5267: 5161: 4882:

So now that he has another confirmed sockpuppet for e3dit warring.. maybe now we can finally put forward the plan to put him on revert parole. —

3336: 3248: 3170: 3128: 3097: 3069: 3065: 2710: 2549: 2534: 2354: 49: 7549:

I tend to agree about the posionous atmoshpere. The point I was making is really that the community can go ahead and topic ban Iantresman (for

5086: 4334:

is the third edit. A minor correction, including a very nice edit summary explaining it. Certainly not edit-warring. Just a friendly correction.

4011:

expired might've played a role in his getting reblocked. Had he not just come off a block, who knows if he would've been treated more leniently.

2599:

In any case, there is no reason to "formalize" the community ban - until this person stops abusing the system they won't be welcome to edit. ---

1368: 1366: 1209:

me to another page I frequently edit to revert my changes (in the process reverting a spam link) again using "use talk page" as a false reason:

1079: 1076: 1074: 1070: 1063: 1061: 1059: 790:

If so you may want to gather more diffs to prove your point. If not, you should probably find some diffs to back up the assertions you've made.

783: 675: 6992:

The history of science testifies that almost all new ideas are attacked on the basis that they represent a threat to a particular world view!

5289:

hasn't been caught yet. An actual list of articles to be watched could also be useful, to help catch him if he tries to evade the block again.

4860: 1576: 6764:

when the latter was down. The community needs to do a better job of ushering these folks quickly to the door or we will end up with a form of

729:(former and current) in the list, and 4 editors who have so far explicitly or implicitly agreed not to contest the majority-supported option. 9356: 9183:. I've not yet decided on whether to vote as I'm not convinced that many of the examples listed at the head of this thread are disruptive. -- 8880: 7893: 7845: 7838: 6162:, he has repeatedly POV pushing on a variety of articles and harassed editors who do not agree with him. For example, he repeatedly harassed 4055: 3353: 2883: 9628:

And OberDicta, please define the margins of your proposal. One post per day to any Judaism-related topic? That gets a thumbs down from me.

8519:

If that is the consensus, I could implement it as well. I'm already on his list of corrupt admins; no reason to add another name there...--

8211:

a week and a talk-page protection, and then to a month and an email block after the incivility continued via email. According to a current

4978:

Due to a sockpuppet being discovered, I believe that a six month ban and an infinite revert parole would be the best way to deal with this.

4134:

Six is still a lot. Personally, I have none. But the bulk of spyke's actual bad behaviour is behind him. I think this is worth remembering.

4047:. Both because he was blocked for fighting vandalism, and because the blocking admin personally revoked it, calling it "too close to call". 3802:

length of time up to a week. After three such blocks, the next block length may be indefinite. All blocks to be logged on this noticeboard.

1120: 7604:. It's all we can do to keep our heads above water in a sea of accounts who think an encyclopedia should give equal time to the ideas that 4370:. Maybe it was further back? I dunno. Since blocks are preventative, not punitive, it was only necessary to look at the edits he was doing 3825:

Say a year? I genuinely don't think this user is an evil person, but he has a problem with revert-warring, and thus far is not getting it.

3658: 3517: 2457: 2174:

Just below the section header "EL example", User:Miss Mondegreen lists a multitude of external links together with some interpretations of

2133:

Frankly, if the other editors who were interacting with Tecmo had behaved better, I don't think that there would have ever been a problem.

691: 2120: 1869:

I can see that a lot of people have been involved in trying to convince you to stop this pattern of editing, taking up a lot of their time

1065:

However, a compromise was reached by all other editors where the article would be renamed to make clear that this is a list of people who

9355:. What exactly is the rationale for banning Bus stop from talk pages as well as articles? I don't believe we normally do this, do we? -- 7660: 5343:

Watching the articles is a necessary precaution, but blocking the IP address seems like a good idea do to the aforementioned sneakiness.

5205:

And it goes without saying that if he doesn't accept, he's done here. Too bad Moreschi's on Wikibreak ... we could ask his view on it.

4607:

it. If he had supposedly been misbehaving some non-specified amount of time prior, and had been entirely behaving since, then there'd be

4520: 4516: 4512: 4508: 4504: 4347: 4337: 4331: 4321: 4315: 1648: 1045: 1043: 1041: 622: 9312:

Bus stop's disruption seems to stem from his mistaken belief that WP is a venue in which to establish truth, rather than to report what

6204:

If you redirect your talk page to your user page, I don't think it surprising for people to edit your user page, possibly by accident.--

4308:

I'll admit, I only chose one of the three articles that were cited. Since I'm not a wrestling fan, I just chose the only article I have

9388:

the movement is composed of recent converts from Judaism, and also Jews who have not yet converted to Christianity, as well as Gentiles

7328:

A ban should be supported by an obvious consensus in the community or a minimum number (e.g. three) of administrators, preferably both.

952:

converted to Christianity or not. Sources use the word convert, so we use the word convert -- in relation to 1979. The list was titled

410: 10069:

Are you certain of that? A previous siteban discussion received consensus approval on the basis that this editor refuses to abide by

7631:

doesn't apply to them if they just keep waving their hands and changing the topic. We need to become less patient with these. We have

5979: 4144:

valid, so I can explain it better. Because I don't take that kind of statement lightly. If I say it was 'invalid', then I mean it was

4126:

At least one was by someone who had already imposed an invalid block due to their not examining the article's history closely enough.

8225:

It's now four IPs. I would agree that he's no longer welcome, and suggest it's time for an indef. We've certainly indeffed for less!

7969: 3987:

I'm not saying the article's being deleted, I'm saying the page is. But you're begging the question: Do you have a soul or don't you?

3462:

I just think that when you've racked up five 3RR blocks and three blocks for disruption/harassment, it's time for stronger measures.

3053: 9100: 7393:(even in light of the possible meat/sock puppetry). Also while I'm not impressed by the attempts at wiki-lawyering here, shouldn't 4572: 4570: 4556: 2292:

so I'm not clear on why you are claiming he didn't use socks. As for the other issue, Tecmobowl deleted an entire trivia section on

17: 10089:. The other editors have bent over backwards to be accommodating - this is a classic example of the circumstances outlined at the 9499: 9414: 9011:

Just for absolute clarification, this also involves banning editing of the article pages? Also note recent activity on the article

6699:

Strongest possible support. If you drive someone from Knowledge and you haven't been community banned, you damned well better be.

6092: 5832: 5750: 3918:

BTW, left a note saying either he can post on his talk, or that I'm willing to unblock him purely so that he can participate here.

1561: 1255: 1218: 1186: 1033: 953: 9129:

I don't think Michael Richards is Jewish, and I don't believe Bus stop's, er, activities on that page related to Jew-y concerns.--

7727:

Further evidence of atrocious behaviour: Removed category tag, "Immanuel Velikovsky". And, guess what, Ian's right. That category

3597:

Well, you can basically see the harm done by RA and Dagizza by releasing private emails on wiki with the drop in Indian FA's here

3430: 9322:

article editing and a limit of one post per day on talk pages. Also, as he seems to be disruptive primarily on issues of Jewish

9293:

interest in "dissolving the distinction between the Jewish religion and the Christian religion" is something I cannot conceive.--

7031:) has been indefinitely blocked as a throwaway account created to participate in this discussion and a very likely sockpuppet of 5880: 5784: 8535: 8051: 7698:

community ban. Driving good editors away cannot be tolerated if the driver shows no desire to adjust/improve their attitude. -

44: 9071:

I am a bulwark against the mild forms of sophisticated antisemitism and anti-Jewish reportage that is prevalent on Knowledge.

6080: 4178:

I just assume it was valid. #'s 6, 9, and 10 are the ones I assert to be invalid, with the current one being slightly suspect.

1567: 1532:

in that he misrepresents reliable sources, such as Fangraphs. In addition, he violates other policies and guidelines such as

1232:(another disruptive editor whose m.o. is accusing others of "libel" in a very disrespectful tone) whom he befriended from the 1054:

If one checks the diffs, reliable sources abound of Dylan's former Christian status. However, instead of actually discussing,

6049: 4614:

What's more, the "edit-warring" you cited, even going back a day before he was blocked, was of him asking anonymous ip's for

4378:

want to, but I only bothered with the time corresponding to when he was actually blocked) If three of his former blocks were

3692:

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee notes that

9139:

any luck, there will be no need to consider extending the ban to content related to other ethnic or religious groups later.

6064: 5266:

What do we think to that? Looking at it now three months is too short, but 6 months is too long, so I've done 4 1/2 months.

4312:

experience with: The ECW article. So, I picked that article, and looked at his last five edits, which spanned a couple days.

2289: 10398: 9526: 9429: 9383: 9366: 9280: 9239: 9213: 9130: 8838:. Not totally happy with the wording of the breif summary, so if anyone else wants to expand/clean it up, please do so. - 8793: 8062:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

6791:

And not requiring an Admin to justify their actions, and banning an editor so they can't argue for it, let alone reply, is

6787: 6780: 6751:

become exactly that sort of game, and I can only hope that this action takes us one small step towards solving the problem.

4423: 3760:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2794:

Well an indefinite block certainly isn't a realistic option, it's somewhat akin to trying to put out a fire with kerosene.

2771:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1856:

Subsequent to my writing the above, Tecmo was just blocked today for the 5th time this month for violations of Wiki policy.

1713:

Slight error in my suggestion. I should have said Requests for Arbitration instead of here 2 times. Just letting you know.

8688:

we might unequivocally know are his possible responses to questions that might be posted to him, at least for a few days?

8197:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

6806:

Ian, this is not not how it went. SA had already stated that he was leaving and yet you still kept getting in your digs.

6393:

Consequently, this specific edit does not violate the terms of my probation, because it is not "aggressive biased editing"

5746:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4414:

It's not alleged, it's a fact. I don't have time to list the diffs, but here is the recent articles where he was warring:

3512:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3281: 3003:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2413:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1354:

because everyone against him must be a dedicated small group of Christians intending to knock down Judaism (it's alarming

9881:

but you all have overriding concerns, and long term concerns for the dignity of the enterprise are not being considered.

9829: 7910: 7862: 7334:

The evidence for any questions of fact upon which the decision is based should be explicitly laid out (usually as diffs).

7222:

semiprivate domains for people who demonstrate consistent contempt for site policies. This site's consensus standard is

5494: 4148:

invalid. (maybe not to the admin at the time, but with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, absolutely and certainly invalid)

3537: 2391:

to handle this. Otherwise, I'm still of the opinion that mentorship and perhaps a topic ban is an appropriate sanction--

1012: 962: 627: 9038:

A topic ban normally applies to article space, yes. They don't always apply to talk space. This would apply there also.

8958: 6239:

has provided no diffs supporting his accusations of bad editing against me. Which of my edits have pushed pseudoscience?

5467:

Endorse Alkivar's solution ... somehow I had a hunch that given his history, TJ Spyke was gonna be indefblocked anyway.

5023:

recently vandalized my userpage and a WHOIS says it's from Rochester, New York. Could you see if this is in relation to

8534:

By the way, if anyone is interested, there is a conversation I was having with him today in regards to his block in my

7789:

case of actual proof against Ian, beyond the arbcom. Except... uh... arbcom should probably be handled by, um, arbcom?

7656: 7367:

Tom harrison's block does not necessarily mean Ian is banned; he is only banned if no admin is willing to unblock him.

3417: 1413:

Pretty long, if I don't say so myself. If someone could provide a short summary of that comment, it would be helpful.--

7989:) is cautioned to gain a consensus on article talk pages before making further edits if his first edits are reverted. 5544:

and revert warring on his IP, is something I hardly consider minor after all he's done. Too many chances too many. —

2700:

is cautioned to avoid undeleting BLP content without going through a full discussion. For the arbitration committee,

1612:

despite an overhwelming consensus disagreeing with his view that the fangraphs EL (for example) should not be deleted,

10459:

is banned from Knowledge for a period of one year. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is placed on permanent legal threat parole.

10318: 10116: 9789: 9777:

Although, given the way this thread is going, it may be better to simply encourage him to more on to other topics...

9763: 9724: 9681: 9601: 9338: 7679: 7028: 6904: 6338: 6193: 5826: 3960:

Just a note. Around this time, he started getting the idea. And that's why they started getting much farther between.

3367:

length as probation continues, until or unless he learns his lesson. There is no need to short-circuit this process.

3311: 2905: 2835: 2758: 672: 670: 668: 8851: 6901: 3945:

The first time, I assume to be valid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. (Though, it was nearly a year ago)

2081:

made the proposal should get his attention. :) Though I have a funny feeling Foz better get the banhammer ready ...

1692:

that I posed to him. That turns out to have been typical of his attitude toward the wikipedia community in general.

1358:

choose to employ the same tactic...last time I checked I for instance am an atheist, not that it should even matter)

1258:: we're talking months and hours/day at least half a dozen editors having to address his edits and personal attacks 8001: 6720: 5874: 5778: 5456: 5355: 5314: 5182: 4990: 4780: 4697: 3937:

against him. That is, future blocks are justified by prior blocks, some of which weren't even valid to begin with.

3025:

No community ban is required at this stage. All parties have been blocked in accordance w/ Knowledge policies. See

9827: 9631:

And John Carter, that sort of thing isn't enforceable by technical means. Someone has to check up on the editor.

9252: 8116: 6075: 6073: 6071: 6069: 6067: 6059: 5326:

guess he could be sneaky with some other account if he really wanted to. Perhaps I'm being a bit paranoid though.

4574:

Of course, that isn't the only article that he warred on to get himself blocked, according to the blocking admin.

4111:

disruptive editor). Admins, like everyone else, are only human. And mistakes happen. But that isn't spyke's fault.

8835: 5954: 5542: 4821: 4816: 4814: 4812: 1609:

Despite 4 weeks of extensive discussion with a dozen editors prompted by Tecmo's deletions, despite a straw poll,

1537: 632: 9101:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge:Community_sanction_noticeboard&oldid=140799738#User:Bus_Stop

6895: 4382:

bad, and the current block refers to edit-warring that never happened... Why are community sanctions necessary?

2204:

That was one of the bigger issues, but even with small things, editors have no patience with Tecmobowl. On the

1343:

stated he believe WP should be about opinions (specifically, his own opinions) and rules should not be followed

1291: 10467:

is banned from Knowledge for one year. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee.

10257:

per the previous siteban thread for actions cited at the outset of this discussion plus repeated violations of

8376: 8013: 6899: 6897: 6273: 6270: 5969: 4226:

broken 3RR yet. I realize that we don't want people "gaming the system". But a moving target isn't fair either.

2910: 2840: 2298: 1982: 1978: 1960:

His talk page history is intact. Blanking a talk page does not mean complete obfuscation of prior discussion. —

1748: 9562:, then embarked upon the same disruption at several other articles. That looks to me like gaming the system. 8953: 8212: 7397:

be making a decision in situation since it is a breach of Arbcom probation? They were notified of a possible

6279: 6038: 6036: 6034: 6032: 6030: 6028: 6026: 6024: 6022: 6020: 6018: 6016: 6014: 6012: 6010: 6008: 6006: 6004: 6002: 3865:

vandalized over and over again, including not only unsourced content, but even removing requests for sources.

3553:

A long story which has come to an end? I hope the parties would understand how hard that was for everyone. --

1794: 1599: 1430:

Short summary: Bus Stop is highly disruptive, and has violated virtually every policy and guideline on Wiki.

1335: 1333: 1261: 1259: 1047:

As can be seen in the diffs, the user continually makes accusations of anti-semitism. It should be noted that

10322: 10120: 10023: 9793: 9767: 9728: 9685: 9605: 9342: 9022: 8031: 8019: 6053: 4103:

That previous invalid block was the result of the blocking admin failing to adequately look at the situation

2609: 9751:

solution is ultimately adopted, I would monitor his contributions and I'm sure other editors would as well.

7331:

The final reasons for the ban should be explicitly and concisely laid out by the admins making the decision.

1141: 10217: 10090: 8982: 8007: 7986: 7904: 7856: 7736: 7218: 6982:

FeloniousMonk, for example, ignored numerous requests to support his allegations of POV and Pseudoscience!

5997: 5856: 3861:

His most recent block was not for 3RR, but for 'edit-warring', which included in an article that was being

3795: 2189: 1525: 1313: 1288: 1226: 1203: 10238:

It seems to be a question of whether we allow someone to ignore consensus or not. The answer is obvious.

8971: 8968: 5904: 5808: 10136:- If he is still here in a year, he very likely will have matured into a good editor. If he can maintain 8025: 7844:

The above titled Arbitration Case has closed and the decision has been published at the linked location.

7417:

The ArbCom argument hold weight. I'd accept a limited unblock for the purposes of appeal to that venue.

7053:

is inconclusive, but reveals that Girls4girls was editing from an open proxy. End of ballgame, I think.

6341: 6086: 5975: 5844: 2511: 1547: 1301: 1210: 7596:

too tolerant of people with a fringe/minoritarian axe to grind, time on their hands, and no interest in

5892: 5796: 3599: 1668:

that you don't like me. Meanwhile, I am working diligently with other editors to improve articles (see

1140:

Although somewhat, maybe largely even, true he has received some compliments on articles about art. See

9015: 8987: 8153:

Would tend to agree with Cailil, and this seems a more complex issue than will be solved here. You can

7298:

I have a bad feeling about this process. I go away for a few days and when I come back I discover that

5522:

justified in my opinion. The good things he did, doesn't eliminate the blocks and warnings he has had.

5233:

I agree. Three months at the least, in my opinion. To think I once saw Spyke as something of a mentor.

2732:. This applies to all namespaces, including talk and user talk pages. For the arbitration committee, 7934: 7886: 4824: 4305:

edit-warring is supposedly a strong sign of the problem, let's just look at some of that edit-warring.

3798:, and his block log is very lengthy, nearly all composed of 3RR blocks. He is clearly not getting it. 3282:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=143769539

8892: 8591: 8557: 8478: 8372: 8262: 7172: 6264: 5850: 5243: 4007:

Seventh, presumably valid. Though I have to wonder if the fact that his previous (invalid) block had

2288:

in fact Tecmobowl avoided a block and continuing disruptive behavior. You know this because you were

2271: 1875:

in future, and find a more constructive way to deal with such issues. TigerShark 21:47, 27 June 2007"

719:

He has accused those who disagree with his views of being antisemites and members of a "hate group."

8978: 7922: 7874: 7325:

A minimum time (e.g. 4 weeks) must be allowed to ensure full discussion and judicious consideration.

6272:(under another username), with no justification, added a highly contentious unsubstantiated comment, 4038:

Note that another admin realized that it was a (good faith) mistake to block him, and unblocked him.

3453:

we can worry about it. But there's really no need to concern ourselves with too many 'what-if's. :)

3064:

has started. He has 1 block during the this case. He continues to exhausts the Knowledge community.

1058:

repeats pretty much everything he's said in the past and makes little to no effort at communication.

10394: 8992: 8797: 5898: 5802: 4452:. If you don't wish to prove your statements, fine. You don't have to. I can't force anybody to do 3710: 3488:

Also, he (Kingjeff) says he's left. Bit pointless sanctioning someone who's both blocked and quit.

3206: 2876: 8934:

On 24 July 2006 I received several petitions for intervention because Bus stop was disrupting the

7771:

be scrutinized far more heavily than Ian removing a link to said category during the time that it

2008:

He's been monitoring his talk page. How about posting that idea there, and see if he goes for it?

8963: 8282: 7743:, with the justification, "this is a legitimate category". Further note that "Velikovsky"'s sole 5838: 5489: 4923: 4097:, mostly because I tend to try to assume good faith... A few things to note on this one, though. 3531: 3073: 1857: 1529: 1051:

has had opportunities to participate in votes to determine consensus, but has opted not to do so.

1040:

continually reverts editor contributions without discussion because of one individual: Bob Dylan.

10221: 7500:

Art Carlson, Tom made the right call. We have already spent far too much time on this situation.

7104:

community ban. If there was any room for reasonable doubt, the checkuser results clinched it.

6330:

Thank you for your comments. Perhaps you would tell me which of my statement below is incorrect:

4288:

Sounds like a good idea, Moreschi. Maybe some form of mentorship would be appropriate as well.

4233:

reverts! Four is a block!" "Okay, then I'll stop at three" "Forget four! Three's enough!" (btw,

4185:

would be a severe limitation when it comes to articles that aren't regularly policed by admins.

9877: 9873: 9869: 8975: 8363:

He may not accept the ArbCom's decision, but the ArbCom's solutions are binding. Sockpuppetry

8201: 7635:

now to address this problem, but we really need to learn to waste less time on each incidence.

5886: 5790: 3318:

my comments, but it'd be disheartening if someone were to refuse to learn from their mistakes)

1893:"I'm fucking done with trying to follow due process. I'm just going back to ingoring all rules" 1482: 645: 8326:

Agreed. Tobias has had numerous opportunities to indicate he was going to change. He has not.

4739:

Yet another person comes in, demanding that something be done about all this bad conduct, and

1589:

further use of sockpuppets (or any other disruptive behavior) should result in a lengthy block

10314: 10112: 9785: 9759: 9720: 9677: 9597: 9334: 8043: 7940: 7785:

I've looked through this sanction discussion several times, and, in fact, I've yet to find a

7685: 7616:... I could go on, but I'm depressing myself. Anyhow, my point: I would endorse a topic ban. 7022: 6925: 6920: 6919:

is an advocate of alternative ideas, he is only demanding that people have robust arguments.

6761: 6163: 5922: 5820: 5727: 5696: 5659: 5621: 5556: 5434: 5384: 5101: 5058: 4956: 4894: 4840: 4728: 4107:

blocking (incidentally, another admin easily spotted what was going on, and only blocked the

3884:. Even if you want to try something like this, it needs to wait. Let the guy defend himself. 3782: 3747: 3641: 3480: 3357: 3118: 1645:

I'm fucking done with trying to follow due process. I'm just going back to ingoring all rules

658: 8136:

Other than this, if you can word your case neutrally, specifically and coolly you could try

2249:

admin that they should be talking about this on the talk page on the article, not user ones?

1610: 10239: 8473: 8257: 7995: 7928: 7880: 6936: 6423:

You've just validated everything they've said about you. Like FM said, classic Iantresman.

6314: 6269:

He's tagged an article on a senior respectable scientist with at least a pseudoscience tag,

6215: 6196: 5868: 5772: 5760: 5707: 5675: 5638: 5601: 5581: 5533: 5505: 5451: 5350: 5309: 5177: 4985: 4775: 4692: 4584: 4575: 4561: 4494: 4154:

a positive influence overall here. And, again, I'm prepared to defend and properly explain

4066: 3007: 2267: 2017:

Well, it makes sense--can't say we didn't try. I'm personally not too optimistic, though.

1652:

That illustrates his inability to work within the community, and his express problems with

1573:

Sockpuppet; Admin Guidance to impose a Lengthy Block if there is other Disruptive Behavior.

647: 7824:

The review relating to the above-named arbitration has been closed without action because

6278:

He's tagged another living person with a pseudoscience tag, again with no reliable source.

6231: 3957:

Fifth, ditto. (Again, unblocked same day, but that doesn't imply it wasn't a valid block)

2165: 1598:

Tecmo has been blocked 4 times this month for Wiki violations relating to this discussion.

8: 10273:. Whatever this user might add to the field of visual arts is more than counteracted by 10050: 8865: 8510: 8442: 8236: 7640: 7583: 7537: 7371: 7057: 6884: 6824: 6807: 6769: 6703: 6533: 5951: 5684:

Well his change in attitude towards editing has to change, that would be a good start. —

5471: 5280: 5209: 5120: 4934: 4415: 4292: 3466: 3440: 3372: 3215: 3081: 2989: 2928: 2859: 2820: 2692:

without first undergoing a full discussion to determine its appropriateness, as outlined

2112: 2085: 2069: 2021: 1952: 1918: 1300:

by stalking me to revert my edits (a removal of a spam link) again using "use talk page"

10455:

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

7795:

diff here? Just one? I could be missing something bloody obvious; I do it all the time.

7767:

to be "Mainstream astronomy", in which case his recreation of a deleted category should

6542:

volunteer-managed online community. Examples of existing systems would help. Thanks.

6292: 5609:

If he does and he continues editing, then it will get blocked for evading this block. —

10058: 9848: 8808: 8764: 8744: 8660: 8618: 8459: 8318: 8180: 8159: 8094: 7975:

This arbitration case is closed and the decision has been published at the above link.

7916: 7868: 6153: 5484: 3847: 3693: 3606: 3561: 3527: 3339: 3037: 2975: 2939: 2721: 2716:

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above.

2676:

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above.

2585: 2566: 2552: 2545:(and yes, I know this should be on the page protection discussion, which I'll do also) 2537: 2456: 2370: 2357: 2347: 2327: 2308: 2100: 2009: 1832: 1823: 1762: 1693: 1533: 9890:

Bus stop, are you seriously accusing the editors at this thread of religious bigotry?

9872:

on Knowledge. You all ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Some of you are promoters of

8077:

see no reason why i need to jump through any more hoops to get this guy off my back.

7783:

of Velikovsky or Mainstream astronomy has some serious explaining to do, if not both.

7322:

There is no need to implement a block until a decision has been made by the community.

6866:(ie. actually break policy and ignoring it), and ban another editor for complaining.-- 6364:

as a category; it was created over 2 hours later. I mentioned this in my edit summary.

4318:

is the first edit. He changed a link to skip the redirect. Obviously not edit-warring.

1202:, feel free to checkuser) including in edit summaries as a reason to revert my edits: 10439: 9853: 9180: 9019: 8839: 8826: 8699: 8633: 8412: 8353: 8216: 8068: 7958: 7652: 7307: 7089: 7005: 6996: 6738: 6691: 6142: 6100: 3394: 3384: 2960: 2887: 2733: 2701: 2656: 2605: 2521: 1721: 1387: 1069:

to Christianity and that if their status changed, it would be noted in the footnotes.

791: 9171:

Thanks for the pointer to the previous discussion. I was particularly interested in

8911:

makes positive contributions to the field of visual arts but engages in tendentious

7175:. I don't share your certitude, but at least I see now where you are coming from. -- 7133:

puppet of Ian. I don't see how you can consider that "beyond a reasonable doubt". --

5763:(and its history) speak for itself. Accounts used have included, that I can recall: 5637:

So, as of now, TJ Spyke is (username) is blocked forever from editing Knowledge? --

2874: 2505:

The key thing that this vandal does is repeatedly performing a major rewrite of the

2346:

be done on all sides. Now that the community is well aware of the situation, I wish

2178:. I think that editor is correct in the reasoning accompanying those external links. 1578: 1370:

and accused them of bias and then ignored the rough consensus to continue disruption

10468: 10344: 10307: 10105: 9833: 9778: 9752: 9713: 9670: 9590: 9327: 9109: 8928: 8725: 8721: 7980: 7898: 7850: 7829: 7682: 7668: 7613: 7609: 7597: 7511: 7501: 7492: 7454: 7342: 7253: 7176: 7134: 7018: 6949: 6888: 6752: 6125: 5914: 5815: 5716: 5685: 5648: 5610: 5545: 5423: 5373: 5234: 5090: 5047: 5028: 5004: 4945: 4883: 4829: 4798: 4717: 4419: 3771: 3711: 3702: 3636: 3616: 3544: 2805: 2785: 2750: 2625: 2562: 2500:

then able to be blocked more effectively, though they still IP shift fairly often.

2388: 2282: 2186: 1284: 1251: 1233: 1194: 1155: 1124: 807: 776: 737: 4081:

fighting that vandal. Spyke just got caught up in the middle of it. But there was

3696:

remains a user in good standing, and is welcome to return to editing at any time.

10258: 10155: 9559: 9108:

people (including those who may/may not have converted to/from Judaism), such as

8108: 7990: 7809: 7605: 7439: 7390: 7303: 7197: 7032: 6916: 6892: 6837: 6717: 6687: 6621: 6424: 6401: 6301: 6243: 6205: 6085:

This user reverted a set of my edits because he had edited the same page before:

5863: 5767: 5446: 5345: 5304: 5196: 5172: 5073: 4980: 4867: 4770: 4687: 4611:

justification for blocking at all, which would automatically make it a bad block.

4543: 4465: 4439:

Actually, I'd prefer if you read my reasoning before asking rhetorical questions

4406: 4383: 4273: 4186: 4159: 3885: 3579: 3454: 3319: 3197: 3184: 2921:

I really don't think anything has occured that needs discussion on this board...

2879: 2779:

Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Behaviour_of_Jeffrey_O._Gustafson

2717: 2685: 2078: 2048: 1881: 1805: 1657: 1467: 1325: 1297: 1206: 1164: 1145: 1119:

I believe that it might interest the individuals involved here that according to

1106: 986:

policies. Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately."

927: 903: 10208:: I support any action against this editor after seeing his aggressive edits at 9824: 8394:

indef ban per above arguments. Many opportunities for improvement squandered. -

6566:

PS: Just in case there was was even the slightest shadow of a doubt, ArbCom has

4136:

Also, if anyone has a problem with me calling blocks 'invalid', I'd prefer they

2584:, it's about the chuckle they get from the interaction with frustrated editors. 1454:

indefintely for persistent disruption and multiple long-term policy violations.

1022:

I was initially made aware of the dispute when a request for help was listed at

10429: 10335: 10189: 10141: 10086: 9117: 8935: 8856: 8570: 8539: 8520: 8501: 8439: 8424: 8395: 8343: 8327: 8248: 8227: 8122: 8107:

Yes this is the wrong venue for this. And BTW there is NO excuse for breaking

7699: 7636: 7579: 7534: 7368: 7289: 7201: 7144: 7105: 7054: 6881: 6821: 6765: 6700: 6654: 6575: 6543: 6530: 6468: 6450: 5947: 5934: 5933:

See no reason to grant an unblock. As you said, the history speaks for itself.

5468: 5277: 5276:

Sounds reasonable. One question--if he does evade, how will we know it's him?

5206: 5195:

One month seems light to me too, six months is more like it with that history.

5117: 5113: 4931: 4912: 4289: 4074: 3910: 3817: 3718: 3463: 3437: 3368: 3210: 2985: 2923: 2854: 2817: 2697: 2464: 2342: 2293: 2205: 2109: 2082: 2066: 2030: 2018: 2000: 1949: 1915: 1790: 1673: 1517: 1493: 1488: 1431: 1405: 1392: 1199: 1111: 1096: 875: 9103:

The editor's I'm-right-and-everyone-else-is-wrong-and-conspiring-against-me +

8940:

Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive96#Impartial_evaluation_requested

6836:

while; we want, I think, to be careful about what kind of precedents we set.

4456:. But don't pretend something's a fact if you don't have a shred of evidence; 3977:

There's no reason to delete this page, aside from your own sense of "justice."

3876:

Furthermore, I think it's a bit unfair to put up a CS notice on someone who's

1606:

Tecmo has deleted 100s of ELs to baseball bios, without consensus, this month.

974:. This list of Jews should be restricted to individuals identified as Jews by 965:

adheres to. These are its parameters, found at the beginning of that article:

643: 10270: 10266: 10262: 10254: 10177: 10159: 10082: 10078: 10055: 10047: 10027: 9994: 9945: 9935: 9882: 9844: 9826:

Now, as then, he insists on making edits that are not supported by consensus.

9555: 9530: 9508: 9470: 9419: 9391: 9255: 9085: 9072: 8908: 8902: 8888: 8801: 8757: 8737: 8653: 8611: 8587: 8553: 8452: 8311: 8174: 8137: 8112: 8088: 7632: 7628: 7618: 7601: 7571: 7481: 7435: 7398: 7205: 7075: 7037: 6672: 6639: 6633: 6519: 6464: 6455: 6110: 5591: 5568: 5523: 5327: 5290: 5221: 5078: 5070: 5034: 5024: 4967: 4911:

I have reset TJ Spyke's block to 250 hours, due to the confirmed sockpuppet.

4872: 4864: 4489: 4431: 4393: 4214: 4170: 3919: 3896: 3840: 3826: 3813: 3803: 3748: 3722: 3676: 3554: 3493: 3476: 3421: 3302: 3269: 3239: 3229: 3145: 3030: 2971: 2725: 2689: 2681: 2613: 2576: 2446: 2431: 2303: 1987: 1757: 1653: 1635:

I believe that he should be blocked indefinitely for persistent disruption.

1492:

articles to let the ill feelings die down, I will personally lift the block.

1451: 1379: 1349: 1340: 1329: 1306: 1276: 1082: 1055: 1048: 1037: 1029: 1023: 1002: 983: 971: 780: 7710:

I'm having a hard time finding a single shred of evidence against him here.

3909:

being disruptive in many cases and doesn't seem to be stopping on his own.--

3205:

Kingjeff has rather a history of that when he isn't getting what he wants -

1793:. From a look at the diffs, block history and some of their civility issues 10334:

Apparently you made the right call. "Choice words" is an understatement. -

10274: 10070: 10043: 9931: 9907: 9443: 9313: 9198: 9104: 8912: 8822: 8678: 8130: 8126: 8073: 7954: 7550: 7475: 7299: 6786:

then, but trying to justify why policy and his ban shouldn't apply to him,

6735: 6236: 6177: 6139: 6097: 5957: 5399: 5042: 4503:

With all due respect, hybrid, which of these five edits are edit-warring? (

4344:

might be construed as edit-warring) In this case, clearly not edit-warring.

4070: 3905:

necessarily (if he was we'd probably be discussing an indef block), but he

3767: 3407: 3314:. I really hope he read it before removing it though. (I don't mind people 3238:

Kingjeff: stop canvassing, right now, or else I block you, also right now.

2882:. He has already stated that he has no intention of changing this attitude 2804:

appropriate vehicle is either an admin-conduct RfC or an arbitration case.

2729: 2631: 2600: 2581: 2474: 2463:

This user keeps making socks for more than six months, most recently, with

2442: 2175: 2154: 1797: 1714: 1447: 1318: 1280: 1272:

sample, I can literally spend hours pulling up examples of his violations)

1243: 1229: 917: 847: 733: 9275:

I dunno, Bus stop. That isn't a great counterexample. Replacing "ethnic

7744: 7261:

I'm not arguing against it as a principle. I'm arguing that it isn't the

6463:

That's easy enough to do, since Knowledge has no legal system. Knowledge

5978:

has been a member of Knowledge for a month, during which time he has made

5262:

of what it's about (3RR, vandalsm etc..), he is then blocked indefinitely.

5156:

of what it's about (3RR, vandalsm etc..), he is then blocked indefinitely.

3416:

Bringing in Arnoutf is just another instance of canvassing/forum shopping/

2243:

for blanking his talk page before replying to Irishguy. What's the point?

1228:. His disruptive behavior seems to have gotten worse, especially now as 10464: 10407: 10367: 10292: 10279: 10225: 10094: 10074: 9989: 9984: 9949: 9891: 9740: 9697: 9653: 9632: 9567: 9039: 9012: 9000: 8780: 8141: 7976: 7554: 7418: 7405: 7355: 7267: 7248: 7232: 6894:

after what seems to be a long line of (official policy) personal attacks,

6159: 6114: 5412: 4124:

At least three directly cited past blocks which included invalid blocks.

4031:

The blocking admin used past blocks (even the invalid one) as one of the

3736: 3724: 3183:? How many user talk pages did you drop that invitation to this page on? 2782: 2392: 2338: 2182: 1962: 1936: 1809: 1801: 1753:

Eh whatever, I'm pretty much indifferent to the processes of Knowledge...

1629:

discussion, it is found that there is no consensus for their deletion.

1620: 1471: 1466:

And for the record, I've offered to unblock if Bus stop pledges to enter

1455: 1383: 979: 975: 5131: 4366:

That is to say, the "edit-warring" that was claimed for the ECW article

3543:

This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee.

3060:

part of the arbitration case, you'll see that he has 6 blocks since his

1242:

In my opinion, Bus Stop is a disruptive editor who fits all criteria in

9326:

specifically, I wonder whether it is possible to craft a narrower ban.

7168: 5046:

Spyke. I propose a longer block than 1 month is applied to TJ Spyke. —

3982:

Don't you have a soul? Think of how this poor page feels being deleted!

3697: 2045:

any further ... disruptive behavior .. should result in a lengthy block

1934:

ban) based on the intention and apparent manifestation of disruption. —

1584: 750: 6368: 6357: 6347: 4527:

efforts to skirt 3RR? (Keeping in mind that adding 'fact' tags is the

4248:

rationale for the block was never explained. "Edit-warring", that did

10209: 9503: 9487:

There is not even a scintilla of a source that actually asserts that

9466: 9410: 9113: 8920: 6891:: Like when Iantresman was driven from Knowledge by ScienceApologist, 6379: 6242:

I am also productive editor with over 20 articles to my name (see my

5674:

How will it be proven that he has changed, if he can't even edit? --

4569:

Apparently he only did 2 reverts preceding that edit. Here they are.

4483:

deserved a block, and it was for the same reason every time. That is

3285: 3258: 3158: 2949: 2795: 2506: 2468: 2281:

Your summation is slightly incorrect. A second checkuser showed that

1310: 1222: 1128: 998: 957: 949: 747: 10140:

self control for a few months, all restrictions should be lifted. -

9428:

claim. Then you'd have a more balanced article and less fighting.--

7819:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Review

7758:: By redirecting his user and talk pages to "Mainstream astronomy", 6371:

was a sensible editorial decision, since the category did not exist.

4024:

Look at his subsequent unblock, where you find out that he actually

1487:

Per the discussion, and especially the mediator's closing comments,

8884: 8776: 8583: 8549: 7747:

appear to have been to badger Ian, and to redirect his identity to

7070: 3880:

been blocked for ten days, and won't be able to defend himself for

3247:

If any of you haven't noticed, this is about Rex Germanus. Not me.

2213:". Irishguy thinks this is another example of Tecmo's bad behavior: 1669: 1190: 9709: 6230:

I have a pending Request for arbitration on another Administrator.

4028:

the supposed BLP concern. The blocking admin simply didn't see it.

1808:

perhaps a sanction other than a straight ban might be considered--

663:

The user has been the primary figure in a months-long edit war at

10379: 8821:

Interestingly enough, he's just been permabanned on de.wiki too.

4405:

this alleged warring, to which you refer, occurs? Perhaps diffs?

4355:

vandalism. In any event, adding a fact tag to a dubious claim is

4158:

claims I've made here, so please don't just dismiss any of them.

4100:

Was the same blocking admin as a previous outright invalid block.

2728:

are indefinitely banned from making any contributions related to

9847:

has already wasted a number of editors' time with his behavior (

7592:

Echoing the above... I'm sure I'm biased here, but Knowledge is

6400:

without a reliable source as justification, is a biased edit. --

6397: 6387: 6375: 6351: 6275:

that was subsequently removed on the ground of original research

5994:

Most of his edits can be broken up into the following sections:

5422:

Well that was unexpected, I guess Proposal 4 was just placed. —

4062:

links. (Anyways, you can read a better description at that link)

3717:

I have deleted an unblock request posted here as a violation of

2322:

to work with Tecmobowl; I wanted to work with him from day one,

10406:

I'm not Russian though, just happen to respect a lady who was.

10249:

A not-too-bold solution: reapply the previous consensus siteban

9876:

on Knowledge. All of you want to suppress a voice that opposes

6779:

The irony. It seems that iantresman was replying to the editor,

6760:

Strong support. The moment of truth came when he began kicking

6113:

rather than here -- you've already got the diffs for it, even.

4443:

my reasoning. The fact that you listed the ECW article, when I

648: 8337:

While I was blocking the block evading IPs, I did engage in a

2816:

Wholly inappropriate at this stage; I would recommend an RfC.

649: 8171:

I'll comment on your talk page so as to not could this page.

7389:, in my view this should be tried before a community banning 6260: 3634:

I completely agree NYB. We should move on from this incident.

9502:

article was all about. (And they decided to ban me from the

8310:

As per Until(1 == 2) and Ryan. It is really unfortunate. --

8129:. WP:CSN is not a votes for banning forum it is covered by 4583:

And the specific behavior I'm referring to is edit warring.

2873:

desyopping. From the user's own contributions and admin log

1640:

Tecmo's attitude is captured in his edit in which he wrote:

9652:

Not a problem; I didn't read that as a criticism. Cheers,

7735:

existed prior to that, but Chrislk02 deleted it, explained

4351:

providing a source. Removing fact tags from dubious claims

3941:

Anyways, he's been blocked 12 times. An impressive number.

3140:: IWANTHIMBLOCKED, but those bastards at ANI won't oblige. 2781:. I can't think of many realistic options at this point. 2680:

is cautioned to adhere to the letter and the spirit of the

1193:

committing disruptive behavior. The first time was on the

9099:

The original CSN that lead to the indefinite ban is here:

8408:

Category:Suspected Knowledge sockpuppets of Tobias Conradi

5479:

That's a major shame... He was the leading contributor to

4021:. Not because the admin was malicious or anything, but... 2369:

instead of slamming the door in my face and stonewalling.

1221:

after noticing he got blocked twice for 3RR violations on

1011:

If I may, I would like to re-present my evidence from the

10362:

Thanks for the support, John, but just for clarity I'm a

9276: 6058:

This one is a bit harder to follow. The user claimed in

5480: 4120:

Now then, considering everything here... Yes. 12 blocks.

3117:

and canvassing, and isn't getting the response he wants.

2829:

I suggest burning at the stake. But I am a bit biased. --

1747:

Considering that he is now under his third 3RR block and

10450:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

10188:

hands. But comparing this to shoah is not productive. -

8072:

with him. Despite my attempts to rework content on the

7224:

assume good faith in absence of evidence to the contrary

6454:

system on Knowledge. That's just my opinion, of course.

4222:

Yes. You talked to him. And, since then, he hasn't even

3157:

How about we just block them both and be done with it ?

2899:

Sigh, nothing is hidden, the whole history is there. --

2209:

clocks in at 19:23, he blanked his talk page at 19:24: "

1015:

where it was recommended we take this to other channels:

8796:

to indefinite, and both left the user a message on his

5600:

Well who's to say Spyke don't make another account? --

4599:

You may or may not know this, but blocking is meant to

4050:

Incidentally, since "too close to call" doesn't really

3874:

to be disruptive, or edit-war with good-faith editors.

3341: 4823:

and just in case you were wondering, yes, the IP does

3668:

You may view the full case decision at the case page.

2743:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered

2471:

is alive. Can we just please ban this user? Thanks.

2227:

Tecmobowl commented one Irishguy's talk page at 19:32:

6795:

down an editor in my book. That's very big of you. --

5759:. Currently requesting unblocking, I'll probably let 5706:

My question is, how will we know if he's blocked? --

4592:(sorry, but can't log in here, or type for very long) 4240:

Frankly, I don't even take it as irrefutable that he

3056:

is an arbitration case involving Rex. If you look at

1321:

and blocked twice for edit warring and disruption on

10220:

log and a large number of unblock requests on their

10214:

List of notable people who converted to Christianity

8925:

List of notable people who converted to Christianity

7729:

did not even exist when the category tag was removed

7712:

First supposed evidence: He edited another editor's

5411:

For what it's worth, proposal 3 looks fine with me.

4944:

Support the one-month ban and revert parole time. —

4256:

You really take that as absolute proof that he even

3870:

Not a single thing even remotely suggests that he's

3021:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

2878:

he's shown a consistent attitude of not adhering to

1511:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

1361:

refused a proposal for mediation (see his Talk page)

665:

List of notable people who converted to Christianity

9418:limitations to our understanding of some subjects. 3934:, I still feel compelled to point some things out. 3856:I must say, I think this is entirely uncalled for. 2688:is admonished for undeleting content deleted under 1981:), but these links have turned into his obsession. 1551:The mediator closed the mediation today, writing: 775:Are these the types of edits you're talking about, 732:This is no longer a content dispute, but a case of 10134:Support topic ban for one year, + 90 day probation 8959:Talk:Ashkenazi_Jews#Isn.27t_this_a_little_silly.3F 8582:Exactly so. Hence my "with the proviso that..." ++ 2467:, even while the page is protected, to claim that 1688:Tecmobowl started this feud between him and me by 1564:to request a baseball topic community ban on Tecmo 1180:(Much of this I already posted on the arbcom page) 1028:The issue largely revolves around an editor named 28:Knowledge:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive10 10382:, I kinda forgot how things work on this planet. 8436:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi 8434:Reluctant but firm support, per the block log at 8067:I have been involved in a disagreement with user 7725:evidence of any particularly terrible behaviour. 5580:Let's just block him till December 1st. Fair? -- 3930:Even though I'd prefer to let him defend himself 2671:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff 1546:A mediation case, with 17 parties, was opened at 7739:. Also, note that the category was recreated by 7167:All right. Up to now I didn't even know what an 6617:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience 5757:Knowledge:Requests for checkuser/Case/YoSoyGuapo 4445:just finished showing that that one didn't apply 4085:question that it was certainly an invalid block. 3687:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb 2419:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik 1865:disruption caused by your continued edit warring 1287:page for ~2 months, often using "use talk page" 1268:In summary, he has (and remember these are just 6768:, in which the bad editors drive out the good. 6043:football. (I note ironically that the user is 4624:unsourced material in wikipedia can be removed 4065:Just for anybody who doesn't follow that link: 3578:an invitation to begin another slanging match.) 3072:] are two examples of that. If you look at his 2711:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria 1290:or falsely accusing other of being sockpuppets 9413:article, and the absence of his name from the 9179:this exactly describes BS's latest efforts in 4861:Knowledge:Requests for checkuser/Case/TJ Spyke 3605:There's a lack of trust now between editors.-- 7839:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal 6346:In that edit of 13 July, I removed two tags: 6343:suggesting it was "aggressive biased editing" 6340:of breaking the RfAr with this specific edit, 5715:He can edit his talk page, that is enough. — 5069:That won't be Spyke. Wrong editing times. - 4618:for dubious claims. That's not edit-warring. 4122:Three were absolutely invalid. So, 9 blocks. 1189:is at least the second time I have witnessed 8850:Using yet another IP sock, Tobias responded 8406:He's now up to eight sock IPs today alone. 6915:What is sadly overlooked here is that while 5252:Spyke stays blocked until 1st December 2007. 4651:, then, no, re-adding that 'fact' tag would 4642:that you'd ever put up with anyone treating 4628:. And, when people remove even the requests 3659:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar 3518:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2 2655:Latest developments are on my talk page. - 1549:. That page discusses some of the issues. 9310:Support for restrictions short of topic ban 8915:on topics that relate to Judaism. After a 6195:This seems a clear case of Immune to Clue. 5146:Spyke stays blocked until 16th August 2007. 4140:address those concerns. Tell me which ones 3228:You're forum shopping, badly. That counts. 1556:Tecmo has once again been deleting more ELs 1309:and got blocked twice for 3RR violation on 1154:on articles concerning Dylan's conversion. 7614:cholesterol plays no role in heart disease 6259:has just deleted an 18-month old article, 6173:has been placed on probation by the ArbCom 5255:Spyke gets unblocked on 1st December 2007. 4746:Seems like arbcom might be a better idea. 4743:not actually including any specific proof. 3837:3RR to the extreme, this is OUT of control 2387:solution") it may be more appropriate for 18:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard 8605:A pre-emptive note, there's every reason 8079:Someone ban him and get him away from me! 7970:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Miskin 7791:So, seriously, can anyone here provide a 7627:yes: it is amazing how many people think 7204:, pure and simple. Look it up. I'm done. 6734:(edit conflict) I support the block too. 6383:we tag these with the pseudoscience tag?) 5258:If Spyke steps out of line after unblock 5152:If Spyke steps out of line after unblock 5149:Spyke gets unblocked on 16th August 2007. 4677:change of heart and become a good editor. 4460:when I've gone to great lengths to prove 3598: 3084:. Action is clearly needed for this guy. 1583:"It is ... clear that Tecmobowl has used 9500:List of notable converts to Christianity 9415:List of notable converts to Christianity 3479:if he wants to take action against Rex. 1638:Admitted Intention to Ignore Wiki Rules. 1562:Knowledge:Community sanction noticeboard 1470:and avoid the article for three months. 1256:List of notable converts to Christianity 1219:List of notable converts to Christianity 1187:List of notable converts to Christianity 1034:List of notable converts to Christianity 954:List of notable converts to Christianity 10463:is banned from Knowledge for one year. 6511:evidence of malfeasance, regardless of 5033:Probably is. But nothing definitive. -- 4301:Actually, know what? Since his alleged 3192:Ah, sorry. I should have just counted: 3052:Rex has a history of being disruptive. 14: 8964:Talk:Jew#removal_of.27_ethnic_group.3F 7401:and breach of probabtion on July 16th 6493:Precisely my point. That's a problem, 6356:At the TIME of removing the tag, the 6291:, both of whom are contributing to an 4820:65.37.60.195 (TJ Spyke's IP address): 3109:Kingjeff is engaged in forum shopping 3015:The following discussion is archived. 1804:, but if Tecmobowl undertook to enter 1800:. They don't seem to have a grasp of 8954:Talk:Messianic_Judaism#Ethnic_Jews.3F 8927:. Bus stop returned to editing with 8901:Full Judaism community topic ban for 8142: 7802:proof? I'm talking about diffs here. 7716:. Catch is, he went to that editor's 7555: 7406: 6903:, and was harassed by another editor. 6711:I agree. I do think Ian became less 6138:Cool - I'll take it over there then. 4655:be edit-warring. Yeesh. (~Bladestorm) 2393: 1871:. Once again, please try to curb this 1810: 1789:I would support action taken against 1348:openly stated he does not believe in 8058:The following discussion is closed. 7708:This really is outright disgusting. 7606:cigarette smoke doesn't cause cancer 4424:Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE) 3756:The following discussion is closed. 2767:The following discussion is closed. 2211:how many idiots are there in one day 1983:Warnings of potential 3RR violations 1863:"I have blocked you for 1 week, for 1859:In pertinent part, the admin wrote: 1505:The following discussion is closed. 1332:by personally attacking other users 1142:Talk:Contemporary art#Recent changes 10395:Russian_names#Family name (surname) 9739:requires fairly careful follow-up. 7171:is, much less that Knowledge has a 5444:Alkivar's solution works for me :P 5398:Spyke's just been indef blocked by 1386:as this user uses wikipedia like a 963:List of notable converts to Judaism 34: 8715:, which I hope doesn't happen. He 6390:was a sensible editorial decision. 5447: 5346: 5305: 5173: 4981: 3383:Dutch attitude speak for themself. 3196:user talk pages you've canvassed. 1554:"It has come to my attention that 35: 10482: 8131:WP's policy on disruptive editing 5014:Scratch out the above proposal... 4797:Want proof. Look no furthur than 4771: 4688: 4523:) Especially, which of them were 4430:be used to improve how he edits. 3766:indefinite block on TJ Spyke, is 2365:All I ever wanted was for him to 1690:refusing to answer fair questions 978:, in accordance with Knowledge's 8942:and received unanimous support. 8193:The discussion above is closed. 5751:Bombaplena requesting unblocking 5742:The discussion above is closed. 5248:Right, here's a third proposal: 3600: 3508:The discussion above is closed. 2999:The discussion above is closed. 2409:The discussion above is closed. 948:The issue isn't so much whether 10399:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 9527:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 9430:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 9384:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 9367:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 9281:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 9240:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 9214:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 9207:of genuine, recent disruption. 9131:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 8138:Community enforceable mediation 8115:. Your attack on Chrisjnelson 8083:Template talk:Infobox NFLactive 6838: 6572:Knowledge is not a court of law 4638:. Frankly, I don't believe for 3951:Third, ditto. Presumably valid. 3080:, he clearly goes against this 2644: 2641: 2638: 2635: 2632: 2487: 2484: 2481: 2478: 2475: 1796:. I agree that they have been 1538:Knowledge:Ownership of articles 1446:The accusations check out: per 8483: 8474: 8267: 8258: 5452: 5351: 5310: 5178: 5041:Despite the recent sockpuppet 5019:Could you do me a huge favor? 4986: 4776: 4693: 4270:only blocked the actual vandal 4014:Eighth, also presumably valid. 3671:For the Arbitration Committee, 2630: 2473: 2428:For the Arbitration Committee, 1580:the admin wrote 2 weeks ago: 1404:That's a pretty good summary. 13: 1: 9616:enacted if it were possible. 8479: 8263: 7288:community ban. Long overdue. 6844: 5982:. Of those edits, a handful 5495: 5457: 5356: 5315: 5183: 5074: 4991: 4868: 4781: 4698: 4363:(obviously not edit-warring). 3642: 3637: 2682:Biographies of living persons 1802:the five pillars of wikipedia 10091:Knowledge:Disruptive editing 9525:There is no "fact dispute," 8879:Implementation was recorded 8481: 8425:-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 8367:make his situation worse; I 8265: 8249:-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 8052:Let's try this a 500th time! 7949:0.0. That case was open for 7219:Knowledge:Disruptive editing 6848: 6686:I have indefinitely blocked 6396:On the contrary, adding the 6369:Category:Immanuel Velikovsky 6358:Category:Immanuel Velikovsky 6348:Category:Immanuel Velikovsky 6249:As I noted on the RfA, that 5490: 4401:I don't suppose you can say 4244:currently edit-warring. The 3127:Maybe not from Rex himself. 2720:and sockpuppets, as well as 2121:Comment from Miss Mondegreen 2029:I have made the suggestion. 528:Community sanction archives 7: 10158:. Try defining your terms. 7306:, and hardly 5 hours later 7247:please don't argue against 5976:User:Elvisandhismagicpelvis 5485: 4603:bad behaviour, rather than 4093:Twelfth and current block. 3144:: Kingjeff stops trolling. 2938:Seems like overkill to me. 10: 10487: 10269:at this thread. Throw in 7000:12:38, 17 July 2007 (GMT) 4237:he even make it to three?) 2290:notified on your talk page 1979:as discussed here with him 1293:as false reason for revert 956:until a few days ago. But 641: 618: 613: 527: 409: 287: 165: 43: 10472:17:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 10443:16:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 10433:09:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 10413:13:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC) 10402:06:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC) 10387:16:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC) 10373:04:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC) 10358:16:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 10348:04:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 10339:03:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 10328:03:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 10298:02:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 10285:02:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 10243:10:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 10229:02:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 10193:02:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 10181:01:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 10163:01:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 10145:01:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 10126:03:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 10100:00:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 10061:23:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 10031:21:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9998:00:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 9955:00:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 9939:00:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 9911:21:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9897:21:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9886:20:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9857:20:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9837:19:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9799:21:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9773:21:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9746:21:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9734:20:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9703:19:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9691:19:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9659:19:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9648:19:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9638:18:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9621:18:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9611:18:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9584:18:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9573:18:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9543:18:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9534:18:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9512:23:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9474:21:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9447:20:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9433:18:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9423:18:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9395:17:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9370:18:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9360:17:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9348:17:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9298:17:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9284:17:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9269:17:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9259:17:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9227:17:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9217:16:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9202:16:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9188:17:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9164:16:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9144:16:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9134:16:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9121:16:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9090:15:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9076:15:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9062:15:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9045:15:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9030:15:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 9006:15:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 8896:16:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 8868:16:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 8843:14:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 8830:21:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 8813:18:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 8784:07:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 8769:06:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 8749:13:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 8731:15:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 8722:the Arbitration Committee 8703:14:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 8693:22:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 8682:15:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 8665:16:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 8647:14:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 8637:14:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 8623:14:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 8595:03:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 8574:02:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 8561:01:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 8543:20:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 8524:20:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 8513:22:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 8492:20:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 8464:20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 8446:19:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 8428:19:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 8416:19:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 8399:19:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 8385:19:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 8357:18:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 8347:17:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 8331:17:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 8322:17:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 8306:17:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 8276:17:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 8252:17:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 8239:17:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 8220:16:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 8188:08:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC) 8165:08:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC) 8149:13:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 8102:12:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 8047:13:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 7963:05:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 7944:03:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 7833:23:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 7813:16:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 7749:User:Mainstream astronomy 7703:18:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 7689:09:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 7672:08:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 7645:11:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 7623:04:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 7588:22:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 7562:15:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 7541:22:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 7515:12:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 7505:02:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 7496:21:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 7486:16:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 7458:08:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 7443:22:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 7424:22:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 7413:14:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 7375:13:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 7361:22:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 7346:12:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 7293:11:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 7273:22:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 7257:15:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 7238:21:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 7228:due process at all costs. 7209:17:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 7180:18:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 7163:15:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 7138:14:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 7124:00:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 7093:17:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 7080:22:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 7061:22:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 7042:21:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 7009:19:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 6953:16:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 6940:14:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 6929:13:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 6911:10:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 6871:10:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 6855:02:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 6828:23:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 6811:15:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 6800:10:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 6773:02:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 6756:01:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 6742:23:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 6728:23:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 6707:21:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 6695:20:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 6676:17:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 6658:19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 6645:18:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 6625:18:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 6594:15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 6562:19:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 6537:17:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 6523:17:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 6487:16:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 6459:16:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 6428:18:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 6405:18:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 6318:17:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 6305:15:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 6285:User:Mainstream_astronomy 6283:I currently suspect that 6251:User:Mainstream_astronomy 6219:17:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 6209:16:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 6200:15:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 6181:14:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 6169:User:Mainstream astronomy 6146:02:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 6134:01:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 6104:23:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 5962:02:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 5938:01:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 5928:19:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 5733:02:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 5711:02:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 5702:02:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 5679:02:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 5665:02:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 5642:01:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 5627:01:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 5605:01:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 5595:01:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 5585:01:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 5572:01:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 5562:01:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 5537:00:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 5527:22:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 5509:20:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 5500:21:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 5475:19:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 5463:11:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 5440:23:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 5418:21:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 5407:18:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 5390:19:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 5362:14:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 5331:13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 5321:12:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 5294:11:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 5284:11:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 5271:08:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 5238:23:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 5225:21:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 5213:21:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 5200:19:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 5189:18:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 5165:15:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 5124:12:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 5107:02:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 5082:01:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 5064:00:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 5037:00:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 5031:00:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 5008:16:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 4997:06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 4971:21:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4962:21:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4938:20:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4916:21:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4900:19:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4876:19:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4846:19:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4787:05:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4759:04:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4734:22:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 4704:05:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4660:04:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 4588:08:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 4579:07:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 4565:07:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 4547:07:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 4498:05:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 4469:00:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 4435:00:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 4410:23:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 4397:23:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 4387:22:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 4296:21:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 4277:21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 4218:21:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 4190:21:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 4174:20:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 4163:20:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3923:20:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3914:20:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3900:19:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3889:19:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3851:17:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3830:19:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3821:17:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3807:17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3788:03:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 3742:22:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 3730:22:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 3706:01:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 3681:11:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC) 3648:21:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 3620:21:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3610:18:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3583:00:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC) 3565:16:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3548:15:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3497:19:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3484:19:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3470:19:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3458:18:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3444:18:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3431:Sanction Kingjeff instead 3425:18:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3411:18:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3398:18:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3388:18:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3377:18:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3361:17:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3347:17:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3323:18:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3306:17:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3289:17:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3273:17:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3262:17:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3252:17:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3243:17:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3233:17:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3220:17:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3201:17:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3188:17:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3174:17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3169:I'm not trolling at all. 3162:17:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3149:17:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3132:17:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3122:17:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3101:17:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3041:21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2760:User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson 2619:12:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC) 2589:12:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC) 2570:11:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC) 2556:20:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 2541:20:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 2525:15:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 2494:04:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 2441:Fixed, see discussion on 2436:20:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC) 2276:23:48, June 30 2007 (UTC) 2194:22:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC) 2116:15:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC) 2104:23:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 2089:22:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 2077:Plus, I think the fact a 2073:22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 2052:22:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 2034:21:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 2025:21:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 2013:20:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 2004:19:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 1991:19:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 1969:19:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 1956:19:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 1943:18:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 1922:17:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 1905:13:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 1885:04:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 1836:04:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 1827:00:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 1817:23:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC) 1765:22:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC) 1697:21:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC) 1677:20:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC) 1661:20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC) 1477:19:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC) 1461:04:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC) 1435:02:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC) 1426:01:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC) 1409:00:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC) 1396:16:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC) 1168:16:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC) 1159:14:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC) 1149:14:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC) 1136:13:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC) 1115:13:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC) 1100:07:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC) 1086:07:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC) 1006:04:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC) 931:09:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC) 921:04:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC) 907:10:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC) 897:05:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC) 879:05:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC) 869:04:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC) 851:04:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC) 829:04:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC) 811:03:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC) 795:03:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC) 767:03:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC) 741:02:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC) 628:Sockpuppet investigations 8371:an indefinite block. — 8195:Please do not modify it. 8118:is totally unacceptable. 8060:Please do not modify it. 7173:policy discouraging them 6986:to group bully tactics. 6974:that he should move on. 6962:meatpuppet of Iantresman 6066:and the edit war began: 5912:So. Thoughts, anyone? – 5744:Please do not modify it. 4750:people actually require 3939:They "poison the well". 3758:Please do not modify it. 3510:Please do not modify it. 3284:and still it continues. 3018:Please do not modify it. 3001:Please do not modify it. 2994:22:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2979:22:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2964:22:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2953:22:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2943:22:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2933:22:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2914:22:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2891:22:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2864:22:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2844:22:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2824:22:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2809:22:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2799:22:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2789:22:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2769:Please do not modify it. 2754:15:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2737:17:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 2705:17:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 2660:17:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 2651:19:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 2451:10:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 2411:Please do not modify it. 2400:15:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 2374:01:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 2361:00:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 2331:00:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 2311:19:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 2152: 1508:Please do not modify it. 1497:20:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 8917:previous CSN discussion 4132:of 6 untainted blocks. 3418:asking the other parent 1530:Knowledge:Verifiability 411:Arbitration enforcement 9878:Christian antisemitism 9874:Christian antisemitism 9870:Christian antisemitism 9018:and further action on 7826:User:Certified.Gangsta 7610:HIV doesn't cause AIDS 7302:had suggested banning 6398:Category:Pseudoscience 6388:Category:Pseudoscience 6376:Category:Pseudoscience 6352:Category:Pseudoscience 6054:Rugby league in France 5970:Elvisandhismagicpelvis 5039: 3812:Wow, that is a lot of 3796:again for edit-warring 2324:but he wouldn't let me 2239: 2222: 2199:Conflict with Irishguy 1877: 1854:Latest Block -- Today. 1651: 1593: 1587:disruptively, and any 1571: 1217:I participated on the 10457:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 10024:obsessive-compulsives 8698:any useful ending. - 8247:an indef block here. 6921:User:ScienceApologist 6762:User:ScienceApologist 6164:User:ScienceApologist 5998:Sporting in Australia 5160:That's what I think. 5017: 4555:Read the summary for 4054:it was invalid, look 2852:I'd be all for that. 2230: 2216: 1861: 1798:editting disruptively 1641: 1581: 1552: 39:Noticeboard archives 8373:Madman bum and angel 8206:A previous sanction 7808:actions? Yes or no. 7399:conflict of interest 5761:User talk:Bombaplena 4067:User:Maxamegalon2000 3070:Here' user page|here 2901:Jeffrey O. Gustafson 2831:Jeffrey O. Gustafson 997:change is all about 984:no original research 9319:private definitions 8949:Recent disruption: 8113:No personal attacks 7804:Do you have diffs? 7779:Point is, at least 6506:dispute resolution. 6380:Skpetics Dictionary 6289:user:76.214.223.142 6287:is a sockpuppet of 6111:Request for Comment 4450:wasn't edit-warring 4416:WWE One Night Stand 1728:21:58, 27 June 2007 40: 10253:I've indefblocked 9238:In point of fact, 8339:brief conversation 8176:Juan Miguel Fangio 8127:dispute resolution 8090:Juan Miguel Fangio 8061: 7570:endorsing ban per 7476:disruptive editing 7395:Arbcom enforcement 7381:I would endorse a 6782:who was obviously 6568:unanimously stated 6266:with no discussion 6091:General trolling: 6081:General disruption 4535:among those edits) 3759: 3436:parole. Thoughts? 3301:Blocked 24 hours. 2770: 1873:disruptive editing 1534:Knowledge:Civility 1526:disruptive editing 1524:He has engaged in 1283:by disrupting the 788:talk page message. 734:disruptive editing 38: 22:Community sanction 10326: 10124: 9946:Assume good faith 9868:There's too much 9797: 9771: 9732: 9689: 9609: 9346: 9253:Messianic Judaism 9181:Messianic Judaism 9020:Messianic Judaism 8805: 8761: 8741: 8657: 8615: 8456: 8320: 8186: 8163: 8100: 8069:User:Chrisjnelson 8059: 7961: 7773:didn't even exist 7663:. I have filed a 7643: 7586: 7387:the Arbcom ruling 6963: 6643: 6467:a court of law. 5960: 5130:According to his 5021:User:74.36.18.128 4680:Anyway, note the 4632:, that is called 3849: 3757: 3563: 3375: 3039: 2768: 2617: 2548: 2533: 2353: 1633:Indefinite Block. 655: 654: 26:(Redirected from 10478: 10410: 10370: 10312: 10295: 10282: 10110: 10097: 10053: 9952: 9894: 9783: 9757: 9743: 9718: 9700: 9675: 9656: 9635: 9595: 9570: 9332: 9308:(edit conflict) 9110:Michael Richards 9042: 9003: 8881:on the RfAr page 8862: 8861: 8834:I've listed him 8803: 8759: 8739: 8655: 8613: 8507: 8506: 8489: 8487: 8485: 8476: 8454: 8317: 8314: 8302: 8300: 8298: 8296: 8294: 8273: 8271: 8269: 8260: 8233: 8232: 8185: 8183: 8172: 8162: 8146: 8099: 8097: 8086: 8041: 7957: 7938: 7911:deleted contribs 7890: 7863:deleted contribs 7756:Interesting note 7639: 7582: 7559: 7421: 7410: 7369:Heimstern Läufer 7358: 7270: 7235: 7160: 7157: 7154: 7151: 7121: 7118: 7115: 7112: 6971:ScienceApologist 6955: 6852: 6846: 6842: 6725: 6637: 6591: 6588: 6585: 6582: 6559: 6556: 6553: 6550: 6484: 6481: 6478: 6475: 6131: 6128: 6121: 6118: 5950: 5926: 5919: 5908: 5881:deleted contribs 5860: 5833:deleted contribs 5812: 5785:deleted contribs 5730: 5725: 5722: 5719: 5699: 5694: 5691: 5688: 5662: 5657: 5654: 5651: 5624: 5619: 5616: 5613: 5559: 5554: 5551: 5548: 5497: 5492: 5487: 5459: 5454: 5449: 5437: 5432: 5429: 5426: 5415: 5387: 5382: 5379: 5376: 5358: 5353: 5348: 5317: 5312: 5307: 5185: 5180: 5175: 5104: 5099: 5096: 5093: 5076: 5061: 5056: 5053: 5050: 4993: 4988: 4983: 4959: 4954: 4951: 4948: 4897: 4892: 4889: 4886: 4870: 4843: 4838: 4835: 4832: 4799:TNA Victory Road 4783: 4778: 4773: 4754:. (~Bladestorm) 4731: 4726: 4723: 4720: 4700: 4695: 4690: 4420:TNA Victory Road 4368:was non-existant 3965:Sixth, entirely 3846: 3843: 3785: 3780: 3777: 3774: 3739: 3727: 3712:User:SanchiTachi 3644: 3639: 3604: 3602: 3601:File:IndiaFA.JPG 3560: 3557: 3371: 3344: 3218: 3036: 3033: 3020: 2931: 2862: 2648: 2646: 2643: 2640: 2637: 2634: 2626:User:Renatob1977 2603: 2563:User:Ron liebman 2546: 2531: 2491: 2489: 2486: 2483: 2480: 2477: 2397: 2351: 2277: 1965: 1939: 1814: 1726: 1719: 1575:Furthermore, at 1510: 1474: 1458: 1423: 1420: 1417: 1285:Michael Richards 1252:Michael Richards 1234:Michael Richards 1195:Michael Richards 1125:Michael Richards 976:reliable sources 970:"This page is a 894: 891: 888: 866: 863: 860: 826: 823: 820: 764: 761: 758: 650: 535: 419: 301: 289:Edit-warring/3RR 179: 57: 41: 37: 31: 10486: 10485: 10481: 10480: 10479: 10477: 10476: 10475: 10453: 10408: 10368: 10293: 10280: 10251: 10240:Moses Weintraub 10156:Impulse control 10095: 10051: 9950: 9892: 9741: 9698: 9654: 9633: 9568: 9040: 9001: 8983:Self-hating Jew 8906: 8859: 8857: 8794:reset his block 8504: 8502: 8312: 8292: 8290: 8288: 8286: 8284: 8230: 8228: 8204: 8199: 8198: 8181: 8173: 8095: 8087: 8064: 8054: 7993: 7973: 7896: 7848: 7842: 7822: 7760:User:Velikovsky 7741:User:Velikovsky 7667:against him. -- 7419: 7385:since that was 7356: 7268: 7233: 7198:User:Iantresman 7158: 7155: 7152: 7149: 7119: 7116: 7113: 7110: 6937:KillerChihuahua 6917:User:Iantresman 6721: 6688:User:Iantresman 6589: 6586: 6583: 6580: 6557: 6554: 6551: 6548: 6516:popular opinion 6482: 6479: 6476: 6473: 6386:Hence removing 6367:Hence removing 6315:KillerChihuahua 6216:KillerChihuahua 6197:KillerChihuahua 6192:page to argue! 6156: 6129: 6126: 6119: 6116: 6083: 6056: 6000: 5972: 5915: 5913: 5866: 5818: 5770: 5753: 5748: 5747: 5728: 5723: 5720: 5717: 5708:Kings bibby win 5697: 5692: 5689: 5686: 5676:Kings bibby win 5660: 5655: 5652: 5649: 5639:Kings bibby win 5622: 5617: 5614: 5611: 5602:Kings bibby win 5582:Kings bibby win 5557: 5552: 5549: 5546: 5534:Kings bibby win 5506:Kings bibby win 5435: 5430: 5427: 5424: 5413: 5385: 5380: 5377: 5374: 5246: 5102: 5097: 5094: 5091: 5059: 5054: 5051: 5048: 5016: 4957: 4952: 4949: 4946: 4926: 4895: 4890: 4887: 4884: 4841: 4836: 4833: 4830: 4729: 4724: 4721: 4718: 3841: 3783: 3778: 3775: 3772: 3762: 3752: 3737: 3725: 3715: 3690: 3662: 3555: 3521: 3514: 3513: 3433: 3352:See my remarks 3342: 3209: 3093:Permanent block 3031: 3016: 3010: 3005: 3004: 2922: 2853: 2773: 2763: 2746: 2714: 2674: 2461: 2423: 2415: 2414: 2268:Miss Mondegreen 2265: 2196: 2166:don't be a dick 2157: 2123: 1963: 1937: 1880:straight ban.-- 1722: 1715: 1596:3RR violations. 1544:Mediation Case. 1515: 1506: 1485: 1472: 1456: 1421: 1418: 1415: 1254:and especially 892: 889: 886: 864: 861: 858: 824: 821: 818: 784:edit to article 762: 759: 756: 661: 656: 651: 646: 637: 529: 413: 291: 169: 47: 45:Administrators' 33: 32: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 10484: 10452: 10447: 10446: 10445: 10435: 10424: 10423: 10422: 10421: 10420: 10419: 10418: 10417: 10416: 10415: 10391: 10390: 10389: 10332: 10331: 10330: 10301: 10300: 10250: 10247: 10246: 10245: 10232: 10231: 10202: 10201: 10200: 10199: 10198: 10197: 10196: 10195: 10168: 10167: 10166: 10165: 10131: 10130: 10129: 10128: 10102: 10064: 10063: 10036: 10035: 10034: 10033: 10013: 10012: 10011: 10010: 10009: 10008: 10007: 10006: 10005: 10004: 10003: 10002: 10001: 10000: 9968: 9967: 9966: 9965: 9964: 9963: 9962: 9961: 9960: 9959: 9958: 9957: 9920: 9919: 9918: 9917: 9916: 9915: 9914: 9913: 9860: 9859: 9839: 9816: 9815: 9814: 9813: 9812: 9811: 9810: 9809: 9808: 9807: 9806: 9805: 9804: 9803: 9802: 9801: 9775: 9663: 9662: 9661: 9629: 9626: 9586: 9551: 9550: 9549: 9548: 9547: 9546: 9545: 9517: 9516: 9515: 9514: 9479: 9478: 9477: 9476: 9456: 9455: 9454: 9453: 9452: 9451: 9450: 9449: 9400: 9399: 9398: 9397: 9375: 9374: 9373: 9372: 9350: 9305: 9304: 9303: 9302: 9301: 9300: 9290: 9289: 9288: 9287: 9286: 9246: 9245: 9244: 9243: 9230: 9229: 9219: 9205: 9204: 9192: 9191: 9190: 9177: 9176: 9175: 9166: 9151: 9150: 9149: 9148: 9147: 9146: 9124: 9123: 9093: 9092: 9079: 9078: 9065: 9064: 9050: 9049: 9048: 9047: 9033: 9032: 8996: 8995: 8990: 8985: 8980: 8973: 8969:Ashkenazi Jews 8966: 8961: 8956: 8905: 8899: 8877: 8876: 8875: 8874: 8873: 8872: 8871: 8870: 8816: 8815: 8772: 8771: 8753: 8752: 8751: 8708: 8707: 8706: 8705: 8674: 8673: 8672: 8671: 8670: 8669: 8668: 8667: 8626: 8625: 8602: 8601: 8600: 8599: 8598: 8597: 8577: 8576: 8564: 8563: 8545: 8531: 8530: 8529: 8528: 8527: 8526: 8517: 8516: 8515: 8467: 8466: 8448: 8432: 8431: 8430: 8401: 8388: 8387: 8361: 8360: 8359: 8335: 8334: 8333: 8308: 8278: 8254: 8241: 8203: 8202:Tobias Conradi 8200: 8192: 8191: 8190: 8168: 8167: 8151: 8134: 8119: 8065: 8056: 8055: 8053: 8050: 7972: 7967: 7966: 7965: 7841: 7836: 7821: 7816: 7803: 7796: 7790: 7784: 7777: 7776: 7726: 7711: 7709: 7706: 7705: 7692: 7691: 7650: 7649: 7648: 7647: 7590: 7567: 7566: 7565: 7564: 7544: 7543: 7530: 7529: 7528: 7527: 7526: 7525: 7524: 7523: 7522: 7521: 7520: 7519: 7518: 7517: 7465: 7464: 7463: 7462: 7461: 7460: 7429: 7428: 7427: 7426: 7378: 7377: 7365: 7364: 7363: 7336: 7335: 7332: 7329: 7326: 7323: 7296: 7295: 7282: 7281: 7280: 7279: 7278: 7277: 7276: 7275: 7241: 7240: 7217:Mgmirkin, the 7212: 7211: 7202:Kangaroo court 7189: 7188: 7187: 7186: 7185: 7184: 7183: 7182: 7145:Andrew Lenahan 7127: 7126: 7106:Andrew Lenahan 7098: 7097: 7096: 7095: 7083: 7082: 7064: 7063: 7047: 7046: 7045: 7044: 7012: 7011: 6943: 6942: 6878: 6877: 6876: 6875: 6874: 6873: 6858: 6857: 6818: 6817: 6816: 6815: 6814: 6813: 6808:Raymond Arritt 6804: 6803: 6802: 6789: 6770:Raymond Arritt 6747:actually.) It 6744: 6732: 6731: 6730: 6697: 6683: 6682: 6681: 6680: 6679: 6678: 6663: 6662: 6661: 6660: 6648: 6647: 6613: 6612: 6611: 6610: 6609: 6608: 6607: 6606: 6605: 6604: 6603: 6602: 6601: 6600: 6599: 6598: 6597: 6596: 6576:Andrew Lenahan 6544:Andrew Lenahan 6539: 6526: 6525: 6508: 6501: 6469:Andrew Lenahan 6451:Kangaroo court 6437: 6436: 6435: 6434: 6433: 6432: 6431: 6430: 6414: 6413: 6412: 6411: 6410: 6409: 6408: 6407: 6394: 6391: 6384: 6372: 6365: 6354: 6344: 6337:FM accused me 6332: 6331: 6323: 6322: 6321: 6320: 6298: 6297: 6296: 6295: 6281: 6276: 6267: 6254: 6253: 6247: 6240: 6233: 6228: 6225: 6224: 6223: 6222: 6221: 6155: 6152: 6151: 6150: 6149: 6148: 6082: 6079: 6055: 6052: 5999: 5996: 5971: 5968: 5967: 5966: 5965: 5964: 5948:Matt/TheFearow 5941: 5940: 5910: 5909: 5861: 5813: 5752: 5749: 5741: 5740: 5739: 5738: 5737: 5736: 5735: 5672: 5671: 5670: 5669: 5668: 5667: 5635: 5634: 5633: 5632: 5631: 5630: 5629: 5578: 5577: 5576: 5575: 5574: 5519: 5518: 5517: 5516: 5515: 5514: 5513: 5512: 5511: 5465: 5442: 5420: 5393: 5392: 5369: 5368: 5367: 5366: 5365: 5364: 5336: 5335: 5334: 5333: 5299: 5298: 5297: 5296: 5264: 5263: 5256: 5253: 5245: 5242: 5241: 5240: 5230: 5229: 5228: 5227: 5203: 5202: 5192: 5191: 5158: 5157: 5150: 5147: 5143: 5142: 5141: 5140: 5139: 5138: 5137: 5136: 5127: 5126: 5032: 5015: 5012: 5011: 5010: 4976: 4975: 4974: 4973: 4941: 4940: 4925: 4922: 4921: 4920: 4919: 4918: 4903: 4902: 4879: 4878: 4853: 4852: 4851: 4850: 4849: 4848: 4806: 4805: 4804: 4803: 4792: 4791: 4790: 4789: 4762: 4761: 4744: 4713: 4712: 4711: 4710: 4709: 4708: 4707: 4706: 4678: 4667: 4666: 4665: 4664: 4663: 4662: 4612: 4597: 4593: 4581: 4567: 4550: 4549: 4536: 4480: 4479: 4478: 4477: 4476: 4475: 4474: 4473: 4472: 4471: 4364: 4360: 4345: 4335: 4329: 4319: 4313: 4306: 4286: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4262: 4254: 4238: 4227: 4201: 4200: 4199: 4198: 4197: 4196: 4182: 4179: 4149: 4135: 4133: 4127: 4125: 4123: 4121: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4115: 4112: 4101: 4095:Probably valid 4091: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4075:User:Nandesuka 4063: 4041: 4040: 4039: 4036: 4035:for the block. 4029: 4015: 4012: 4005: 4004: 4003: 3999: 3994: 3989: 3984: 3979: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3955: 3954:Fourth, ditto. 3952: 3949: 3946: 3940: 3938: 3935: 3928: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3902: 3875: 3869: 3866: 3860: 3857: 3854: 3853: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3791: 3763: 3754: 3753: 3751: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3714: 3709: 3689: 3684: 3672: 3661: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3650: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3520: 3515: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3490:Nil de mortuis 3432: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3364: 3363: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3276: 3275: 3265: 3264: 3236: 3235: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3152: 3151: 3125: 3124: 3095: 3094: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3011: 3009: 3006: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2967: 2966: 2946: 2945: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2894: 2893: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2847: 2846: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2774: 2765: 2764: 2762: 2757: 2745: 2740: 2713: 2708: 2678:Badlydrawnjeff 2673: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2572: 2543: 2516: 2515: 2502: 2501: 2465:User:Lazyannie 2460: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2429: 2422: 2416: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2334: 2333: 2314: 2313: 2294:Kevin Youkilis 2251: 2250: 2245: 2244: 2229: 2228: 2224: 2223: 2214: 2206:Kevin Youkilis 2180: 2179: 2172:Specific links 2169: 2164:that. Please, 2153: 2151: 2150: 2145: 2144: 2122: 2119: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2037: 2036: 1977:qulaity work ( 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1908: 1907: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1829: 1791:User:Tecmobowl 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1680: 1679: 1518:User:Tecmobowl 1514: 1513: 1501: 1500: 1489:User:Tecmobowl 1484: 1483:User:Tecmobowl 1481: 1480: 1479: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1399: 1398: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1362: 1359: 1356:User:Sefringle 1346: 1337: 1322: 1315: 1303: 1294: 1265: 1264: 1239: 1238: 1214: 1213: 1200:User:Wahkeenah 1182: 1181: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1102: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1017: 1016: 989: 988: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 913: 912: 911: 910: 909: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 800: 799: 798: 797: 770: 769: 660: 657: 653: 652: 644: 642: 639: 638: 636: 635: 630: 625: 619: 616: 615: 611: 610: 605: 600: 595: 589: 588: 583: 578: 573: 568: 563: 558: 553: 548: 543: 537: 536: 525: 524: 519: 514: 509: 504: 499: 494: 489: 484: 479: 473: 472: 467: 462: 457: 452: 447: 442: 437: 432: 427: 421: 420: 407: 406: 401: 396: 391: 386: 381: 376: 371: 366: 361: 355: 354: 349: 344: 339: 334: 329: 324: 319: 314: 309: 303: 302: 285: 284: 279: 274: 269: 264: 259: 254: 249: 244: 239: 233: 232: 227: 222: 217: 212: 207: 202: 197: 192: 187: 181: 180: 163: 162: 157: 152: 147: 142: 137: 132: 127: 122: 117: 111: 110: 105: 100: 95: 90: 85: 80: 75: 70: 65: 59: 58: 36: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 10483: 10474: 10473: 10470: 10466: 10462: 10458: 10451: 10444: 10441: 10436: 10434: 10431: 10426: 10425: 10414: 10411: 10405: 10404: 10403: 10400: 10396: 10392: 10388: 10385: 10381: 10376: 10375: 10374: 10371: 10365: 10361: 10360: 10359: 10356: 10351: 10350: 10349: 10346: 10342: 10341: 10340: 10337: 10333: 10329: 10324: 10320: 10316: 10311: 10310: 10305: 10304: 10303: 10302: 10299: 10296: 10289: 10288: 10287: 10286: 10283: 10276: 10272: 10268: 10264: 10260: 10256: 10244: 10241: 10237: 10234: 10233: 10230: 10227: 10223: 10219: 10215: 10211: 10207: 10204: 10203: 10194: 10191: 10186: 10185: 10184: 10183: 10182: 10179: 10175: 10172: 10171: 10170: 10169: 10164: 10161: 10157: 10154: 10151: 10150: 10149: 10148: 10147: 10146: 10143: 10139: 10135: 10127: 10122: 10118: 10114: 10109: 10108: 10103: 10101: 10098: 10092: 10088: 10084: 10080: 10076: 10072: 10068: 10067: 10066: 10065: 10062: 10059: 10057: 10054: 10049: 10045: 10041: 10038: 10037: 10032: 10029: 10025: 10020: 10017: 10016: 10015: 10014: 9999: 9996: 9991: 9986: 9982: 9981: 9980: 9979: 9978: 9977: 9976: 9975: 9974: 9973: 9972: 9971: 9970: 9969: 9956: 9953: 9947: 9942: 9941: 9940: 9937: 9933: 9930: 9929: 9928: 9927: 9926: 9925: 9924: 9923: 9922: 9921: 9912: 9909: 9905: 9900: 9899: 9898: 9895: 9889: 9888: 9887: 9884: 9879: 9875: 9871: 9867: 9864: 9863: 9862: 9861: 9858: 9855: 9850: 9849:his talk page 9846: 9845:User:Bus stop 9843: 9840: 9838: 9835: 9830: 9828: 9825: 9821: 9818: 9817: 9800: 9795: 9791: 9787: 9782: 9781: 9776: 9774: 9769: 9765: 9761: 9756: 9755: 9749: 9748: 9747: 9744: 9737: 9736: 9735: 9730: 9726: 9722: 9717: 9716: 9711: 9706: 9705: 9704: 9701: 9694: 9693: 9692: 9687: 9683: 9679: 9674: 9673: 9668: 9664: 9660: 9657: 9651: 9650: 9649: 9646: 9641: 9640: 9639: 9636: 9630: 9627: 9624: 9623: 9622: 9619: 9614: 9613: 9612: 9607: 9603: 9599: 9594: 9593: 9587: 9585: 9582: 9577: 9576: 9575: 9574: 9571: 9563: 9561: 9557: 9544: 9541: 9537: 9536: 9535: 9532: 9528: 9524: 9521: 9520: 9519: 9518: 9513: 9510: 9505: 9501: 9497: 9494: 9490: 9486: 9483: 9482: 9481: 9480: 9475: 9472: 9468: 9463: 9460: 9459: 9458: 9457: 9448: 9445: 9441: 9436: 9435: 9434: 9431: 9426: 9425: 9424: 9421: 9416: 9412: 9407: 9404: 9403: 9402: 9401: 9396: 9393: 9389: 9385: 9382: 9379: 9378: 9377: 9376: 9371: 9368: 9363: 9362: 9361: 9358: 9354: 9351: 9349: 9344: 9340: 9336: 9331: 9330: 9325: 9320: 9315: 9311: 9307: 9306: 9299: 9296: 9291: 9285: 9282: 9278: 9274: 9273: 9272: 9271: 9270: 9267: 9262: 9261: 9260: 9257: 9254: 9250: 9249: 9248: 9247: 9241: 9237: 9234: 9233: 9232: 9231: 9228: 9225: 9220: 9218: 9215: 9210: 9209: 9208: 9203: 9200: 9196: 9193: 9189: 9186: 9182: 9178: 9173: 9172: 9170: 9167: 9165: 9162: 9158: 9155: 9154: 9153: 9152: 9145: 9142: 9137: 9136: 9135: 9132: 9128: 9127: 9126: 9125: 9122: 9119: 9115: 9111: 9106: 9102: 9098: 9095: 9094: 9091: 9088: 9087: 9081: 9080: 9077: 9074: 9070: 9067: 9066: 9063: 9060: 9055: 9052: 9051: 9046: 9043: 9037: 9036: 9035: 9034: 9031: 9028: 9024: 9021: 9017: 9014: 9010: 9009: 9008: 9007: 9004: 8994: 8991: 8989: 8986: 8984: 8981: 8979: 8977: 8974: 8972: 8970: 8967: 8965: 8962: 8960: 8957: 8955: 8952: 8951: 8950: 8947: 8946:disruption. 8943: 8941: 8937: 8936:Who is a Jew? 8932: 8930: 8926: 8922: 8918: 8914: 8910: 8904: 8898: 8897: 8894: 8890: 8886: 8882: 8869: 8866: 8864: 8863: 8853: 8849: 8846: 8845: 8844: 8841: 8837: 8833: 8832: 8831: 8828: 8824: 8820: 8819: 8818: 8817: 8814: 8810: 8806: 8799: 8795: 8791: 8788: 8787: 8786: 8785: 8782: 8778: 8770: 8766: 8762: 8754: 8750: 8746: 8742: 8734: 8733: 8732: 8729: 8728: 8723: 8718: 8714: 8710: 8709: 8704: 8701: 8696: 8695: 8694: 8691: 8686: 8685: 8684: 8683: 8680: 8666: 8662: 8658: 8650: 8649: 8648: 8645: 8640: 8639: 8638: 8635: 8630: 8629: 8628: 8627: 8624: 8620: 8616: 8608: 8604: 8603: 8596: 8593: 8589: 8585: 8581: 8580: 8579: 8578: 8575: 8572: 8568: 8567: 8566: 8565: 8562: 8559: 8555: 8551: 8546: 8544: 8541: 8537: 8533: 8532: 8525: 8522: 8518: 8514: 8511: 8509: 8508: 8497: 8496: 8495: 8494: 8493: 8490: 8477: 8471: 8470: 8469: 8468: 8465: 8461: 8457: 8449: 8447: 8444: 8441: 8437: 8433: 8429: 8426: 8422: 8419: 8418: 8417: 8414: 8409: 8405: 8402: 8400: 8397: 8393: 8390: 8389: 8386: 8382: 8378: 8374: 8370: 8366: 8362: 8358: 8355: 8350: 8349: 8348: 8345: 8340: 8336: 8332: 8329: 8325: 8324: 8323: 8319: 8315: 8309: 8307: 8304: 8303: 8281:the project. 8279: 8277: 8274: 8261: 8255: 8253: 8250: 8246: 8242: 8240: 8237: 8235: 8234: 8224: 8223: 8222: 8221: 8218: 8214: 8209: 8196: 8189: 8184: 8178: 8177: 8170: 8169: 8166: 8161: 8160:Seraphimblade 8156: 8152: 8150: 8147: 8145: 8139: 8135: 8132: 8128: 8124: 8120: 8117: 8114: 8110: 8106: 8105: 8104: 8103: 8098: 8092: 8091: 8084: 8080: 8075: 8070: 8063: 8049: 8048: 8045: 8039: 8036: 8033: 8030: 8027: 8024: 8021: 8018: 8015: 8012: 8009: 8006: 8003: 8000: 7997: 7992: 7988: 7985: 7982: 7978: 7971: 7964: 7960: 7956: 7952: 7948: 7947: 7946: 7945: 7942: 7936: 7933: 7930: 7927: 7924: 7921: 7918: 7915: 7912: 7909: 7906: 7903: 7900: 7895: 7888: 7885: 7882: 7879: 7876: 7873: 7870: 7867: 7864: 7861: 7858: 7855: 7852: 7847: 7840: 7835: 7834: 7831: 7827: 7820: 7815: 7814: 7811: 7807: 7801: 7794: 7788: 7782: 7774: 7770: 7766: 7761: 7757: 7754: 7753: 7752: 7750: 7746: 7745:contributions 7742: 7738: 7734: 7730: 7724: 7719: 7715: 7704: 7701: 7697: 7694: 7693: 7690: 7687: 7684: 7681: 7676: 7675: 7674: 7673: 7670: 7666: 7662: 7658: 7654: 7646: 7642: 7638: 7634: 7630: 7626: 7625: 7624: 7621: 7620: 7615: 7611: 7607: 7603: 7599: 7595: 7591: 7589: 7585: 7581: 7577: 7573: 7569: 7568: 7563: 7560: 7558: 7552: 7548: 7547: 7546: 7545: 7542: 7539: 7536: 7532: 7531: 7516: 7513: 7508: 7507: 7506: 7503: 7499: 7498: 7497: 7494: 7489: 7488: 7487: 7484: 7483: 7477: 7473: 7472: 7471: 7470: 7469: 7468: 7467: 7466: 7459: 7456: 7451: 7446: 7445: 7444: 7441: 7437: 7433: 7432: 7431: 7430: 7425: 7422: 7416: 7415: 7414: 7411: 7409: 7403: 7400: 7396: 7392: 7388: 7384: 7380: 7379: 7376: 7373: 7370: 7366: 7362: 7359: 7352: 7351: 7350: 7349: 7348: 7347: 7344: 7339: 7333: 7330: 7327: 7324: 7321: 7320: 7319: 7315: 7313: 7309: 7305: 7301: 7294: 7291: 7287: 7284: 7283: 7274: 7271: 7264: 7260: 7259: 7258: 7255: 7250: 7245: 7244: 7243: 7242: 7239: 7236: 7229: 7225: 7220: 7216: 7215: 7214: 7213: 7210: 7207: 7203: 7199: 7194: 7191: 7190: 7181: 7178: 7174: 7170: 7166: 7165: 7164: 7161: 7146: 7141: 7140: 7139: 7136: 7131: 7130: 7129: 7128: 7125: 7122: 7107: 7103: 7100: 7099: 7094: 7091: 7087: 7086: 7085: 7084: 7081: 7077: 7073: 7072: 7066: 7065: 7062: 7059: 7056: 7052: 7049: 7048: 7043: 7040: 7039: 7034: 7030: 7027: 7024: 7020: 7016: 7015: 7014: 7013: 7010: 7007: 7003: 7002: 7001: 6999: 6998: 6993: 6991: 6987: 6983: 6980: 6975: 6972: 6967: 6964: 6961: 6958: 6954: 6951: 6947: 6941: 6938: 6933: 6932: 6931: 6930: 6927: 6922: 6918: 6913: 6912: 6909: 6908:83.151.17.190 6905: 6902: 6900: 6898: 6896: 6893: 6890: 6886: 6883: 6872: 6869: 6868:83.151.17.190 6865: 6862: 6861: 6860: 6859: 6856: 6853: 6851: 6847: 6841: 6834: 6833: 6832: 6831: 6830: 6829: 6826: 6823: 6812: 6809: 6805: 6801: 6798: 6797:83.151.17.190 6794: 6790: 6788: 6785: 6781: 6778: 6777: 6776: 6775: 6774: 6771: 6767: 6766:Gresham's Law 6763: 6759: 6758: 6757: 6754: 6750: 6745: 6743: 6740: 6737: 6733: 6729: 6726: 6724: 6719: 6714: 6710: 6709: 6708: 6705: 6702: 6698: 6696: 6693: 6689: 6685: 6684: 6677: 6674: 6669: 6668: 6667: 6666: 6665: 6664: 6659: 6656: 6652: 6651: 6650: 6649: 6646: 6641: 6636: 6635: 6629: 6628: 6627: 6626: 6623: 6618: 6595: 6592: 6577: 6573: 6569: 6565: 6564: 6563: 6560: 6545: 6540: 6538: 6535: 6532: 6528: 6527: 6524: 6521: 6517: 6514: 6509: 6507: 6502: 6499: 6496: 6492: 6491: 6490: 6489: 6488: 6485: 6470: 6466: 6462: 6461: 6460: 6457: 6452: 6447: 6446: 6445: 6444: 6443: 6442: 6441: 6440: 6439: 6438: 6429: 6426: 6422: 6421: 6420: 6419: 6418: 6417: 6416: 6415: 6406: 6403: 6399: 6395: 6392: 6389: 6385: 6381: 6377: 6373: 6370: 6366: 6363: 6362:did not exist 6359: 6355: 6353: 6349: 6345: 6342: 6339: 6336: 6335: 6334: 6333: 6329: 6328: 6327: 6326: 6325: 6324: 6319: 6316: 6311: 6310: 6309: 6308: 6307: 6306: 6303: 6294: 6290: 6286: 6282: 6280: 6277: 6274: 6271: 6268: 6265: 6262: 6258: 6257: 6256: 6255: 6252: 6248: 6245: 6241: 6238: 6234: 6232: 6229: 6226: 6220: 6217: 6212: 6211: 6210: 6207: 6203: 6202: 6201: 6198: 6194: 6191: 6190: 6185: 6184: 6183: 6182: 6179: 6174: 6170: 6165: 6161: 6147: 6144: 6141: 6137: 6136: 6135: 6132: 6123: 6122: 6112: 6108: 6107: 6106: 6105: 6102: 6099: 6095: 6093: 6089: 6087: 6078: 6076: 6074: 6072: 6070: 6068: 6065: 6061: 6051: 6050: 6046: 6040: 6039: 6037: 6035: 6033: 6031: 6029: 6027: 6025: 6023: 6021: 6019: 6017: 6015: 6013: 6011: 6009: 6007: 6005: 6003: 5995: 5992: 5989: 5985: 5981: 5977: 5963: 5959: 5956: 5953: 5949: 5945: 5944: 5943: 5942: 5939: 5936: 5932: 5931: 5930: 5929: 5924: 5920: 5918: 5906: 5903: 5900: 5897: 5894: 5891: 5888: 5885: 5882: 5879: 5876: 5873: 5870: 5865: 5862: 5858: 5855: 5852: 5849: 5846: 5843: 5840: 5837: 5834: 5831: 5828: 5825: 5822: 5817: 5814: 5810: 5807: 5804: 5801: 5798: 5795: 5792: 5789: 5786: 5783: 5780: 5777: 5774: 5769: 5766: 5765: 5764: 5762: 5758: 5745: 5734: 5731: 5726: 5714: 5713: 5712: 5709: 5705: 5704: 5703: 5700: 5695: 5683: 5682: 5681: 5680: 5677: 5666: 5663: 5658: 5645: 5644: 5643: 5640: 5636: 5628: 5625: 5620: 5608: 5607: 5606: 5603: 5599: 5598: 5596: 5593: 5588: 5587: 5586: 5583: 5579: 5573: 5570: 5565: 5564: 5563: 5560: 5555: 5543: 5540: 5539: 5538: 5535: 5530: 5529: 5528: 5525: 5520: 5510: 5507: 5503: 5502: 5501: 5498: 5493: 5488: 5482: 5478: 5477: 5476: 5473: 5470: 5466: 5464: 5461: 5460: 5455: 5450: 5443: 5441: 5438: 5433: 5421: 5419: 5416: 5410: 5409: 5408: 5405: 5401: 5397: 5396: 5395: 5394: 5391: 5388: 5383: 5371: 5370: 5363: 5360: 5359: 5354: 5349: 5342: 5341: 5340: 5339: 5338: 5337: 5332: 5329: 5324: 5323: 5322: 5319: 5318: 5313: 5308: 5301: 5300: 5295: 5292: 5287: 5286: 5285: 5282: 5279: 5275: 5274: 5273: 5272: 5269: 5261: 5257: 5254: 5251: 5250: 5249: 5239: 5236: 5232: 5231: 5226: 5223: 5219: 5218: 5217: 5216: 5215: 5214: 5211: 5208: 5201: 5198: 5194: 5193: 5190: 5187: 5186: 5181: 5176: 5169: 5168: 5167: 5166: 5163: 5155: 5151: 5148: 5145: 5144: 5133: 5132:contributions 5129: 5128: 5125: 5122: 5119: 5115: 5112: 5111: 5110: 5109: 5108: 5105: 5100: 5088: 5085: 5084: 5083: 5080: 5077: 5072: 5068: 5067: 5066: 5065: 5062: 5057: 5044: 5038: 5036: 5030: 5026: 5025:User:TJ Spyke 5022: 5009: 5006: 5001: 5000: 4999: 4998: 4995: 4994: 4989: 4984: 4972: 4969: 4965: 4964: 4963: 4960: 4955: 4943: 4942: 4939: 4936: 4933: 4928: 4927: 4917: 4914: 4910: 4907: 4906: 4905: 4904: 4901: 4898: 4893: 4881: 4880: 4877: 4874: 4871: 4866: 4862: 4859:- Please see 4858: 4855: 4854: 4847: 4844: 4839: 4826: 4822: 4819: 4818: 4817: 4815: 4813: 4810: 4809: 4808: 4807: 4800: 4796: 4795: 4794: 4793: 4788: 4785: 4784: 4779: 4774: 4766: 4765: 4764: 4763: 4760: 4757: 4753: 4749: 4745: 4742: 4738: 4737: 4736: 4735: 4732: 4727: 4705: 4702: 4701: 4696: 4691: 4683: 4679: 4675: 4674: 4673: 4672: 4671: 4670: 4669: 4668: 4661: 4658: 4654: 4650: 4645: 4641: 4637: 4636: 4631: 4627: 4623: 4622: 4617: 4613: 4610: 4606: 4602: 4598: 4594: 4591: 4590: 4589: 4586: 4582: 4580: 4577: 4573: 4571: 4568: 4566: 4563: 4558: 4554: 4553: 4552: 4551: 4548: 4545: 4541: 4537: 4534: 4530: 4526: 4522: 4518: 4514: 4510: 4506: 4502: 4501: 4500: 4499: 4496: 4491: 4486: 4470: 4467: 4463: 4459: 4455: 4451: 4446: 4442: 4438: 4437: 4436: 4433: 4429: 4425: 4421: 4417: 4413: 4412: 4411: 4408: 4404: 4400: 4399: 4398: 4395: 4390: 4389: 4388: 4385: 4381: 4377: 4373: 4369: 4365: 4361: 4359:edit-warring. 4358: 4354: 4349: 4346: 4343: 4339: 4336: 4333: 4330: 4327: 4323: 4320: 4317: 4314: 4311: 4307: 4304: 4300: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4294: 4291: 4278: 4275: 4271: 4267: 4263: 4259: 4255: 4251: 4247: 4243: 4239: 4236: 4232: 4228: 4225: 4221: 4220: 4219: 4216: 4211: 4207: 4206: 4205: 4204: 4203: 4202: 4193: 4192: 4191: 4188: 4183: 4180: 4177: 4176: 4175: 4172: 4167: 4166: 4165: 4164: 4161: 4157: 4153: 4147: 4143: 4139: 4131: 4113: 4110: 4106: 4102: 4099: 4098: 4096: 4092: 4089: 4084: 4080: 4076: 4072: 4068: 4064: 4061: 4057: 4053: 4049: 4048: 4046: 4042: 4037: 4034: 4030: 4027: 4023: 4022: 4020: 4016: 4013: 4010: 4006: 4000: 3998: 3995: 3993: 3990: 3988: 3985: 3983: 3980: 3978: 3975: 3974: 3972: 3968: 3964: 3959: 3958: 3956: 3953: 3950: 3947: 3944: 3943: 3942: 3933: 3924: 3921: 3917: 3916: 3915: 3912: 3908: 3903: 3901: 3898: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3887: 3883: 3879: 3873: 3864: 3852: 3848: 3844: 3838: 3835: 3831: 3828: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3819: 3815: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3808: 3805: 3799: 3797: 3790: 3789: 3786: 3781: 3769: 3761: 3750: 3749:User:TJ Spyke 3743: 3740: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3728: 3723: 3720: 3713: 3708: 3707: 3704: 3699: 3695: 3694:CharlotteWebb 3688: 3683: 3682: 3678: 3673: 3669: 3666: 3660: 3649: 3646: 3645: 3640: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3621: 3618: 3613: 3612: 3611: 3608: 3603: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3584: 3581: 3577: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3562: 3558: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3546: 3541: 3539: 3536: 3533: 3529: 3525: 3519: 3511: 3498: 3495: 3491: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3482: 3478: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3468: 3465: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3456: 3452: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3442: 3439: 3426: 3423: 3419: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3409: 3399: 3396: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3386: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3374: 3370: 3362: 3359: 3355: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3345: 3340: 3338: 3324: 3321: 3317: 3313: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3304: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3290: 3287: 3283: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3274: 3271: 3267: 3266: 3263: 3260: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3250: 3245: 3244: 3241: 3234: 3231: 3227: 3221: 3217: 3214: 3213: 3207: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3199: 3195: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3186: 3182: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3172: 3163: 3160: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3150: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3130: 3123: 3120: 3116: 3112: 3108: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3099: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3085: 3083: 3079: 3075: 3071: 3067: 3063: 3059: 3055: 3051: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3028: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3019: 3013: 3012: 3002: 2995: 2991: 2987: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2977: 2973: 2965: 2962: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2951: 2944: 2941: 2940:Drewcifer3000 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2930: 2927: 2926: 2915: 2912: 2908: 2907: 2902: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2892: 2889: 2884: 2881: 2877: 2875: 2871: 2870: 2865: 2861: 2858: 2857: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2845: 2842: 2838: 2837: 2832: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2822: 2819: 2810: 2807: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2797: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2787: 2784: 2780: 2772: 2761: 2756: 2755: 2752: 2744: 2739: 2738: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2723: 2722:William Mauco 2719: 2712: 2707: 2706: 2703: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2679: 2672: 2661: 2658: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2649: 2647: 2627: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2602: 2598: 2597: 2590: 2587: 2586:Baseball Bugs 2583: 2578: 2577:George Reeves 2573: 2571: 2568: 2567:Baseball Bugs 2564: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2554: 2551: 2544: 2542: 2539: 2536: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2523: 2518: 2517: 2513: 2508: 2504: 2503: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2492: 2490: 2470: 2466: 2459: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2433: 2426: 2420: 2412: 2401: 2398: 2396: 2390: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2375: 2372: 2371:Baseball Bugs 2368: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2359: 2356: 2349: 2348:Baseball Bugs 2344: 2340: 2337:I agree with 2336: 2335: 2332: 2329: 2328:Baseball Bugs 2325: 2321: 2316: 2315: 2312: 2309: 2307: 2306: 2300: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2284: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2269: 2261: 2259: 2255: 2247: 2246: 2241: 2240: 2238: 2236: 2226: 2225: 2221: 2220: 2215: 2212: 2207: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2195: 2191: 2188: 2184: 2177: 2173: 2170: 2167: 2162: 2159: 2158: 2156: 2155:Third Opinion 2147: 2146: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2134: 2131: 2127: 2118: 2117: 2114: 2111: 2106: 2105: 2102: 2101:Baseball Bugs 2090: 2087: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2071: 2068: 2063: 2053: 2050: 2046: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2035: 2032: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2023: 2020: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2011: 2010:Baseball Bugs 2007: 2006: 2005: 2002: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1989: 1984: 1980: 1970: 1967: 1966: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1954: 1951: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1941: 1940: 1933: 1923: 1920: 1917: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1906: 1903: 1899: 1894: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1883: 1876: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1860: 1858: 1855: 1837: 1834: 1833:Baseball Bugs 1830: 1828: 1825: 1824:Baseball Bugs 1820: 1819: 1818: 1815: 1813: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1795: 1792: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1766: 1763: 1761: 1760: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1727: 1725: 1720: 1718: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1698: 1695: 1694:Baseball Bugs 1691: 1687: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1678: 1675: 1671: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1659: 1655: 1650: 1649: 1646: 1639: 1636: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1621: 1619: 1614: 1611: 1608: 1605: 1601: 1600: 1597: 1592: 1590: 1586: 1579: 1577: 1574: 1570: 1568: 1565: 1563: 1557: 1550: 1548: 1545: 1541: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1522: 1519: 1512: 1509: 1503: 1502: 1499: 1498: 1495: 1490: 1478: 1475: 1469: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1459: 1453: 1450:I've blocked 1449: 1436: 1433: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1424: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1407: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1397: 1394: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1376: 1375: 1369: 1367: 1363: 1360: 1357: 1353: 1351: 1347: 1345: 1342: 1338: 1336: 1334: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1320: 1316: 1314: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1302: 1299: 1295: 1292: 1289: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1273: 1271: 1267: 1266: 1262: 1260: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1240: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1215: 1211: 1208: 1204: 1201: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1183: 1179: 1169: 1166: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1157: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1113: 1108: 1103: 1101: 1098: 1093: 1092: 1087: 1084: 1080: 1077: 1075: 1071: 1068: 1064: 1062: 1060: 1057: 1053: 1050: 1046: 1044: 1042: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1025: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1004: 1000: 995: 987: 985: 981: 980:verifiability 977: 973: 968: 967: 966: 964: 959: 955: 951: 932: 929: 924: 923: 922: 919: 914: 908: 905: 900: 899: 898: 895: 882: 881: 880: 877: 872: 871: 870: 867: 854: 853: 852: 849: 844: 843: 842: 841: 840: 839: 838: 837: 830: 827: 814: 813: 812: 809: 804: 803: 802: 801: 796: 793: 789: 785: 782: 779:? Example of 778: 774: 773: 772: 771: 768: 765: 752: 749: 745: 744: 743: 742: 739: 735: 730: 727: 725: 723: 721: 718: 716: 714: 712: 710: 708: 706: 704: 702: 700: 698: 696: 694: 692: 689: 687: 685: 683: 679: 676: 673: 671: 669: 666: 659:User:Bus stop 640: 634: 631: 629: 626: 624: 621: 620: 617: 612: 609: 606: 604: 601: 599: 596: 594: 591: 590: 587: 584: 582: 579: 577: 574: 572: 569: 567: 564: 562: 559: 557: 554: 552: 549: 547: 544: 542: 539: 538: 533: 526: 523: 520: 518: 515: 513: 510: 508: 505: 503: 500: 498: 495: 493: 490: 488: 485: 483: 480: 478: 475: 474: 471: 468: 466: 463: 461: 458: 456: 453: 451: 448: 446: 443: 441: 438: 436: 433: 431: 428: 426: 423: 422: 417: 412: 408: 405: 402: 400: 397: 395: 392: 390: 387: 385: 382: 380: 377: 375: 372: 370: 367: 365: 362: 360: 357: 356: 353: 350: 348: 345: 343: 340: 338: 335: 333: 330: 328: 325: 323: 320: 318: 315: 313: 310: 308: 305: 304: 299: 295: 290: 286: 283: 280: 278: 275: 273: 270: 268: 265: 263: 260: 258: 255: 253: 250: 248: 245: 243: 240: 238: 235: 234: 231: 228: 226: 223: 221: 218: 216: 213: 211: 208: 206: 203: 201: 198: 196: 193: 191: 188: 186: 183: 182: 177: 173: 168: 164: 161: 158: 156: 153: 151: 148: 146: 143: 141: 138: 136: 133: 131: 128: 126: 123: 121: 118: 116: 113: 112: 109: 106: 104: 101: 99: 96: 94: 91: 89: 86: 84: 81: 79: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 64: 61: 60: 55: 51: 46: 42: 29: 23: 19: 10454: 10440:Sxeptomaniac 10363: 10308: 10271:Godwin's law 10252: 10235: 10205: 10173: 10152: 10137: 10133: 10132: 10106: 10039: 10018: 9988:cause. Does 9903: 9865: 9854:Sxeptomaniac 9841: 9819: 9779: 9753: 9714: 9671: 9666: 9591: 9564: 9552: 9522: 9495: 9492: 9488: 9484: 9461: 9440:figuratively 9439: 9405: 9387: 9380: 9352: 9328: 9323: 9314:other people 9309: 9235: 9206: 9194: 9168: 9156: 9096: 9084: 9068: 9053: 8997: 8948: 8944: 8933: 8907: 8878: 8855: 8847: 8840:TexasAndroid 8789: 8773: 8726: 8716: 8700:TexasAndroid 8675: 8634:TexasAndroid 8606: 8500: 8420: 8413:TexasAndroid 8403: 8391: 8368: 8364: 8354:TexasAndroid 8283: 8244: 8226: 8217:TexasAndroid 8213:WP:AN report 8205: 8194: 8175: 8154: 8143: 8089: 8078: 8074:Michael Vick 8066: 8057: 8034: 8028: 8022: 8016: 8010: 8004: 7998: 7983: 7974: 7951:three months 7950: 7931: 7925: 7919: 7913: 7907: 7901: 7883: 7877: 7871: 7865: 7859: 7853: 7843: 7823: 7805: 7799: 7792: 7786: 7780: 7778: 7772: 7768: 7764: 7755: 7732: 7728: 7722: 7717: 7713: 7707: 7695: 7653:Tom Harrison 7651: 7617: 7593: 7575: 7574:. Knowledge 7556: 7480: 7449: 7407: 7382: 7340: 7337: 7316: 7311: 7308:Tom Harrison 7297: 7285: 7262: 7227: 7223: 7192: 7148: 7109: 7101: 7090:Tom Harrison 7069: 7036: 7025: 6997:Soupdragon42 6995: 6994: 6989: 6988: 6984: 6978: 6976: 6970: 6969:The work of 6968: 6965: 6959: 6956: 6945: 6944: 6914: 6879: 6849: 6843: 6839: 6819: 6792: 6783: 6748: 6722: 6712: 6692:Tom Harrison 6632: 6614: 6579: 6571: 6547: 6515: 6512: 6505: 6498:a good thing 6497: 6494: 6472: 6361: 6299: 6235:I note that 6188: 6187: 6157: 6115: 6096: 6090: 6084: 6057: 6044: 6041: 6001: 5993: 5987: 5983: 5973: 5916: 5911: 5901: 5895: 5889: 5883: 5877: 5871: 5853: 5847: 5841: 5835: 5829: 5823: 5805: 5799: 5793: 5787: 5781: 5775: 5754: 5743: 5673: 5445: 5344: 5303: 5265: 5259: 5247: 5204: 5171: 5159: 5153: 5114:Quack, quack 5043:User:Lrrr IV 5040: 5018: 4979: 4977: 4908: 4856: 4769: 4756:72.88.47.135 4751: 4747: 4740: 4714: 4686: 4681: 4657:72.88.47.135 4652: 4648: 4643: 4639: 4634: 4633: 4629: 4625: 4620: 4619: 4615: 4608: 4604: 4600: 4539: 4532: 4531:edit that's 4528: 4524: 4484: 4481: 4461: 4457: 4453: 4449: 4444: 4440: 4427: 4402: 4379: 4375: 4371: 4367: 4356: 4352: 4341: 4325: 4309: 4302: 4287: 4269: 4265: 4257: 4249: 4245: 4241: 4234: 4230: 4223: 4209: 4155: 4151: 4145: 4141: 4137: 4129: 4119: 4108: 4104: 4094: 4082: 4078: 4071:User:Dancter 4059: 4051: 4044: 4032: 4025: 4018: 4008: 3996: 3991: 3986: 3981: 3976: 3970: 3966: 3931: 3929: 3906: 3881: 3877: 3871: 3862: 3855: 3836: 3800: 3792: 3768:User:Alkivar 3764: 3755: 3716: 3691: 3674: 3670: 3667: 3663: 3635: 3575: 3542: 3534: 3528:Rama's Arrow 3526: 3522: 3509: 3489: 3450: 3434: 3404: 3365: 3333: 3315: 3310:Heh. I love 3246: 3237: 3211: 3193: 3180: 3168: 3141: 3137: 3126: 3106: 3096: 3087: 3086: 3049: 3048: 3017: 3014: 3008:Rex Germanus 3000: 2968: 2961:Jersey Devil 2947: 2924: 2920: 2904: 2888:Jersey Devil 2855: 2834: 2815: 2775: 2766: 2747: 2734:David Mestel 2730:Transnistria 2715: 2702:David Mestel 2675: 2657:TexasAndroid 2629: 2582:Lucille Ball 2522:TexasAndroid 2512:conversation 2472: 2462: 2427: 2424: 2410: 2394: 2366: 2323: 2319: 2304: 2285: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2257: 2256: 2252: 2233: 2231: 2218: 2217: 2210: 2198: 2197: 2171: 2160: 2136: 2135: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2107: 2097: 2044: 1975: 1961: 1935: 1931: 1928: 1897: 1892: 1878: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1862: 1853: 1852: 1811: 1758: 1752: 1749:his response 1723: 1716: 1689: 1685: 1644: 1642: 1637: 1632: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1617: 1603: 1602: 1595: 1594: 1588: 1582: 1572: 1559: 1555: 1553: 1543: 1542: 1523: 1516: 1507: 1504: 1486: 1445: 1269: 1230:User:Cleo123 1078:and an admin 1066: 993: 990: 972:list of Jews 969: 947: 856:consensus.-- 731: 680: 662: 614:Other links 585: 10469:Newyorkbrad 10384:John Carter 10355:John Carter 10345:Nick Graves 10309:ObiterDicta 10107:ObiterDicta 9990:User:Durova 9985:User:Durova 9948:is policy. 9834:Nick Graves 9780:ObiterDicta 9754:ObiterDicta 9715:ObiterDicta 9672:ObiterDicta 9645:John Carter 9618:John Carter 9592:ObiterDicta 9581:John Carter 9540:John Carter 9491:conversion 9329:ObiterDicta 9295:Peter cohen 9266:John Carter 9224:John Carter 9185:Peter cohen 9161:John Carter 9141:John Carter 9059:John Carter 9027:John Carter 9013:Atheist Jew 8988:Proselytism 8931:as mentor. 8929:Fred Bauder 8727:SunStar Net 8690:John Carter 8644:John Carter 8472:Thank you. 8125:and follow 8044:Thatcher131 8014:protections 7941:Thatcher131 7830:Newyorkbrad 7683:Will Beback 7669:Art Carlson 7659:to justify 7512:Art Carlson 7502:Proabivouac 7493:Art Carlson 7455:Art Carlson 7343:Art Carlson 7254:Art Carlson 7249:due process 7177:Art Carlson 7135:Art Carlson 7019:Girls4girls 6979:Ian Tresman 6950:Girls4girls 6889:Proabivouac 6753:Proabivouac 6160:Eric Lerner 5917:Luna Santin 5816:BoriquaStar 5235:Gavyn Sykes 5029:Moe Epsilon 5005:Gavyn Sykes 4630:for sources 4626:at any time 4538:Also, what 4372:at the time 3703:Newyorkbrad 3617:Newyorkbrad 3545:Newyorkbrad 3481:Thatcher131 3358:Thatcher131 3179:What about 3119:Thatcher131 3029:at ANI. -- 2986:--Akhilleus 2806:Newyorkbrad 2751:Newyorkbrad 2283:El redactor 2183:User:Krator 2161:Other sites 2079:rouge admin 1751:was a flip 1604:Background. 1585:sockpuppets 1378:(primarily 1156:Nick Graves 1133:John Carter 1013:ArbCom case 808:Nick Graves 777:Nick Graves 751:evangelists 738:Nick Graves 10461:Pfagerburg 10275:disruption 8792:. I have 8208:discussion 8026:page moves 7991:Swatjester 7929:block user 7923:filter log 7881:block user 7875:filter log 7810:Bladestorm 7765:pretending 7551:disruption 7440:EdJohnston 7391:Iantresman 7304:Iantresman 7263:overriding 7193:Controvert 7169:open proxy 7033:Iantresman 6713:aggressive 6622:Odd nature 6425:Odd nature 6402:Iantresman 6302:Iantresman 6206:Prosfilaes 6154:Iantresman 6048:consensus. 5955:(Contribs) 5899:block user 5893:filter log 5864:Bombaplena 5851:block user 5845:filter log 5803:block user 5797:filter log 5768:YoSoyGuapo 5260:regardless 5244:Proposal 3 5197:Odd nature 5154:regardless 4825:trace back 4811:TJ Spyke: 4682:confession 4585:The Hybrid 4576:The Hybrid 4562:The Hybrid 4544:Bladestorm 4495:The Hybrid 4466:Bladestorm 4458:especially 4407:Bladestorm 4384:Bladestorm 4380:definitely 4274:Bladestorm 4187:Bladestorm 4160:Bladestorm 3971:suggesting 3886:Bladestorm 3863:constantly 3580:Hornplease 3574:remark is 3455:Bladestorm 3320:Bladestorm 3198:Bladestorm 3185:Bladestorm 3181:canvassing 2911:<*: --> 2841:<*: --> 2718:Markstreet 2686:Violetriga 2458:User:LuLu3 2367:talk to me 2299:blanked it 2049:Epeefleche 1882:Epeefleche 1658:Epeefleche 1388:WP:SOAPBOX 1207:WP:STALKed 1165:T. Anthony 1146:T. Anthony 1110:editing.-- 1107:incivility 928:T. Anthony 904:T. Anthony 781:Bus stop's 10430:Sandstein 10336:Crockspot 10315:pleadings 10210:Bob Dylan 10190:Crockspot 10142:Crockspot 10113:pleadings 9786:pleadings 9760:pleadings 9721:pleadings 9678:pleadings 9598:pleadings 9504:Bob Dylan 9467:Bob Dylan 9411:Bob Dylan 9335:pleadings 9118:Tendancer 9114:Bob Dylan 8921:Bob Dylan 8798:talk page 8571:Isotope23 8540:Isotope23 8521:Isotope23 8396:Crockspot 8344:Isotope23 8328:SirFozzie 8123:keep cool 8020:deletions 7935:block log 7887:block log 7769:certainly 7718:talk page 7714:user page 7700:Crockspot 7665:complaint 7661:his block 7598:WP:WEIGHT 7450:obligated 7383:topic ban 7290:WAS 4.250 7051:CheckUser 6960:Suspected 6655:SirFozzie 6244:user page 6227:Evidence? 6060:this edit 5935:SirFozzie 5905:block log 5857:block log 5809:block log 4913:SirFozzie 4802:also did. 4635:vandalism 4264:Tell me, 4229:"You did 4146:obviously 4077:were all 3911:Isotope23 3818:Isotope23 3312:this part 3082:guideline 3074:user page 3062:probation 2818:Mackensen 2698:Night Gyr 2684:policy. 2507:Lucy Ball 2469:Lucy Ball 2343:Tecmobowl 2031:SirFozzie 2001:SirFozzie 1902:SashaNein 1674:Tecmobowl 1494:SirFozzie 1432:zadignose 1406:zadignose 1393:Tendancer 1339:violated 1324:violated 1317:violated 1311:Bob Dylan 1305:violated 1296:violated 1275:violated 1223:Bob Dylan 1129:Bob Dylan 1121:this page 1112:Isotope23 1097:zadignose 1073:mediators 1067:converted 1036:article. 999:Bob Dylan 958:Bob Dylan 950:Bob Dylan 876:zadignose 792:Anynobody 748:Christian 167:Incidents 10259:WP:CIVIL 10255:Bus stop 10224:page. -- 10178:Bus stop 10174:Comment: 10160:Bus stop 10153:Comment: 10028:Bus stop 10019:Comment: 9995:Bus stop 9936:Bus stop 9883:Bus stop 9866:Comment: 9842:Support. 9820:Support. 9665:Durova— 9560:WP:CIVIL 9531:Bus stop 9523:Comment: 9509:Bus stop 9485:Comment: 9471:Bus stop 9462:Comment: 9420:Bus stop 9406:Comment: 9392:Bus stop 9381:Comment: 9353:Question 9324:identity 9256:Bus stop 9236:Comment: 9086:MastCell 9073:Bus stop 8909:Bus stop 8903:Bus stop 8848:Followup 8777:User:Wik 8536:Archives 8313:FayssalF 8109:WP:CIVIL 8002:contribs 7987:contribs 7905:contribs 7857:contribs 7806:Specific 7800:specific 7619:MastCell 7482:MastCell 7312:de facto 7206:Mgmirkin 7038:MastCell 7029:contribs 6784:not down 6673:Mgmirkin 6520:Mgmirkin 6456:Mgmirkin 6293:AfD here 5980:70 edits 5875:contribs 5827:contribs 5779:contribs 5592:RobJ1981 5569:RobJ1981 5524:RobJ1981 5404:Davnel03 5328:RobJ1981 5291:RobJ1981 5268:Davnel03 5222:RobJ1981 5162:Davnel03 5035:Jpgordon 4968:RobJ1981 4924:Proposal 4640:a second 4540:specific 4533:repeated 4525:flagrant 4454:anything 4432:RobJ1981 4394:RobJ1981 4261:problem. 4246:specific 4224:actually 4215:Moreschi 4171:Moreschi 4138:directly 3920:Moreschi 3897:Moreschi 3868:of it). 3842:FayssalF 3827:Moreschi 3804:Moreschi 3677:Penwhale 3556:FayssalF 3538:contribs 3494:Moreschi 3337:Matthead 3316:removing 3303:Moreschi 3270:Moreschi 3249:Kingjeff 3240:Moreschi 3230:Moreschi 3171:Kingjeff 3146:Moreschi 3142:Solution 3138:Problem: 3129:Kingjeff 3107:Problem: 3098:Kingjeff 3088:Solution 3076:and his 3032:FayssalF 2972:Dmcdevit 2906:Shazaam! 2880:WP:CIVIL 2836:Shazaam! 2726:EvilAlex 2447:Penwhale 2432:Penwhale 2305:IrishGuy 1988:Alansohn 1932:de facto 1806:WP:ADOPT 1759:IrishGuy 1670:Cy Young 1468:WP:ADOPT 1452:Bus stop 1326:WP:CIVIL 1298:WP:STALK 1191:Bus Stop 1083:Drumpler 1056:Bus stop 1049:Bus stop 1038:Bus stop 1030:Bus stop 1003:Bus stop 416:archives 294:archives 172:archives 50:archives 20:‎ | 10380:Barsoom 10323:appeals 10236:Support 10206:Support 10138:impulse 10121:appeals 10087:WP:NPOV 9932:C.Logan 9908:C.Logan 9794:appeals 9768:appeals 9729:appeals 9686:appeals 9667:Arghhhh 9606:appeals 9493:process 9444:C.Logan 9343:appeals 9199:Dweller 9195:Comment 9169:Comment 9157:Comment 9097:Support 9069:Oppose: 9054:Support 8993:Judaism 8860:Radecki 8823:pschemp 8804:HAIRBOY 8790:Enacted 8760:HAIRBOY 8740:HAIRBOY 8679:Merbabu 8656:HAIRBOY 8614:HAIRBOY 8505:Radecki 8455:HAIRBOY 8440:Blueboy 8421:Comment 8404:Comment 8392:Endorse 8369:support 8245:Support 8231:Radecki 7955:Amarkov 7696:Endorse 7657:refused 7535:Blueboy 7300:JoshuaZ 7286:Endorse 7102:Endorse 7055:Blueboy 6957:Obvious 6882:Blueboy 6822:Blueboy 6793:holding 6736:ElinorD 6701:Blueboy 6531:Blueboy 6237:JoshuaZ 6178:JoshuaZ 6143:Chovain 6101:Chovain 6063:source, 5469:Blueboy 5400:Alkivar 5278:Blueboy 5207:Blueboy 5118:Blueboy 5087:replies 4932:Blueboy 4909:Comment 4857:Comment 4616:sources 4601:prevent 4596:extent. 4485:totally 4326:plainly 4303:current 4290:Blueboy 4195:revert. 4169:valid. 4130:maximum 4045:invalid 4043:Tenth, 4033:reasons 4026:sourced 4019:invalid 4017:Ninth, 3967:invalid 3719:WP:SOCK 3464:Blueboy 3438:Blueboy 3408:Arnoutf 3078:subpage 3050:Problem 3027:Outcome 2959:page.-- 2421:decided 2110:Blueboy 2083:Blueboy 2067:Blueboy 2019:Blueboy 1950:Blueboy 1916:Blueboy 1032:on the 918:C.Logan 848:C.Logan 633:Backlog 10465:Kebron 10409:Durova 10369:Durova 10319:errata 10294:Durova 10281:Durova 10267:WP:AGF 10265:, and 10263:WP:NPA 10226:Matt57 10117:errata 10096:Durova 10085:, and 10083:WP:NOR 10079:WP:OWN 10040:Oppose 9951:Durova 9893:Durova 9790:errata 9764:errata 9742:Durova 9725:errata 9699:Durova 9682:errata 9655:Durova 9634:Durova 9602:errata 9569:Durova 9556:WP:NPA 9357:ChrisO 9339:errata 9041:Durova 9002:Durova 8781:Golbez 8182:►Chat 8144:Cailil 8096:►Chat 8032:rights 8008:blocks 7977:Miskin 7894:Kazuba 7846:Dradin 7793:single 7787:single 7633:WP:FTN 7629:WP:ENC 7602:WP:ENC 7572:WP:ENC 7557:Cailil 7436:WP:BAN 7420:Durova 7408:Cailil 7372:(talk) 7357:Durova 7269:Durova 7234:Durova 7226:, not 7017:Note: 6739:(talk) 6513:biased 6465:is not 5952:(Talk) 5491:master 5414:Durova 5071:hahnch 4865:hahnch 4605:punish 4490:WP:AGF 4464:side. 4253:given. 4109:actual 4105:before 4073:, and 3882:a week 3872:trying 3814:WP:3RR 3738:Durova 3726:Durova 3216:scribe 2929:scribe 2886:ago.-- 2860:scribe 2821:(talk) 2786:(talk) 2783:Friday 2690:WP:BLP 2547:Peace. 2532:Peace. 2395:Cailil 2389:Arbcom 2352:Peace. 2339:Krator 1964:Kurykh 1938:Kurykh 1812:Cailil 1654:WP:OWN 1560:go to 1473:Durova 1457:Durova 1380:WP:NOR 1350:WP:AGF 1341:WP:NOR 1330:WP:NPA 1307:WP:3RR 1277:WP:NPA 1205:, and 1024:WP:EAR 926:all.-- 532:search 298:search 176:search 54:search 10366:. ;) 10218:block 10071:WP:RS 10044:WP:DR 9983:Does 9438:read 9105:WP:OR 8913:WP:OR 8713:Cplot 8475:Until 8259:Until 7731:. It 7006:Shell 6723:juice 6718:Mango 6640:Help! 6570:that 6261:CREIL 6127:ɹəəds 6120:speer 5958:(Bot) 5486:Grand 4752:proof 4748:Those 4741:still 4441:about 4403:where 4060:valid 4052:prove 3932:first 3698:Jayjg 3607:D-Boy 3492:etc. 2443:WP:AN 2235:page. 2176:WP:EL 1898:don't 1686:WRONG 1448:WP:DE 1319:WP:DE 1281:WP:DE 1270:a few 1244:WP:DE 1237:with. 16:< 10393:See 10222:talk 10212:and 10075:WP:V 9904:Jews 9710:MPOV 9558:and 9496:ever 9277:Jews 9112:and 9023:here 9016:here 8923:and 8852:here 8836:here 8827:talk 8381:desk 8377:talk 8365:does 7996:talk 7981:talk 7959:moo! 7917:logs 7899:talk 7869:logs 7851:talk 7737:here 7680:·:· 7655:has 7641:(𒁳) 7584:(𒁳) 7434:Per 7076:talk 7023:talk 6887:and 6840:Buck 6374:The 6350:and 6189:user 6171:Ian 6140:Mark 6098:Mark 5988:does 5984:have 5923:talk 5887:logs 5869:talk 5839:logs 5821:talk 5791:logs 5773:talk 5027:? — 4863:. - 4649:that 4609:zero 4557:this 4529:only 4428:must 4422:and 4348:Here 4342:That 4338:Here 4332:Here 4322:Here 4316:Here 4231:nine 4208:I'm 4142:were 4079:also 4056:here 4009:just 4002:log. 3878:just 3770:. — 3638:Baka 3532:talk 3451:then 3373:(𒁳) 3354:here 3343:O 3286:Nick 3259:Nick 3159:Nick 3115:here 3113:and 3111:here 3068:and 3066:Here 3058:this 3054:Here 2990:talk 2950:Nick 2796:Nick 2724:and 2694:here 2553:john 2538:john 2445:. - 2358:john 2320:want 2272:talk 1724:Pika 1536:and 1384:WP:V 1382:and 1279:and 1185:The 1127:and 994:ever 982:and 786:and 623:Talk 282:1167 277:1166 272:1165 267:1164 262:1163 257:1162 252:1161 247:1160 242:1159 237:1158 230:1157 225:1156 220:1155 215:1154 210:1153 205:1152 200:1151 195:1150 190:1149 185:1148 10364:she 10048:Tom 10046:. 9489:any 8976:Jew 8885:Lar 8717:has 8607:not 8584:Lar 8550:Lar 8538:.-- 8155:try 8111:or 8038:RfA 7953:? - 7781:one 7733:had 7723:Not 7686:·:· 7637:dab 7600:or 7594:way 7580:dab 7156:bli 7117:bli 7071:DGG 6926:Jon 6880:To 6850:ofg 6845:ets 6749:has 6634:Guy 6587:bli 6555:bli 6495:not 6480:bli 6045:not 5481:Wii 5458:rid 5453:Hyb 5448:The 5357:rid 5352:Hyb 5347:The 5316:rid 5311:Hyb 5306:The 5184:rid 5179:Hyb 5174:The 4992:rid 4987:Hyb 4982:The 4782:rid 4777:Hyb 4772:The 4699:rid 4694:Hyb 4689:The 4653:not 4644:you 4621:All 4376:you 4357:not 4310:any 4250:not 4235:did 4210:not 4156:any 3679:| 3643:man 3576:not 3477:RFC 3422:Avb 3395:Rex 3385:Rex 3369:dab 3212:WjB 2925:WjB 2856:WjB 2696:. 2614:WRE 2601:J.S 2550:Lsi 2535:Lsi 2449:| 2434:| 2355:Lsi 2286:was 2137:ELs 1717:Fun 1656:.-- 1618:See 1422:gle 1419:rin 1416:Sef 1144:.-- 893:gle 890:rin 887:Sef 865:gle 862:rin 859:Sef 825:gle 822:rin 819:Sef 763:gle 760:rin 757:Sef 522:340 517:339 512:338 507:337 502:336 497:335 492:334 487:333 482:332 477:331 470:330 465:329 460:328 455:327 450:326 445:325 440:324 435:323 430:322 425:321 404:487 399:486 394:485 389:484 384:483 379:482 374:481 369:480 364:479 359:478 352:477 347:476 342:475 337:474 332:473 327:472 322:471 317:470 312:469 307:468 160:365 155:364 150:363 145:362 140:361 135:360 130:359 125:358 120:357 115:356 108:355 103:354 98:353 93:352 88:351 83:350 78:349 73:348 68:347 63:346 10397:-- 10321:• 10317:• 10313:( 10261:, 10119:• 10115:• 10111:( 10081:, 10077:, 10073:, 9792:• 9788:• 9784:( 9766:• 9762:• 9758:( 9727:• 9723:• 9719:( 9684:• 9680:• 9676:( 9604:• 9600:• 9596:( 9341:• 9337:• 9333:( 8887:: 8883:++ 8858:AK 8825:| 8811:) 8767:) 8747:) 8663:) 8621:) 8586:: 8552:: 8503:AK 8484:== 8482:1 8462:) 8443:96 8383:) 8379:– 8316:- 8301:te 8299:ai 8297:hw 8295:et 8293:tl 8291:os 8287:an 8285:Ry 8268:== 8266:1 8243:I 8229:AK 8140:-- 8085:. 7751:. 7612:, 7608:, 7576:is 7538:96 7491:-- 7453:-- 7404:-- 7341:-- 7252:-- 7200:. 7159:nd 7153:ar 7150:St 7147:- 7120:nd 7114:ar 7111:St 7108:- 7078:) 7058:96 7035:. 6990:NB 6948:-- 6906:-- 6885:96 6825:96 6704:96 6690:. 6590:nd 6584:ar 6581:St 6578:- 6574:. 6558:nd 6552:ar 6549:St 6546:- 6534:96 6483:nd 6477:ar 6474:St 6471:- 6360:, 6300:-- 6246:). 6130:ɹ 6124:/ 6094:. 6077:. 5597:' 5496:ka 5472:96 5402:. 5281:96 5210:96 5121:96 5089:— 4935:96 4519:, 4515:, 4511:, 4507:, 4462:my 4418:, 4353:is 4293:96 4266:do 4258:is 4242:is 4152:is 4083:no 4069:, 3907:is 3845:- 3675:- 3559:- 3467:96 3441:96 3356:. 3208:. 3194:11 3035:- 2992:) 2909:- 2903:- 2839:- 2833:- 2645:da 2633:Mi 2488:da 2476:Mi 2430:- 2192:) 2181:-- 2113:96 2086:96 2070:96 2022:96 1953:96 1919:96 1647:." 1591:." 1328:, 1225:. 1081:. 608:14 603:13 598:12 593:11 586:10 296:, 174:, 52:, 10325:) 10123:) 10056:r 10052:e 9796:) 9770:) 9731:) 9688:) 9608:) 9345:) 9025:. 8893:c 8891:/ 8889:t 8809:☎ 8807:( 8802:C 8765:☎ 8763:( 8758:C 8745:☎ 8743:( 8738:C 8661:☎ 8659:( 8654:C 8619:☎ 8617:( 8612:C 8592:c 8590:/ 8588:t 8558:c 8556:/ 8554:t 8488:) 8486:2 8480:( 8460:☎ 8458:( 8453:C 8375:( 8289:P 8272:) 8270:2 8264:( 8179:| 8093:| 8040:) 8035:· 8029:· 8023:· 8017:· 8011:· 8005:· 7999:· 7994:( 7984:· 7979:( 7937:) 7932:· 7926:· 7920:· 7914:· 7908:· 7902:· 7897:( 7889:) 7884:· 7878:· 7872:· 7866:· 7860:· 7854:· 7849:( 7775:. 7074:( 7026:· 7021:( 6642:) 6638:( 6500:. 6263:, 6117:r 5925:) 5921:( 5907:) 5902:· 5896:· 5890:· 5884:· 5878:· 5872:· 5867:( 5859:) 5854:· 5848:· 5842:· 5836:· 5830:· 5824:· 5819:( 5811:) 5806:· 5800:· 5794:· 5788:· 5782:· 5776:· 5771:( 5729:ε 5724:e 5721:o 5718:M 5698:ε 5693:e 5690:o 5687:M 5661:ε 5656:e 5653:o 5650:M 5623:ε 5618:e 5615:o 5612:M 5558:ε 5553:e 5550:o 5547:M 5436:ε 5431:e 5428:o 5425:M 5386:ε 5381:e 5378:o 5375:M 5103:ε 5098:e 5095:o 5092:M 5079:n 5075:e 5060:ε 5055:e 5052:o 5049:M 4958:ε 4953:e 4950:o 4947:M 4896:ε 4891:e 4888:o 4885:M 4873:n 4869:e 4842:ε 4837:e 4834:o 4831:M 4730:ε 4725:e 4722:o 4719:M 4521:5 4517:4 4513:3 4509:2 4505:1 3784:ε 3779:e 3776:o 3773:M 3535:· 3530:( 2988:( 2976:t 2974:· 2642:n 2639:a 2636:r 2616:) 2612:/ 2610:C 2608:/ 2606:T 2604:( 2485:n 2482:a 2479:r 2237:" 2232:" 2190:c 2187:t 2185:( 1643:" 1569:" 1212:. 581:9 576:8 571:7 566:6 561:5 556:4 551:3 546:2 541:1 534:) 530:( 418:) 414:( 300:) 292:( 178:) 170:( 56:) 48:( 30:)

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

Knowledge

:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive10 - Knowledge

Index