1703:'s statement about me (I am not on "trial" here FWIW) is evidence related to Kudpung's actions. I do passingly mention my situation (I am often targeted due to my high profile as an editor for better or worse), but for reasons many people can probably understand I rarely do talk about what happened and the one mistake I made (all just to pay my electricity bill, sadly enough). It's anxiety inducing (my heart is racing as I type this), ruined my life (I was unemployed for one year and I had to end up working for my stepmom – where I still work - because I'm un-hireable given that my name is smeared all over the internet because of the firing), and something that I think should not be "evidence" to rationalize a fellow editor and administrator being rude, patronizing, or prone to retaliation. Thanks.
526:
respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
1380:'s evidence discusses me and my actions pretty extensively—should I be considering myself a party to the case? I'm asking this for word limit reasons, though I realize now that when everyone's word limits were extended to 1500 words the limit for parties was not discussed. Either way, I am hoping for 500 more words to respond to that evidence as well as a few additional hours—he's unfortunately posted his evidence during my work hours, and by the time I'm home and able to respond at length we will probably have reached the evidence deadline.
192:
43:
663:
1951:
1976:
1771:(not by you, but you can surely see it's there). So, I saw a friend with allegations like that being stacked up against him, and I had to point out that there was a context that I think is far more likely to lie behind his interactions with you, and of which commentators in this case and Arbcom members needed to be aware. I'm sorry if it caused you discomfort.
747:. Cough. It'll take a while, unfortunately. This particular one is about K and GW, whom I'm both quite fond of, for some reason deciding to burn each other to the ground, and then salt that ground so nothing ever grows again. And, if it's not clear, I don't think that was a good decision. Are you part of it somewhere that I missed? --
1636:
That was funny! Now I know that some might think it a bad idea to make a drive-by comment implying someone could have a mental illness. Especially an administrator. Especially on an arbitration case about an administrator accused of making personal attacks. They might find it hurtful. They might find
1504:
This is a straightforward user-conduct case and the evidence should be absolutely straightforward: "Here is what
Kudpung is alleged to have done and the diffs to prove it, here are the extenuating circumstances if any and the diffs to prove it". Parts of the alleged "evidence" on this case don't even
1039:
It looks like the RFC found that consensus to the question "Should votes which are not blatant vandalism or personal attacks be removed?" was no, and "Should questions which are not blatant vandalism or personal attacks be removed?" was also no. To the question "Should threaded responses to RfA votes
900:
are more relevant. From the standpoint of the "prosecution", it would be a shame if word limits on evidence prevented them from presenting their complete case, and led to an admonishment when a more complete presentation of evidence might have led to more severe sanctions. From the standpoint of the
1142:
Do you not think that perhaps the nature of your oppose at that RfA had something to do with it, plus the fact that you're making accusations in this case and the other opposers at the RfA aren't? Do you think you should be free to make whatever accusations you like against
Kudpung but be immune to
2001:
In view of the continued delay can I make a request - for consistency? During the
Workshop a lack of tangible evidence in one of my contributions was challenged by another editor. I provided the requested links - but into the Workshop section where it was suggested that these links should be added
1852:
I'm not a party to this matter, but after reading through all of the evidence, all I can see are leaps to conclusions and assumptions of sexism and retaliation. I'm seeing instances of
Kudpung being brash, but I'm also not seeing clear evidence of matters that are desysopworthy. I'm also a little
654:
I thought about what my assertion would be for this evidence block, and, to be honest, couldn't think of a more apt way to sum up than that famous phrase. I am not nearly done, by the way. If you wait for me to finish, I believe it will be obvious. I do not know of a rule defining exactly what an
525:
Arbitration case pages exist to assist the
Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to
1868:
Arbitrators are allowed to participate in (even bring) cases if they recuse. If that was not the case, there would be nowhere for arbitrators to raise concerns about issues that would otherwise be arbitration-worthy with which they are directly involved, nor would people be able to raise similar
1395:
If I didn't make it clear with lots of bold explicitly stating as much, I don't intend my evidence to say that GW should be sanctioned. She - and all of us - have suffered enough here. Recommend sentencing both parties to "time already served". I have no comment about the other issues involving
1126:
successful RFA of 2017 there were three Oppose votes, of which mine was one. My vote was recorded on the talk page of the RfA as "Xxanthippe's Oppose". The other two were recorded as "Oppose #2" and "Oppose #3". This singling out by name led to me being the most prominent target for the type of
1066:
A question for the clerks about process. 1 edit spa IP 97.115.213.81 seems well practiced at
Knowledge skills like diffs and pings and describes themself as a formerly named editor. In other words a self-confessed sock puppet. Should opinion be accepted from a sock puppet? I think they should
1083:
I always thought there was a distinction between socking and editing logged out, but I suppose that's a distinction without a difference in this case. I remember the MLG episode pretty well because it was right around the time I stopped actively editing, so my brain didn't overwrite it with
1853:
concerned that someone who has recused herself is so heavily involved in the process. Usually recusal means you're removing yourself from the proceedings, not "just avoiding a being the
Arbitrator"...but that may just be a little more of the legal world than how WP operates.
879:
That might work with parliaments that have a limited number of members (and thus a limited amount of "total time") but
Knowledge has no such limits, so we need to limit the evidence itself. I'm okay with increasing the limit to 1,500 words for everyone though. Regards
1216:
I think what I said is perfectly clear. Where in my words is there any, even remote, suggestion of anything being done deliberately? If you find anything I say sufficiently unclear that you need to wonder whether I'm implying anything unsaid, then you should
2002:
into the
Evidence page. The acting clerk declined that request due to formality of the stage dates. As the AC deliberations now continue well beyond the target date can I request again that the requested evidence (links) be inserted into the evidence page?
1505:
pretend to relate to
Kudpung's conduct (the only topic at hand), and at least one editor's entire section reads like the transcript of someone having a full psychotic episode. Why is there not even a pretence of clerking this case taking place? ‑
742:
I'm (a) not nearly done yet, and (b) don't think I'll be referring to you at all? I mean, I guess I might, if I see your name somewhere in this trail of links as I'm writing, but from my memory I don't think you're part of this particular ...
1522:
Personally I've been fighting a viral infection for the last 2 weeks and I am currently finishing up my third round of medication to address the issue. I'll take a look through the case tonight and attempt to address any issues I see.
1121:
Hello clerks! Are we going to hear from you if it is appropriate for a sockpuppet to make personal attacks ("pretty cowardly") anonymously against a named editor? I experienced shabby treatment by clerks on an earlier occasion. In
1087:
Contextualizing evidence doesn't seem to me something that would break a wikireputation or require subterfuge, but it does come off as pretty cowardly. I've identified to the committee via email. Thanks for using neutral pronouns!
1051:) I think it shows a pattern. Also, I'm not sure that taking pot shots at other editors anonymously is very helpful. If you want to stay out of ArbCom matters publicly, then email the ArbCom, don't post here anonymously. -
1013:
This is said without prejudice to any other evidence presented, as a formerly named editor with effectively zero interactions with any of the parties to this case. I'll identify privately to the committee if so requested.
567:
Personally, I'd like to see that. The evidence page hopefully allows for a more streamlined and easier to parse overview of evidence than the request page which necessarily contains commentary and interactions. Regards
1424:
Actually, after rereading the evidence, it looks like GRuban has removed the bit I was intending to respond to. Assuming it does not substantially change in the next hour, I'm satisfied with not providing a response.
1143:
examination and criticism of your own behaviour in the related events? Your RfA oppose was, in my view, despicable, and I think you need to gain some self awareness over that rather than trying to blame the clerks.
1933:(or whoever has authority over these things): I just noticed that I left the words "in Episode 1" in my evidence, though that's no longer a section title. Permission to change that to "in the above section"? --
1267:
In that case I withdraw any imputation made. Your standing on this page will be less open to misinterpretation if you report what your previous user names were and if you currently have any other user names.
1200:
If you do not want mistaken inferences to be drawn from your contributions to Knowledge you should give more attention to the clarity of your writing. What seems clear to you may not be clear to others.
811:
If we do, I'd be inclined to increase the limit for all submitters. I am inclined to say 'yes' to this (for you and everybody else) but will wait to see if there is a consensus from other arbs to do so.
832:
I don't know exactly how the rules are applied here, but, having seen members of the US House of Representatives "yield their time" to other members, I would be happy to yield whatever quota I have to
1447:
has put in his evidence at the last moment, and in fact is still doing that, so I think that it is reasonable to give an extension to any editor extensively discussed by him to a significant extent.
1283:
Other people's words (I don't know what you mean by "standing" - everyone has equal standing here, IPs included) will be less open to misinterpretation if *you* stop inferring the worst in them.
1886:, both arbitrators and clerks can recuse and present statements or evidence in an arbitration case. As GW states, this is not out of order and happens with some regularity, if not frequently.
1780:
1627:
1608:
1571:
1306:
1819:
1798:
1712:
119:
1292:
1234:
1210:
1195:
1172:
1152:
1434:
1752:
1738:
1060:
932:
1637:
it worthy of reproach. But I know you have only the best intentions and mean it as lighthearted constructive criticism, and will take it in the spirit in which it was intended. --
995:
1833:
1546:
1277:
1262:
1097:
1532:
969:
827:
1464:
955:
874:
1419:
1405:
1136:
114:
1878:
891:
1862:
775:
756:
737:
717:
699:
676:
413:
1897:
1684:
1942:
1646:
1490:
1476:
2011:
1694:
1664:
1509:
845:
579:
450:
282:
56:
1366:
599:
1258:
1093:
1029:
910:
796:
I am drafting my evidence and though my initial pass at it is quite long, I'm hoping to get it down to 1,500 words. May I have an extension for that amount? Thanks,
648:
108:
1988:
1969:
1003:
1002:
about the level of inappropriateness in RFA comments we were willing to tolerate. This was after Xxanthippe posed an optional question to Megalibrarygirl which was
1010:
by a sitting arbitrator. Characterizing Xxanthippe's oppose !vote in that discussion as anything other than misogynistic is an extraordinarily charitable reading.
1033:
901:"defense", it would be a shame if word limits on evidence prevented them from defending themselves against all of the allegations presented by the prosecution. –
1911:
215:
805:
1389:
1115:
1076:
1810:
I erred in my words above, and I apologise for that - I did not intend to suggest all commentators were making such suggestions. I have adjusted my comments.
1160:
1123:
561:
444:
1456:
103:
92:
1348:
1396:
Kudpung, because frankly I didn't look into them. Looking into this one was rough enough, and I am quite, quite glad that I'm not an arb that has to. --
999:
1655:
covers the most common ones in the literature. As serendipity would have it, I was working on an issue related to that topic when I saw your comment.
620:
408:
440:
236:
228:
86:
29:
1764:
I'm sorry I felt I had to make those points, because I do recall how painful that episode seemed to be for you. The problem is, there seems to be
1297:
Hey, emotions are high here. Xxanthippe misunderstood what was being said, and has retracted their claim. Let’s not escalate this any further. -
1847:
1468:
382:
232:
1921:
402:
247:
225:
81:
70:
923:
I would also be grateful for flexibility limits-wise. Due to the nature of the case some of my evidence covers several separate events.
483:
435:
373:
292:
220:
63:
937:
Per Committee instructions, I've updated the case evidence page to reflect the new limits of 1,500 words and 150 diffs for all users.
1726:
1596:
1559:
398:
509:
378:
25:
984:
Most arbs will probably remember this, but Kudpung's veiled (piped) characterization of Xxanthippe as misogynistic (which btw is
388:
368:
251:
1499:
607:
393:
306:
287:
1651:
I don’t mean to be pedantic, but you can apparently have a psychotic episode without having a mental illness. The article on
356:
723:... well, I admit ... I read your evidence and have no idea what you are getting at. Maybe my mascara is getting in the way?
427:
318:
351:
1996:
1254:
1089:
1025:
277:
206:
21:
642:
979:
1320:
343:
183:
1680:
823:
595:
329:
272:
1815:
1776:
1733:
1603:
1566:
1288:
1230:
1191:
1159:
I am disturbed by your implication that the selected outing of my name by the clerks on the talk page of the
1148:
264:
1669:
I just hate the black/white binary nature of "does this person have a mental illness or not" in general....
1335:
1048:
502:
314:
212:
1372:
1225:
and going with your worst inference. That's how we're supposed to do things here at Knowledge, remember?
529:
324:
242:
988:, not any of the diffs linked in Xxanthippe's evidence section) came after Xxanthippe's oppose !vote in
1463:
I'm not arguing for or against an extension; just noting that in the past, editors have been told that
791:
363:
17:
549:
A large quantity of evidence was submitted in the RfArb stage. Would you like it to be resubmitted? --
1874:
1811:
1772:
1719:
1700:
1623:
1589:
1552:
1542:
1430:
1415:
1385:
1302:
1284:
1226:
1187:
1144:
1056:
965:
870:
801:
2007:
1794:
928:
495:
1163:
was deliberate. I had supposed that it was inadvertent, although nonetheless damaging for that.
655:"assertion" should be, but if there is one that would prevent this one, then I may just have to
1340:- I just wanted to remind you that the evidence phase will be closing in the next couple days.
1007:
985:
771:
733:
695:
638:
1652:
202:
1486:
1452:
1361:
1273:
1206:
1168:
1132:
1110:
1072:
556:
8:
1870:
1660:
1619:
1538:
1426:
1411:
1381:
1298:
1052:
961:
866:
865:
I don't think I've ever seen that done at an ArbCom case, but I do appreciate the offer!
833:
797:
136:
745:
brilliant example of wisdom, peace, and love that we should all strive towards emulating
2003:
1805:
1790:
1748:
1708:
1674:
1465:
submitted evidence can be refuted in the "Analysis of evidence" section of the workshop
1178:
I implied no such thing, you inferred - incorrectly. If I wish to convey an opinion, I
951:
924:
817:
589:
161:
1928:
1524:
1084:
subsequent wikidrama, although I didn't actually lose access to my account till 2019.
906:
897:
841:
762:
724:
686:
634:
624:
150:
1984:
1938:
1642:
1472:
1401:
752:
713:
672:
1964:
1907:
1858:
1829:
1789:
rampant sexism. That's a disgraceful claim which you should withdraw or clarify.
1583:
1517:
1506:
1482:
1448:
1355:
1327:
1269:
1202:
1164:
1128:
1104:
1068:
1019:
886:
574:
550:
172:
1656:
1579:
1537:
I’m not sure it is helpful to call someone’s evidence a “psychotic episode”. -
896:
This is more like a court case than a legislative deliberation, so perhaps the
131:
467:
1759:
1744:
1704:
1670:
1346:
1222:
1218:
994:'s RFA, which was struck four times by three different editors, and provoked
938:
852:
813:
656:
585:
540:
156:
471:
1044:
902:
860:
837:
705:
682:
536:
145:
1769:
an undercurrent among some of seeing the case issues as examples of sexism
1980:
1934:
1638:
1444:
1397:
1377:
1331:
748:
709:
668:
614:
55:
To request an amendment or clarification of an arbitration decision, see
50:
This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
1959:
1903:
1883:
1854:
1825:
881:
569:
544:
167:
191:
1888:
1341:
469:
1902:
It's just odd from this layperson's perspective, not improper.
472:
990:
473:
704:
Well, I admit, I would like nothing better than if everyone
1766:
a pervasive approach of painting this all as rampant sexism
1869:
concerns about arbitrators (as has happened in the past).
57:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
69:
To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see
1253:" was intended to characterize my own behaviour here.
62:
To report a violation of an arbitration decision, see
627:
would be considered an "assertion" for this case. ~
1047:implied that another editor was a "man hater" (see
1614:Sorry, I misquoted. However, saying something is "
1040:be allowed?" the consensus seems to have been yes.
623:, I don't think quoting our article's quoting of
1695:How is Boing! said Zebedee's evidence, evidence?
1067:contribute under their user name or not at all.
1410:I would still like the opportunity to respond.
1618:a psychotic episode" is not helpful either. -
503:
1718:Unfortunately, context can also = evidence.
619:Without commenting on the substance of your
71:Knowledge talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks
510:
496:
64:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
836:, so that she may extend her comments. –
1824:BSZ, I'm seeing that undercurrent too.
1103:If I wasn't a party I would run a CU --
681:… hoping I am not to be painted with a
14:
1848:Reading through all of the evidence...
660:
283:Clarification and Amendment requests
37:
1922:May I make a minor clarifying edit?
1004:generally regarded as inappropriate
35:
1354:Thank you for the heads up, SQL --
857:Thanks, I will wait to hear back.
36:
2022:
1127:obloquy issued by the sock here.
1974:
1949:
661:
190:
41:
1500:Why is this not being clerked?
13:
1:
2012:08:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
1989:15:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
1970:14:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
1943:00:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
1912:16:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
1898:04:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
1879:02:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
1863:21:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
1834:21:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
1820:17:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
1799:17:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
1781:17:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
1753:16:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
1739:16:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
1713:16:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
1685:22:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
1665:20:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
1647:14:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
1628:08:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
1609:07:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
1572:05:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
1547:02:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
1533:01:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
1510:17:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
1491:00:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
1477:00:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
1457:23:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
1435:00:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
1420:22:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
1406:22:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
1390:21:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
1367:21:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
1349:02:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
1307:09:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
1293:07:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
1278:21:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
1263:20:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
1235:07:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
1211:02:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
1196:22:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
1173:21:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
1153:09:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
1137:08:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
1116:15:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
1098:19:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
1077:08:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
1061:21:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
1034:20:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
970:02:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
956:16:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
933:14:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
911:18:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
892:15:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
875:15:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
846:15:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
828:12:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
806:03:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
776:19:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
757:18:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
738:18:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
718:17:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
700:17:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
677:17:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
649:17:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
600:20:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
580:16:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
562:16:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
414:Conflict of interest reports
7:
1997:Per request on PD talk page
1699:Hi there. Just curious how
243:Search archived proceedings
10:
2027:
1743:Simple enough, thank you!
621:recent evidence submission
288:Arbitrator motion requests
18:Knowledge talk:Arbitration
898:Federal Rules of Evidence
608:GRuban's evidence's title
1481:Thanks for this advice.
1336:Winged Blades of Godric
1321:Blank evidence sections
523:Behaviour on this page:
1588:also relevant to you.
761:Not to my knowledge.
1653:anomalous experiences
1221:and ask, rather than
980:Xxanthippe's evidence
484:Track related changes
344:Arbitration Committee
184:Knowledge Arbitration
1785:It certainly is NOT
293:Enforcement requests
221:Guide to arbitration
142:Drafting arbitrators
1812:Boing! said Zebedee
1773:Boing! said Zebedee
1701:Boing! said Zebedee
1285:Boing! said Zebedee
1227:Boing! said Zebedee
1188:Boing! said Zebedee
1145:Boing! said Zebedee
530:Evidence from RfArb
1223:assuming bad faith
792:Evidence extension
315:Contentious topics
213:Arbitration policy
1877:
1611:
1529:
1433:
1418:
1388:
1373:GRuban's evidence
1219:assume good faith
1006:and at one point
968:
873:
804:
647:
625:Ti-Grace Atkinson
520:
519:
487:
455:
325:General sanctions
273:All open requests
203:About arbitration
176:
165:
154:
140:
123:
115:Proposed decision
112:
101:
90:
79:
78:
2018:
1978:
1977:
1967:
1962:
1957:
1953:
1952:
1932:
1896:
1873:
1809:
1763:
1736:
1731:
1724:
1606:
1601:
1594:
1587:
1576:
1569:
1564:
1557:
1527:
1521:
1429:
1414:
1384:
1364:
1358:
1344:
1339:
1113:
1107:
1023:
993:
964:
946:
944:
889:
884:
869:
864:
856:
800:
768:
730:
692:
666:
665:
664:
631:
630:
618:
577:
572:
559:
553:
548:
512:
505:
498:
486:
481:
474:
453:
409:Clerk procedures
401:
359:
330:Editor sanctions
307:Active sanctions
265:Open proceedings
235:
194:
180:
179:
170:
159:
148:
134:
117:
106:
95:
84:
45:
44:
38:
2026:
2025:
2021:
2020:
2019:
2017:
2016:
2015:
1999:
1975:
1965:
1960:
1950:
1948:
1926:
1924:
1887:
1850:
1803:
1757:
1734:
1727:
1720:
1697:
1604:
1597:
1590:
1577:
1567:
1560:
1553:
1530:
1515:
1502:
1375:
1362:
1356:
1342:
1325:
1323:
1251:pretty cowardly
1111:
1105:
1024:courtesy ping.
1017:
991:Megalibrarygirl
989:
982:
942:
941:
887:
882:
858:
850:
794:
766:
728:
690:
662:
628:
612:
610:
575:
570:
557:
551:
534:
532:
516:
482:
476:
475:
470:
460:
459:
458:
447:
430:
420:
419:
418:
405:
397:
385:
360:
355:
346:
336:
335:
334:
309:
299:
298:
297:
267:
257:
254:
239:
231:
209:
178:
52:
42:
34:
33:
32:
12:
11:
5:
2024:
1998:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1923:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1914:
1871:GorillaWarfare
1849:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1755:
1696:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1620:Chris.sherlock
1574:
1551:They did not.
1539:Chris.sherlock
1535:
1526:
1501:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1427:GorillaWarfare
1412:GorillaWarfare
1382:GorillaWarfare
1374:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1322:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1299:Chris.sherlock
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1101:
1100:
1085:
1064:
1063:
1053:Chris.sherlock
1041:
981:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
962:GorillaWarfare
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
867:GorillaWarfare
834:GorillaWarfare
798:GorillaWarfare
793:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
722:<groan: -->
609:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
531:
528:
518:
517:
515:
514:
507:
500:
492:
489:
488:
478:
477:
468:
466:
465:
462:
461:
457:
456:
448:
443:
438:
432:
431:
426:
425:
422:
421:
417:
416:
411:
406:
396:
391:
386:
381:
376:
371:
366:
361:
354:
348:
347:
342:
341:
338:
337:
333:
332:
327:
322:
311:
310:
305:
304:
301:
300:
296:
295:
290:
285:
280:
275:
269:
268:
263:
262:
259:
258:
256:
255:
250:
245:
240:
230:
223:
218:
210:
205:
199:
196:
195:
187:
186:
82:Main case page
80:
77:
76:
75:
74:
67:
60:
48:
46:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2023:
2014:
2013:
2009:
2005:
2004:Leaky caldron
1990:
1986:
1982:
1979:Thank you. --
1973:
1972:
1971:
1968:
1963:
1956:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1940:
1936:
1930:
1913:
1909:
1905:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1895:
1893:
1892:
1885:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1876:
1872:
1867:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1860:
1856:
1835:
1831:
1827:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1817:
1813:
1807:
1806:Leaky caldron
1802:
1801:
1800:
1796:
1792:
1791:Leaky caldron
1788:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1778:
1774:
1770:
1767:
1761:
1756:
1754:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1737:
1732:
1730:
1725:
1723:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1710:
1706:
1702:
1686:
1682:
1679:
1676:
1672:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1635:
1629:
1625:
1621:
1617:
1613:
1612:
1610:
1607:
1602:
1600:
1595:
1593:
1585:
1581:
1575:
1573:
1570:
1565:
1563:
1558:
1556:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1534:
1531:
1519:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1508:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1368:
1365:
1359:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1347:
1345:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1281:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1255:97.115.213.81
1252:
1248:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1215:
1214:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1176:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1141:
1140:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1125:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1114:
1108:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1090:97.115.213.81
1086:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1026:97.115.213.81
1021:
1015:
1011:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
992:
987:
971:
967:
963:
959:
958:
957:
953:
949:
948:
947:
936:
935:
934:
930:
926:
925:Leaky caldron
922:
912:
908:
904:
899:
895:
894:
893:
890:
885:
878:
877:
876:
872:
868:
862:
854:
849:
848:
847:
843:
839:
835:
831:
830:
829:
825:
822:
819:
815:
810:
809:
808:
807:
803:
799:
777:
773:
769:
765:
760:
759:
758:
754:
750:
746:
741:
740:
739:
735:
731:
727:
721:
720:
719:
715:
711:
707:
703:
702:
701:
697:
693:
689:
684:
680:
679:
678:
674:
670:
658:
653:
652:
651:
650:
646:
644:
640:
636:
626:
622:
616:
601:
597:
594:
591:
587:
583:
582:
581:
578:
573:
566:
565:
564:
563:
560:
554:
546:
542:
538:
527:
524:
513:
508:
506:
501:
499:
494:
493:
491:
490:
485:
480:
479:
464:
463:
452:
449:
446:
442:
439:
437:
434:
433:
429:
424:
423:
415:
412:
410:
407:
404:
400:
395:
392:
390:
387:
384:
380:
377:
375:
372:
370:
367:
365:
362:
358:
353:
350:
349:
345:
340:
339:
331:
328:
326:
323:
320:
316:
313:
312:
308:
303:
302:
294:
291:
289:
286:
284:
281:
279:
278:Case requests
276:
274:
271:
270:
266:
261:
260:
253:
249:
246:
244:
241:
238:
234:
229:
227:
224:
222:
219:
217:
214:
211:
208:
204:
201:
200:
198:
197:
193:
189:
188:
185:
182:
181:
177:
174:
169:
163:
158:
152:
147:
143:
138:
133:
129:
125:
121:
116:
110:
105:
99:
94:
88:
83:
72:
68:
65:
61:
58:
54:
53:
51:
47:
40:
39:
31:
27:
23:
19:
2000:
1954:
1929:Cameron11598
1925:
1890:
1889:
1851:
1786:
1768:
1765:
1728:
1721:
1698:
1677:
1615:
1598:
1591:
1561:
1554:
1503:
1443:
1376:
1324:
1250:
1183:
1179:
1102:
1065:
1049:this comment
1016:
1012:
983:
940:
939:
820:
795:
763:
744:
725:
687:
683:Women in Red
632:
611:
592:
533:
522:
521:
141:
127:
126:
124:
97:
49:
1182:, I do not
1043:Given that
1000:held an RFC
960:Thank you!
248:Ban appeals
226:Noticeboard
1958:. Regards
1584:Miniapolis
1518:Iridescent
1507:Iridescent
1483:Xxanthippe
1449:Xxanthippe
1363:Parlez Moi
1357:Guerillero
1328:Guerillero
1270:Xxanthippe
1203:Xxanthippe
1165:Xxanthippe
1129:Xxanthippe
1112:Parlez Moi
1106:Guerillero
1069:Xxanthippe
1020:Xxanthippe
996:such a row
558:Parlez Moi
552:Guerillero
454:(pre-2016)
441:Statistics
374:Procedures
128:Case clerk
1671:Cas Liber
1657:Viriditas
1580:CodeLyoko
986:this edit
814:Cas Liber
586:Cas Liber
379:Elections
132:CodeLyoko
1760:Missvain
1745:Missvain
1705:Missvain
1681:contribs
1161:2017 RfA
998:that we
853:Casliber
824:contribs
685:brush.
596:contribs
584:Agreed.
541:Casliber
157:Casliber
104:Workshop
93:Evidence
28: |
24: |
22:Requests
20: |
1525:Cameron
1334:, and
1045:Kudpung
903:wbm1058
861:Wbm1058
838:wbm1058
767:Georgia
729:Georgia
706:make up
691:Georgia
543:, and
537:Joe Roe
451:Reports
389:History
369:Members
364:Contact
352:Discuss
216:(CU/OS)
146:Joe Roe
30:Kudpung
1981:GRuban
1935:GRuban
1875:(talk)
1639:GRuban
1469:isaacl
1445:GRuban
1431:(talk)
1416:(talk)
1398:GRuban
1386:(talk)
1378:GRuban
1332:GRuban
1008:struck
966:(talk)
945:Thomas
871:(talk)
802:(talk)
749:GRuban
710:GRuban
708:... --
669:GRuban
657:ignore
615:GRuban
394:Clerks
252:Report
166:&
155:&
1904:Buffs
1884:Buffs
1855:Buffs
1826:Buffs
1735:54129
1605:54129
1568:54129
1528:11598
1249:The "
1184:imply
764:Sandy
726:Sandy
688:Sandy
629:Amory
545:SoWhy
428:Audit
168:SoWhy
16:<
2008:talk
1985:talk
1955:Done
1939:talk
1908:talk
1859:talk
1830:talk
1816:talk
1795:talk
1777:talk
1749:talk
1709:talk
1675:talk
1661:talk
1643:talk
1624:talk
1616:like
1582:and
1543:talk
1487:talk
1473:talk
1453:talk
1402:talk
1303:talk
1289:talk
1274:talk
1259:talk
1231:talk
1207:talk
1192:talk
1169:talk
1149:talk
1133:talk
1124:this
1094:talk
1073:talk
1057:talk
1030:talk
952:talk
929:talk
907:talk
842:talk
818:talk
772:Talk
753:talk
734:Talk
714:talk
696:Talk
673:talk
659:it.
590:talk
445:Talk
436:Talk
403:Talk
383:Talk
237:Talk
207:Talk
173:Talk
162:Talk
151:Talk
137:Talk
120:Talk
109:Talk
98:Talk
87:Talk
26:Case
1966:Why
1787:all
1343:SQL
1180:say
888:Why
774:)
736:)
698:)
576:Why
319:Log
2010:)
1987:)
1961:So
1941:)
1910:)
1894:iz
1861:)
1832:)
1818:)
1797:)
1779:)
1751:)
1729:SN
1722:——
1711:)
1683:)
1663:)
1645:)
1626:)
1599:SN
1592:——
1562:SN
1555:——
1545:)
1523:--
1489:)
1475:)
1467:.
1459:.
1455:)
1404:)
1360:|
1330:,
1305:)
1291:)
1280:.
1276:)
1261:)
1233:)
1213:.
1209:)
1194:)
1186:.
1175:.
1171:)
1151:)
1139:.
1135:)
1109:|
1096:)
1079:.
1075:)
1059:)
1032:)
954:)
931:)
909:)
883:So
844:)
826:)
755:)
716:)
675:)
667:--
641:•
637:•
598:)
571:So
555:|
539:,
144::
130::
113:—
102:—
91:—
2006:(
1983:(
1937:(
1931::
1927:@
1906:(
1891:L
1857:(
1828:(
1814:(
1808::
1804:@
1793:(
1775:(
1762::
1758:@
1747:(
1707:(
1678:·
1673:(
1659:(
1641:(
1622:(
1586::
1578:@
1541:(
1520::
1516:@
1493:.
1485:(
1471:(
1451:(
1400:(
1338::
1326:@
1301:(
1287:(
1272:(
1257:(
1229:(
1205:(
1190:(
1167:(
1147:(
1131:(
1092:(
1071:(
1055:(
1028:(
1022::
1018:@
950:(
943:C
927:(
905:(
863::
859:@
855::
851:@
840:(
821:·
816:(
770:(
751:(
732:(
712:(
694:(
671:(
645:)
643:c
639:t
635:u
633:(
617::
613:@
593:·
588:(
547::
535:@
511:e
504:t
497:v
399:+
357:+
321:)
317:(
233:+
175:)
171:(
164:)
160:(
153:)
149:(
139:)
135:(
122:)
118:(
111:)
107:(
100:)
96:(
89:)
85:(
73:.
66:.
59:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
