Knowledge talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 12

9866:"clarify" every, or indeed any, little detail of the form "What will happen if I break the spirit of my topic ban by doing X, which is not covered explicitly the way it's formulated?" The purpose of the topic bans is to take the steam out of the topic. If a topic banned editor is allowed to do X, then a topic banned editor from the "opposite" camp will also do X. If that can easily be predicted to lead to stressful interactions between the two it's clear that X is covered by the ban, regardless of any wikilawyering one could do on the subject. (Of course this requires a pragmatic choice of X that takes context into account, see below.) By not micro-managing the extent of the restrictions Arbcom can force the topic banned editors to think about the consequences of their actions. (Something like this also applies to other editors, and I personally feel on thin ice when editing in the area. Since one person's robust response to disruption is another person's disruption, this is not a nice feeling. But I believe it's necessary.) We will see what happens when the first "uninvolved" admin blocks an editor for doing something that did not break the spirit of the rules but is superficially similar to something that does. (E.g.: Topic banned editor A taunts topic banned editor B on B's talk page and gets blocked. A week later B leaves an apology regarding some earlier disagreement on topic banned editor C's talk page and gets blocked for the same length of time.) IMO everything hinges on Arbcom's firm response in such a situation. They seem to have thought about it, so let's see how well it works in practice. 1276:

oversighted material and checkuser logs when it is necessary to do so as part of a case or when asked to judge whether a checkuser or oversighter has been using the tools correctly. The same judgment needed to decide whether a valid complaint has been made about a checkuser or oversighter, is used to decide whether someone should be selected for the role. Essentially, ask them questions and consider the answers given, and other evidence and then make a decision. There probably is a valid point to be made about whether those who don't use the tools are best suited to judge who should use the tools or issue reprimands to those using the tools outside the bounds set, which is why I've said (off-wiki) that I would not be a member of AUSC as I feel those on AUSC should have at some point have been active users of the tools. But I do think that the ArbCom election is a mandate to trust those successful in the election to (as arbitrators) exercise their judgment in several ways and roles, such as: (i) considering ArbCom cases, (ii) dealing with privacy-related issues, (iii) dealing with ban appeals, and finally (v) overseeing the CU and OS teams (and bringing in more people to cover the work that needs to be done). Essentially, as Risker said, the ArbCom and CUOS elections are for different roles, and the election of arbitrators is less about tool access, but more about taking on

1855:

attention-seeking of certain banned users, and we also block sleepers without publicly acknowledging those accounts for the same reason. Other projects require a separation between the checkuser and the block; we don't require that for some of the reasons just mentioned, although it is frequently the way things are done on SPI. I have been told that one or two projects grant "temporary" admin permissions to non-admin checkusers, and I don't think that would go over well here, and is also unnecessary given the number of admins we have. Finally, we have received quite a few applications from non-administrators in the past and, while almost all of them are fine users, they almost invariably did not meet the criteria that we were looking for as well as administrator applicants did. As we are hoping to move fairly quickly this time, we're limiting invitations to apply to those candidates most likely to be able to meet the needs of these two roles. This isn't a "forever" prohibition of non-admin candidates, and it's a topic worthy of discussion, but given the time constraints we have right now, we're not in a position to have that discussion for this particular round of appointments.

7215:

to see the real offenses, although the admin's conduct was not part of the original scope of the case, and there were no significant findings against the editors against whom the case was originally filed. In terms of length, it took a very long evidence page to show the issues, and although my evidence was long, a former arb wrote to tell me years later that it was the most effective evidence in the case. On the other hand, I participated in a different case where several arbs intimidated and threatened the participants attempting to submit evidence, which led to less than optimal outcomes in the case, which ended up taking much too long to resolve, with an unsatisfactory outcome, and unnecessary delays in the offending editor being finally banned. When dealing with blocs of editors who are POVing entire suites of articles, it takes more than the "normal" amount of diffs and evidence to show the pattern, and by the time these cases get to ArbCom, they are complex-- the arbs get the big bucks to sort through it, and overly restricting evidence size in such cases might not be helpful.

9280:

saying that they would prefer the quality articles here to the partisan screeds they would find at partisan blogs (of either side). I agree. Most readers who have not already formed an opinion and who honestly want information would be better served to turn here than to partisan blogs. I think we can both agree on that. However, that's not my point. My point is that the ends do not justify the means. And the editing environment in this topic area has been marred by partisanship and outright factional behavior, including multiple parties (on both sides of the partisan divide) acting badly to the point that they got mentioned in the findings. So an EDITOR would not necessarily prefer editing here. Certainly not in the status quo ante. Whether things improve remains to be seen but I'm hopeful that with some factionalists removed on both sides (more on the weaker side to be sure, but still) things WILL improve. Aside: For the record, I don't think you were poking at me much in this particular instance. ++

1047:(to MZM) I think you are unfairly treating ArbCom as a monolithic entity here. When we consider who should and shouldn't be granted such tools we discuss the candidates who volunteer for the positions and look at the concerns raised (by other arbs and by other editors). We can only look at the candidates who volunteer (some people who might make excellent checkusers and oversighters don't volunteer, but we shouldn't pressure them to do so and I've never done that). The question then remains how to select from the candidates that put themselves forward? Some are clearly unsuitable, while for some there is unanimous agreement that they are suitable for the role and will do a good job (though if they don't, the tools can always be removed). For candidates where we (ArbCom) don't agree, we discuss and make our opinions clear and come to a decision. The point being that even unsuccessful candidates often have the support of several or more arbitrators, but successful candidates need to have a 1369:

they consider evidence and observe conduct during cases. However, from your response I am unsure whether the point I was making has been missed. Almost any case will include some evidence of alleged administrator misbehaviour, likely with some editors supporting the administrator and others voicing concerns / criticisms. Except in the unlikely case where all concerns and criticisms etc voiced are utterly without merit, these community-expressed concerns are factors ArbCom should be including when deciding about an administrators potential fitness for an office of trust such as CU or OS. I appreciate your point about the factors that ArbCom might notice on its own, but I also hope that my point about looking for any and all expressions of community input, even those occurring outside a formal invitation to provide input, is recognised.

4978:

wide latitude to impose what we see fit, based on our judgment. This is because we are the last stage in dispute resolution, and the aim is to get matters sorted for the good of the encyclopedia as a whole, not attend to the finer details of due process for individual editors. There is also a need to not let things linger on and on. Good advice to those under arbitration is to accept the results of arbitration and work within the constraints set down. Anything else is unproductive, no matter how 'right' you think you are. And I appreciate the thought, but please don't try and shift discussion to my talk page, as you will likely get blocked for that. This discussion should be the last on the matter for some time. Your only options now are to file a formal appeal for relaxation of the topic ban (the page to do this at is

1105:

and doing some myself, talking a user or two down from the Reichstag, blocking a banned user or two (with or without checkuser) and responding to emails, IRC private messages, and onwiki posts. Notice how only a couple of those tasks fall into the scope of either a checkuser or an oversighter. At one time, all oversight and checkusering was done by arbitrators, but as this became an increasingly onerous task, it was delegated to others who are (a) qualified (which includes more than just being able to hit a few buttons and interpret IPs), (b) trusted and (c) able to fill known gaps or service lapses. The community has pretty badly failed at (c), and hasn't really shown itself all that capable with (b) either, given the fact that there was no indication of trust issues brought up in the most recent election.

857:

thousand competing proposals, none of which had strong support. The idea that anyone who failed to achieve the 70% support required in this oddball election is now barred from ever running again is just nonsense. There was no good way out of this, and the positions still need to be filled. I certainly don't see it as some great honor to be attained, it frankly sounds like a pain in the ass, but it needs doing and there were only a few of us that put out names forward as being willing to do it. It is my opinion that it was the process itself that was flawed, not the candidates. Since I have still not received an explanation for any one of the 111 opposes I got, or the 138 supporters for that matter, how am I supposed to know what supposed flaw caused the result?

2461:

either. I requested unblock, and was told to contact the blocking admin. This was impossible, because her talk page is semi-protected, and she has no alternative means of contact. She also has a stated wish to prevent all anon editing. This forces logged-out editors to "out" their IP providers. It also winds people up, as giving incorrect and misleading advice to blocked editors is just plain dumb. Could some effort be made by Arbcom to ensure that Checkusers in future do not behave in such an unhelpful and disruptive way? I really really don't want to have to log in to edit, as there is just too much crap going on. Checkusers should mark all IP's blocked with a correct and helpful notice. Checkusers shouldn't be forcing editors to reveal their IP.

9511:'Processes' generally means (loosely speaking) 'stuff that happens on process pages', distinct from pages primarily concerned with editing. That's AfD/MfD/XfD, RfC, WP:AE, WP:AN and associated subpages (except, presumably, to respond to complaints filed against them), and no doubt a whole bunch of lesser-used alphabet soup. Reading in the extremely broad definition of all 'editing processes' would be a blanket inclusion of virtually every page on Knowledge; it would render the first two parts of the statement of scope (which define specific classes of article and article talk pages included in the ban) superfluous. It wouldn't make sense for the remedy to be phrased as it is if the ArbCom intended such an unsually broad interpretation of (3). 10265:. As far as sanctions are concerned, I have (and want) no involvement in the process, and will abide by the final decisions. To the content, which I don't address at my talk: I think that it is a very minor quibble (all calculations derived from never-perfectly-precise data are estimates), but "calculation" is still the better term: they are estimates with some teeth behind them. Now I think "calculation" is better (i.e., an improvement), and it is therefore good that WMC drew my eye to it. However, it can also be seen as me proxying for WMC: being that we have very roughly similar intellectual backgrounds, I almost always agree with him on scientific issues. Insofar as you all trust me, I can say that I saw WMC's notice which caught my 4854:. In other words, instead of the tired old refrain of "we are right and ArbCom are wrong", try and find ways to accept the current situation and move forward. If it helps you move forward from this, I am happy to say on an individual level (as I have before) that Sandstein did over-reach here. But the subsequent events reflect poorly on you, rather than him. The choice is yours: continue to rail against the decision reached here, or move forward. There are numerous ways to contribute to Knowledge productively, and you have the opportunity to do so, or to ask to be able to do so. But that would be done elsewhere, not on this page. It would also help your case if you yourself asked others to back off and let you speak for yourself. In 10017:

provisions for that to take place. There is a sense above of editors thinking that certain pages or issues are so difficult or complex that it requires certain editors to deal with them. This is anti-thetical to the entire concept of how Knowledge works. No single editor is indispensible, and no single editor should be necessary for Knowledge to work, or for a page to attain a reasonable standard. Trust in other editors (who have similar levels of expertise) and the system to cope with any problems that arise. And no editor should be so tied to a topic that they are unable to walk away from it when asked to do so. In other words, those who have been topic-banned are being asked to

9979:

said BLP subjects) who disrupt the articles and talk pages of the articles about themselves, and their socks and IPs are blocked and they end up de facto banned (usually no-one realises it is the subject of the article causing the disruption). What often happens then (and this is the crucial bit), is that they often reach out by e-mail to someone, and are directed to OTRS (or other off-wiki venues) to make their point in a way where their concerns can be dealt with without them disrupting things for everyone else. In other words, the conduct of a BLP subject on the talk page of their article, is still subject to the normal restrictions and the need to avoid disruption.

1568:

to eliminate as anything else). Disclosure of the existence of checks on Y or Z, possibly with rough dates or the checkuser name, could lead to the SPI case of user X and may well allow Y or Z to learn IP or location information about X (namely that X is close to where they are or uses the same possibly localized ISP/college/workplace). Disclosure of checks made on Y or Z could also be collated with other users' disclosures or used for "fishing" purposes (Y asks for details so another editor in the same area does too, to see if their name appears to have come up in the same case as Y), both leading to further risk of privacy breach.

7010:

evidence, resolution, etc. After the milestone ends, clerks and/or arbitrators should summarize what issues are still outstanding, what evidence is still needed, which topics have been excluded or included scope-wise, etc. Then begin the next iteration, again with a definite milestone. Continue iterating until the committee decides further iterations would bring nothing new to light. The decision should hopefully be apparent at this point, and the final vote can take place. I realize this could wreak havoc on the templates for tracking the arbitration process, but it may be worth the price.

11238:"Nasty common ordinary editors", to use your words (which I realize are sarcastic), are what make this project work in the first place, and to think that ARBCOM and other functionaries are unaware of this is to ignore the reality of how things are run around here. But that doesn't mean that every last detail of the technical aspects of running it are (or should be) available to everyone - "nasty common ordinary" or "sweet special extraordinary". A user - yes, a former functionary - was found to have edited in ways that are inconsistent with how the project works and is now gone. Since the 6990:

clarification on assertions made, to see if past behavior accurately reflects an editor's current attitude, to determine the bounds of the dispute, and to direct the conversation toward resolving the dispute rather than perpetuating it. (In this case, among other questions, I would have thought it useful to inquire further of William M. Connolley regarding his position on expert editors, to find out Lar's intent behind his "level the playing field" quote to see whether it reflected bias, and to ask each of the disputants about how far and in what ways they were willing to compromise.)

4412:

the debate so as not to give the excuse that we damned brews with our advocacy. The same people who claim that we constantly defend brews are constantly mirrored by the ones that harass him. We try to help extricate him from situations and the mirror is always trying to implicate him and ban him. When does the madness stop? Can't there be a general interaction ban between the other people too? Seriously did the scenery change as far as the people calling for brews head? Will the committee let the same group of people run off a editor and blindly say we are the cause of the problems?

7037:

that more standard in curbing the back and forth sniping, and voluminous postings that these Arb cases cause. Perhaps saying "Post your evidence and workshop remedies to the appropriate pages, but don't use the talk page unless the arbs or clerks have questions" would be beneficial.. and be harsher on those who engage in constant conflict during an arb case. I know several people were removed from the talk pages due to constant conflict, we need to determine if this was an outlier due to the heat of the debate, or something we should look towards doing more of, going forward.

1384:

to be discussed and examined. Evidence related to trustworthiness and reasoned support are also valuable too. Arbcom may in the first instance filter out some candidates from their own knowledge and assessment, but the community acts as a vast collective memory and user/s are invited to submit reasoned observations, concerns and endorsements before any given appointment. There isn't much benefit in input at other times because the community won't have any names of possible candidates to comment upon, but incidents that take place are usually remembered in future.

8215:@RD: Two answers: 1, is someone is changing accounts, the tradiational answer is to restrict them to one. In this case, PG2 is the obvious one, so should be unblocked. 2, I don't think PG is changing on a daily basis - many/most of the blocks are for accounts that are old. OK, I suppose I'd better check: Scottie Mccall - no edits; Wivaronth - no edits; Seenock - no edits; Nallith - no edits; Althea Faulkner - no edits. I got bored at that point. So which of these (admittedly many) accounts do you say that PG has been using "on a daily basis"? 4982:), or to do some work in other areas - trying to spin out this discussion elsewhere will likely see you blocked for discussing your sanction in the wrong area. It should be obvious that some quiet work in other areas would go a long way to seeing an appeal (in a few months) actually succeed, and it should also be obvious that an immediate appeal will almost certainly fail. I really can't put it any plainer than that. I also am unlikely to have time to respond further here, as there are other arbitration matters that need attention as well. 8271:, *but* the IP range that PG2 uses is blocked (see? I told you that you could read these logs better than me). Now it appears that you blocked PG2 because you were under the impression that PG2 was limited to one account (is that correct?). But I don't understand that - the account PG2 was created *after* all those accounts (no?). So if PG2 was indeed restricted, he couldn't have known that when creating those accounts. None of which (no?) have been even used since the PG2 account was created. Moreover, you say "As far as I could tell, he 795:

processes (both discussion+election-led and discussion-led appointments) would produce a good mixture of successful candidates (some people who would never volunteer under an election system might be excellent in the role). Also, if you have questions about what criteria should qualify and disqualify people for this role, or are thinking of volunteering, please ask. It is people prepared to volunteer, and feedback on both the selection criteria used, and on individual candidates, that is needed for this process to work.

373:

the latter, if the issue is "a user's physical or mental well-being", that isn't particularly the reason to proclaim an arbcom-only unblock. I think the standard should be the same as for a checkuser block - there is private information involved that cannot, for whatever reason, be disclosed here. These two sets (blocking users who are a threat to someone's well-being and blocks dependent on private information) will contain a lot of overlap, but I think private information is the key reason for a privileged block. --

8440:(od & ec) I'm must be missing something here. We have a user who retired very publicly while a topic ban was in the process of being voted on; who has probably operated between 15 and 20 accounts, none of which seems to have been mentioned at either of his RfAs; and has used those some of those accounts as SPAs to revisit the topic ban. Are we seriously suggesting that this is acceptable? That it's not disruptive? That's it's not evading scrutiny? That it's not helped create a false impression of support? etc etc 4102:

invariably those sanctioned by ArbCom have had problems working with others, regardless of their expertise or otherwise. If you look around, you will find plenty of experts and PhD students and probably professors as well, editing Knowledge with no problems. The trick is to learn how to edit Knowledge and work with others while doing so (work to your own strengths and recognise your own weaknesses and the strengths of others), and that does take a while to work out if you are used to a more individualistic approach.

222:

where mental health considerations are relevant / important to ArbCom... leaving aside the potential for anxiety if the editor is aware of the referral, the editor being referred is then going to have ArbCom approaching them on an issue with questions relating to their mental health... honestly, I don't understand how that can be anything other than stressful at minimum. It may be necessary at times, but I don't think advocating that ArbCom is the low stress / drama alternative in all cases is reasonable or wise.

1830:

cases (which could lead to privacy policy issues or problems in harassment/outing cases). Splitting the job for nicety wouldn't work. Technically admin tools could be bundled with Checkuser or honorary adminship granted as well. But there is also a good case (mentioned above) that someone should prove themselves as an admin toolholder and establish substantial community trust at admin level (including conduct and judgment in admin cases), before access is considered to WMF privacy tools and CU cases.

492:

decisions related to damage prevention, if the practical effect of their situation is disruptive? A tough situation. Perhaps no answer is truly going to be ideal. Arbcom for better or worse are our sole body for privacy and high-sensitivity issue resolution. Especially, consider how we should handle those cases where the user unfortunately having such a condition is also dealing with it by aggression, attacks, disruption, games, or other actively inappropriate conduct. Very tough issue.

35: 1729:

don't know how that user right would function if a user is not an administrator, given that it is essentially an add-on to the normal revision deletion abilities of an administrator. You'd need someone more familiar with MediaWiki to tell you whether the Oversight right could function without the user account also being an administrator. Either way, I find it highly unlikely that the community in general would approve of a non-administrator being given checkuser/oversight rights. --

1056:

conspiracy to keep people out, but often shows nothing more than failure to gain a high degree of consensus within the group. If you want to improve that process, why not write an essay detailing what criteria you would use to select checkusers and oversighters, and ask arbitrators if they use those criteria? You could also talk with those that are already checkusers and oversighters (including those who hold the tools on other projects) and ask them what criteria they would use.

10143:@Carcharoth (and other arbcom members): Hypothetically, if WMC and/or other topic banned editors congregate off-wiki and post citations and articles, does it become meatpuppery or proxying for banned users to make use of those sources in Wiki articles? I'm asking because I imagine that would be the next step if talk page posts on scientific articles are banned. This is not a remote possibility, and I can see it happening with more than one editor and more than one POV. 10291:

here isn't good enough, there has to be a law or a sign. Otherwise you end up with confusion and more debate, when the goal is to get people to stop debating and get back to working on things. It doesn't have to be a big deal. If Arbcom, amongst themselves, says that article talk pages are included or that the enumeration of pages is an elaboration on TBAN rather than instead of TBAN, they can just say so without further ado, notify the parties, and move on. -

7052:

everything at the wall to see what sticks. Plus, if a participant has to thoughtfully answer questions posed by a neutral arbitrator, it might provoke more self-reflection and voluntary concessions than aggressive challenges from opponents might. And there's a chance that warring parties will realize, through the inquiry process, that some of their assumptions about their opponents' motives or reasoning were faulty, making reconciliation a bit more possible.

6742:

justice, it is a project, not a system of government or a social experiment). If they don't change their ways, it comes down to whether the new enforcement regime is more sucessful at dealing with them than the old one was. And that in turn, in my view, will hinge on how many admins turn up and how even handed they are. Color me cautiously optimistic. Not the best decision, WMC got off exceedingly lucky to be merely topic banned, but not the worst by far. ++

10183:

harsher sanctions placed upon them. I, for one, would be willing to use any means at my disposal (including discretionary sanctions) to keep order in the topic area, even if it requires me to take further action against already-sanctioned editors. The best thing for these editors to do is to edit a non-controversial area for a while, and then come back in six months with a well-reasoned appeal that shows that they are capable of collaborating productively.

9758:

performed by a BAG-approved bot, there is a reasonable interpretation of Arbcom's words. Based on the discussion so far (especially Arbcom's choice of non-standard rules and the ScienceApologist precedent) I think I can guess the course of the intended lines. Plural because I am under the impression that there may well be two lines – crossing one will get you in trouble, and reporting someone who didn't cross the other will also get you in trouble.

7264:

the ultimate resolution of that case, and those delays affected many productive editors. In the first case, one arb did specifically request certain types of feedback, and attempting to comply with his specific request led to my very long evidence page, which he later said was the most helpful. So, I'd not like to see anything that might lead to the kinds of heavy-handed arb or clerk intervention that resulted in the delays in the second case.

10170:(and that's not a reference to the planet in 50 years time) then they'll have got the message. All users who are committed to wikipedia should be assisting these particular users in doing something constructive and unrelated, they shouldn't be corresponding with them on this topic, not wikilawyering around it on their, or engaging in the hypothetical of "what happens if".... You want to help them and wikipedia? The message is clear MOVE ON.-- 3436:- Thanks again for the comments received so far (both here and by e-mail). I've recently posted some follow-up notices to provide updates and ask for further comments. I'm continuing to co-ordinate the responses received, and collate them into one document for ongoing review. As I said above, I'll be contacting the candidates towards the end of the comment period, and the final review will take place between 25 August and 1 September. 10021:. Do other stuff for six months to demonstrate both that you are capable of acting collegially elsewhere and that you are capable of staying away from this topic area (or indeed any topic area) when asked to do so. Make notes off-wiki if you must, and then make your case at the right time for the topic ban to be lifted, but don't spend the next six months poking on-wiki at the edges of the area that has just been arbitrated. 4509:

fair motion, in case you didn't notice this is the place to discuss that. I'm not too sure you're too familiar why we were topic banned, it was because of references to the Nazi party, inquisition or even Les Miserables if memory serves. Maybe you missed that I am suggesting a way to stop it all. Ban the same editors that's crying for brews head from doing so, reinstitute the crap on us and bingo problem solved right?

3148:- Thanks for the comments received so far (both here and by e-mail). I'm currently co-ordinating the responses received, and am collating them into one document for ongoing review. People can make comments here if they wish (and those comments will be noted), but it will be easier for me to add them to the document if the comments are also e-mailed, and please note what Roger Davies said in the original announcement: 272:

relationship. I do believe that, if there's some positive early intervention from a trusted and respected colleague, we might not see as many serious overstress/mental distress situations. It's better for the user and the project not to have people become so distressed that Arbcom is put in a position where we have to act; and I know of a few cases where this positive intervention has been beneficial for all.

10037:

have become a net negative in terms of work in a topic area. That is, the topic is better without them, and worse with them. The ban is in place to make Knowledge better, and as such, it should not be tested around the edges. To put it bluntly: Why would we allow someone to make a topic worse, but only a little bit. If its reached the stage of topic banning, then the person just needs to stay away. --

790:(it would be depressing if there was more comment here than on the list of candidates next month). This is not about running an election or who 'wins' an election, but about getting people to volunteer to do a role that is needed, and ensuring that candidates for that role get the necessary scrutiny. Both ArbCom and the community play a role in carrying out that scrutiny, and that is the key here, not 9879:

effort to curtail that just simply offends the sensibilities as far as I'm concerned. It's just wrong, and trying to keep people from doing that is going to cause far more trouble than it will avert. However, editors who are topic banned simply can't or shouldn't go to other people's pages to carry out warfare there. I doubt that any of them will do so, but it's always a possibility down the line.

8822: 9262:

domain experts who are encouraged to come from science blogs to Knowledge to work under the climate change discretionary sanctions which set a high minimum standard for collaborative work. Needless to say I expect knowledgeable editors to produce relatively high quality material, some of which may even be usable under our content policies. Is that where you think my imagination fails me?

10513: 1797:. I'm astonished at the general level of rudeness with which I've been greeted and that it's permitted to treat other editors in this manner on this particular noticeboard is very disappointing. But I probably shouldn't be surprised given the growing rift between those in power and those who are not; it's perfectly clear in this discussion who is on which side of that rift. 5712:(repeating comment that got boxed) There are aspects of this situation that may not be suited for discussion on-wiki. (I say this without criticism of those who have commented, given that the posted announcement created a discussion section; someone should probably have posted here preemptively.) We will appreciate everyone's understanding and consideration in this matter. 5594:(repeating comment that got boxed) There are aspects of this situation that may not be suited for discussion on-wiki. (I say this without criticism of those who have commented, given that the posted announcement created a discussion section; someone should probably have posted here preemptively.) We will appreciate everyone's understanding and consideration in this matter. 188:

ArbCom process is going to subject an editor to a significant amount of stress and distress, even in the best of worlds, so if an administrator can reach a reasonable solution without ArbCom involvement that may well be a better outcome for the editor. Further, we do not live in the best of worlds, and ArbCom's history in this area is (to put it mildly) not stellar.

3152:. Xeno is correct that comments received, or a paraphrase, will be passed to the candidates, but we will anonymise those comments and concerns before passing them on. This also addresses the point raised by PhantomSteve. I'll be contacting the candidates towards the end of the comment period, and the final review will take place between 25 August and 1 September. 7066:). The feedback processes needed to be much stronger... another example of that problem is the questions that everyone posted at the beginning of the case, which appeared to disappear without a trace, near as anyone could tell. Again, these may have influenced how the case unfolded but there was no acknowledgment of that, no way to tell one way or the other. ++ 5774:

can be manipulated. Knowledge should make a new effort to strive for the neutral perspective and even get it into the Knowledge lexicon and culture. Consensus should remain a goal but neutral perspective should be a higher goal. Neutral perspective cannot be manipulated by paid bloggers but consensus can be manipulated. Knowledge must not be manipulated!

8510:. I've just looked through Althea Faulkner / Nallith / Seenock / Wivaronth ‎ / Scottie Mccall / Telziath / Jbtscott ‎/ PolargeoShutdown ‎ / Jack Vine ‎/ LilyNiviaq ‎/ Yugosithlord ‎/ Polargeo 2. None of those have any edits that match your description. Which accounts were you referring to? Where is the "false impression of support". Do you have any diffs? 1312:

for CU or OS or any other office of trust. This remains true even if ArbCom did / does not find that actions needed / needs to be taken against that administrator in the resolution of the case. The Committee should take into account all expressions of doubt from the community - including the expressions delivered by the votes in the recent elections.

3389:

was a result of the format. But in May, people were given a choice, they decided to actively participate in the election, and a good number decidedly to actively oppose certain candidates. For nearly any election (ArbCom, steward, adminship), this would mean a fairly clear result. In this case, it just means that a few months have passed.

255:

agreed ArbCom involvement is necessary and inevitable. These difficult cases do not justify a blanket advice to administrators to refer to ArbCom even in situations where there is a reasonable prospect that they could resolve the situation on their own in what would almost inevitably be a lower-stress approach for the involved editor.

3791:. One can only assume that the Arbitration Committee either applaud such conduct or are merely doing as instructed by their employer. I don't expect any support over this, but at least the Arbitration Committee has let you serfs know where you stand - behave, don't expose the lies, deceits and stupidities of your betters or be blocked! 1100:

and use of those tools. In practice over the last few years, few arbitrators have been regular users of either the checkuser or oversight tool outside of reviewing case-specific information, although a few will "specialise" in this area just as other arbitrators work more closely with BASC or decision-writing. (Full disclosure: as the

507:

the side of caution when linking IPs to accounts, even when it would be reasonable to conclude that the IP in question is not personally identifying and therefore not covered by the privacy policy. I believe that my blocks that are based on private checkuser evidence are quite clearly distinct from those that are not. For example:

1892:

subsequently asked for their bit back. But Commons doesn't have the formal noticeboards, etc. As a CU handling notices there I'd often report findings, and then leave it to others to act. Still, even without doing the blocking work, not being able to look at deleted contribs is a handicap in some kinds of CU investigations. ++

879:

decisions. On the other hand, other projects adopt models that seemed to work the first two times without secure poll: a straight up or down vote. ArbCom should be trusted to vet and then have a yes/no decision, and candidates should receive feedback. Short of this, applications are the only way to go. Just my two cents.

10362:

on WMC's behalf, at least not on this particular issue here right now. It is only that this issue has been framed in a polarized way (by postulating that William is trying to get around the topic ban), that this section has ended up discussing the issue as if getting around the topic ban is the relevant problem right now.

7763:

the socking and make up their minds whether or not it is consistent with being an admin. Arbcom are not saying he can't have the tools back - they are just saying "if he wants them back, the community will want to discuss". Unless he chooses to initiate that discussion, there's not need to demand or investigate anything.--

6327:

of scientific uncertainty, which is exactly what they are doing now. They are using astro-turfing and "real grassroots" campaigns. It would be absolutely astonishing if they weren't applying such methods to the freely editable Google hit number 1 on many global warming topics, and I am sure Arbcom is aware of the problem.

3750:- the comments period has closed now. Thanks for all the comments received. I'll be sorting out most of the correspondence involved with this tomorrow, and we will be completing our review of the candidates over the coming week. The schedule for this round of appointments is as previously posted to the noticeboard. 2285:

transfer in content without at least an attempt at fact checking and wikification. Personally, I don't transfer things I don't double-check first; sometimes that means a hard look at the sources myself, sometimes it means reading other articles on the subject and seeing if they treat the topic in a similar manner.

3866:

remarkable endurance of Giano's grudges, and his inability to recognise that not everything is an action taken for or against his interests and agenda. If we really did discount regular editors because they'd made a controversial call (or even a bad one) sometime in the last three years, who'd be left? Giano?--

9694:

be moderated by an Admin to make sure that the only discussions that take place there discuss some climate science issue, that it is relevant to editing some Wiki article, and that having input from one of the topic banned editors is reasonable. There should be zero tolerance for fighting any disputes there.

4261:

have been in trouble at all had he been editing with a "William Connelly" like figure who would archive irrelevant threads, threads that have strayed too far from the topic, and then start a new thread that summarizes the main arguments that are relevant and then come to a quick resolution on these issues.

1815:

with SPI (in particular Scibaby) is that in practice the two roles often have been carried out separately; usually the CU reports that accounts are related or unrelated and other admins do the blocking. I lean in favor of CUs being admins but don't think the alternative should be dismissed out of hand.

10936:

a question about whether or not he should reclaim such rights if/when he returns. I would argue that he should not be so-allowed, and if you start a discussion about that somewhere, I'll chime in. If he does return, some sort of mentoring will probably be needed for a while to see if the plagiarizing

10290:

I"m afraid Arbcom ought to issue a clarification on this. "Should have known" and "we intended" isn't clear enough. If you're going to tell people not to do something, you have to tell them clearly what it is they shouldn't do. It's like a "no parking" zone. They should have known they can't park

9978:

I would be willing to make an exception for that article, yes, but not any other articles. And do note that even the subjects of BLP articles are not automatically entitled to post to the talk page of said articles. There are many cases of BLP subjects (some dealt with in private to avoid embarassing

9817:

Given that the problem with WMC is behaviour toward others, having a situation where he can give technical comments to those brave or interested enough to approach the beast but where no one else need to seems an elegant solution. He can give references and explain things all he likes. Perhaps it was

9774:

I think the point that some of you have missed despite it being the central purpose of this whole decision is that we (and by we I mean everybody not directly involved in this toxic dispute) want this to end. Don't go looking for ways to do and end-run around the decision, the community is absolutely

9693:

Perhaps a "CC noticeboard" can be created for this. This would make the involvement of topic banned editors transparant. At the same time, one should ask all editors to communicate with the topic banned editors only via that noticeboard on issues related to editing CC articles. The noticeboard has to

9478:

I would assume that the fact that Arbitrators chose to specifically enumerate the areas of applicability of the topic ban in their decision, rather than include WP:TBAN by reference or simply state 'topic ban, broadly interpreted' implies a deliberate decision on their part to clearly craft the scope

9279:

Let me try again then. Above, ("Anybody who edits those articles will have to do so under the terms of Remedy 1.2,") you were speaking of the editing environment, and I responded to that. But I now think that perhaps in the comment I was directly responding to you were speaking of the readership, and

9191:

Have you cautioned WMC about his behavior, or asked him to stop it, since the case started? Your advice is easy to give, but entirely inadequate. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that someone has been collecting his diffs for an enforcement request on WMC, because he's pretty clearly disregarding the

8685:

I've replied to your specific case on your talk page, but even disclosed accounts may not be okay unless it's immediately clear to someone reading the discussion (possibly years later) that they are the same editor. Referring to the other account in the third person, for instance, is always a no-no.

8198:

Perhaps more to the point, why is it appropriate to change accounts on a daily basis, resurrect old accounts to evade blocks and range blocks, and parachute into talk pages using the new accounts to restart discussions? As for the indef blocks, these are preventative and pretty much standard practice

7949:

I would also appreciate if you would stop treating me like a n00b. Your interpretation of policy is not the last word, and if you Arbs are going to use your status to lord your interpretations over others, let's MFD the whole committee now. I'm frankly disgusted that you'd be this condescending to me

7600:

Yes, of course, one has to be pro-active in case of problems. What we may see now are "new" editors apearing that actually aren't new but people who stopped editing the CC pages in 2007 when they failed to gained consensus for more prominence to dissenting opinions in the main global warming article.

7581:

There is a history to all this, but (this is directed at Count Iblis) this noticeboard is not the place to raise this. If you (Count Iblis) have concerns, go to Ed Poor's talk page first, rather than trying to make a spectacle of it here. The smilie is not appropriate, either, nor is the depiction of

7458:

Aren't all of these articles still at least in theory subject to probation, just under a new regime? OR is the thinking that all should be removed, to be followed by adding almost all of them back again sooner or later? Why not just carry out a review instead of removing, then adding? Or am I missing

7332:

lengthy arbcases, and what productive editor wants to take four months to present a complex case? My immediate concern is whether the outcome in this case will encourage admins to get involved in helping prevent such lengthy cases. Specifically, when I requested 1RR be implemented to help resolve a

7093:

Responding to Alanyst on point 2 - There is often significant disagreement about the proper scope, and until evidence is in it's hard to rule scope issues in or out. Also, related problems may become apparent that were outside the initially cast case (behavior on other similar pages or topics, other

6270:

I see this as a pragmatic approach to the problem that there is an infinite supply of CC denying sockpuppets but only a finite supply of experts willing to contribute to Knowledge, who are moreover used to academic standards of debate rather than the mud-slinging that comes out of the PR agencies and

4922:

others, but to place the problem primarily upon my shoulders doesn't fit the facts. If you want to drag out chapter and verse, I can do that on a diff by diff, frivolous action by frivolous action basis. I'd suggest we open a discussion on your Talk page and lay it all out. If you can maintain that I

4628:

Georgewilliamherbert should file a whatever requests are necessary. I'll just note that what I was "advocating" for at the time when Brews was repeatedly brought at AE was that the topic ban be replaced by some mentoring agreement. My sentiment uttered above (that Brews would not have been in trouble

4508:

So that was a threat? Kinda disturbing you can threaten someone with a block for appropriately disagreeing. I'm not violating the civility policies, personal attacks or otherwise being disruptive. Would you care to explain your threat based on diff aside from the fact that we disagree that this was a

4411:

Perhaps oyu can show where that was put in place again? I'm sorry but I see the same sad history here. Brews got railroaded, the people who supported him have been saying this for a while. This time we shut up for the most part and left cool collected statements. Some even purposefully did not enter

4291:

Where did I suggest that? In the old days here on Knowledge, it were people like William who were able to work with editors who were causing far greater problems than Brews is alleged to be causing. Arguably you and I would not be editing here today if it were not for editors like William. Only later

3795:

was one of our best editors, who had perfectly legally changed his user name for personal and justified reasons, the recipients, belonging to a secret Knowledge-Society, of a widely circulated email were too stupid to understand it or too lazy to even read it, and he was driven of. Bastique tried by

2210:

Basically it's just like importing compatible content from anywhere. If you imported a properly licensed article from another website, no one would expect to go back to the website to make them wikify the article or fix any problems. Same thing here, if you import content, you're responsible for it

2181:

By importing these edits, the person importing those edits takes the effects onto themselves. If they import edits that say something that the sources do not support, it is them that will take the brunt of the issues, not the banned user (of course, it will be considered when the banned user comes up

1829:

A non-admin checkuser would be severely limited in their ability to do the job. Checkusers often need to follow evidence into (or discover it from) deleted or redacted edits. This would be a bigger problem in privacy issues or if they had to ask admins to help them with access to deleted material for

1728:

If a checkuser is not an administrator, then they cannot place checkuser blocks. A checkuser that cannot make checkuser blocks is all but useless. As long as we want checkusers that are actually capable of fulfilling their duties, they'll need to be administrators. As far as oversight is concerned, I

1104:

show, I use both tools on a regular basis.) This is just one aspect of the arbitrator job, however. My typical "arbitrator" week will involve reading voluminous evidence, deciding whether or not to take on new cases, considering modifications of old cases, making sure oversight requests are fulfilled

1099:

You're talking apples and oranges, MZMcBride. While the community is aware that arbitrators generally avail themselves of those tools, they also are aware that few arbitrators are seriously active in their use. There are usually specific questions directed at arbitrator candidates about the access to

878:

We don't have straight up or down votes, based on the collaborative model, and the result is the process of discussion and bureaucracy. This is not necessarily a bad thing for everything else we do; it is in the best interest of a society if the governance moves slowly to prevent hasty and malformed

794:

the scrutiny is done. FWIW, my view on the selection process is that the key is to get a mixture of people volunteering for these roles, both 'quiet' people and 'popular' people, 'technical' people and the 'less technical' who may have other skills to bring to the role. I think a mixture of selection

491:

the community tries within the bounds of an encyclopedia project writing community to be supportive. I have no doubt sometimes we fail, and sometimes we fail badly. Do we have a better part of the community trusted to handle privacy issues like mental issues, real-world stressed users etc and to make

457:

ArbCom handle some cases involving mental health issues. You may safely assume I was stressed, appalled, and convinced that ArbCom needs to improve substantially in such areas. Some situations are going to end up before ArbCom no matter what, but I think trying to direct administrators to routinely

421:

Anyone might mis-post a template (it happens and is usually not malicious) and we certainly do not want to penalize admins who try to do right and consult on a sensitive concern and who state in the meantime do not unblock as they have believe it's correct but have asked Arbcom to also look at it for

10361:

The discretionary sanctions by themselves won't be enough. TS wrote on my talk page where the relevant articles are listed. They must be actively patrolled. Only then can one report issues to AE. Also, not all problems are necessarily issues that should be dealt with at AE. There is also no campaign

10016:

My intention, when voting for the topic bans, was that those topic-banned would stay away from the topic area completely (as Beeblebrox has said). If we (ArbCom) had intended to allow limited discussion of sources on user talk pages, we would have made provisions for that. As we didn't, there are no

9847:

I disagree sharply with what you say about uninvited talk page comments. One characteristic of the more abysmal aspects of this case has been strident crowds turning up uninvited on people's talk pages with torches and pitchforks. This is stressful, intimidating, and wholly unnecessary. I anticipate

9641:

It seems clear to me that discussions about climate science are allowed on talk pages. It is for other editors to make actual edits to articles, r participate in AFDs, or other processes. They can, of course, be influenced by what e.g. William has said on his talk page. But then, you can also read a

9372:

constructive, occasionally arguing for the enemy just to be nice, and assuming good faith about all other editors, whatever happens. For other editors this may mean that we are all playing a big game now in which the aim is to say the meanest things behind an impenetrable façade of good will – or at

9261:

I'm interested in reading your opinion on this subject, Lar, but I find it impenetrable. First you say that I may be suffering from a failure of imagination, then you say that "Editing environment congeniality isn't the same as quality of output." This in reply to my statement that we should welcome

8875:

Those of us who are working to correct the bad science behind the CO2 global warming scare, must give a high priority to making Wikki a fair and balanced source. I urge my highly respected Ph.D.-holding heros to organize a committee to take on the project of editing the pertinent Wikki articles. You

8275:

been restricted to Polargeo 2, since that had been created for him by an administrator", but is that restriction indeed true? Moreover, you say "Most, if not all, of these accounts were created on proxies in avoidance of that block", but I don't know what you mean by "that block". You mean the range

7903:

Nah, it says "generally expected". That's not a prohibition. Sorry. Even if it is (and it is not), enforcing policy via blocks where there's no disruption is distinctly against our blocking policy (cannot be preventative if there's no disruption to prevent). Now, this is moot since we finally got an

7652:

Are the edits or actions Polargeo made with alternate accounts contrary to Knowledge policy visible to ordinary editors? I skimmed the edits of the accounts Hersfold blocked as his socks and didn't really see anything (a few edits that didn't seem related to his other fields), so I'm wondering where

7297:

But I still don't have a satisfactory answer to my query several sections above: when a situation become complex enough, admins won't touch it, productive editors and admins are tangled in the drama and disparaged, poisoning of the well occurs, dispute resolution forums are rendered ineffective, and

7171:

It looks the charges in this case concern personal attacks, advocacy, and citations. Could participants please provide 5 or 10 examples of personal attacks? The advocacy charge is unclear; could participants please explain it better and give examples? The citation issue is probably not important for

6880:

take a holiday from acting as an uninvolved admin on this topic until further notice" remedies, it's easy to overlook the fact that the content on this scientific topic is of stellar quality and most of those involved in maintaining it aren't touched by the arbitration. The editing atmosphere on the

6780:

Nod. One thing that will be very telling is how the first few requests/actions go. If a number of different admins come in, and if ArbCom members back them up, it will go much differently (better) than if they get taken to AN/I or wherever and fed to the mob with no backup from ArbCom members. (even

6722:

One aspect of the resolution of this case concerns me, but I did not follow all of the (TLDR) case closely enough to know if my impression is correct. It seems that almost everyone was caught up in the topic bans (noting some exceptions like AWickert, who always edits responsibly and courteously).

6511:

Yes, but it doesn't usually work. People who aren't very good/experienced at submitting evidence get disadvantaged and you start getting loads of overflow onto private sub-pages. It's extremely difficult to strike a balance. There's also the issue of people having their say on the talk pages and the

6326:

consideration. This has nothing to do with any individual editor. The methods used by big PR companies are generally well known, and also their former impact on smoking legislation through clouding the public's perception of the connection between smoking and cancer. They manufactured the appearance

6283:

Hans, I do not think referencing opponent editors to being on the payroll of petrol companies is appropriate and is not an encouraging remark when the case closed only a matter of hours ago. There is too much of attacking editors for being "right wing" or "connected to the petrol companies". It sets

6261:

Then you are simply wrong. The nice thing about the particular ban conditions is that good faith editors with a broad range of interests can take this as a forced vacation from a stressful area and spend half a year enjoying the nicer sides of Knowledge and making new friends there – and maybe learn

4977:

ArbCom retains jurisdiction over the cases it hears. This may not always be clear, but anyone who fails to resolve matters at the community level and comes to ArbCom is running the risk of not getting the case or result they wanted. We define the scope of the case and the possible remedies, and have

4940:

the appeal and making it into something else altogether. Instead of dealing with the appeal, ArbCom hijacked the proceedings, did not rule either way, and used the appeal to do something else entirely of their own choice, to fabricate a venue to "tidy up" as they saw it. This arrogation of a simple

4858:

case where I've seen a topic ban relaxed, or a ban lifted, it has come from what the editor themselves has said, never from what others have said on their behalf. I would ask that anyone other than you who is considering replying to this to consider that long and hard. If you want to help Brews, let

4598:

But statements like the IP made: "I mostly see the same bunch of personalities involved in the conflict as all the other times. Could they, like, stay away from each other for a while?" are not ok. at all. So, my answer to this is: "No", simply because the request is not well motivated. I'll swallow

4568:

First, I don't remember having been sanctioned for anything here on Knowledge since I joined in 2004, except for a small misunderstanding about me contacting people who have a userbox about religion (an Admin thought I was spamming by contacting all Wikipedians with my message about atheism). People

4483:

Calling this a sham is effectively flinging the bird to the entire community administration and Arbcom process that we have here. You all had your fair says. You can re-appeal to Arbcom by new motion or by new case. Complaining in other venues is not effective and has moved from rational advocacy

4260:

Things go wrong with Brews i.m.o. because of a rather trivial reason: the lack of proper talk page management. When Brews edits an article, he tends to generate rather large volumes of talk page content. Whenever there is a dispute, that volume becomes a huge problem. I'm pretty sure Brews would not

3814:

GiacomoReturned, you are well aware that, even back at that time, publishing of emails on-wiki was a blockable offense. You were blocked until such time as you agreed not to republish the email on-wiki (after it had already been removed several times). If the same actions were to occur today, in all

3388:

Well, people had the option to vote neutral. And many did. But a good number said "no, I don't think person should be in this position." If the vote had been held without a neutral option (which was also the default voting option in the form, as I recall), I'd be more inclined to say that opposition

2773:

No, you could, for instance, have a bot that recognises the relation between the section containing the announcement and the respective talkpage section discussion the announcement, and when the discussion section is moved to an archive, the bot simply changes the "discuss this" link to the archival

2621:

I want you to give less confusing advice to people caught in a checkuser rangeblock. I can live with the fact that most Arbs and Admins don't like me and don't want me contributing, but I do still care enough about the encyclopaedia to want it to be better in how it explains things to people who are

2128:

which says "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them", which in a nutshell means they

1891:

Seen RfA lately? It's not something I'd wish on a friend. Most of my nonadmin wiki friends laugh uproariously when it's even hinted at by me. That said, Commons had a non admin CU for a while (they had admin when they were elected CU, but gave it up...) and I think it didn't work all that well, they

1383:

As best I am aware (and I'm very sure of this point), all known evidence that might speak to trust or suitability is considered. Even anecdotal evidence of concerns from seasoned users may be valuable. Anything raised by the community is likely to be reviewed and if it might show a concern is likely

1152:

I think Sole Soul's point is well made, especially in light of a recent claim from FT2 that former Arbitrators retain their CU and OS permissions after their terms end because they are trusted to use them... if no vetting is requred because Arbs hardly use the tools, and mostly only for their ArbCom

926:

It was an unwise move to give technical rights-giving ability to a group of political wanks (or is it wonks?). ArbCom can't be blamed for being assigned this role, but it can certainly be blamed for not ending it. It isn't about skills to use and interpret IP data in the slightest—most of the people

856:

The accusation that ArbCom is ignoring consensus is what is total bollocks here. There was no consensus. That was the problem all along. There was no discussion, just a vote. Candidates did not receive any useful feedback, just some numbers, and the RFC after the election turned into a circus with a

506:

I don't know about other checkusers, but the large majority of my "checkuser blocks" are on the underlying IP of a disruptive user, where revealing exactly what account led to the block would be a possible violation of the privacy policy. Checkusers have previously been advised by the AUSC to err on

9927:

As I suggested above, the best thing for anyone mentioned in the topic ban to do is to stay away from all CC related articles and topics. Period. Then you don't have to worry if you are violating the ban or if someone on "the other side" is watching to see what you can get away with so they can try

9801:

In the case of William M. Connolley we've got an on-site expert whose very moderate and mainstream opinion of a subject in which he has published primary research is very welcome. We'd be mad to interpret the topic ban in such a way as to forbid all communication from Dr. Connolley, if only because

8973:

This (potential) problem is another good reason to implement my idea to put all new editors on 1RR for a while. New editors need to demonstrate that they can edit without causing trouble by sticking to 1RR for their first 1000 edits, before the 1RR restriction will be lifted. In case of a violation

7788:

If ArbCom didn't block his many accounts, and decide that he must have another RFA, then another group of users would be saying that there was a cover up of an admin socking if Polargeo reclaimed the bit later when he returns to editing. So, for Polargeo to have the confidence of the community when

7263:

My apologies for editing my post above after you responded, Will Beback-- I'm having eye problems. I submit that sketching out the scope of the case beforehand might cause the very problems seen in the second case I indicated: the heavy hand of two arbs in that case led to more serious problems in

7236:

We've all seen cases where the final decision didn't focus on the issues in the initial complaints. That's especially the case when someone goes crazy during the arbitration process. The scope of a case needs to be flexible, but that doesn't mean it can't be "sketched" out. I agree that complicated

7214:

I disagree with #2; I participated in an arb case that was brought by an admin, and the most significant outcome of that case was that the admin was desysopped. It was turned into an omnibus case, that took (I believe) about four months. Only as the case unfolded did the arbs have the opportunity

7112:

Good points. I think scope changes could be addressed at the end of each iteration, but during the iteration the discussion should be focused on the goals and scope defined for it. And you're right—this approach may not be suitable for "typical" arbitration cases (if such exist) but might work for

6928:

Looks like Tony blanked the page. When a clerk has the opportunity, it would probably be a good idea to restore the page, archive anything there, then mark the pages and all of their archives as "historical", possibly with a link to the Arbcom decision. Given that this is a clerical function in the

6798:

Precisely my concern: further dispute resolution in other similar cases is stalled because uninvolved admins won't go near 'em, so the disparaging of other editors, disruption, and collective blocs of editors overruling Wiki pillars continues, yet because of the way new editors take the fall every

6525:

I was thinking about a one-comment-per-day limit. I know you realize there are the dual issues, that it becomes unreadable, and that the amount of personal restraint will inversely correlate with the amount of text posted. But if editors don't comment as much, reasonable or otherwise, it makes it

5068:

I will request that people refrain from speculating on this matter, nor should any other action being done about the account without Committee approval. The factors that went into our decision to take these actions involve personal information and are not suitable for discussion on-wiki. That being

4101:

Knowledge is not actually about professors and students. One of my colleagues did mention professors and students, but I think that was not the best comment to make in the circumstances (with apologies to that arbitrator). What Knowledge is about is editors working together to improve articles, and

3787:

It seems quite extraordinary that Bastique (alias Cary Bass "an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation") who blocked me for revealing that hitherto respected editors, including Jimbo, were not only privately sending each other complete rubbish but believing it and persecuting one of Knowledge's best

3730:

I haven't had much direct contact with any of the candidates but have heard of most and I don't have immediate objections. WP has such massive privacy leaks in other places that CU/OS candidate issues seem like small potatoes. If the candidates are basically privacy-conscious people and are under

2917:

I commend the Arbitration Committee for not immediately throwing out the May Secure Poll and imposing its own will. Waiting 3 months as a cool down period is a more responsible act. It could be improved by adding the names of the May Secure Poll candidates and allowing the community to select, by

1814:

Ummm.... I can see both sides. On the one hand it makes sense for checkusers to be admins so that they can make checkuser blocks. On the other it would seem that the two functions aren't by necessity joined, so that the CU can evaluate technical evidence and report back to the admins. My experience

1567:

an SPI investigation of user X, a likely sockmaster, shows he/she has used a narrow IP range where users Y and Z edit as well. Checks may be needed on Y and Z to evidence whether or not either is implicated as a sock, or whether they seem to be chance users of the same IP range (checks are as often

1337:

then that was taken as a likely disqualifier (a number of concerns might include misinformation, misunderstanding, misreporting, good cause, or emotion rather than fact, when checked out). The scrutiny is to understand the user's likely suitability for the role to the standards required. So conduct

1311:

candidate who is presently or has recently been involved in a case, and that involvement has included questions about the objectivity / impartiality as an administrator of that candidate, then there is at least a significant group within the community with doubts about the fitness of that candidate

948:

I believe we had this conversation once before. I find the implication that everyone who was selected to run is some sort of ArbCom ass-kisser offensive as well as utterly baseless. I don't recall ever brown nosing the ArbCom. If you are trying to call out some particular users, it's time to put up

187:

I notice that the announcement notes one reason for referring an issue to ArbCom is on the basis of "concern ... a user's physical or mental well-being". I would strongly suggest to administrators with concern about an editor's mental health to be very careful before getting ArbCom involved. Any

11196:

No, user accounts cannot be deleted. However, user pages and user talk pages can be deleted, most often simply by user request, and sometimes by admin, arbcom, or other administrative decision. This case appears to have been a simple case of user request. The deleted revisions are visible to those

10379:

My understanding is that a topic ban means no edits to anything anywhere they are topic banned from, but does not include the banned editors own usertalk...in one case where a 9/11 conspiracy theorist was topic banned, he tried to create a page in his userspace to edit a pasted version from a 9/11

10232:

Jonathan A Jones, this clearly follows the precedent described above by SA in that a bare statement linking "breakage" an article has been placed on a users talk page, then shortly afterwards another editor has chosen to revert the change, giving their own reasons and with no indication that their

10161:

IS there a bit of "move on to another topic" that's difficult to comprehend. We've asked the topic-banned users to avoid this topic entirely. We don't speculate as to what might or might not constitute a breach of this, on wiki, off-wiki or theoretically. Hypothetically, if they all go and work on

10093:

I think it says something about this case that this point seems clear to those of us who are not on either "side" of this dispute and just want it to end. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who feels the ban should broadly interpreted and that even looking for loopholes in the language is a sign

10036:

As an uninvolved non-arbitrator, I am with Carcharoth on this. Banned means banned, which means if one is topic banned, that person should not be involved in the topic. In any form. Full stop. Period. End of discussion. As Carcharoth alludes to, if a person is topic banned it is because they

9878:

Roger raises a valid point, as talk page interactions were a constant irritant throughout the case. That is, someone issuing "warnings" and scolding messages to other editors, thereby sparking conflict. There's nothing wrong with people using their talk pages to list useful or new sources, and any

9744:

what an uninvolved administrator should do — seek clarification of the ArbCom decision. However, as he cannot act on it, because Arbcom found (by a combination of points) that he cannot apply sanctions under the new system, the question does seem questionable, but still needs to be asked, as he's

8797:

dispute about a number of accounts which figured in the block, viz: Telziath, Scottie Mccall, Wivaronth, Seenock, Nallith, Althea Faulkner. PG denies having anything to do with these accounts, and they have figured largely in the block reasons. Perhaps the magic pixie dust was carelessly scattered

8181:

I looked over a sample of the edits, and found no sign of abuse. Where did you think he admitted to block evasion? As far as I can tell, his main account was never blocked, but is inaccessible. Some admins then started blocking alternate accounts because he should use the main one. This could have

7863:

OK..." And I'm afraid I can't find anywhere where it says it's not OK to create multiple accounts, but rather only that it's not OK to use them abusively: to deceive, to disrupt etc. And that's all I'm asking: Where is the disruption? (I'm mainly concerned with his block here rather than his admin

7762:

This is moot. Polargeo has resigned the tools. If he wishes to stay without then, then examining whether or not there's been abuse, and putting his actions under the microscope is unneccesaary (unless he wants to raise it). If he wants the tools back, then the community will want to take a look at

7666:

The main purpose of the motion is to tie up a loose end about the administative tools, which weren't explicitly resigned forever and which could therefore conceivably be transferred to another account later. Without going into too much detail, there are more accounts involved than just those which

7036:

Since we're doing a bit of a post-mortem here, I think the clerks and arbs did a good job in the latter half of the case when things spiraled out of control time and time and time again (despite the vociferous complains as section after section was hatted or archived), i think that we need to make

6981:

If this is more appropriately brought up in a different forum, please advise. I've had ideas on how a case of this nature might be handled in the future to avoid some of the difficulties this one has seen. I'm sure few if any of these ideas are original but maybe it's worth discussing them here.

6741:

There are a large number of folk who could have been included in the topic bans (if we use the metrics that were used to mete out the ones meted out) but who were not. If they change their ways, all will be well other than the sense of justice about who was named and who was not (but WP doesn't do

6266:

make sense. This is something that those editors who are indirectly (through large PR agencies) on the payroll of petrol companies are unlikely to do. Or if they do, it will either make them more easily identifiable (if they concentrate on other customers' interest) or motivate them to make up for

5773:

I read in a mainstream (not right of centre) newspaper today that there are paid bloggers that are trained and paid to steer discussion to one political side. The AC and all editors and administrators should be mindful of this. In fact, everyone should be mindful of this. So perceived concensus

4487:

We know that you disagree with it, but you've disagreed enough and sufficiently tiresomely that you got yourself specifically banned from doing so for a while. There are only so many times we can say "Stop" before nicely someone pulls out the stick, be it a disruption block, a new motion renewing

2284:

We're saying not to treat this any differently than you would content you transfer from anywhere else. The lengths the person goes to verify that the article is correct and meets Knowledge standards is up to them, though the community has expressed annoyance in the past with editors who routinely

1854:

I think perhaps I can help here. Some other wikis have non-administrators in the checkuser positions. Their processes are different; for example, some wikis require that all checkuser requests be public, whereas we're aware on this project that in many cases public checkuser requests feed into the

1368:

FT2, I am 100% in agreement that the lack of reasons in the recent elections where a significant flaw in their design - a flaw that will hopefully be rectified before this year's ArbCom elections. I also understand and appreciate your point about non-sanctionable actions which ArbCom migh note as

1231:

selected to run in the election speaks volumes. I think the best way of filling the posts would be to allow any administrator who is competent to use CU and or oversight tools and can prove they're over 18 to put themselves forward tot he community. What's the point of it all if a candidate has no

1191:

I think Sole Soul put it more succinctly than I could. Everything that Risker said above is true (regarding activity level, job descriptions, etc.), but I don't think it addressed any part of the post that it was replying to. The issue is that one position has open elections and a lot more access;

764:

which is fair. The users rejected at election have not been appointed, though they may apply on a par with any others in future (which is the case for most roles such as RFA, AC itself, stewardship, etc). It's not at all clear that any "ignoring" or "not-liking" is involved nor is bad faith called

651:

What a load of crap. "We don't like what the community has told us (ie that they don't want those candidates in the roles) so we're going to ignore them". Total bollocks. I supported all but one of the candidates, FWIW. I also took the time to make several comments on the resulting RfC and I agree

439:

Requests for Arbitration is stressful, but most Arbcom reviews are not. A user has a concern, Arbcom looks into it and often can reply quite easily. The stressful cases are those where after review something does need explaining - there is a real concern that the subject has to be approached about

372:

While I am glad to see the clarification regarding checkuser blocks vs checkusers making "ordinary" blocks, I think the committee needs to take it one step further - falsely claiming a "checkuser block" or a "should only be lifted by arbcom" block should be grounds for immediate desysopping. With

10980:

Issues were raised about an aspect of Rlevse's mainspace editing; in the ensuing back-and-forth, he elected to retire as an editor and from all positions he held. None of this involved the Arbitration Committee or Rlevse's role therein; it occurred on-wiki within the editing community, on project

10182:

I'm going to concur with Scott immediately above. Several users were banned. That means they need to leave the topic area while the sanction is in place. That does not mean that they can try to wikilawyer around it and push the boundaries as far as they can. If they do so, they are liable to have

9818:

intended. I hope that is where we have got to. As for the proxying bit if we starting seeing "tell him he is stupid" type comments resulting in people being called stupid we will need to think again. Trying to ban this would drive it off wiki and into email which would be a strange thing to do. --

9594:

could have been. I expect editors exporting the conflict to other areas, trying to game topic-bans (by ignoring the spirit), and generally continuing battlefield conduct, will find themselves facing discretionary sanctions very quickly. This dispute isn't moved into exciting green pastures areas;

9014:

I've seldom seen anything more than an earnest wish to provoke thought. Occasionally somebody comes out with something that has to be removed on BLP grounds, and to be honest most of the stuff is simply so dull that it gets archived quickly to avoid clutter. I don't know whether some or all of it

8709:

I see no reason that Polargeo may not have one (and only one) account unblocked to resume proper editing. I would expect him to use only one account from now on (I don't think he has any problem with that), and of course the sanction voted in the Climate change case would still apply. He has also

8674:

alternate accounts." I use the Tasty monster account, which I do my utmost to disclose without being too in-your-face about it, on lots of process pages, and often intertwine comments from my two accounts during the course of the same discussion on the understanding that my signature is enough to

7134:

I strongly agree with point #1, and made the same point following another recent RFAR. If arbitrators were more pro-active in asking questions then it would help them and the participants alike. It'd help keep the evidence focused on what matters and save participants from wasting time collecting

6859:

Looks like a very reasonable decision to me. As for the concern expressed, if you have evidence of POV, ownership, and "blocs", ArbCom has made it clear that it will deal with battleground mentality. If, on the other hand, you make the accusations, but lack the evidence, ArbCom has also made it

6696:

The first arbitration I unofficially clerked for (this was in late 2004/early 2005 when there were no clerks, I was just being a good samaritan trying to help a guy who was being tormented beyond reason) ran to dozens and dozens of diffs all submitted by one guy. All the parties had English as a

6668:

I think it may be a valid question to ask how do we get to the point that you have hundreds of obvious diffs available and the community / uninvolved admins haven't intervened yet. I think once it gets to Arbcom, though, the level of evidence should be appropriate to the complexity of the case.

4658:

So, it seems to me that ArbCom was in full control of the situation, they imposed restictions and lifted restrictions as they saw fit. There was no interference with Brews from my side after I was restricted. So, perhaps it is time to recognize that ArbCom's measures did not work and that perhaps

4026:

of this appeal, also ignored in this ArbCom process is (i) the lack of evidence for disturbance of ‘decorum or standards of behavior’ , that is, there was no crime, (ii) the lack of notice that ArbCom action would be sought, that is, conditions required for activating the appealed action were not

3629:

I don't see what is private about this at all - people who pry into our IPs and oversight our edits seems rather a matter for public concern to me. Regarding Bastique, I am surprised that someone so involved in such a huge and failed supression has the gall to allow their name to go forward as an

1082:

pre-vetted or pre-approved. It seems rather backward that you can have more access with no restrictions on who can run, but with less access comes a gatekeeper. There's no small body keeping out all non-admins or all users who have gained grudges or whatever else in the ArbCom elections, is there?

221:

Roger, that is your perspective, but how can you be sure it is true for all editors involved, bearing in mind that I referred specifically to cases where mental health issues are in question? What is being suggested is that an administrator should always and as a matter of routine refer an issue

11098:

If Wales said the simple use of citation at the end of a long cut and pasted sentence, that is neither directly attributed nor in quotes, as was the case with a couple of the rlevse offerings that I and others looked at, made it kosher, then he doesn't know what he's talking about. I'll leave it

10305:

I don't think this is primarily an issue of William having to move on to other articles. Not moving on could theoretically become a problem, and in previous cases there have been many examples of topic banned editors trying to find loopholes in the topic ban. But right now, this isn't the issue.

9830:

As far as I'm concerned, user talk pages (where invited, or on the sanctioned person's own talk page) should be fine; where not invited, it probably shouldn't result in any more sanctions than an unnamed person. I would hope that editing in Template, Category or Portal or their respective talk

9642:

scientific paper written by William, talk to him via email, or meet with him in real life. The point is that any editor who is allowed to edit the CC pages, is responsible for his/her own edits. Acting as a meatpuppet, as Lar suggests could happen, is never allowed, regardless of any topic bans.

9428:

is described in the decision. The ban explicitly applies to articles, article talk pages, and Knowledge processes; it does not include user talk pages. While I cannot read the minds of the Arbitrators, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and suggest that they deliberately left an

6831:

Most uninvolved admins (LHVU, The Wordsmith, BozMo, and several others) got thanked and nothing more, except to be urged to stay out going forward as it is time for a new approach. One uninvolved admin was rightly chastised (via a finding) for letting the baiting and harassment get to him to the

4923:

am the primary cause of these problems after such a review, I'll be very surprised. If I were you, I would not be so credulous as to decide that ArbCom has made a good call just because ArbCom is ArbCom. I think WP is replete with examples where ArbCom has made the wrong call and puttied it over.

4160:

Brews is an electrical engineering professor and his contributions to electrical engineering articles have been terrific as far as I know. His contributions to mathematics articles have sometimes been problematic. To be fair, a mathematics professor jumping into electrical engineering articles

2298:

It's probably most analogous to translating articles from another language Knowledge, or wikifying articles from a public domain source. The user doing these things should ideally check the sources, but there's no unique or additional requirement to do so when the source is Ottava's user page on

1589:

Put simply there isn't and probably shouldn't be a general facility to learn about the actions or logs because of the potential for privacy breach, although as Kirill says in some cases where it is innocuous it may be possible. (Of note, the oversight log was originally public but had to be made

1541:

Users often share IPs and any user turn up on multiple IP ranges. Any user might turn up on an IP check, along with possibly many other users. Usually it's completely innocent - it's a shared CIDR range - but still may need consideration (we've had bad faith users at all levels including some of

759:

At any rate it seems the most sure way for now to ensure the Community's obligations to manage the privacy tools. The outcome of not having sufficient users able to deal with checkuser inquiries and privacy breach removals can be rather more serious and Arbcom's job includes managing and filling

254:

that you weren't trying to imply I am either too stupid, too unimaginitive, or too ignorant of mental health issues to be capable of understanding the complexity inherent in these situations. I am, however, disappointed that you choose to focus on the most problematic cases where I have already

236:

This is much more complex than you might imagine. ArbCom looks after privacy-related issues (health included) by email, usually in one-to-one discussions. It's low-key and informal, and we balance the needs of the individual against the practicalities of collegial editing. Sometimes editors have

10549:

I can't pretend to understand the complexities of SPI pages, and I don't want to open up another thread, but I'd like an assurance that some clued people (arbs checkusers etc) are on this one, because the community's response seems to me to be totally fucked. If a named person is alleging being

10346:

Nobody who is a named party in the topic ban should even have this stuff on their watchlist anymore, and should politely tell anyone wishing to discuss these topics with them that they will have to do so elsewhere. Count Iblis, you seem bent on establishing some sort of new forum or process for

9757:

I agree that Lar's question was reasonable. Somewhere between WMC not being allowed to answer an IP's question on his talk page whether he can recommend a good university for studying climate science, and a programming language for describing edits on WMC's talk page that are then automatically

9674:

When I was topic banned, I proposed edits all the time from my talkpage to no objections. Other editors were free to make the edits or to not make the edits as they saw fit. I'm not offering to meatpuppet, but I appreciate Cube lurker for bringing up my talkpage offer. Since a number of content

6996:

After voting to accept the case but before starting the evidence phase, arbitrators should draft a preliminary statement of scope. Contribution to the arbitration process should be restricted to issues that fall within that scope. The scope should be altered only with good reason thereafter.

4435:

It has not been in effect for some months now, but jeez, guys. If you've repeatedly been sanctioned by Arbcom and told not to do something, you shouldn't do it, even if the time period set expired. You were told not to because it was felt to be bad. Do you really want one of us to file a new

3865:

Bastique had acted wrongly there, the notion that giving him an oversight tool would somehow be the Arbcom implicitly "applaud such conduct" from 2007 is extremely bizarre. If Cary Bass couldn't be trusted not to blow up the wiki, I think we'd have known by now. All this tends to show me is the

3676:

Giano, thanks for those comments. I've copied your 3 comments above, and the 2 received by e-mail, to the document I've prepared. Like all the other comments, they will be reviewed and taken into consideration when we complete our review of the candidates. We will contact you if we need further

3359:

Well, obviously most candidates got almost as many opposes as supports - that is why only one candidate in the May elections made the 70%+ support (slightly more than 2 supports for every 1 oppose) standard. Does this reflect upon the candidates or the process? It may be also borne in mind that

2460:

Have just been caught by one of these when trying to edit while logged out. I use 3, a major mobile internet provider in the UK (a small country off the north-west coast of Europe). There was no block notice on the IP talk page - and no previous edits from that address. Nothing in the block log

1476:

Actually, there's an interesting question. As an editor in good standing, and as a straightforward matter of checking to see if my privacy was being properly protected, would I even be able to get a direct answer (from ArbCom, the CheckUsers, the AUSC, or the Ombuds Committee) to the following

1135:

Umm, it would be somewhat circular for Arbcom to be vetting itself; however, perversely, we do so to some extent in that no arbitrator may post his or her own name at Meta; there has to be a request to the committee as a whole, and the posts are made by another arbitrator after any discussion.

675:

consider giving Checkuser/Oversight privileges to the candidates who failed to gain enough votes in the election; instead they are soliciting candidates for appointment by Arbcom fiat. I certainly hope that this change of process isn't used to appoint anyone who participated in the election and

11129:

Jimmy is quite clearly wrong here. There is a difference between sourcing and attribution. Sourcing implies "this information came from" and attribution states "this text was written by". Sourcing says "the research is not my own" and ought to be the default position of any Knowledge article -

8276:

block? That says "2010-10-06T17:39:36 Coren (talk | contribs) blocked 194.66.0.0/24 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ ({{checkuserblock}})" (so now we know that Coren is the shy admin you wouldn't talk about). How could anyone have anticipated that?

2224:

used to not have this clause about proxy editing and there are many people who still feel it's wrong on any grounds to import content created by a banned user; the rationale often is something along one or more of these lines of thought (before and now) "banned means banned", "it's helping him

1348:

Per Arbcom's notice, once a candidate list is posted any concerns (or indeed commendations) should be sent directly to the Committee to be looked into. However I would imagine it will be expected that users should be prepared to explain and discuss them thoughtfully, and if applicable show any

1055:

with the rejection of some candidates (just as some arbitrators dissent in arbitration cases), but we work as a group and we stand behind the decisions we take as a group. So to talk about ArbCom having a "group" motive is patently unfair. The rejection of some candidates does not reflect some

912:

I wouldn't agree. What makes a "good" checkuser? They surpass the requirements for "good adminship", they are seasoned and committed to the project's wellbeing, they have the skills to use and interpret the CU data, they respect that these are privacy based tools not to be abused, they respect

271:

EdChem, I think I see where you're coming from and, in my books, you're on the right track here. I would dearly love to see administrators and longterm editors take the time to talk to editors and admins who appear to be "burning out", although only in situations where there's a prior positive

9082:

I don't think this would really be the right place for me to give an evaluation of the quality of a popular blog. Suffice to say that page impression rates on Knowledge are very healthy indeed and its science coverage enjoys a reputation unmatched by any blog. If more domain experts are being

1081:

So, is it fair to say that there have been elections for checkusers and oversighters without ArbCom involvement already? And if so, what is the issue with having open elections when someone wants checkuser or oversight access, but doesn't want to be an Arbitrator? Arbitrators don't seem to be

896:

ArbCom has already made it fairly clear who their favorite sons and daughters are by allowing them to stand in the last election at all. It'll be politically awkward and, in some cases, downright hypocritical to appoint some of the people who they'll end up appointing, especially when the May

7009:

outrage-and-despair process, why not an iterative approach? Set a milestone a couple weeks out for an "alpha" decision, with the understanding that there will most likely still be holes left to fill in evidence and arguments, but with goals laid out regarding which parts of the dispute need

5439:

There are aspects of this situation that may not be suited for discussion on-wiki. (I say this without criticism of those who have commented, given that the posted announcement created a discussion section; someone should probably have posted here preemptively.) We will appreciate everyone's

4741:

O wait, you already dropped Nazi, Spanish Inquisition, and Jean Valjean references above. I apologize, it seems I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. I don't want to insult your intelligence. By all means, keep beating the horse; you've amply demonstrated your skill at it.

3619:

The reason for requesting comments by email was to allow concerns to be fully discussed without people having to worry about revealing private information in such a public setting. If you don't need to disclose anything private to state your concerns, then you're free to do so here as well.

2265:

I'll make my point clear; is the Arbitration Committee saying that for content to be validly transferred over, the transferor must be able to verify (independent of the transferee) that the information is correct? If an article is based on book X, should the transferor have access to book X?

1275:

point (MZMcBride is referring here to the ArbCom elections). I never saw the ArbCom election I ran in as one for checkusers and oversighters. I saw it as an election to be an arbitrator. Like at least one other of my colleagues, I don't actively use the CU and OS tools myself, but I do check

7051:

I think if the talk pages are going to be curtailed like that, there needs to be much more interaction initiated by the arbitrators—hence my point 1 above. Basically, the participants need near real-time feedback on their lines of evidence and argument so they don't feel they need to throw

3831:

Risker, do I subscribe to quasi-secretive mailing lists? - No! I was blocked for proving the existance of such secretive sanctioned societies and the stupid, ridiculous antics and falshoods they encourage and believe - or are you sugesting the contents of that "mail" were true and harmless!

2545:

What was I expecting them to do? Leave correct advice about what to do if caught in such a block. Maybe try not to block major networks without some kind of explanation, that might be nice too. Is that too much too ask? If you've got the email then you know the answer to the other question.

1232:

idea why they were opposed (or supported)? How are they or ArbCom supposed to know if an army of sockpuppets that met the voting criteria sabotaged the result (unlikely, but I've seen more surprising things in my time) or if the community feels they could be suitable for the role in future?

395:

I broadly agree with you here though desysopping should probably be reserved for a second or third offence. My own view is that if there is any privacy issue involved it ought really not be alluded to in an edit summary. The key here is probably "if in doubt, contact ArbCom by email first".

11242:

is the primary reason we're all here, that should be the end of it, IMO. When (and if) more needs to be done, the discussion can (and certainly will) continue, but there is no need to borrow trouble in the meantime. A user who ignores policies does so at their own peril, regardless of what

7026:

3 was kinda in effect during this case already. The Arbitrators who decided this posted a framework, and waited for the response. When things didn't look like they'd be solved by the decision they worked further, and continued to refine and change the decision as the situation continued to

6989:

This should pervade the whole process. Right now the arbitrators often ask questions during the request phase. I'd like to see arbitrators pose questions (both collectively and individually directed) during the post-acceptance phases: to ask for evidence regarding specific claims, to get

710:

You did see the bit about not doing anything else based on the election and rerunning things in a bit here to fill those spots? Are you saying we should create a policy out of whole cloth prohibiting folks from running for a position more than once? Since the community will have the same

9376:

I don't think that we can ensure that all editors here use the first approach, although Arbcom is clearly trying. But perhaps we can at least avoid the escalation, once everybody is aware of the problem and of the danger of losing one's cover through unnecessary malicious interpretations.

4216:

say on the matter (mainly the bits about citing your own work or publications you have worked on). Experts should always be welcomed on Knowledge, but they have to know how to work within Knowledge policies and work with other Wikipedians, and know where the limits of their expertise lie.

837:

And I, as a community elected and active oversighter, also support this. We can talk circles about governance, but that doesn't solve the issues we have with oversight requests. We have time sensitive issues that we deal with, and we need a couple more hands from particular time zones.

5923:

And I meant to search for X, but forgot. On the other hand, seconds after I saved the huge text (I had to do it all at once for the time stamps to be the same), Knowledge almost died on me. I think there's a couple of other minor fixes to make also, nothing that makes any changes though.

7826:

I think you have some copy and paste problems in your comment - or at least one of us is more drunk than is good for them. As for "doomed either way", if it's no difference, doom yourself with more openness and transparency. Go out in glorious infamy, not sneaking through the back door.

732:

Arbcom are attempting to follow exactly what the community has decided. As a reminder the whole appointments process was an Arbcom mandate (like it or not) being the body designated to manage privacy permissions by WMF. The elections were an Arbcom proposal and extension. They included

7355:, and the admins then come to offer choice words in response, I think it becomes quite difficult for ArbCom to put all responsibility on one side, regardless. In my view the real answer is for the community to step it up in addressing groundless or tactical criticism when it happens. 4950:

I can't tell other editors what to think. If they find some ArbCom actions deplorable, and wish to say so, that is not my call, and it is their privilege. They are independent agents. It's because they think that way. ArbCom's stifling their opinions that don't sit well with ArbCom is

1073:

You ran to be an Arbitrator without being pre-vetted, right? And you ran alongside non-admins, admins, and some people who are certifiably unfit to hold the position, right? It was an open election, at least in the sense that anyone who could sort of prove they were over 18 could run,

6664:

What it needs to be in big disruptive cases like this is an open question. But I don't want Arbcom taking two bad edits and imposing a yearlong ban or topic ban or somesuch. I'm reasonably sure I've made more than two really bad edits in my Knowledge history, though I try hard not

2287:

So I guess the short of it is, ArbCom isn't making any comment on how to transfer in content beyond what already exists in policy, we're just saying that we don't consider legitimately importing content written by a banned editor to be the same thing as proxying for a banned editor.

1153:

duties, then why do they need them once their terms end? More to the point, why should they be entitled to them even once they are no longer on the Committee and even if they resign the Committee under circumstances where there is community disquiet about their fitness for office?

9703:

E.g. in a recent discussion on the global warming talk page, Stephan told that Boris would probably know a few sources on CO2 lifetime. If Boris isn't around here, and if William is known to also know about this, then one could ask William to post the sources on the CC noticeboard.

7286:

I think the arbitration committee did a pretty good job, and they followed more or less the same process they always have, by analysis of submitted evidence and deliberation. I don't think there's any reason to propose a different way of proceeding that would be unfamiliar to them.

4476:

The community was sick and tired enough of this long drama that it went to Arbcom repeatedly, Brews has been repeatedly (and now for another year currently, again) topic banned, and you and several others were banned for a while from advocating for Brews in the manner you are doing

11220:

But not able to be seen by nasty common ordinary editors who just might want to know what the hell an Arb has been up to. When he rematerialises having attempted to escape some people are going to have an awful lot of egg on their faces - or will his identitiy be known only to the

4116:

Real encyclopedias ask experts. Brews has shown endless patience trying to explain things on talk pages - how can that be a reason to block him? Most experts give up on editing wikipedia in their own field in frustration. Instead, wikipedia is dominated by wannabies and crackpots.

3320:

If at first you don't succeed, just wait for the rules of the game to change. It really doesn't give anyone any pause that, in some cases, for nearly every support a candidate got, they got an equal oppose vote? In some cases, over 100 contributors actively opposed their candidacy

2989:

I must admit, I was expecting a public page where people could make comments (positive or negative). If negative comments are sent to ArbCom about a candidate, will the candidate be told about the details (who said what?) or will they just be told "sorry, we got complaints..."? --

8319:

As it has been clearly established that ArbCom was not involved in the actual blocking I don't see why this is still being discussed here. If PG wants to request unblock he can use Polargeo2's talk page, I've just modified the block to allow that, or he can email ArbCom directly.

7789:

he uses his tools, another RFA is needed. From reading the comments on site, it is obvious that correspondence between Arbs and him has happened over the last few weeks. Like all blocked users, he can discuss the situation with ArbCom by mail, or leave a message on his talk page.

6723:

If everyone involved in dealing with "blocs of editors" who "try to use mere numbers to overrule Wiki's pillars" is caught up in the bans, this would seem to be a deterrent to attempting to neutralize POV articles which are "owned" by collective blocs of editors defending a POV.

4629:

had he been editing with someone like William), expresses the same idea about the problem. But note that ArbCom did not chose my solution. Instead, they decided to shorten Brews' topic ban and decided to restrict me, Hell in a Bucket and two other editors from commenting on Brews.

486:

Without assuming anything about people generally, it is sadly the nature of many people under stress or who have certain kinds of mental issues, that they will be their own worst enemies and will make their own bed of nails, sometimes fabricate or change stories, and so on. While

7942:"Should" is "advisable". Not "mandatory". For an admin, definitely needs to be done, and not doing so is grounds for desysopping, but is under no circumstances grounds for an indef. In this case, there seems to be a lot more to it, so I'm not complaining about this indef, though. 10546:. But the result has been more concerned with the legal threat, and his recent cussing someone out. As far as I can see, what's happened is the cussing was selectively deleted, his ban made indefinate, and his talk page locked, before the serious allegations have been resolved. 4331:

This line of discussion probably isn't going to be helpful, and comparisons like those you are drawing would be better done elsewhere. Any discussion here should really be specifically about the sanction passed here and concerns about that, rather than bringing in other topics.

2089:

A measured and sensible decision under the circumstances. As the supporters of lifting the ban on the editor's talkpage propose, there may be a way to facilitate Ottava Rima contributing non-disruptively, but where Commons, foundation-l, Knowledge Review, and, it would appear,

3293:

I'm definitely putting my dollar on Bastique. I'm just concerned with Frank getting CU. I just pulled up the most recent 500 edits in WP space and there're only 3-4 edits directly related to sockpuppets. Does ArbCom really thinks Frank is a suitable candidate for being a CU?

5811:

This is something that we are, indeed, aware of. One of the leitmotifs of recent decisions what to remind everyone that the five pillars aren't overruled by apparent consensus; the number of editors arguing for a position does not make that position neutral, for instance.

9783:

of the decision as opposed to looking for loopholes in the language of it and just stay the hell away from anything that could be construed as even vaguely related to climate change. Period, full stop, no exceptions. Move on to another topic area or expect to be blocked.

9364:

going on in this thread. There have been several contributions that left me completely puzzled as to their intent, or even to what they were responding, and then there were comments by others that apparently assumed mutually contradictory interpretations without making it

4207:

and other stuff as well). But my main point still holds - even if someone is a world-renowned expert on the subject, they still need to be able to work with others when editing articles on that subject, and those who have published on a subject do need to be aware of what

2646:

text needs improving (and I will see what we can do) but that's probably all that realistically can be done. And please don't take the range block personally: it really wasn't aimed at you :) While I may not always agree with you, I have always appreciated your insights.

6697:

second languages and there were multiple socks; I think I was the only native English speaker involved. It took us many days to arrive at what would nowadays be a simple SPI. I think the bar for sanctions is a little lower now because the community is more pro-active. --

1954:

Because, as the original terms for his ban state, that OR must successfully workout probationary terms with the Committee before he can return to editing, and the next appeal date would be after the existing block is set to expire. It is solely to reflect the duration.

8396:

Mmk, my bad. I was going off the part of Hersfold's comment above that says "a block on his network range. Most, if not all, of these accounts were created on proxies in avoidance of that block, which could only have been targeted at Polargeo". Thanks for clarifying.

10990:

Perhaps the retirement ought to have been announced as a formality, but it is neither reasonable or desirable to expect arbitrators to stand in judgement over every incident that comes to pass on the project. I'd rather they concentrated on what we elected them for.

6379:. Climate change is a complex and very diverse subject matter, some things are known for almost certain, other things are less certain and so forth, so I am not sure what you are referring to as certainty? I don't think you get what the whole ArbCom case was about.-- 676:

failed to be elected that way, but as long as that doesn't happen I don't see that your comments apply. You can dislike the return to appointments, of course, but that's a separate matter from disliking the appointees when no such appointees have been announced yet.

1461:

other administrators who can review the contents of files I've deleted, and who can undo any of my administrative acts if they were in error. Like it or not, we do extend a much greater degree of trust and responsibility to our Checkusers than we do to our admins.

7801:

Heim-where does it does it's okay for anyone, much less an admin (now former admin), can create multiple undisclosed accounts? Besides, Flo is is right, if we didn't do this we'd get accused of covering up admin socking. Another case of arbs are doomed no matter

10309:

William wouldn't need to give the diffs of subtle POV pushing in the first place, if the articles on his watchlist were checked by others on a daily basis. We could actually help William to move on to other articles by e.g. listing all the CC articles at the

6891: 4050:

However, I now am quite used to knee-jerk administrative behavior that ignores WP welfare and the facts, and half-baked vague sanctions that encourage further fruitless ArbCom intervention to clarify matters that could have been stated clearly at the outset.

3028:

Of the 9 people listed to become CU or OS, you are in my top 2! You are very responsible. Of course, I think it is a foregone conclusion that all will be appointed. I don't need to e-mail, I publically endorse Phantomsteve and this message was approved by

2196:

Why not simply state that the importer need take responsibility for the content of the edits and be done with it? The focus on veracity of sourcing as opposed to the myriad other potential flaws an article can have seems misplaced, particularly in this case.

7097:

Learning lessons from big ugly case and changing things that are necessary or useful on many other cases are two different things, in looking at learned lessons. Not all issues with this case will come back again often enough to justify structural change.

7877:

Try the lead where it says "one user, one account", with a very few exceptions likes a public computer one, etc. Polargeo's weren't covered by the exceptions. It doesn't say "you can have as many as you want unless..." I'm afraid you've got it backward ;-)

7950:

when all I did was ask for a little transparency. If this is what people get for asking for transparency I want nothing more to do with Knowledge. Anyway, I'm going to be away for a while due to real life and so I can recover my good will toward the site.

11113:

Jimbo didn't comment on this case specifically, and my comment and link was for those who don't know what the situation is, giving them a place to look should they want to think more deeply about it. No need to turn this into personal attacks of anyone.

6401:

Actually I think it's quite appropriate to comment on WP:COI issues as a part of the problem of entrenched editors -- note he didnt say the whole problem. And especially as presented in context of the greater point he was making about 'forced vacation.'

6614:

You say that like it's a bad thing. Since this is an encyclopedia a minimum level of competence can be assumed. Beyond that other editors may volunteer (as I have done in the past) to clean up evidence and whatnot to a point where it can be absorbed.

5761: 9405:

an example of proxying to get round a ban or is it perfectly normal and acceptable? It could be argued either way, which is why I ask. Some clarity from the Arbs now would be helpful as it would help avoid issues later, after things get more set in.

10982: 6463:

An appropriate and well-reasoned decision. It may not really have been necessary to take four months to come to what seems, in retrospect, the obvious outcome, but then I'm not the one who had to slog through all that evidence, so what do I know...

1452:

possible tools. In particular, administrators have vastly less access to sensitive information covered by the privacy policy than do Checkusers. Checkusers operate with vastly less supervision than administrators, as well. As an admin, there are

9129:

The ends do not justify the means. Especially when it's actually possible to produce quality output without being a prat, and therefore the means used are unnecessary. Which is the point of the sanctions on you. Which I gather you don't like much.

6832:

point of becoming battleground-ish at times himself. (that would be me) The other two admins named (StS and Polargeo) were not uninvolved. So I would urge you and every other admin considering participating to please do so. The more the better. ++

897:

elections were so recent and had such clear results for some of the candidates. However, making bad decisions is what ArbCom does best. Community be damned, election results be damned, everything be damned, the beast needs MORE WORKERS. OR ELSE. --

11038:

I personally wouldn't consider Wales competent to understand what's going on here or evaluate plagairism. He's an internet entrepreneur. What was going on was the unattributed cutting and pasting of others work. If you're quoting something you do

4726:

Did you take that from the trolling handbook or are you just going to throw out vague passive aggressive suggestions Put your money where your mouth is and either show us the policies we are in violation of or stop trying to bait us. Your choice.

3410:

feedback, so none of us knew why we didn't get through. I have still not had one single person explain to me why they thought I couldn't be trusted with oversight. The previous process seemed like a good idea at the time, but it just didn't work.

1280:

for a range of matters. The responsibility for the use of the CUOS tools lies with arbitrators. As part of that, we delegate the use of these tools to others, and then we oversee that use, though that management role now largely devolves to AUSC.

4426:

That was put in place on March 29, 2010 per the motion he diff'ed. It then expired July 7 after a second motion (technically, it was retroactively expired the same as Brews' topic ban expiration on June 29th, the decision to do so being enacted

3896:

We're about writing an encyclopedia. Constantly engaging in battle ground tactics and dragging up stuff from three years ago that most of us have forgotten doesn't help that. No, this is only about your ego and smiting your perpetual enemies, as

7350:

If I'm reading you correctly, I think the best answer you'll get is that ArbCom did pass a principle on casting aspersions without providing evidence to back it up. Unfortunately if the community lets editors make unsupported attacks on admins

619:

Are they? The policy talks about neutral edit summaries with a note to the blocked editor to contact ArbCom. It doesn't say that the block may only be undone with ArbCom consent. I'd much prefer that the matter was simply referred to ArbCom.

9373:

least plausible deniability for the less gifted. If two (or worse, more than two) editors go into a discussion with these fundamentally different and incompatible approaches and are not aware of the fact, there is an automatic escalation.

10094:

that the message has not quite been received. I know it's not easy, but I recommend to every named party that you clean out your watchlist of anything related to climate change and really, truly just ignore the topic for the time being.

5733: 5768: 3479: 10881:

When I brought it up elsewhere, Rlevse indicated that an expression of our thanks for his service wasn't necessary (although as you can see from the statements above, that we do thank him for serving, and will miss having him around)

1016: 2412:

As I understand the motion, it is a modification of the unbanning provisions, not a replacement for them. Thus, seeing as the checkusering requirement was not mentioned in this motion, it stands to reason that it remains unaffected.

10611:

I have deleted it, the signal-to-noise ratio on non-admin input is rapidly approaching 1/∞ and admins and functionaries can always check the deleted revisions if they need to see something. Apologies for not dealing with it sooner.

7773:

How is he supposed to initiate any conversation, since all his accounts are blocked indefinitely for this supposed sock abuse? If this were just a technicality to force him to do another RfA then that would be a different matter.

2950:

Interesting selection. Are we supposed to email the mailing list for all comments, or just concerns/opposes? I'm guessing that anyone who does not email the list is assumed to be supporting or indifferent toward all the candidates.

3815:

likelihood exactly the same thing would happen, and the edits including the email would be suppressed. That does not in any way suggest that the underlying issue did not need to be addressed; indeed, it was addressed at the time.

3325:, anyone?). And there were voter eligibility requirements, so these weren't just drive-by voters. But I guess it's okay to ignore these facts because the encyclopedia would cease to exist without a few people in these positions. -- 514:

14:23, 13 July 2010 Deskana (talk | contribs | block) blocked Karlioos (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: checkuser confirmed sockpuppet of User:Karlpoos,

11130:

attribution says "the text was not written by me" and (unless the text comes from another GFDL source) ought to be rare on wikipedia and made explicit by quotation marking. There ought seldom to be any confusion between the two.--

8525:

Polargeo doesn't need a lawyer. WMC, let him speak on his own behalf if he wishes to. Your very persistent involvement here is not helping him at all. He can post an appeal to his talk page, and the matter will be considered.

4569:

can politely ask me to not do something and I will consider that if it sounds reasonable. If there is anything that I wrote that is seen to be problematic (not just about Brews but in general) I would be glad to hear about that.

5785: 741:

but the results were unhelpful. The view that AC should take back the reins for now at least, seems a not-unreasonable interpretation of how the community's wishes stated at RFC might be best met insofar as any direction can be

693:

That's the general idea. Only one candidate met the criteria we set, so only one candidate was appointed. No one is eager to appoint people who lost in the election, which is why we are sending out a call for more applications.

11029:

When someone claims that text, fully attributed to a source that anyone can look up, is plagiarized, that's just wrong, and it obscures the very real moral problem of people trying to pass off other people's work as their own.

11342: 1332:

Slightly longer answer - It's been a while since I was on Arbcom and hearsay says if anything it's tightened since then. As of 2 years ago, any concerns were taken seriously and investigated. If they showed a possible problem

1226:

I have to say, I think the use of private voting as opposed to community discussion was a major contributing factor to the "unsatisfactory" result of the election. I also agree with part of one of MZ's earlier posts- that who

11376:

etc...). I feel it would be legitimate to adjust the restrictions to precisely "articles related to interraction between the Crusaders and the Mongols", which is really the crux of the matter we've been discussing. Thank you

10798:

For most issues, I would say -½. However, given that this situation is much less cryptic and personal to them, as well as a positive moment (thanking him for his service, not the fact he's leaving)...I'd say about 4.2±√3. =)

9400:

Does it extend to user talk pages? Can a user present information he or she would like to see added to an article and then talk to proxies about how best to carry out the edits, for example?... to give a concrete example, is

4470: 4005: 3731:

enforceable NDA's and are aware of past CU/OS drama enough to not repeat the same errors, that's good enough for me. I'd like to see more disclosure and consideration of other privacy issues but this isn't the place for it.

11011:

including this comment by Jimbo Wales (bold is Jimbo's) As a note: Rlevse's work was attributed. While this isn't the place to discuss this, this situation is not clear cut. So I'd suggest reading the pages where its being

10953:

Rlevse has resigned all of his positions and retired from the project, so ultimately nothing would be gained from proverbially sticking a knife in his back by means of a "We think that for Rlevse to do X, Y, or Z was wrong"

6905: 5376:

It is unclear why the Committee has concluded that "Marskell ... is no longer in control of his account per the emergency procedures." Presumably this is based on something firmer than the claims of the indefinitely blocked

472:

Such cases involve private information of the user that often cannot be communally disclosed. Does the community have a better way to handle privacy-related issues? Second thought is, a lot of the time AC does a pretty good

4027:

satisfied, nevermind conditions for implementing a general hearing of this kind, and (iii) there is no stated basis for the motions considered in terms of WP guidelines, that is the proposed remedies are not related to the

1351: 1077:

And being elected as an Arbitrator gives you the ability to request, at the Arbitrator's discretion, oversight or checkuser privileges, right? I don't know of any Arbitrator ever being denied access to such user rights, at

553:. The policy as it is written is, "don't do it". Is arbcom's intent to change this policy? Based on the policy as it is currently written, regular admins should not be making "contact arbcom before unblocking" blocks. -- 9349:

Has this discussion become so toxic that my good faith statements and queries can be so badly misinterpreted? I withdraw and apologise without reserve while denying any intention whatever of poking or assuming bad faith.

7061:

Nod. Carcharoth asked me some thoughtful questions during this case, which I in turn gave thoughtful answers to... but I didn't see where my answers had any impact on much. (They may well have HAD an impact, but it wasn't

6952: 6625:

Of course, it's bad thing if people care disadvantaged. The problems usually arise in terms of seeing the wood for the trees. Either people don't know policy well enough or they rely on rhetoric instead of factual stuff.

5046: 2874: 571:

ArbCom has no plans to change this policy and, to reiterate, regular admins should not be making "contact arbcom before unblocking" blocks (unless it's part of an AE action, in which case wheel-warring provisions apply).

4844: 4254: 4060: 3477:

I have had positive interactions with all of the candidates and have no objections to any of them. In particular, the CU candidates have done a fine job with SPI and we can definitely use more checkusers. (A disclosure;

4700: 203:

It is simply not true that "any ArbCom process is going to subject an editor to a significant amount of stress and distress". Arbitrators resolve dozens of such incidents a year, informally and without stress or drama.

6102:

A four month case to hand out 6 month bans? That doesn't seem proportionate to me. Either the committee dragged its heels on this unnecessarily, or the punishments are beyond lenient for the evident disruption caused.

4131:

Are you suggesting that Brews is an expert, and not a fringe theorist whom anyone with a high school education or greater is going to disagree with (and I would suspect the higher the education, the more strongly so?)

4015: 1659: 11401: 711:

opportunity to disapprove candidates though in discussion form rather than votes, can't the community simply say the same thing if someone choses to run again? It looks as if you've made quite a few assumptions here.

440:

such as evidence of admin socking or similar. That's stressful but not easy to avoid. It's not usually as long as RFAR though and because it's by email it doesn't cause community "pile-on" or stress for them on-wiki.

4244:

concerning Sandstein's indefinite block has not been discussed or ruled upon, so the entire purpose of this appeal has been completely side-stepped in exchange for a meaningless remedy treating an imaginary problem.

10380:

article and that was disallowed. But as far as discussing issues and edits about the topic they are banned from at their own usertalk, this was fine in the past unless they were soliciting for meatpuppetry openly.--

9009:

Blogs like this can be safely ignored, I think, in terms of a threat to Knowledge. We're perennially warned on-site about the dangers of meat puppets turning up in droves, but in the year I've curated the talk page

8244:

There was - and is - a block on his network range. Most, if not all, of these accounts were created on proxies in avoidance of that block, which could only have been targeted at Polargeo. As far as I could tell, he

6212:

No, you can do good work elsewhere and then come back to it in 6 months on appeal. But yes, for people like WMC who clearly don't get it and never will get it, they are as they say, burned. So it's not all bad....

1542:

unimpeachable record so Checkusers cannot dismiss that point). CU results are not logged so no checkuser could be certain whether your edits and IPs were examined as part of any check or in any case if you did ask.

10329:

Except (at least for me), that's just not going to happen. I have neither the time nor the will to patrol WP climate change for this kind of thing. Hope someone else does. CI's suggestion is good in this respect.

9050:

guideline. This is our chance to demonstrate why Knowledge has an enviable reputation as a collaborative community. I can't imagine why anyone coming from Mr. Watts' blog to Knowledge would ever want to go back.

7172:

this case since it concerns content, so unless there is a behavioral aspect please don't dwell on that. Also, it isn't in anyone's posting but the ArbCom has learned that there is an issue with socking by user:X .

6816:

Given the "thanks" that have been meted out for the involved administrators in this case, I'm simply not seeing any upside for me or any other heretofore uninvolved administrator to step in and fill the gap left.

2593:

I don't want to edit from an account, I just want to fix wikilinks, not add content and not get involved in discussions. Editors with accounts get asked for their opinions, and I don't want to give any opinions.

1755:

You don't actually seem to be proposing anything at all... Call me crazy, but doesn't it make sense to give the most powerful admin tools to users who have already shown an ability to use admin tolls responsibly?

8553:@JEH: actually, PG certainly did need someone to speak for him, because H erroneously blocked his talk page access (or possibly there was a bug; see Xeno's comment on H's page). If you don't want to discuss this 4039:

to alleviate preexisting prejudices, and all rules and the good of WP were set aside to accomplish that aim. That impression should be corrected, for the good of WP and of the reputations of its administrators.

1342:

suitable for rather more demanding and stringent standards needed. Also if a larger number are suggested than needed, then not being appointed might just mean someone was suitable but insufficient positions were

286:

Risker, I do agree with you about early intervention being beneficial when stresses are mounting. I think it is interesting that we have an example going on at this very moment in the climate change case, where

10535: 8574:

A quick note: The original blocks were done by me for continued disruption on the proposed decision talk page (with three named account and from an IP). It is well established that participating in process is

1704:

In the long term, it would be nice if we could move away from RFA being the exclusive way of measuring community trust and confidence in an editor. It's not intended to be an omnibus test but it's become that.

10626:

Thank you, Timotheus. Hopefully this is the end of it. The behavior of several parties during this SPI was NOT up to the standards that Knowledge expects, and speaking personally, I don't want to see it again.

9308:

Lar - Please stop. Calling someone a prat here is certainly not the behavior we expect of admins or senior editors, is inappropriate on an arbcom noticeboard, and is contrary to the directions of the decision.

4068:

I truly do not understand why or how the committee would vote this. I saw attempts to discuss and make a consensus and a lot of head hunting. I guess it's easier to scapegoat people then to deal with the issue

3779: 2860: 1399:

Right on. These are important technical jobs, that should not be decided as a popularity contest. Pick administrators who have time and are competent. The community already selected them as administrators.

5091:

This is good. But what are you going to do about the account trying to impersonate Marskell? (I think it beggars belief that the evasiveness displayed by the new account is anything other than impersonation.)

7858:

R: The sock policy is to prohibit, not to allow, so I'm afraid I think your question is written backward; that is to say, the proper question is not "where does it say it's OK..." but "where does it say it's

5831: 9304:

WMC - Please don't poke Larry. As an involved party, you're skating along the edge of behavior for which discretionary sanctions were authorized in the case. Please stop before someone issues you a formal

6512:

ructions that are caused if they don't. On balance, these things are usually manageable but this case was exceptional in terms of sheer volume of words and the huge amount of accusation/counter-accusation.

2364: 10430:

I shouldn't be surprised, I suppose, after the argument over the retirement notice where it was stated that a ban notice would soon replace it anyway, that we have now an argument over the ban notice. See

10422: 3573:

Hi Giano: If you have concrete objections to Bastique, please email me (or the committee as a whole.. if you send to me I'll forward on to the committee) your objections, and it will be taken into account.

10347:

dealing with CC articles. ArbCom already came up with one in the form of broad discretionary sanctions. You continued campaign on WMC's behalf is only going to get him exactly the wrong kind of attention.

10233:

change has been influenced by the user talk page comment. There has been no dispute, and one assumes that the editor reverting has done so to improve article content, which presumably is the aim here. . .

8354:

If the range block (as I understand it) predates all the socks (the socks having been created to avoid the rangeblock, correct?)...why was there even a range block targeted at Polargeo in the first place?

3340: 2801:

In the present setup, it's quite time-consuming to try to track down both an announcement and its corresponding discussion, particularly as there are seven archives of the former and twelve of the latter.

7182:

We have enough evidence about the personal attacks. Is there any more evidence about the advocacy issue? Sock puppetry by X and Y turns out to be a significant issue too, please add any relevant evidence.

11333: 2904: 7533:

I've more or less finished doing this, although there are still tons of potential articles to tag. The ones I have done are those that have seen problems in the past or seem to be likely trouble spots.

2129:

can not be doing it at his (or any banned user's) direction, need to independently verify the material, attribute it, and have an independent reason for doing so. Sometimes this can be a slippery slope.

4146:: Apparently you haven't visited my user page or googled my name. Yes, I am an expert, no I am not a fringe theorist, yes I am disputed by a bunch of wannabes with no conception of balanced judgment. 1947: 5202:

account and protecting the talk page while directing Marskell to the ArbCom email address. It is likely the person in control of the account is also in control of the corresponding email account. -

2104: 1964: 1931: 10488: 9537:. I'm sure an edit war and discussion in regard whether one climate change category is a subset of another is still possible, without a technical violation of the ban under 10's interpretation. — 4461:

Is that a threat? Sure sounds like one. I'd challenge anyone who feels our behavior has crossed the line in this show us proof. Our only offense is disagreeing with the sham that is happening here.

786:

Agree with what Shell said. Can I add a plea here for those posting here in response to this statement to please take the time to review the list of candidates (once it is posted in mid-August) and

458:

send situations where mental health is in issue to ArbCom is unwise... and defending that it is in the best interests of editors with mental health issues is making a questionable claim (at best).

116: 7673:

The general rule is one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to ... disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block.

3968:

Yes, indeed, until he tries it again. Will anyone ever dare to expose one of secret-societies again and their stupidities - I doubt it. Is Jimbo privy to many of these do you suppose. Guten abend.

3808: 2501:

Thanks Tnxman307, I have emailed Arbcom but of course a lot depends on if their email filter is working properly, and also if they are checking the messages awaiting moderation in a timely manner.

1675: 3940:

Well why don't we give everyone a laugh - there must be lots of new people who have never sem the "sooper seekrit dokument" that so many of Knowledge's best beleived and I was banned for posting.

2325: 1919: 1864: 645: 7626: 3150:"As the primary area of concern is confidence in the candidate's ability to operate within the Wikimedia privacy policy, comments of this nature are best directed to the Committee's mailing list" 4756:

Please point out in what distorted reality anyone here in this discussion called someone a nazi, corrupt official or otherwise? You're only making yourself look bad by blatantly making shit up.

7188:

That sort of thing. While it seems like extra steps that'd take time, effort, and discussion, if the result is arbitration cases that are more streamlined and focused then everyone benefits.

4539:(Multiple edit conflicts) Long reply to some unacceptably grave insults here. I stayed away from this a few days ago as I usually do in such cases, but I now think it is better to give a reply. 2927: 2395: 10906:

Not relevant to the committee? Really, Coren? From what I have gathered from various talk pages about this incident, Rlevse was accused of plagiarism, am I correct? Now, you might think this "

1338:

might indeed be noticed and taken into account which would be comparatively small as an admin or where no action was taken by anybody, but which could show a tendency or risk of weak area not

9608:

Which would sound to me that the talk page discussions themselves aren't forbiden, but once one of these discussions generates conflict then the hammer is going to fall. Close to the mark?--

9043: 7395: 6526:

look like they don't care as much. A comment-per-day limit would force people to think ahead. This could at least perhaps been imposed later, when you were trying to get people to shut up.

4518: 4499: 4445: 3630:

oversighter. The raking over of old and now cold coals can serve no one well. I suggest the Arbcom consider that very well and very closely. As a breed, I dislike obedient poodles intensely.

1824: 1294:

Having said all that, I do personally think that a mixture of elections and appointments would work best, and that the at-large members of AUSC should always be elected rather than appointed.

6371:. If you can accuse editors without any evidence of being paid by Big Oil, is it okay then for editors to accuse you and other editors of being in the pay of Big Carbon interests? Spreading 3218: 10072:

When you said "I'm the opposite of Jayron", I pictured you as a really hot, skinny, black woman with a pleasant voice and an active social life. But, I guess that's not what you meant. --

7687:

So the disruption was using other accounts than the ones I'm seeing? I'm guessing the information on exactly what he did and with what accounts is sensitive and can't be revealed publicly?

2977:

If you wish to heartily endorse a particular candidate, then you should feel free to e-mail ArbCom. I'm sure they'll appreciate that feedback as much as they would any negative feedback. --

315:

This is a complete misrepresentation. I will not clutter up this discussion other than to request that those reading this speak to me before taking any of the above comment at face value.

9752: 9324: 8876:

will be reaching far more people than by publishing papers and writing articles in journals. By correcting the information in Wikki you can make a huge impact on the outcome of the issue.

8807: 8519: 8227: 8207: 8163: 8031: 7448: 6691: 6678: 5008:

Thank you for making clear that ArbCom is bound by no considerations. Anyone that comes to ArbCom is an idiot unless they have assurances of a welcome ahead of time. I was snookered when

1912: 1834: 1652: 130: 9798:

It looks to me as if you've misread the discussion. We all know what the Remedy 3 topic ban says, and the discussion above has established that there are well understood existing norms.

8951:

If Jimbo were to create Wikkipedia.org, as a mirror of Knowledge that anyone can edit but whose content is periodically reset to that of Knowledge, that would also solve the problem :)

8126: 7291: 11148: 10621: 10448: 9793: 8347: 7748: 7734: 7561: 4886: 3989: 3980: 3961: 3933: 3901: 3887: 3870: 3248: 3182: 3038: 10227: 8835: 8565: 8530: 8212:@JEH: your block summary there says "‎(Block evasion: User admits block evasion)". That doesn't seem applicable here - there was no block to evade (as I've just e/c'd with Stephan on). 8176: 7722: 7653:

the charge of multiple-accounts abuse is coming from. I ask this as much because he appears to be indefinitely blocked for what he did as because of this decision on admin privileges.

5945: 5806: 4850:

I was kind of hoping that rather than insist on a ruling in relation to the length of Sandstein's topic ban (not a block), you (and others) would have wanted to comment on what I said

4421: 3642: 3624: 3352: 3334: 3204: 628: 518:

21:26, 18 July 2010 Deskana (talk | contribs | block) blocked Imafuckingninja (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism-only account)

11326: 11134: 11123: 11108: 11062: 9220: 8285: 8262: 7505: 7434: 3161: 1499: 1490: 738: 10650: 10479:

Unfortunate outcome, but one that Steve drove towards relentlessly, despite a lot of people trying to tell him to put the brakes on or turn aside. Correct but unfortunate outcome.

9713: 9684: 8579:

an acceptable use of alternate accounts — let alone to snipe at participants in an arbitration case. Routine enforcement of basic rules. Polargeo was then offered to edit from any

7767: 7401:

which needs to be removed. I have done the As and Bs. If you'd like to help, please pick a letter and remove the templates from talk pages of articles starting with that letter. --

7117: 7107: 4668: 4078: 3594:

I have already emailed the Arbcom, but why cannot it be discussed here? I would quite like to do it here. In my view, he is the last person on earth who should be granted oversight.

3450:

Strong support of MuZemike, Tnxman307, Beeblebrox, LessHeard vanU, MBisanz and Phantomsteve. Haven't paid enough attention to the others to have an opinion, but no concerns noted.--

10918:

so I think the community deserves to know what happened and what's ArbCom position on that. So far, the ArbCom seems to be playing the "let's pretend nothing really happened" game.

10497: 10241: 9544: 9055: 9037: 8487:

Maybe Polargeo can be unblocked so that he can use his Polargeo2 userpage to request an unblock, if he so desires. Until or unless that happens, we're just going to be speculating.

8473: 8419: 8405: 8390: 7998: 7018: 6911:

Tony Sidaway appears to have done something with the page itself, although not the talk. It wasn't an archiving per se, and he's not a clerk, but that hasn't stopped him before. ++

4796: 4782: 4765: 4751: 4736: 4170: 3796:

brute force and thuggery to spare their embarrassment. Now he is a hallowed oversighter, there once was a time when a barnstar was reward enough. Good luck to our new oversighter!

3262: 2308: 10752: 10636: 10174: 9960:

William may also have information on some CC topic that no other Wikipedian has, but which is needed in an article. An obvious example where that is likely to happen is in case of

9520: 9506: 9473: 8983: 8960: 8738: 8597: 3719: 3686: 3190:

A fine selection. As, for the most part, were the previous candidates. I feel it's a shame that the community isn't being allowed more involvement, but the positions need filling.

2784:

could be used so that all links are permanent. Another option would be separate pages for each announcement, with the discussion overleaf (like at AfD), but that has its drawbacks.

703: 652:

the posts need to be filled, but you can't just ignore consensus like that. Oh, wait, you're ArbCom, you can do what you like and bugger what the community thinks. Total bollocks.

11021: 10585: 10572: 9557: 8908: 8703: 8679: 8448: 8435: 8302: 8148: 8053: 7850: 7538: 7415: 7345: 7323: 7310: 6885: 6701: 6656: 6643: 6634: 6396: 6334: 6317: 6222: 6207: 6028: 6011: 5998: 5981: 4390: 4373: 4155: 4138: 4096: 3383: 3288: 1701:

I don't think there are any remedies for this particular situation as time is of the essence and there are indeed pressing issues that checkusers and oversighters need to address.

666: 11092: 10599: 9730: 9617: 9603: 9488: 9341: 9241: 9142: 9124: 8781: 8719: 8482: 8191: 7574: 7411:

For technical reasons the list above contains links to both the articles and their talk pages, so it's twice as long as you'd expect. Only the talk pages need to be processed. --

7276: 7250: 4357: 4226: 4126: 4111: 3369: 2737: 2119: 1886: 1471: 866: 715: 137:

Just wanted to confirm one common exception that may have been omitted. There may be other circumstances where administrators may have issued a block marked "for Arbcom review":

11048: 10865: 10738: 10716: 9873: 9806: 9765: 9384: 8329: 6661:

As is, though, a couple of diffs can be ancedotally found pretty easily and make anyone look bad. The bar for asking for sanctions right now is higher than that, and should be.

6411: 6284:

the stage for only "left wing people are welcome here", only people who match our POV are welcome to contribute here. The only things that you need to concern yourself with are

5889: 5872: 4270: 4195:(all terms Brews uses on his user page) are largely in the area of physics, so I wouldn't be adverse to a clarification at some point to allow Brews to work in those areas, but 3740: 2945: 2673: 2655: 2631: 2616: 2603: 2588: 2555: 2540: 2523: 906: 832: 688: 11078: 10946: 10557: 10524: 10371: 10356: 9988: 9973: 9922: 9908: 9001: 7694: 7682: 7660: 7610: 7591: 6520: 6506: 6489: 6256: 6239: 5964: 5933: 5168: 5148: 5025: 4991: 4964: 4868: 4341: 4318: 4286: 3952: 3924: 3844: 3824: 3308: 2839: 2622:

trying to help. Leave clear, correct advice to those caught in rangeblocks, make the blocked template less confusing, you'll get less drama and more good editors contributing.

2292: 2215: 1938:

Just to clarify, what is meant by "his block is being converted"? Is his email access and talk page access being granted, or is this conversion solely to reflect the duration?

1714: 1696: 804: 11311:

Every time Giano pulls one of his drama-fuelled stunt, a little piece of Knowledge dies. And Giano's currency is devalued further. It's very sad to see such a decline. Laura

11305: 11259: 11233: 10702: 10407: 10398: 10152: 9955: 9941: 9888: 8946: 7836: 7364: 6938: 6826: 6735: 6535: 6278: 4721: 3705: 3671: 3606: 3552: 3524: 2341: 2167:

And also clarify what it means; for example, is it enough to say that book X and journal article Y definitely exist, or must you verify that book X says what he says it does?

2148: 2006: 1992: 1978: 1904: 1627:

breaches of privacy. Still, this does make my point about the different levels of community trust implicit in the roles of administrators versus oversighters and checkusers.

1012: 10840: 10826: 10793: 10339: 9859: 9571: 9452: 8648: 8548: 8496: 8290:

Prior to Beeblebrox's modification, the ticky box that allows talk page access was unchecked - though it wasn't mentioned in the log entry, for some reason. A bug, perhaps. –

7783: 7496: 7227: 6869: 6476: 5402: 4902: 4851: 3759: 3463: 3445: 3420: 3401: 3126: 3016: 2810: 2510: 2496: 2407: 1321: 1290: 1094: 1065: 1028: 972: 958: 11276: 10278: 10127: 10106: 10052: 9585: 8363: 7527: 7405: 7201: 7148: 6481:

The total evidence/discussion ran to about 850,000 words. That's more than the Old Testament and New Testament added together; or twice the length of Lord Of The Rings. :)

6185: 6145: 5058: 4877:

FYI - I have filed a new amendment request to reimpose the advocacy restrictions for those four editors for the same 12-month period Brews' new topic restriction runs for.

3406:

Last time we did this dance, I seem to recall you telling me to calm down about it. Look, the earlier process was a disaster. Only one candidate made it through, and we got

2421: 2275: 2244: 2205: 2191: 2176: 2024: 1431: 1327:

Brief answer - yes and it is, although a specific fault of the recent elections was that no information related to supports and opposes was gathered by the voting structure.

614: 264: 245: 231: 212: 10999: 10807: 10087: 10066: 9842: 9438: 8690: 6923: 6557: 5037:

I think Count Iblis misinterpreted my suggestion, though I guess I understand why. I posted a hopefully clarifying comment in the discussion section for GWH's new motion.

3472: 2984: 2225:

circumvent his ban", "importing banned user content causes disruption", etc. I think it's one of those arguments that will never go away, like the one vested contributors.

1779: 1765: 1636: 1594: 1246: 10191: 8932: 7056: 7046: 6598: 6580: 5816: 5291: 5241: 5216: 4828: 3773: 3073: 2470: 888: 9825: 9292: 9110: 9072: 8631: 8618: 8112: 8098: 8067: 7982: 7957: 7936: 7911: 7897: 7871: 7582:

this as a show to sit back and watch. Taking that attitude does nothing to improve things, and reinforces the impression that you are just commenting from the sidelines.

6976: 6970: 6811: 6793: 6775: 6754: 5902: 5656: 5484: 4480:

I normally loathe telling people that they need to stop discussing something, but the community is really sick of this. The arguments were made. A decision was reached.

3392:

If there are other significant factors I'm missing beside the passage of time that make the result of the May elections irrelevant, please feel free to point them out. --

2445: 2162: 1809: 1788: 1404: 1217: 1201: 1162: 1145: 1128: 1114: 1004: 986: 847: 769: 426: 360: 11166: 10891: 10323: 10311: 9668: 9651: 7821: 7477:

They are no longer subject to "community article probation" but "arbitration discretionary sanctions". Removal may not be a good idea, maybe replacing with a version of

5700: 5676: 5189: 5130: 3583: 3501: 2972: 2768: 2719: 1750: 1736: 529:

A block based on checkuser evidence that I've obtained through checkuser, but where the evidence is not confidential and as such is also a standard administrative block.

98: 93: 88: 76: 71: 11213: 10876: 10030: 9591: 9173: 9156: 7708: 6619: 6456: 6442: 5588: 5389: 2754: 594: 580: 404: 10300: 7796: 6168: 6058: 2715: 2707: 2375: 2079: 943: 921: 913:

privacy policy, and they are fair in determining cases when these tools are used. Arbcom's role is to select and appoint users likely to be of that character. I'd say

308: 281: 63: 10966: 10831:

The Arbitration Committee, as a committee, has not adopted a "position on this affair." This individual arbitrator is sad about virtually every aspect of the matter.

10469: 9204: 9184: 8380:. Well, you get the pattern. PG2 was created on 14th Oct: '2010-10-14T05:37:32 Shell Kinney (talk | contribs) created new account User:Polargeo 2 ‎ (talk | contribs) 6844: 6112: 3095: 2063: 543: 324: 8887: 8878:" I don't know how many highly respected Ph.D.-holding heros "the Wikki" will get, but I do hope that people here are prepared to deal with a wave of meatpuppets. -- 8583:

account of his choosing. He picked one, slapped a retirement tag on it, then proceeded (as noticed by another unrelated checkuser) to create and revive a number of

7385: 7078: 4386: 4353: 4166: 3736: 2358: 382: 237:

deeprooted behavioural issues that can probably never be resolved by us and, as they say, Knowledge is not therapy. Not much more I can on this really, I'm afraid.

197: 10306:

Rather, as I just explained on William's talk page, the issue is maintaining the many CC pages that don't seem to be rigorously patrolled by the other CC regulars.

7471: 3533:

I guess you just make your concerns known here, which you've done, and Carcharoth will take it into consideration...? Not sure if there's more you can do Giano. --

1388: 1378: 1359: 511:

21:07, 16 July 2010 Deskana (talk | contribs | block) blocked 122.57.83.247 (talk) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months ‎ ({{checkuserblock}})

496: 467: 444: 11290: 10415: 10384: 9368:

If I may be completely honest here: Part of the problem seems to be that we are all under an enormous pressure to be constructive. For some editors this may mean

9354: 9271: 9092: 9022: 5856: 5433: 5369: 5270: 2710:) 14:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC) It should also be noted that the links from the main noticeboard page to the related discussions are broken by the archiving process. 2477: 2426:

Skommo is correct, if an existing restriction is not mentioned in this motion, then it's still in place. Only what is mentioned in the passing motion is affected.

1457:

of editors – heck, anyone on earth with an internet connection – who can scrutinize the completely-open logs of all my administrative actions. There are close to

562: 179: 170: 9848:

admins will issue topic bans to deal with this under discretionary sanctions if the problem rears its ugly head again and I, for one, will happily endorse them.

9675:

experts were topic-banned, I feel like we should provide a space for them to offer their suggestions on wiki as long as it doesn't spill over into article space.

5917: 4835:

to do with the appeal, and everything to do with hijacking it to create a venue for special pleading. In fact, shortening Sandstein's block was never ruled upon.

160: 10539: 9418: 6089: 6072: 2664:, just executed poorly, by an admin who can't be contacted, and with no proper explanation for those affected by it. I'm off now, I really hate being logged in. 7567:

I'm afraid Ed is editing according to Knowledge policies, for the most part, although he's still (begin understatement) a bit (end understatement) abrasive. —

3374:

I wouldn't take it to heart, (I'm sure you haven't)I think it was the format that attracted the oppose votes not so much a specific rejection of the candidate.

1784:

I suppose, but we generally hope that such concerns have something vaguely resembling reasonable content, rather than just random and unfixable "don't want". --

9098:

Was that a reply to me? Because it doesn't make a lot of sense in reply to my comment. Editing environment congeniality isn't the same as quality of output. ++

5877:

Probably so, since they all occurred before wikilinks. I believe I caught most of them, and hope I wasn't out of line to do that (it seemed uncontroversial).

4778: 4747: 4717: 4430: 6176:

Potato tomato. Although as you point out, taking four months to decide whether a six month protection period is warranted is similarly way out of proportion.

5721: 5603: 1666:

While I understand the practical issues that limit this to Administrators, I remain concerned that power continues to accumulate in a small pool of editors.

1495:

I'm fairly certain that AUSC has responded to queries of this sort in the past, and I see no reason to believe that this would not be the case in the future.

109: 10550:

subject to slanderous inuendo, dealing with that is the first priority. I am about to break all the rules and unlock his talk page (tell me if that's bad).

8458:

still blocked? You already have assurances from Polargeo that he will limit himself to that account and that account only if he wishes to return to editing.

2881: 9497:

Does this mean only proccesses like AFD and the like, or does it include the broader editing process such as the discussion of sources on user talk pages.--

5543: 5449: 2867: 1448:. The problem is that passing the vetting process to select an administrator (once) is not the same as receiving a carte blanche from the community to use 7544: 3360:

whatever the process, poor or abusive CU/OS'ers can have the flags removed. In the meanwhile, there will be more people to undertake some necessary tasks.

292: 9549:

Sure, sounds like a fine plan for those who want to find themselves banished in perpetuity to the dark side of the Moon under discretionary sanctions :)

9329:

GWH: You have misinterpreted my words too. I will be more careful in future to be more explicit in my referents. Try not to jump at shadows so, though. ++

7727:

If I understand Roger Davies correctly, it may not be in Polargeo's interest to go into further detail. Have you tried asking Polargeo directly by email?

7014:

Too radical a change from the current process? I'd appreciate some feedback—from arbitrators, clerks, participants, or even nosy bystanders like myself.

5523: 4381:

Although I was also thinking of Headbomb, who is on the other side but who has so much of this conflict stuck to him by now that he should stay away too.

11034:. It is the moral crime of pretending that someone else's work is your own which amounts to plagiarism.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)" 8770: 5792: 4348:

I mostly see the same bunch of personalities involved in the conflict as all the other times. Could they, like, stay away from each other for a while?

4309:

you see William appearing. That is then followed by a rapid improvement of the article, even though he is working with editors like Ed Poor and SEWilco.

10687: 8022:

Loss of tools is one thing. Being indef blocked for "abuse" with no clear evidence of same is distinctly dodgy. PG says his talk page access is blocked

175:

Any answer is okay - as long as admins have some idea before any issue not after, they will be less likely to find themselves in an unexpected problem.

9361: 9311:

Interaction bans were specifically authorized. If you all are going to keep beating on each other here or elsewhere in the wake of the case, there is

9229:

anything in particular was not my intent. The findings in the case do that well enough. I was referring to the generic case of editors acting badly. ++

7864:

permissions.) Now, some people below appear to have answered that question, but still, I just wish that answer had been made clear from the beginning.

6043: 4292:

when Knowledge had good quality articles, becoming more popular as a result, did we get the ArbCom here and have started to nitpick about trivialities.

4007: 977:

Chill out, guys. You're both being insulting and rising to each other's bait. Take it to your respective talk pages if you want to continue this line.

9656:

Even if it is acceptable, It looks like there will be a need to clarify where the line is. If the previous section is fine, would participating here

8870:

If people are not yet aware of it, there is at least one "sceptic" blog keeping a running commentary on the CC ArbCom case and its repercussions. See

5939: 5073: 4378: 2110:

I'm glad the voting committee explicitly endorsed importing his off-site articles. Good content is and should be welcome when appropriately licensed.

11190: 10926: 10770: 10436: 9867: 9759: 9378: 7844: 7728: 6958:

Why? Why not leave it to an actual clerk to do a good job of it with proper archiving? I'm confused in general about why you like to clerk things. ++

6328: 6272: 5505: 5108: 4774: 4743: 4713: 2091: 156:

Rather than administrators guessing if IAR would apply, can someone advise if these kinds of occasional traditional cases are still covered? Thanks.

8478:

I'll hazard a guess that the assurances haven't been terribly convincing. It's not okay to operate multiple accounts the way Polargeo was doing.

6717: 2211:- as Rlevse pointed out, we felt it was worth mentioning since its a bit different having a banned user be the source than just some other website. 10198: 1415:

Don't you see the contradiction between "should not be decided as a popularity contest" and "The community already selected them as administrators

21: 7618: 7421: 5747: 2853: 9659:

also be fine? Arbcom should clarify now, or be prepared to see the official requests for clarifications start rolling in before a week passes.--

2914:

I like some of the names suggested. Some of the names from the previous May Secure Poll do not appear but may be better choices, in some cases.

150:

Information whose disclosure would greatly affect counter-vandalism or other future efforts against serious disruption (doesn't say either way).

10213: 9928:

it as well. Why would you be discussing something on your talk page if you can't even edit in that area to begin with? There has to be at least

7376: 4175:

The IP editor is correct. I would also note that Brews has made excellent contributions in terms of images. I can understand that the areas of

3788:

editors into the bargain and permanently driving him off can now be appointed an oversighter. In short, he blocked me to spare Jimbo's blushes

2318: 638: 10543: 6152:

Didn't you just say to me the other day that you don't toe the party line? I'm disappointed, BW. (Unless I missed a sarcasm tag somewhere?) →

10394:. It does not mean "continue to work on the topic in a different way, on a different page, or just a little bit". It is really that simple.-- 8729:, in which PG maintains that many of the supposed sock accounts are mis-associated with him. He also requests unblock for the PG2 account. -- 6759:

My concern is how this affects other similar cases, particularly when no admins will touch them. I requested 1RR at ANI once, and NW was the

3912:

Funnily enough, you are the eone who keeps popping up - were you involved? - or are you just some form of wise oracle who loves to comment?

11284: 11268:

If the user in question is truly gone, that's one thing. But if a "vanished" user comes back under another guise, that can spell trouble. ←

11032:

Even in cases where the attribution is done poorly, as long as there is attribution, there is no plagiarism - just bad style or bad writing

9443:

Ugh, that's why I always use "articles, discussions, and other content" when imposing topic bans. Broader and less opportunity for gaming.

8871: 7298:

a messy arb case is likely to result. I'm unconvinced that the outcome in this case will encourage admins to engage in complex disputes.

5324: 5013: 5009: 1101: 9802:

it is impossible to police. The consensus seems to be strongly against an application of the topic ban too far beyond what is written. --

2385: 8675:

indicate my identity. That is okay I hope. It it isn't please take comments to my user talk page to avoid cluttering this discussion. --

1870:

If anyone is sufficiently trusted and competent to be a checkuer or oversighter, why would they not be willing to first go through RFA?

351:

De-identing* Alright, both sides, take it back to the Climate Change ArbCom pages, if you have to take it anywhere. Enough is too much.

9047: 3693:

Oh Good. The word "document" coupled with Knowledge always makes me laugh, especially when its a secret one - any German quotes in it?

10216: 6097: 4712:

Perhaps a few well-placed Orwell analogies could help you guys agitate for Brews more effectively. ALLCAPS grabs attention as well.

143:

Information whose disclosure would require breach of privacy of a user (statement only covers privacy issues "whose disclosure would

8745:

Noting that Polargeo 2 is now inblocked and that there's no dispute about ownership of many accounts, including but not limited to:

6375:

about editors is not helpful, all you are doing is arguing that it is okay to continue to battlefield because you are in your view,

4241: 4161:

would probably do even worse. Being an expert in some subject doesn't automatically make a person into an expert on every subject.

4023: 3929:

Hm, I keep thinking that you might be open to wise oracles. But perhaps that's just my inability to learn the lessons of long ago.--

1800:

It's clear that my concerns aren't welcome here so if you have a reply please leave on my Talk page. I've said what I have to say.

4979: 1793:

I was certain that my concern would not be well-received here but to label it "unreasonable" seems overly dismissive and downright

737:

if sufficient places were not filled, to seek communal input. In the most recent election that is what happened. The community was

5549:

Surely it will be helpful for the community if ArbCom simply provides a yes-or-no informative statement as to whether the account

4306: 10505: 8058:

If I may, on several ocassions Polargeo has mentioned he no longer has access to that account. (Password scrambled I believe.)--

6494:

That is ... impractical. Have you ever considered imposing strict time and size constraints on submissions, like real courts do?

3659:, not ten days after the appointment has been confirmed. I am well aware of how these things are handled when guided from above. 2455: 1820: 536:

Hopefully other checkusers use similar standards. Either way, I'd like to thank the ArbCom publicly for making this statement. --

8431:

This is getting a bit off topic. Perhaps the matter of the checkuser block should be moved to a more appropriate noticeboard. --

6860:

clear that it will deal with battleground mentality. I hope that ArbCom quickly moves ahead and applies this across the board.--

4819:

Well, the tone of this discussion has become quite elevated, eh? For me the real issue here is the diversion of my appeal aimed

11335: 5791:

That sort of thing is always a concern. Out of curiosity, which newspaper source did you read? We covered something similar in

3957:

I suspect a few people may smile at the memory of that past farce, but really, from this perspective, much ado about nothing.--

1770:

No, I'm not proposing anything concrete at the moment. Editors are allowed to have opinions and express concerns here, right?

11368:), and often the simple appearance of the word "Crusade" or "Mongol" in an article blocks me from contributing to it (like... 7699:

I echo Heimstern's call for transparency here. If there are other accounts where abuse occurred, they should be made public.

1119:

Your answer is basically: Arbs don't use these tools much (unless they want), so no vetting is required. Umm, not convincing.

7917:

Nah, it also says such accounts should be disclosed, to arbcom in private when necessary and he didn't do any of that either.

6896:

Per the first bulletin point, are these pages to be dealt with by the ArbCom clerks - to be archived and marked historicial?

5620: 5560: 5466: 5318: 3512:

I strongly object to Bastique or Cary Bass or whatever it is he currently calls himself - what am I supposed to do about it?

296: 123: 10563:

The functionaries team are reviewing everything, and we'll probably be revdelling, or at the very least, blanking the page.

8894: 8140:(od) He wasn't indeffed by ArbCom - it was an independent checkuser action - though the block looks perfectly good to me. 5838: 2333:

Just a note that I have stood down as an arbcom clerk for the length of my term on AUSC to avoid any conflicts of interest.

10818:

TreasuryTag, I have no idea how likely is I get any sort of clear response but I do hope that they will address the issue.

9657: 9395: 9018:

And if this blog is encouraging people with relevant doctorates to come and help us out, then I say thank you very much. --

2711: 2703: 765:

for. If you feel any clear consensus was ignored or disrespected, it might be more productive to point to the link for it.

51: 17: 10590:

Comment: SF, may I suggest that you rescue the evidence posted somewhere where it is not implicating any innocent user? --

10493:

I have to agree; he no doubt contributed in good faith but was unfortunately unable to improve his problematic behaviors.

8849:

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

3769:

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

11318: 11272: 10390:

I am afraid your understanding is incorrect. A number of arbs opining abouve have made it clear that a "topic ban" means

7333:

messy case, only one admin (NW) even bothered to weigh in, while the childish squabbles over non-issues persist at ANI.

4382: 4349: 4162: 3732: 11070:

It seems to me that neither Rlevse nor Jimbo are aware that what happened was indeed a case plagiarism. Quite shocking.

8897: 6639:

Still, you have to admit it's a bit bad when people go on and on in evidence when a couple of diffs should be enough. --

549:

I hadn't noticed this before, but there is actually already a policy regarding privileged blocks from non-checkusers at

9946:

I fail to see the harm in editors who understand the intricacies of CC science exchanging views on scholarly articles.

5038: 3241: 3120: 3010: 1816: 815:

There are naturally going to be complaints, but I for one, as a member of the community, strongly support this change.

9046:, as do we all. That means they can do just about anything legitimate under Knowledge policy, and we will observe our 7739:

I've talked to PG by email. He is entirely happy to go into detail, and has no interest in arbcomm's cloak of secrecy

10858: 10786: 10206: 7963:

You're treating me and acting the same way so what's the diff? We disagree on interpretation of a policy, that's all.

4302: 2702:, but the box only lists archives up to Archive 11. I can't work out how to update the archivebox with the new link. 2693: 992: 826: 10958:. Precisely why you are, Loosmark, so determinedly pursuing such a denouncement of Rlevse does, I admit, baffle me. 10096:(and I doubt there are many hot, skinny women with pleasant voices who spend their Saturday night editing Knowledge) 8554: 8535:

Maybe we can just sort of wind this up as long as we're certain that P can state his case on-wiki. I mean, that's a

8695:

Which of course still doesn't answer the question why the old alternate accounts weren't disclosed at either RfA.

8083: 5418: 3276: 2960: 5528:

A few edit conflicts to post a comment. Pre-empted by a wave of the hand. I guess that means it's time to head to

4044: 2491: 1741:

I understand there are considerable logistical issues; that's why I'm not proposing anything change immediately.

10956:

NB: I am unfamiliar with the intimate details of this whole affair and so hold no position on it in that respect

10531: 9425: 9402: 7237:

cases may take more text and diffs, which is why feedback from the committee is important to keep it focused.

6997:

Clerks should actively enforce the scope or have an "offtopic" page to where out of scope comments can be moved.

4906: 10776:

On a scale of one to ten, how likely do you reckon you are to get any sort of clear response to that question?

10484: 10163: 9726: 9320: 9216: 9120: 8803: 8561: 8515: 8415: 8386: 8343: 8281: 8223: 8159: 8122: 8027: 7994: 7744: 7718: 7103: 6674: 6139: 5642: 5574: 5348: 4882: 4495: 4441: 7904:

answer about where the disruption was. Still. Committee needs to be open about this stuff from the beginning.

3789: 2918:

Secure Poll, the top 4 CU and 6 OS (the number that AC seems to suggest) among the 6 CU and 11 OS candidates.

11396: 10932:

His user rights no longer show anything beyond "editor" which appears to confirm the resignation. Now, there

9775:

fed up with this nonsense. If an edit could be interpreted as even approaching a violation of the topic ban,

8853: 8609:

If you're in communication with him, and he knows that, then I don't see what more there is to discuss here.

6003:

The remedy is case specific but I suppose for other cases it probably would be best practice to delete them

5844:

There are missing spaces between words throughout the case writeup; I hope it's OK that I fixed those I saw.

5342: 5336: 4905:

suggesting clarification of muddy remedies. I made the same request multiple times. Later I asked EdJohnston

934:

been selected (to even run in an election), I think you get a clearer picture of ArbCom's motives and M.O. --

10981:

pages and user talk pages. If you feel you deserve to know what happened, I would suggest you start reading

9429:

opportunity for subject matter experts to contribute positively without getting back onto the battlefield.

9015:

comes from blogs like the one run by Anthony Watts, but even if it is we've got no problem dealing with it.

7425:. Sounds like an AWB task...although, shouldn't we replace it with a discretionary sanctions notice anyway? 11289:

In the absence of anything other, I am holding an enquiry into the last few days at the appropriatly named

8750: 8169: 8154:

OK, if it looks good to you - what diffs do you see as justifying an indef block? Hersfold isn't answering

5781: 3034: 2923: 10693:

Yes. Rlevse has been removed (by his request) from the various mailing lists, arbitrator tools, etcetera.

7988: 4087:

I only see this now. Students trowing out the professors - how is that going to improve an encyclopedia? /

1307:

To ArbCom... the following should be a statement of the breath-takingly obvious... if you are considering

6929:

true sense of the word, I expect that even clerks recused in this case would be able to carry this out.

6077:

Well, I'm not going anywhere near it, but someone ought to drop a note to WMC or tag it, or something. ++

5419:"It is the understanding of the Arbitration Committee that you are no longer in control of this account." 5330: 3214: 1877: 610: 10872:

Indeed, I don't even think that the issue is even relevant to the committee as a committee. So √-1. —

6944:

I'm not a clerk (and the page isn't part of arbitration so that's moot). I just made a soft redirect to

2068:

Ah, sarcastic bitching about someone who's unable to answer back. That makes me feel all warm inside. –

1619:

Oh, I fully agree that caution must be employed to sanitize the data; we wouldn't want to inadvertently

927:

in the overlap between Arbitrators and CheckUsers wouldn't know an IP address if it bit them in the ass.

10617: 10269:, but the revert was my independent decision (though it no doubt agreed with what he would have done). 10255: 10223: 9680: 9448: 7492: 7444: 7430: 6046:) subject to the requirement that it be deleted within 7 days? Could be argued both ways, I suppose. ++ 4792: 4761: 4732: 4514: 4466: 4417: 4074: 2831:

Yes, it needs improving: it's 'orrible and time-consuming finding stuff. Any assistance very welcome.

602: 532:

A block made on confidential checkuser evidence that should not be undone without checkuser permission.

42: 10262: 9161:

Not helpful. I was responding to Tony, who I think missed the point. WMC inserted himself to snark. ++

11349:

This motion is unecessarily broad. I would like to ask for a narrowing of restrictions to simply the

11144: 11131: 11119: 11088: 11058: 11017: 10582: 10554: 10521: 10480: 10395: 10261:

Right, so I figured that edit might cause some trouble. I've left a brief synopsis of my thoughts at

10209: 10171: 9722: 9415: 9338: 9316: 9289: 9238: 9212: 9201: 9170: 9139: 9116: 9107: 9069: 8799: 8557: 8511: 8411: 8382: 8339: 8277: 8219: 8155: 8118: 8023: 7990: 7764: 7740: 7714: 7468: 7099: 7075: 6967: 6920: 6841: 6790: 6751: 6670: 6086: 6055: 5614: 5554: 5510:

A bit odd to have an emergency desysop when the account seemingly hasn't used any admin powers since

5460: 5312: 4878: 4491: 4437: 3986: 3958: 3930: 3898: 3867: 2355: 1901: 734: 10910:", I on the other hand think this is very relevant for the committee. Rlevse is as far as I know an 8974:

of 1RR or a block for edit warring without an 1 RR violation, the edit count will be reset to zero.

5754: 5577:), or, if that, too, is something that cannot be answered, for reasons unknown to the community? -- 2608:

So you want us to lift an entire range block because you want to fix wikilinks without logging in?

2560:

The usual advice is to open an account and request IP exemption: and, yes, the applicable text from

11378: 10748: 10595: 10057:

Well, I'm the opposite of Jayron, but agreed. A Topic Ban means you stay away from the topic area.

9516: 9484: 9434: 9033: 8942: 8883: 8734: 8644: 8466: 8187: 7832: 6901: 6389: 6310: 6200: 3365: 3258: 2933:

Some of the candidates vetted for the May election may not have expressed interest in this round. –

2304: 2115: 1689: 1632: 1486: 1467: 699: 10670:

Resignations from the ArbCom are usually announced and discussed here. It's my understanding that

11322: 11104: 11044: 10942: 10208:. I make no comment on the correctness of this edit, but it stood unchallenged until today when 9862:, which as far as I am concerned wasn't even necessary. I would actually prefer it if Arbcom did 9263: 9192:

intent of the arbs. Yet, you remonstrate me. Your bias is showing. Shoot some other messenger. ++

9084: 6892:

re Knowledge:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement and the talkpage

5777: 5051: 4122: 4092: 3651:

I will await a prompt response from the Arbcom to my email before taking this matter further. By

3030: 2919: 2759:

How would you get a proper permalink system up and running? Would that have to be done manually?

2640: 2574: 1011:(edit conflict) As you imply, it was a previous thread on some projectspace talk page somewhere. 550: 11139:

Sadly, I inadvertently started this. I apologize and suggest the discussion be taken elsewhere.(

8593:

As far as I'm concerned, Polargeo can still pick any one of his accounts to to be unblocked. —

7167:

To combine #1 and #2, when a case is accepted the ArbCom could, informally, say something like:

4436:

request to have general sanctions imposed and/or reimpose the advocacy ban on the four of you?

4047:

that is at the same time more draconian and more germane to the events leading to this action.

2403:

So you guys are stripping the random check user requirement that was placed for a reason? Nice!

10725:

Then it's appropriate to thank him for his long service on the committee and to the project.

9839: 9803: 9749: 9541: 9351: 9267: 9088: 9052: 9019: 8676: 8432: 7571: 7535: 7524: 7502: 7412: 7402: 7341: 7328:

AE is only for cases that have already appeared at ArbCom; ANI is not effective for helping to

7320: 7306: 7288: 7272: 7223: 6949: 6882: 6807: 6771: 6731: 6698: 6640: 6616: 6024: 5994: 5960: 5885: 5852: 5824: 5285: 5210: 5042: 4176: 4028: 3237: 3210: 3176: 3114: 3004: 1872: 606: 9147:

Why don't you boys take it outside? Or better yet, self-topic ban yourselves from each other.

8218:@RD: and a question: as you say, the block is "preventative". What is it intended to prevent? 1192:

the other positions have closed elections and a lot less access. It doesn't make any sense. --

10854: 10836: 10782: 10732: 10712: 10681: 10646: 10613: 10367: 10319: 10251: 10219: 9969: 9904: 9709: 9676: 9664: 9647: 9613: 9581: 9502: 9444: 8979: 8956: 8715: 8108: 8063: 7606: 7557: 7488: 7440: 7426: 7244: 7195: 7142: 6235: 5912: 5802: 5717: 5599: 5445: 5144: 5021: 4960: 4936:

upon a particular ruling on this matter: ArbCom could say "sure" or "phooey". I do object to

4840: 4788: 4757: 4728: 4664: 4510: 4462: 4413: 4369: 4314: 4266: 4250: 4200: 4151: 4070: 4056: 3302: 3199: 3168:

Great candidates all around, expect that most, if not all, will be given the promotion. :) -

2002: 1974: 1943: 1241: 683: 661: 10314:, which seems to have gone inactive and which doesn't have a complete list of the articles. 1273:

there have been elections for checkusers and oversighters without ArbCom involvement already

605:? Admins there are specifically instructed to make contact Arbcom before unblocking blocks. 11314: 11296: 11224: 11140: 11115: 11084: 11054: 11013: 10352: 10238: 10202: 10148: 10102: 10026: 9984: 9951: 9937: 9918: 9884: 9870: 9789: 9762: 9381: 9152: 8995: 8904: 8726: 8614: 8544: 8492: 8325: 8077: 7847: 7731: 7587: 6452: 6331: 6275: 6252: 6218: 6181: 6108: 5929: 5868: 5696: 5669: 5610: 5550: 5511: 5456: 5378: 5307: 5161: 5123: 4987: 4864: 4696: 4337: 4282: 4222: 4184: 4107: 4032: 3971: 3943: 3915: 3878: 3835: 3799: 3755: 3715: 3696: 3682: 3662: 3633: 3597: 3515: 3457: 3441: 3416: 3379: 3281: 3157: 2965: 2764: 2742:

Or just remove the announcements or the "discuss this" link when the discussion ages off. –

2669: 2627: 2599: 2551: 2506: 2466: 2074: 2058: 1761: 1286: 1061: 1024: 954: 862: 800: 8: 11009: 10992: 10887: 10744: 10698: 10665: 10632: 10591: 10568: 10296: 10062: 9512: 9480: 9430: 9225:

I believe you have drawn an incorrect inference, and I'm sorry you did. Directly calling

9029: 9011: 8938: 8879: 8730: 8640: 8459: 8183: 7954: 7908: 7868: 7828: 7691: 7657: 7042: 6897: 6380: 6372: 6301: 6193: 5986:

Thanks! I have courtesy blanked past evidence pages on other cases-- is that adequate?

5661:

You are asking arbcom to provide a straight answer, something it is not accustomed to :)

5539: 5519: 5382: 4192: 3621: 3579: 3397: 3361: 3348: 3330: 3254: 2803: 2730: 2564: 2486: 2300: 2271: 2187: 2172: 2158: 2111: 2020: 1988: 1960: 1927: 1682: 1628: 1496: 1482: 1463: 1427: 1197: 1124: 1090: 1000: 968: 939: 902: 695: 356: 8249:

been restricted to Polargeo 2, since that had been created for him by an administrator.

6548:

As Sandstein's colleague in defeat last election, I join in the praise and the caveat.--

5769:

Request for careful consideration by the AC: Neutral perspective should be a new WP term

11269: 11100: 11040: 10975: 10938: 10606: 10335: 10274: 10197:

I'm afraid the boundary pushing appears to be becoming quite blatant. On 17th October

10185: 10120: 10080: 10045: 8746: 8710:

agreed that he may not seek to regain adminship without first going through a new RfA.

8038: 7793: 7481: 7360: 6822: 6531: 6407: 6127: 5636: 5568: 4204: 4118: 4088: 3468:

Strong support for all the CU candidates. (But we always lose good clerks this way.) --

3100:

I'd agree that knowing the concerns and not the whos is good from my point of view. --

1723: 762:

until a strong community consensus exists for a workable alternative election system...

11083:

Huh? "Wales" is an admin and has been an editor here for longer than most if not all.(

5973:

The specific remedy takes precedence over the broad principle. They must be deleted.

5514:. A block on the account, meanwhile, would stop admin and non-admin actions. Weird. -- 5198:

Even though it would take away Marskell's block-free record, I recommend blocking the

4787:

I'd be happy to, would you care to point out where anyone made those references here?

3710:

That made me smile. My original reply was less funny than I thought, so I removed it.

11366: 10444: 9961: 9849: 9836: 9746: 9721:

It seems a shame that Lar can't let this go. No better proof of "involved" is needed

9596: 9567: 9550: 9538: 8774: 8754: 8696: 8441: 8200: 8141: 7675: 7568: 7334: 7299: 7265: 7216: 6865: 6800: 6764: 6724: 6684: 6649: 6627: 6594: 6553: 6513: 6482: 6017: 6004: 5987: 5974: 5953: 5878: 5845: 5279: 5227: 5204: 4824: 3233: 3170: 3103: 3091: 2993: 2981: 2832: 2648: 2609: 2581: 2533: 2516: 2289: 2212: 1805: 1775: 1746: 1733: 1710: 1671: 712: 621: 573: 540: 488: 397: 238: 205: 10112:

Yes, but us pudgy white men with high-pitched, loud voices would like there to be --

6434:

Mick: Did you see how much evidence was actually submitted? (The answer is: a lot.)

2346:

Good luck with your new tasks. And thanks to Tznkai and Kirill for their service. ++

11373: 11369: 10851: 10832: 10779: 10727: 10708: 10676: 10642: 10494: 10363: 10315: 9965: 9900: 9705: 9660: 9643: 9609: 9577: 9498: 8975: 8952: 8925: 8711: 8104: 8059: 7975: 7929: 7890: 7814: 7602: 7553: 7239: 7190: 7178:

After a reasonable interval the ArbCom could respond with a second informal reply:

7137: 6934: 6360: 6297: 6231: 5946:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Evidence_sub-pages_in_user_space

5908: 5798: 5713: 5595: 5530: 5441: 5140: 5017: 4956: 4836: 4660: 4365: 4310: 4262: 4246: 4147: 4143: 4133: 4052: 3820: 3295: 3191: 2438: 2237: 2141: 1998: 1970: 1939: 1860: 1374: 1317: 1233: 1213: 1158: 1141: 1110: 982: 884: 843: 679: 653: 463: 304: 277: 260: 227: 193: 9576:

with respect to the :), should we expect clarification on the serious questions?--

9211:

Lar is calling me a prat, above. Is that now considered acceptable language here?

5863:

I can only think the missing spaces are an artefact of cut and paste. Odd though.

11252: 11206: 10432: 10348: 10234: 10144: 10098: 10022: 9980: 9947: 9933: 9914: 9880: 9822: 9785: 9148: 8990: 8900: 8766: 8758: 8624: 8610: 8540: 8488: 8455: 8321: 8073: 7583: 6448: 6376: 6364: 6348: 6344: 6340: 6285: 6248: 6214: 6177: 6104: 5925: 5864: 5692: 5664: 5399: 5156: 5118: 4983: 4860: 4692: 4333: 4278: 4218: 4103: 3751: 3711: 3678: 3547: 3496: 3452: 3437: 3412: 3375: 3341:

Knowledge:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/May 2010 election#Results

3271: 3153: 2955: 2778: 2760: 2665: 2623: 2595: 2547: 2502: 2462: 2069: 1794: 1757: 1282: 1271:

Responding to MZMcBride's 05:56, 20 July 2010 post, the logic breaks down at the

1057: 1020: 1019:. You still seem to be upset about that. Risker's advice to both of you is good. 950: 858: 796: 320: 6610:

People who aren't very good/experienced at submitting evidence get disadvantaged

5115:

Tell us more? How do you know it's compromised when it hasn't edited for weeks?

3875:

Not my agenda at all, unless my agenda is to have an open and honest Knowledge!

1355:(see 1st paragraph of Aug 2008 appointments describing the responses received). 166:

I think this falls squarely in the "if in doubt, ask ArbCom first" category. —

50:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

10883: 10694: 10628: 10564: 10461: 10292: 10058: 9534: 9464: 9458: 8832: 8527: 8479: 8298: 8173: 8094: 8049: 7951: 7905: 7865: 7779: 7704: 7688: 7668: 7654: 7038: 6571: 6497: 6467: 6356: 6289: 6160: 5905:) records the voting as "Passed X to X" rather than recording the actual vote. 5652: 5584: 5535: 5515: 5498: 5480: 5429: 5365: 5266: 5237: 5185: 5100: 4196: 4188: 3575: 3393: 3344: 3326: 3209:

Not interacted with Frank or Bastique, but support all the others no problems.

3069: 2941: 2750: 2726: 2532:

What were you expecting the checkuser to do? Do you have a static IP address?

2481: 2414: 2404: 2368: 2267: 2198: 2183: 2168: 2154: 2097: 2016: 1984: 1956: 1923: 1423: 1401: 1193: 1120: 1086: 996: 964: 935: 898: 816: 352: 6763:

editor to even respond; when you look at the CC mess, that's understandable.

4941:

appeal to suit their personal agenda reflects poorly upon ArbCom, not upon me.

11183: 11071: 10959: 10919: 10819: 10763: 10331: 10270: 10247: 10113: 10073: 10038: 9411: 9334: 9285: 9234: 9197: 9180: 9166: 9135: 9103: 9065: 8762: 8662:

On a policy point, " It is well established that participating in process is

8250: 8103:(That I don't know, but I'd imagine someone with email contact can answer.)-- 7790: 7464: 7356: 7071: 6963: 6916: 6837: 6818: 6786: 6747: 6527: 6435: 6404: 6352: 6263: 6134: 6082: 6065: 6051: 5632: 5564: 5470: 5199: 4213: 4209: 3469: 3322: 2351: 2221: 2125: 1897: 1785: 251: 7381:

There is a list of articles formerly under probation on the following page:

4932:

Originally, I filed a simple appeal to shorten Sandstein's block. I did not

4909:. Such requests have not been answered, and, it seems, will not be answered. 1563:

The second more serious reason is that it would cause breaches of privacy.

10440: 9563: 9495:(3) from participating in any Knowledge process relating to those articles. 9479:

of the ban (and indeed, to supersede any other interpration of the scope).

7316: 7114: 7053: 7015: 6945: 6861: 6590: 6549: 6368: 6293: 5490:

Huh. This rug is getting awful lumpy, what with the stuff swept under it. →

5398:

It seems clear that it's unclear and hence the Emergency desysop. Regards,

5250:

It may be worthwhile to conduct a closer read of the committee's statement

5069:

said, this is simply a temporary measure until the matter is cleared up. —

3087: 2978: 2335: 2096:

have failed, we can hardly fault ArbCom now. Best of luck in the new year,

2052: 1801: 1771: 1742: 1730: 1706: 1667: 537: 6876:

Yeah, just because there were a lot of topic bans and a couple of "please

5177:

I don't think extended discussion on this is in anyone's best interests. –

11358: 11354: 11179: 11161: 10800: 10671: 9913:

Topic banned editors already have notice of the decision, and then some.

8916: 8398: 8370:

2010-09-29T12:34:42 Althea Faulkner (talk | contribs) new user account ‎

8356: 7966: 7920: 7881: 7805: 6930: 3816: 2429: 2228: 2132: 1969:

Then unless I'm mistaken, why did you grant him access to his talk page?

1856: 1370: 1313: 1209: 1154: 1137: 1106: 978: 880: 839: 590: 558: 459: 378: 300: 273: 256: 223: 189: 5139:

If you don't already know what's been going on you don't need to know.--

2476:

Duncan has been in contact with me about this and I've started a thread

11246: 11200: 10873: 10404: 10381: 9819: 9042:

Anybody who edits those articles will have to do so under the terms of

8827: 8687: 8628: 8594: 8182:

been very much avoided and de-escalated with a bit more carefulness. --

7549: 7459:

something entirely, and probation, as a concept, is completely gone? ++

5813: 5070: 4362: 3535: 3484: 316: 167: 8508:

has used those some of those accounts as SPAs to revisit the topic ban

5726: 10454: 10218:. This seems to be a clear example of the concerns discussed above. 8291: 8087: 8042: 7775: 7700: 6153: 5691:

stop and think about why Brad is asking you not to keep asking this?

5647: 5579: 5491: 5475: 5424: 5360: 5259: 5232: 5178: 5093: 4827:

of issues of their own choice, unrelated to the appeal; resulting in

4277:

Ugh. Please don't encourage Brews to act more like William Connelly.

3062: 2934: 2743: 2012: 288: 10453:

I don't recall an argument. I raised a question, it was answered. →

7391:

At or near the top of the talk page of each there is an instance of

6648:

Of course, that's the thrust of my point (if you see what I mean).

3267:

Isn't he studying theology after leaving the WMF? </offtopic: -->

2387: 760:

those appointments which is what they are doing. The statement says

11160:

Except it was not plagiarism but potential copyright infringement.

10553:

A reassuring "we're on this" response will be good enough for me.--

9562:

Per SPOV - there is, actually, no "dark side of the moon." Cheers.

9407: 9330: 9281: 9230: 9193: 9162: 9131: 9099: 9061: 7460: 7067: 6959: 6912: 6833: 6782: 6743: 6078: 6047: 5952:, while the write up here says they must be deleted: which is it? 2347: 1893: 1831: 1591: 1479:

have I been Checkusered in the last year? If so, why, and by whom?

1385: 1356: 918: 766: 493: 441: 423: 176: 157: 8793:- that is a rather incomplete description of the situation. There 6267:

the disruption they cause by producing valuable content elsewhere.

11353:

between the Mongols and the Crusaders. I do a lot of work on the

10762:

What exactly is Arbitration Committee's position on this affair?

9831:

spaces about climate change articles, should result in a block.

8378:

2010-09-29T12:41:49 Seenock (talk | contribs) new user account ‎

8374:

2010-09-29T12:40:49 Nallith (talk | contribs) new user account ‎

7135:

unhelpful evidence that the arbitrators need to plow through.

4180: 3792: 2046: 5153:

Who said anything about not knowing about what's been going on?

1070:

Here's a thought. When you spot a flaw in the logic, holler out.

10581:

Thanks. Would it not be possible to delete it pending review?--

10530:

Marknutley has made serious allegations of being libelled (see

7513:

I'm now replacing the old probation notice with the following:

586: 554: 374: 9315:

for them not to be applied to the lot of you. Knock it off.

8913:

You'd think someone watching wiki would learn how to spell it.

8410:

Indeed, I don't understand what H meant by his comment either

4918:

The suggestion I cannot work with others certainly applies to

4599:

the fact that this is formulated in an extremely impolite way.

4183:

overlap to a large extent, and that device physics (I presume

2774:

location. Alternatively, a manual system using something like

10167: 8368:

The range block was put up 2010-10-06, as I've already said.

5358:

Is this "Timothymarskell" account a sock, or an impostor? --

1015:

is the diff I remember from May, and the thread is currently

8591:

blocked and does not prevent him from editing any talk page.

8172:, an account I indefed after it admitted to block evasion. 4823:

to become instead a conversation among arbitrators in their

1913:

Arbitration Committee statement on ban appeal by Ottava Rima

1653:

Call for applications for Checkuser or Oversight permissions

291:

are trying to calm things whilst others seem to only want to

11362: 9932:

each of you has interest in, go edit in that subject area.

9895:

Perhaps every editor involved in CC should put the notice:

9525:

For what it's worth, relevant templates and categories and

8086:) then? Perhaps talk page access should be allowed there? – 3086:

told who said it, which I believe was the best outcome. --

2700:

Knowledge talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 12

5740: 4431:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Motions

2911:

Roger Davies provided a link from ANI to here to discuss.

2725:

I've updated the archive listing; you should probably ask

1983:

Let me double-check it, and if need be, I'll adjust it :)

110:

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list

10403:

I saw the comments by a couple arbcom members...thanks.--

8666:

an acceptable use of alternate accounts" should read "...

7386:

User:Tony Sidaway/Articles under climate change probation

4187:

would be roughly the right article to link to there) and

2868:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

875:

Well, Beeblebrox, I think the crux is in the en.wp model.

11291:

User talk:GiacomoReturned/Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair

7094:

editors that weren't initially considered parties, etc).

9529:

talk pages do not seem to fall under the ban, but they

6683:

I wasn't taking "a couple of diffs" too literally :))

4659:

Count Iblis or Hell in a Bucket are not a factor here?

7004:

Why yes, I am a software engineer. How did you guess?

6881:

topic is likely to be improved a lot going forward. --

6262:

in the a priori harmless areas why some rules such as

5258:

any further actions should be left to the committee. –

2153:

Can I suggest amending the statement to clarify this?

10246:

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting that

9858:

I can't imagine what clarification you expect beyond

7319:

is pretty good at handling this kind of situation. --

6192:

The topic bans are of indefinite length, by the way.

1681:

What suggestions do you have to remedy your concern?

1208:

It's because they're different positions, MZMcBride.

7646:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

6781:

if AN/I can't overturn things in a specific case) ++

3774:

Confirmation of Checkuser and Oversight appointments

2896:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

2854:

Checkuser or Oversight permissions - schedule update

1444:

It is true that the community already selected them

9493:I'd say the question would be the meaning of this: 8791:

there's no dispute about ownership of many accounts

7113:omnibus-style cases that may appear in the future. 5016:suggested I had to move my appeal. I was an idiot. 2220:It is different as Shell says, with a banned user. 1623:breaches of privacy in the interest of auditing to 10674:has resigned from the ArbCom. Is that official? 9301:Tony, please don't poke Larry or assume bad faith. 9083:directed here from science blogs, all the better. 6044:User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/Things_people_say 4773:look bad? Cast the beam from thine eye, brother. 4035:. There is every appearance that this hearing was 4008:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light 2636:As mentioned earlier, I completely agree that the 9115:That was *my* point, but you didn't like it then 7439:That one also has non-CC articles in them, oops. 6243:small text added at 17:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC). 2729:to get a proper permalink system up and running. 1051:level of support within ArbCom. Some arbitrators 10416:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2 10215:, and then 37 minutes later the edit was undone 9060:You may suffer from a failure of imagination. ++ 7501:Yes, replacement is probably what is needed. -- 5455:Yes or no answer please: Is the blocked account 5440:understanding and consideration in this matter. 3082:told what the concerns were about me, but I was 2033:It's being converted from Presbywikianism to Mor 1590:non-public early on because of privacy issues). 6799:time, an arb case wouldn't solve the problem. 6227:Just to clarify, what do you mean by "burned"? 5422:- Therefore, the account should be blocked. -- 4305:at the start of the global warming article and 4043:The administrators also have not considered an 1481:And if I couldn't get those answers, why not? 10536:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Marknutley 8725:Please note that there now is a comment up at 7987:Another triumph for an arbs diplomatic skills 788:let us know if there are any concerns you have 10392:depart from the topic altogether and entirely 9835:clarification by ArbCom would be helpful. — 9457:There is a policy description of topic bans, 9028:And here I thought I dig British humour... -- 8937:Probably too busy doing their PhD-stuff... -- 6300:and other relevant policies and guidelines.-- 3985:Good grief. Yes, and have a good night too.-- 3078:When this happened last time (August 2008) I 2882:Upcoming Checkuser and Oversight appointments 522:I'd hope it's quite clear which of these is: 11243:position(s) they may have held in the past. 8863:This went off topic too fast to remain open. 8587:socks. The IP range, incidentally, is only 8292: 8088: 8043: 7545:Will Ed Poor prove that ArbCom got it wrong? 6977:In hindsight, how to handle a case like this 5260: 5179: 3063: 2935: 2744: 2660:I never thought the rangeblock was aimed at 963:Where did I suggest that in this thread? -- 9745:not the only one who thinks it unclear. — 8627:does not have talk page access blocked. — 8269:PG2's access to his talk page isn't blocked 6567:I don't remember partaking in any election? 4955:, whatever the spin, whatever the excuses. 10019:leave the topic area alone in its entirety 8539:of alternate accounts, for heaven's sake. 6987:Use an inquiry-based model of arbitration. 6247:Being permanently removed from the topic. 5226:I agree with this above recommendation by 5080:The following discussion has been closed. 11178:What the hell happened!? Has the account 6948:, as a start on closing the probation. -- 6343:may differ from other editors version of 5948:says evidence pages should be deleted or 915:looking at the users Arbcom have selected 671:As I read it, Arbcom is saying that they 9740:Lar is not otherwise involved, would be 8873:. Make sure to skim the comments, e.g. " 7667:Hersfold blocked. The applicable bit of 4980:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment 7713:Ditto. Where is the evidence of abuse? 6322:I am just being realistic in a general 5901:One remaining minor typo: Principle 6 ( 3677:details on the points you have raised. 2367:for future elections and appointments. 14: 11336:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/PHG 9360:Yes, I think there is an awful lot of 8199:when multiple accounts are involved. 4901:: Of course I appreciate your remarks 4045:alternative remedy suggested by myself 3480:I once opposed granting CU to Tiptoety 2319:Personnel changes - Audit Subcommittee 639:CheckUser/Oversight election statement 48:Do not edit the contents of this page. 11365:subjects (literally 100s of articles 10908:isn't even relevant for the committee 7619:Polargeo's administrative permissions 5254:rather than engaging in speculation. 3253:Are they likely to lead you there..? 2570:should probably be incorporated into 1349:evidence, not just make bare claims. 930:When you look at the people who have 7640:The following discussion is closed. 2890:The following discussion is closed. 29: 18:Knowledge talk:Arbitration Committee 10542:. The matter was brought up an ANI 8037:Talk page access is not blocked at 7006:Rather than a single evidence-: --> 6353:not a forum for ideological battles 3482:but I no longer have concerns.) -- 27: 9590:I'm not sure how much clearer the 8117:I can. PG2 is his current account 5940:evidence page deletion requirement 5609:It must be one, or the other. The 5411:Marskell account should be blocked 3225:I'd follow Bastique into hell. ~ 551:Knowledge:BP#Confidential_evidence 28: 11413: 10250:'s edit was in any way improper. 9736:I'm afraid that this discussion, 7550:Let's sit back and watch the show 6718:topic ban and bloc neutralization 2698:The bot has started archiving to 11197:with appropriate system rights. 10511: 9048:Please do not bite the newcomers 8845:The discussion above is closed. 8820: 8338:See above, PG2 is range-blocked 6994:Start with a statement of scope. 3765:The discussion above is closed. 526:A standard administrative block. 33: 11390: 11384: 11381: 10994: 10849: 10777: 10506:Marknutley allegations - urgent 8267:OK, so, things become clearer. 7377:Probation notices to be removed 5384: 3297: 3121: 3115: 3107: 3104: 3011: 3005: 2997: 2994: 2805: 2732: 2416: 2370: 2200: 2099: 299:a reaction on the case pages. 11387: 11334:Arbitration motions regarding 11293:. All are welcome to comment. 11285:Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair 10801: 10164:Lucy Hay, Countess of Carlisle 8399: 8357: 7001:Use milestones and iterations. 6122:because Knowledge does not do 6064:I should have thought it was. 5563:) is a sock or an impostor of 5256:Too many chefs spoil the soup, 5252:(not in control ≠ compromised) 2124:It still needs to stay within 1520:Two other issues come to mind. 1085:I find this a bit puzzling. -- 13: 1: 11327:14:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC) 10538:and in particular stuff like 8299: 8095: 8050: 6447:Which is kinda the point.... 6355:; I repeat again it is about 5755:Eastern European mailing list 5267: 5186: 4006:Arbitration motion regarding 3434:Second follow-up announcement 3304: 3070: 2942: 2751: 2456:Statement on checkuser blocks 2386:Arbitration motion regarding 2182:on appeal or on expiration.) 1817:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 1352:Example how this used to work 124:Statement on checkuser blocks 11402:21:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC) 11306:15:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC) 11277:11:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC) 11260:14:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC) 11234:11:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC) 11214:11:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC) 11191:10:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC) 11167:12:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC) 11149:17:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 11135:17:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 11124:17:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 11109:17:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 11093:17:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 11079:17:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 11063:17:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 11049:16:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 11022:16:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 11008:...and further reading here 11000:16:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 10967:16:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 10947:16:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 10927:16:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 10892:16:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC) 10877:16:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC) 10866:16:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC) 10841:16:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC) 10827:16:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC) 10808:15:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC) 10794:15:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC) 10771:15:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC) 10753:14:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC) 10739:09:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC) 10717:02:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC) 10703:22:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC) 10688:22:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC) 10651:21:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC) 10637:21:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC) 10622:21:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC) 10600:21:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC) 10586:21:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC) 10573:21:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC) 10558:21:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC) 10525:21:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC) 10498:23:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC) 10489:23:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC) 10470:12:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC) 10449:12:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC) 10408:23:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC) 10399:18:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC) 10385:17:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC) 10372:18:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC) 10357:21:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC) 10340:20:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC) 10324:18:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC) 10301:17:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC) 10279:07:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC) 10242:21:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC) 10228:20:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC) 10192:07:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 10175:19:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC) 10153:18:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC) 10128:05:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC) 10107:04:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC) 10088:04:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC) 10067:04:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC) 10053:01:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC) 10031:01:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC) 9989:01:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC) 9974:21:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC) 9956:20:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC) 9942:19:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC) 9923:15:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC) 9909:15:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC) 9889:14:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC) 9874:08:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC) 9843:21:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 9826:21:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 9807:20:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 9794:20:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 9766:19:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 9753:18:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 9731:18:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 9714:18:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 9685:17:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 9669:16:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 9652:15:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 9618:19:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 9604:19:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 9586:19:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 9572:19:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 9558:19:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 9545:15:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 9521:15:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 9507:14:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 9489:14:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 9474:13:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 9453:13:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 9439:13:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 9419:13:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 9396:What does topic banned mean? 9385:09:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC) 9355:07:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC) 9342:10:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC) 9325:06:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC) 9293:10:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC) 9272:05:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC) 9242:10:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC) 9221:10:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC) 9205:10:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC) 9185:05:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC) 9174:01:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC) 9157:01:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC) 9143:22:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC) 9125:18:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC) 9111:18:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC) 9093:14:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC) 9073:12:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC) 9056:22:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 9038:22:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 9023:22:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 9002:18:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC) 8984:21:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 8961:22:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 8947:21:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 8933:21:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 8909:21:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 8888:20:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 8836:18:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 8808:15:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 8782:13:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 8751:User:EnglishAristocraticFool 8739:10:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 8720:10:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 8704:04:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 8691:22:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8680:22:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8649:22:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8632:22:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8619:22:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8598:22:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8566:22:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8549:22:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8531:21:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8520:21:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8497:21:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8483:21:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8474:20:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8449:20:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8436:19:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8420:19:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8406:19:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8391:19:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8364:19:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8348:19:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8330:18:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8303:19:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8286:19:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8263:18:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8228:18:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8208:18:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8192:18:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8177:18:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8170:User:EnglishAristocraticFool 8164:18:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8149:17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8127:17:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8113:17:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8099:17:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8068:17:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8054:17:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8032:17:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 7999:15:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 7983:09:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 7958:07:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 7937:23:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 7912:23:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 7898:23:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 7872:23:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 7851:17:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 7837:17:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 7822:17:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 7797:17:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 7784:16:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 7768:16:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 7749:17:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 7735:16:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 7723:16:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 7709:15:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 7695:05:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 7683:04:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 7661:04:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 7611:18:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 7592:01:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC) 7575:18:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 7562:17:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 7539:19:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 7528:11:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC) 7506:13:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 7497:13:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 7472:13:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 7449:13:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 7435:12:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 7416:12:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 7406:12:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 7365:22:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 7346:14:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 7324:13:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 7311:13:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 7292:13:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 7277:13:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 7251:13:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 7228:13:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 7202:12:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 7149:04:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 7118:03:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 7108:02:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 7079:12:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 7057:03:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 7047:01:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 7019:01:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 6971:12:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 6953:22:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6939:22:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6924:22:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6906:20:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6886:22:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6870:18:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6845:21:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6827:18:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6812:18:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6794:17:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6776:17:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6755:17:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6736:16:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6702:23:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6692:23:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6679:23:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6657:23:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6644:23:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6635:22:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6620:22:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6599:21:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6581:21:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6558:21:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6536:01:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 6521:22:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6507:21:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6490:21:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6477:19:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6457:20:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6443:18:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6412:23:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 6397:00:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 6335:23:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6318:22:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6279:17:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6257:17:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6240:17:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6223:16:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6208:16:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6186:16:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6169:22:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6146:16:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6113:16:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6090:12:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 6073:18:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6059:17:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6029:16:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 6012:16:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 5999:16:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 5982:16:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 5965:16:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 5934:17:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 5918:17:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 5890:17:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 5873:17:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 5857:16:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 4821:to shorten Sandstein's block 4484:to irritating to disruptive. 3748:Third follow-up announcement 3229: 3226: 1102:publicly-released statistics 7: 10534:) which seems to relate to 8072:Is his (new) prime account 7842:s/does it does/does it say/ 7396:Community article probation 6347:but wikipedia is not about 6271:their front organisations. 5817:20:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 5807:16:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 5797:not that long ago. Cheers, 5786:16:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 5722:23:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 5701:23:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 5677:23:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 5657:23:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 5604:23:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 5589:23:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 5544:23:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 5524:23:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 5506:23:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 5485:23:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 5450:23:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 5434:23:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 5403:23:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 5390:23:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 5370:23:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 5292:23:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 5271:23:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 5242:23:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 5217:23:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 5190:23:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 5169:23:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 5149:23:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 5131:23:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 5109:23:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 5074:23:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 5047:05:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC) 5026:15:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC) 4992:11:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC) 4965:07:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC) 4887:06:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC) 4869:02:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC) 4845:18:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 4797:20:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 4783:15:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 4766:03:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 4752:03:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 4737:02:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 4722:02:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 4701:02:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC) 4669:01:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 4519:00:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 4500:00:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 4471:00:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 4446:23:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 4422:23:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 4391:17:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC) 4374:15:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC) 4358:08:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC) 4342:01:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC) 4319:23:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC) 4287:20:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC) 4271:15:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 4255:14:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 4227:01:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC) 4171:20:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC) 4156:14:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 4139:13:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 4127:09:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 4112:01:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 4097:17:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 4079:20:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC) 4061:16:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC) 3990:21:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 3981:21:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 3962:21:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 3953:20:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 3934:20:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 3925:20:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 3902:20:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 3888:20:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 3871:20:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 3845:20:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 3825:19:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 3809:17:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 3760:02:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC) 3741:08:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC) 3720:23:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 3706:22:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 3687:22:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 3672:20:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 3643:20:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 3625:20:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 3607:20:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 3584:19:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 3553:19:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 3525:19:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 3502:19:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 3473:16:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC) 3464:13:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC) 3446:21:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC) 3421:21:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC) 3402:20:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC) 3384:12:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC) 3370:12:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC) 3353:12:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC) 3335:12:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC) 3309:05:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC) 3289:22:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC) 3263:19:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC) 3249:12:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC) 3219:09:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC) 3205:01:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC) 3183:00:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC) 3162:00:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC) 3127:21:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC) 3096:21:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC) 3074:20:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 3047:I believe so (probably not 3039:20:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 3017:19:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 2985:19:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 2973:15:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 2946:15:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 2928:15:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 2013:mea culpa, mea maxima culpa 10: 11418: 10509: 6098:commentary on case outcome 4488:the advocacy ban, or what. 2840:19:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 2811:18:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 2769:18:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 2755:14:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 2738:14:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 2720:14:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 603:Knowledge:Child protection 11053:The text was attributed.( 10707:Confirmed per SirFozzie. 4199:is something else again ( 4144:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 4135:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 3201:Penny for your thoughts? 2694:Archivebox needs updating 2674:14:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC) 2656:14:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC) 2632:14:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC) 2617:14:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC) 2604:14:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC) 2589:13:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC) 2556:13:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC) 2541:13:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC) 2524:13:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC) 2511:13:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC) 2497:13:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC) 2471:12:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC) 2446:12:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC) 2422:11:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC) 2408:10:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC) 2376:11:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC) 2359:04:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC) 2342:02:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC) 2309:15:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 2293:14:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 2276:13:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 2245:10:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 2216:07:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 2206:06:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 2192:04:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 2177:03:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 2163:03:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 2149:01:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 2120:00:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 2105:22:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC) 2080:21:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC) 2064:21:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC) 2025:17:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC) 2007:17:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC) 1993:17:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC) 1979:17:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC) 1965:17:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC) 1948:17:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC) 1932:17:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC) 1905:15:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1887:10:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC) 1865:03:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 1835:00:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 1825:02:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 1810:02:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 1789:22:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 1780:20:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 1766:20:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 1751:19:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 1737:19:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 1715:19:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 1697:19:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 1676:19:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 1637:14:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 1595:14:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 1500:02:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 1491:19:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 1472:19:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 1432:20:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 1405:19:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 1389:14:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 1379:04:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 1360:13:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 1322:12:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 1291:23:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 1247:04:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 1243:Penny for your thoughts? 1218:03:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 1202:00:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 1163:04:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 1146:03:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 1129:18:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 1115:06:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 1095:05:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 1066:05:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 1029:05:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 1005:05:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 987:05:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 973:05:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 959:05:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 944:04:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 922:11:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 917:, they've done the job. 907:10:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 889:07:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 867:06:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 848:04:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 833:04:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 805:04:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 770:04:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 716:03:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 704:13:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 689:03:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 667:03:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 663:Penny for your thoughts? 629:16:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 615:14:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 595:20:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 581:20:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 563:19:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 544:13:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 497:14:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 468:14:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 445:13:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 427:13:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 422:reasons not made public. 405:13:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 383:12:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 361:18:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 325:18:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 309:17:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 282:04:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 265:03:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 246:16:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 232:14:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 213:12:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 198:12:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 180:04:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 171:03:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 161:03:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 10937:problem has been sorted. 8847:Please do not modify it. 8506:@RD: I don't understand 8168:As one example, look at 7643:Please do not modify it. 5645:), at the same time? -- 5083:Please do not modify it. 3767:Please do not modify it. 2893:Please do not modify it. 489:Knowledge is not therapy 145:identify anonymous users 9426:scope of the topic bans 7422:This is more up to date 7008:proposed decision-: --> 4859:him speak for himself. 2480:asking for more input. 601:How does that fit with 515:User:HighHorseKarljoos) 9899:on his/her talk page. 6339:Hans, your version of 4825:smoke-filled back room 4203:and large helpings of 4177:electrical engineering 3146:Follow-up announcement 2365:this bears reiterating 11343:Original announcement 10912:arbitrator, checkuser 10423:Original announcement 10212:drew attention to it 9777:don't make that edit. 8854:Running commentary... 8670:an acceptable use of 7315:Give them a chance. 5839:typos and corrections 5473:, or an impostor? -- 5277:10-4, Roger Wilco. - 4201:fundamental constants 4022:Besides ignoring the 2396:Original announcement 1920:Original announcement 1660:Original announcement 646:Original announcement 131:Original announcement 117:Original announcement 46:of past discussions. 10481:Georgewilliamherbert 10312:relevant WikiProject 10210:William M. Connolley 10203:Global climate model 9897:{{sanctions|See ].}} 9723:William M. Connolley 9595:it's winding down. 9317:Georgewilliamherbert 9313:absolutely no reason 9213:William M. Connolley 9117:William M. Connolley 8826:ArbCom is not magic 8800:William M. Connolley 8727:User talk:Polargeo 2 8558:William M. Connolley 8512:William M. Connolley 8412:William M. Connolley 8383:William M. Connolley 8340:William M. Connolley 8278:William M. Connolley 8220:William M. Connolley 8156:William M. Connolley 8119:William M. Connolley 8024:William M. Connolley 7991:William M. Connolley 7741:William M. Connolley 7715:William M. Connolley 7518:{{sanctions|See ].}} 7100:Georgewilliamherbert 6671:Georgewilliamherbert 5623:) account cannot be 5379:user:Timothymarskell 4879:Georgewilliamherbert 4492:Georgewilliamherbert 4438:Georgewilliamherbert 4185:semiconductor device 10845:Told you, Loosmark 10788:Counsellor of State 10205:shown in this diff 9012:talk:global warming 6589:Sorry, brainfart.-- 6373:conspiracy theories 6016:OK, thanks again! 4193:solid-state physics 2363:Seconded, although 9779:Try to act in the 8747:User:Olap the Ogre 8556:you don't have to 8039:User talk:Polargeo 5903:Casting aspersions 5778:Suomi Finland 2009 4205:history of science 3358:</me waves: --> 3054:, but more likely 3031:Suomi Finland 2009 2920:Suomi Finland 2009 1477:simple questions: 828:Operation Big Bear 11317:comment added by 11304: 11258: 11232: 11212: 10979: 10957: 10610: 10472: 10130: 10097: 10090: 9472: 9392: 9391: 9178:Then ignore him. 8988:Interesting idea 8771:User:PolargeoSock 8755:User:Yugosithlord 7005: 6579: 6568: 6505: 6475: 6410: 6244: 6230: 6171: 5710: 5709: 5294: 5219: 5111: 4816: 4815: 4301:Just take a look 3979: 3951: 3923: 3886: 3843: 3807: 3704: 3670: 3641: 3605: 3523: 3246: 3211:Elen of the Roads 3185: 2299:another project. 2062: 2043: 2042:(couldn't resist) 2015:. I've fixed it. 1727: 1446:as administrators 1418:", (the words in 1295: 607:Elen of the Roads 104: 103: 58: 57: 52:current talk page 11409: 11392: 11389: 11386: 11383: 11374:History of China 11370:History of Japan 11329: 11303: 11301: 11294: 11257: 11255: 11249: 11244: 11231: 11229: 11222: 11211: 11209: 11203: 11198: 11188: 11076: 10997: 10996: 10973: 10964: 10955: 10924: 10864: 10861: 10848: 10824: 10805: 10792: 10789: 10768: 10735: 10730: 10684: 10679: 10604: 10527: 10515: 10514: 10468: 10466: 10459: 10252:Jonathan A Jones 10220:Jonathan A Jones 10201:made an edit to 10190: 10123: 10116: 10111: 10095: 10083: 10076: 10071: 10048: 10041: 9854: 9677:ScienceApologist 9601: 9555: 9471: 9469: 9462: 9000: 8998: 8993: 8931: 8928: 8859: 8858: 8824: 8823: 8779: 8701: 8469: 8446: 8403: 8361: 8300: 8296: 8205: 8146: 8096: 8092: 8051: 8047: 7981: 7978: 7952:Heimstern Läufer 7935: 7932: 7906:Heimstern Läufer 7896: 7893: 7866:Heimstern Läufer 7843: 7820: 7817: 7689:Heimstern Läufer 7680: 7655:Heimstern Läufer 7645: 7486: 7480: 7400: 7394: 7338: 7303: 7269: 7247: 7242: 7220: 7198: 7193: 7145: 7140: 7003: 6804: 6768: 6728: 6689: 6654: 6632: 6578: 6576: 6569: 6566: 6518: 6504: 6502: 6495: 6487: 6474: 6472: 6465: 6440: 6403: 6394: 6386: 6383: 6315: 6307: 6304: 6242: 6228: 6203: 6167: 6165: 6158: 6142: 6138: 6130: 6070: 6021: 6009: 5991: 5979: 5957: 5950:courtesy blanked 5916: 5882: 5849: 5674: 5672: 5667: 5531:Knowledge Review 5503: 5496: 5387: 5386: 5352: 5325:deleted contribs 5288: 5282: 5278: 5268: 5264: 5213: 5207: 5203: 5187: 5183: 5166: 5164: 5159: 5128: 5126: 5121: 5107: 5105: 5098: 5085: 5065: 5064: 4789:Hell In A Bucket 4758:Hell In A Bucket 4729:Hell In A Bucket 4687: 4686: 4511:Hell In A Bucket 4463:Hell In A Bucket 4414:Hell In A Bucket 4136: 4071:Hell In A Bucket 4024:original purpose 3978: 3976: 3969: 3950: 3948: 3941: 3922: 3920: 3913: 3885: 3883: 3876: 3842: 3840: 3833: 3806: 3804: 3797: 3703: 3701: 3694: 3669: 3667: 3660: 3640: 3638: 3631: 3604: 3602: 3595: 3550: 3544: 3541: 3538: 3522: 3520: 3513: 3499: 3493: 3490: 3487: 3462: 3460: 3455: 3305: 3299: 3286: 3284: 3279: 3274: 3247: 3230: 3228: 3202: 3196: 3179: 3173: 3169: 3123: 3117: 3109: 3106: 3071: 3067: 3013: 3007: 2999: 2996: 2970: 2968: 2963: 2958: 2943: 2939: 2895: 2837: 2808: 2807: 2783: 2777: 2752: 2748: 2735: 2734: 2653: 2645: 2639: 2614: 2586: 2579: 2573: 2569: 2563: 2538: 2521: 2494: 2484: 2444: 2441: 2419: 2418: 2373: 2372: 2338: 2243: 2240: 2203: 2202: 2147: 2144: 2102: 2101: 2077: 2072: 2055: 2049: 2044: 2041: 2040: 1884: 1880: 1875: 1721: 1692: 1335:to the committee 1293: 1244: 1238: 829: 823: 687: 664: 658: 626: 578: 402: 243: 210: 85: 60: 59: 37: 36: 30: 11417: 11416: 11412: 11411: 11410: 11408: 11407: 11406: 11399: 11339: 11312: 11297: 11295: 11287: 11253: 11247: 11245: 11225: 11223: 11207: 11201: 11199: 11184: 11072: 10993: 10960: 10920: 10859: 10846: 10820: 10787: 10764: 10733: 10728: 10682: 10677: 10668: 10528: 10519: 10517: 10512: 10508: 10462: 10455: 10433:User:Stevertigo 10418: 10184: 10121: 10114: 10081: 10074: 10046: 10039: 9930:one other thing 9850: 9597: 9551: 9465: 9463: 9398: 9393: 8996: 8991: 8989: 8926: 8914: 8864: 8856: 8851: 8850: 8821: 8775: 8767:User:Polargeo 2 8759:User:LilyNiviaq 8697: 8625:User:Polargeo 2 8467: 8442: 8201: 8142: 7976: 7964: 7930: 7918: 7891: 7879: 7841: 7815: 7803: 7676: 7650: 7641: 7621: 7547: 7484: 7478: 7398: 7392: 7379: 7336: 7301: 7267: 7245: 7240: 7218: 7196: 7191: 7143: 7138: 6979: 6894: 6802: 6766: 6726: 6720: 6685: 6650: 6628: 6572: 6570: 6514: 6498: 6496: 6483: 6468: 6466: 6436: 6390: 6384: 6381: 6311: 6305: 6302: 6201: 6161: 6154: 6140: 6132: 6128: 6100: 6066: 6019: 6005: 5989: 5975: 5955: 5942: 5906: 5880: 5847: 5841: 5827: 5771: 5757: 5743: 5729: 5670: 5665: 5663: 5631:an impostor of 5611:Timothymarskell 5551:Timothymarskell 5499: 5492: 5457:Timothymarskell 5383: 5310: 5308:Timothymarskell 5286: 5280: 5211: 5205: 5162: 5157: 5155: 5124: 5119: 5117: 5101: 5094: 5081: 5054: 5052:Interim desysop 4817: 4703: 4242:original appeal 4134: 4011: 3972: 3970: 3944: 3942: 3916: 3914: 3879: 3877: 3836: 3834: 3800: 3798: 3776: 3771: 3770: 3697: 3695: 3663: 3661: 3634: 3632: 3598: 3596: 3548: 3542: 3539: 3536: 3516: 3514: 3497: 3491: 3488: 3485: 3458: 3453: 3451: 3339:For reference, 3282: 3277: 3272: 3269: 3200: 3192: 3177: 3171: 2966: 2961: 2956: 2953: 2900: 2891: 2884: 2870: 2856: 2833: 2804: 2781: 2775: 2731: 2696: 2649: 2643: 2637: 2610: 2582: 2577: 2571: 2567: 2561: 2534: 2517: 2492: 2482: 2458: 2439: 2427: 2415: 2391: 2369: 2336: 2321: 2238: 2226: 2199: 2142: 2130: 2098: 2075: 2070: 2053: 2047: 2038: 1915: 1882: 1878: 1873: 1690: 1655: 1242: 1234: 831: 827: 817: 677: 662: 654: 641: 622: 574: 398: 239: 206: 126: 112: 81: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 11415: 11405: 11404: 11397: 11338: 11332: 11331: 11330: 11286: 11283: 11282: 11281: 11280: 11279: 11266: 11265: 11264: 11263: 11262: 11182:been deleted? 11176: 11175: 11174: 11173: 11172: 11171: 11170: 11169: 11158: 11157: 11156: 11155: 11154: 11153: 11152: 11127: 11068: 11067: 11066: 11025: 11003: 11002: 10987: 10986: 10970: 10969: 10950: 10949: 10903: 10901: 10900: 10899: 10898: 10897: 10896: 10895: 10894: 10870: 10869: 10868: 10813: 10812: 10811: 10810: 10760: 10759: 10758: 10757: 10756: 10755: 10745:LessHeard vanU 10720: 10719: 10705: 10667: 10664: 10662: 10660: 10659: 10658: 10657: 10656: 10655: 10654: 10653: 10639: 10592:Stephan Schulz 10588: 10576: 10575: 10520:page deleted-- 10510: 10507: 10504: 10503: 10502: 10501: 10500: 10476: 10475: 10474: 10473: 10437:MfD discussion 10427: 10426: 10417: 10414: 10413: 10412: 10411: 10410: 10377: 10376: 10375: 10374: 10343: 10342: 10288: 10287: 10286: 10285: 10284: 10283: 10282: 10281: 10180: 10179: 10178: 10177: 10156: 10155: 10140: 10139: 10138: 10137: 10136: 10135: 10134: 10133: 10132: 10131: 10014: 10013: 10012: 10011: 10010: 10009: 10008: 10007: 10006: 10005: 10004: 10003: 10002: 10001: 10000: 9999: 9998: 9997: 9996: 9995: 9994: 9993: 9992: 9991: 9856: 9812: 9811: 9810: 9809: 9799: 9771: 9770: 9769: 9768: 9719: 9718: 9717: 9716: 9698: 9697: 9696: 9695: 9688: 9687: 9639: 9638: 9637: 9636: 9635: 9634: 9633: 9632: 9631: 9630: 9629: 9628: 9627: 9626: 9625: 9624: 9623: 9622: 9621: 9620: 9560: 9513:TenOfAllTrades 9481:TenOfAllTrades 9441: 9431:TenOfAllTrades 9397: 9394: 9390: 9389: 9388: 9387: 9374: 9366: 9347: 9346: 9345: 9344: 9309: 9306: 9302: 9298: 9297: 9296: 9295: 9259: 9258: 9257: 9256: 9255: 9254: 9253: 9252: 9251: 9250: 9249: 9248: 9247: 9246: 9245: 9244: 9209: 9208: 9207: 9080: 9079: 9078: 9077: 9076: 9075: 9030:Stephan Schulz 9007: 9006: 9005: 9004: 8970: 8969: 8968: 8967: 8966: 8965: 8964: 8963: 8939:Stephan Schulz 8880:Stephan Schulz 8866: 8865: 8862: 8857: 8855: 8852: 8844: 8843: 8842: 8841: 8840: 8839: 8838: 8813: 8812: 8811: 8810: 8785: 8784: 8742: 8741: 8731:Stephan Schulz 8707: 8706: 8693: 8660: 8659: 8658: 8657: 8656: 8655: 8654: 8653: 8652: 8651: 8641:Stephan Schulz 8602: 8601: 8571: 8570: 8569: 8568: 8551: 8504: 8503: 8502: 8501: 8500: 8499: 8429: 8428: 8427: 8426: 8425: 8424: 8423: 8422: 8352: 8351: 8350: 8333: 8332: 8316: 8315: 8314: 8313: 8312: 8311: 8310: 8309: 8308: 8307: 8306: 8305: 8258: 8255: 8235: 8234: 8233: 8232: 8231: 8230: 8216: 8213: 8196: 8195: 8194: 8184:Stephan Schulz 8138: 8137: 8136: 8135: 8134: 8133: 8132: 8131: 8130: 8129: 8020: 8019: 8018: 8017: 8016: 8015: 8014: 8013: 8012: 8011: 8010: 8009: 8008: 8007: 8006: 8005: 8004: 8003: 8002: 8001: 7944: 7855: 7854: 7853: 7829:Stephan Schulz 7760: 7759: 7758: 7757: 7756: 7755: 7754: 7753: 7752: 7751: 7711: 7649: 7648: 7636: 7635: 7634: 7633: 7632: 7631: 7620: 7617: 7616: 7615: 7614: 7613: 7595: 7594: 7578: 7577: 7546: 7543: 7542: 7541: 7521: 7520: 7511: 7510: 7509: 7508: 7456: 7455: 7454: 7453: 7452: 7451: 7389: 7388: 7378: 7375: 7374: 7373: 7372: 7371: 7370: 7369: 7368: 7367: 7284: 7283: 7282: 7281: 7280: 7279: 7256: 7255: 7254: 7253: 7231: 7230: 7211: 7210: 7209: 7208: 7207: 7206: 7205: 7204: 7186: 7185: 7184: 7176: 7175: 7174: 7158: 7157: 7156: 7155: 7154: 7153: 7152: 7151: 7125: 7124: 7123: 7122: 7121: 7120: 7095: 7088: 7087: 7086: 7085: 7084: 7083: 7082: 7081: 7031: 7030: 7029: 7028: 7012: 7011: 7007:workshop-: --> 6998: 6991: 6978: 6975: 6974: 6973: 6942: 6941: 6926: 6898:LessHeard vanU 6893: 6890: 6889: 6888: 6873: 6872: 6857: 6856: 6855: 6854: 6853: 6852: 6851: 6850: 6849: 6848: 6847: 6719: 6716: 6715: 6714: 6713: 6712: 6711: 6710: 6709: 6708: 6707: 6706: 6705: 6704: 6666: 6662: 6606: 6605: 6604: 6603: 6602: 6601: 6584: 6583: 6561: 6560: 6546: 6545: 6544: 6543: 6542: 6541: 6540: 6539: 6538: 6461: 6460: 6459: 6431: 6430: 6429: 6428: 6427: 6426: 6425: 6424: 6423: 6422: 6421: 6420: 6419: 6418: 6417: 6416: 6415: 6414: 6268: 6190: 6189: 6188: 6174: 6173: 6172: 6118:You must mean 6099: 6096: 6095: 6094: 6093: 6092: 6042:Is this page ( 6040: 6039: 6038: 6037: 6036: 6035: 6034: 6033: 6032: 6031: 5968: 5967: 5941: 5938: 5937: 5936: 5899: 5898: 5897: 5896: 5895: 5894: 5893: 5892: 5840: 5837: 5836: 5835: 5826: 5825:Climate change 5823: 5822: 5821: 5820: 5819: 5770: 5767: 5766: 5765: 5756: 5753: 5752: 5751: 5742: 5739: 5738: 5737: 5728: 5727:Date delinking 5725: 5708: 5707: 5706: 5705: 5704: 5703: 5687:Cirt, can you 5682: 5681: 5680: 5679: 5592: 5591: 5488: 5487: 5437: 5436: 5413: 5412: 5408: 5407: 5406: 5405: 5393: 5392: 5373: 5372: 5353: 5304: 5303: 5302: 5301: 5300: 5299: 5298: 5297: 5296: 5295: 5274: 5273: 5245: 5244: 5221: 5220: 5193: 5192: 5174: 5173: 5172: 5171: 5134: 5133: 5087: 5086: 5077: 5076: 5063: 5062: 5053: 5050: 5035: 5034: 5033: 5032: 5031: 5030: 5029: 5028: 4999: 4998: 4997: 4996: 4995: 4994: 4970: 4969: 4968: 4967: 4945: 4944: 4943: 4942: 4927: 4926: 4925: 4924: 4913: 4912: 4911: 4910: 4892: 4891: 4890: 4889: 4872: 4871: 4814: 4813: 4812: 4811: 4810: 4809: 4808: 4807: 4806: 4805: 4804: 4803: 4802: 4801: 4800: 4799: 4705: 4704: 4690: 4685: 4684: 4683: 4682: 4681: 4680: 4679: 4678: 4677: 4676: 4675: 4674: 4673: 4672: 4671: 4643: 4642: 4641: 4640: 4639: 4638: 4637: 4636: 4635: 4634: 4633: 4632: 4631: 4630: 4613: 4612: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4608: 4607: 4606: 4605: 4604: 4603: 4602: 4601: 4600: 4583: 4582: 4581: 4580: 4579: 4578: 4577: 4576: 4575: 4574: 4573: 4572: 4571: 4570: 4553: 4552: 4551: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4547: 4546: 4545: 4544: 4543: 4542: 4541: 4540: 4524: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4503: 4502: 4489: 4485: 4481: 4478: 4459: 4458: 4457: 4456: 4455: 4454: 4453: 4452: 4451: 4450: 4449: 4448: 4433: 4428: 4400: 4399: 4398: 4397: 4396: 4395: 4394: 4393: 4346: 4345: 4344: 4324: 4323: 4322: 4321: 4296: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4274: 4273: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4235: 4234: 4233: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4197:speed of light 4189:circuit design 4158: 4141: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4020: 4019: 4010: 4004: 4003: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3999: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3993: 3992: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3906: 3905: 3904: 3891: 3890: 3873: 3852: 3851: 3850: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3785: 3784: 3775: 3772: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3744: 3743: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3528: 3527: 3505: 3504: 3475: 3466: 3448: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3390: 3362:LessHeard vanU 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3255:LessHeard vanU 3222: 3221: 3207: 3187: 3186: 3165: 3164: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 2909: 2908: 2899: 2898: 2886: 2885: 2883: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2869: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2855: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2712:188.28.122.127 2704:188.28.122.127 2695: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2641:checkuserblock 2575:checkuserblock 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2515:Yep. Got it. 2457: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2400: 2399: 2390: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2330: 2329: 2320: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2279: 2278: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2009: 1997:Thank you. :) 1951: 1950: 1935: 1934: 1914: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1798: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1702: 1664: 1663: 1654: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1629:TenOfAllTrades 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1483:TenOfAllTrades 1464:TenOfAllTrades 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1408: 1407: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1363: 1362: 1345: 1344: 1329: 1328: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1278:responsibility 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1009: 1008: 1007: 928: 894: 893: 892: 891: 876: 870: 869: 853: 852: 851: 850: 825: 812: 811: 810: 809: 808: 807: 779: 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 750: 749: 748: 747: 746: 745: 744: 743: 723: 722: 721: 720: 719: 718: 708: 707: 706: 640: 637: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 599: 598: 597: 566: 565: 534: 533: 530: 527: 520: 519: 516: 512: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 479: 478: 477: 476: 475: 474: 448: 447: 436: 435: 434: 433: 432: 431: 430: 429: 412: 411: 410: 409: 408: 407: 388: 387: 386: 385: 366: 364: 363: 348: 347: 346: 345: 344: 343: 342: 341: 340: 339: 338: 337: 336: 335: 334: 333: 332: 331: 330: 329: 328: 327: 250:I am going to 185: 184: 183: 182: 154: 153: 152: 151: 148: 135: 134: 125: 122: 121: 120: 111: 108: 106: 102: 101: 96: 91: 86: 79: 74: 69: 66: 56: 55: 38: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 11414: 11403: 11400: 11395: 11394: 11393: 11375: 11371: 11367: 11364: 11360: 11356: 11352: 11348: 11347: 11346: 11345: 11344: 11337: 11328: 11324: 11320: 11319:62.25.109.195 11316: 11310: 11309: 11308: 11307: 11302: 11300: 11292: 11278: 11274: 11271: 11270:Baseball Bugs 11267: 11261: 11256: 11250: 11241: 11237: 11236: 11235: 11230: 11228: 11219: 11218: 11217: 11216: 11215: 11210: 11204: 11195: 11194: 11193: 11192: 11189: 11187: 11181: 11168: 11165: 11163: 11159: 11150: 11146: 11142: 11138: 11137: 11136: 11133: 11128: 11125: 11121: 11117: 11112: 11111: 11110: 11106: 11102: 11101:Bali ultimate 11097: 11096: 11094: 11090: 11086: 11082: 11081: 11080: 11077: 11075: 11069: 11064: 11060: 11056: 11052: 11051: 11050: 11046: 11042: 11041:Bali ultimate 11037: 11036: 11035: 11033: 11026: 11023: 11019: 11015: 11010: 11007: 11006: 11005: 11004: 11001: 10998: 10989: 10988: 10984: 10977: 10976:edit conflict 10972: 10971: 10968: 10965: 10963: 10952: 10951: 10948: 10944: 10940: 10939:Bali ultimate 10935: 10931: 10930: 10929: 10928: 10925: 10923: 10917: 10913: 10909: 10904: 10893: 10889: 10885: 10880: 10879: 10878: 10875: 10871: 10867: 10862: 10856: 10853: 10844: 10843: 10842: 10838: 10834: 10830: 10829: 10828: 10825: 10823: 10817: 10816: 10815: 10814: 10809: 10806: 10804: 10797: 10796: 10795: 10790: 10784: 10781: 10775: 10774: 10773: 10772: 10769: 10767: 10754: 10750: 10746: 10742: 10741: 10740: 10737: 10736: 10731: 10724: 10723: 10722: 10721: 10718: 10714: 10710: 10706: 10704: 10700: 10696: 10692: 10691: 10690: 10689: 10686: 10685: 10680: 10673: 10663: 10652: 10648: 10644: 10640: 10638: 10634: 10630: 10625: 10624: 10623: 10619: 10615: 10608: 10607:edit conflict 10603: 10602: 10601: 10597: 10593: 10589: 10587: 10584: 10580: 10579: 10578: 10577: 10574: 10570: 10566: 10562: 10561: 10560: 10559: 10556: 10551: 10547: 10545: 10541: 10537: 10533: 10526: 10523: 10499: 10496: 10492: 10491: 10490: 10486: 10482: 10478: 10477: 10471: 10467: 10465: 10460: 10458: 10452: 10451: 10450: 10446: 10442: 10438: 10434: 10429: 10428: 10425: 10424: 10420: 10419: 10409: 10406: 10402: 10401: 10400: 10397: 10393: 10389: 10388: 10387: 10386: 10383: 10373: 10369: 10365: 10360: 10359: 10358: 10354: 10350: 10345: 10344: 10341: 10337: 10333: 10328: 10327: 10326: 10325: 10321: 10317: 10313: 10307: 10303: 10302: 10298: 10294: 10280: 10276: 10272: 10268: 10264: 10260: 10259: 10257: 10253: 10249: 10245: 10244: 10243: 10240: 10236: 10231: 10230: 10229: 10225: 10221: 10217: 10214: 10211: 10207: 10204: 10200: 10196: 10195: 10194: 10193: 10189: 10188: 10187:The Wordsmith 10176: 10173: 10169: 10165: 10160: 10159: 10158: 10157: 10154: 10150: 10146: 10142: 10141: 10129: 10126: 10125: 10124: 10117: 10110: 10109: 10108: 10104: 10100: 10092: 10091: 10089: 10086: 10085: 10084: 10077: 10070: 10069: 10068: 10064: 10060: 10056: 10055: 10054: 10051: 10050: 10049: 10042: 10035: 10034: 10033: 10032: 10028: 10024: 10020: 9990: 9986: 9982: 9977: 9976: 9975: 9971: 9967: 9963: 9959: 9958: 9957: 9953: 9949: 9945: 9944: 9943: 9939: 9935: 9931: 9926: 9925: 9924: 9920: 9916: 9912: 9911: 9910: 9906: 9902: 9898: 9894: 9893: 9892: 9891: 9890: 9886: 9882: 9877: 9876: 9875: 9872: 9869: 9865: 9861: 9857: 9855: 9853: 9846: 9845: 9844: 9841: 9838: 9834: 9829: 9828: 9827: 9824: 9821: 9816: 9815: 9814: 9813: 9808: 9805: 9800: 9797: 9796: 9795: 9791: 9787: 9782: 9778: 9773: 9772: 9767: 9764: 9761: 9756: 9755: 9754: 9751: 9748: 9743: 9739: 9735: 9734: 9733: 9732: 9728: 9724: 9715: 9711: 9707: 9702: 9701: 9700: 9699: 9692: 9691: 9690: 9689: 9686: 9682: 9678: 9673: 9672: 9671: 9670: 9666: 9662: 9658: 9654: 9653: 9649: 9645: 9619: 9615: 9611: 9607: 9606: 9605: 9602: 9600: 9593: 9589: 9588: 9587: 9583: 9579: 9575: 9574: 9573: 9569: 9565: 9561: 9559: 9556: 9554: 9548: 9547: 9546: 9543: 9540: 9536: 9532: 9528: 9524: 9523: 9522: 9518: 9514: 9510: 9509: 9508: 9504: 9500: 9496: 9492: 9491: 9490: 9486: 9482: 9477: 9476: 9475: 9470: 9468: 9460: 9456: 9455: 9454: 9450: 9446: 9442: 9440: 9436: 9432: 9427: 9423: 9422: 9421: 9420: 9417: 9413: 9409: 9404: 9386: 9383: 9380: 9375: 9371: 9367: 9363: 9359: 9358: 9357: 9356: 9353: 9343: 9340: 9336: 9332: 9328: 9327: 9326: 9322: 9318: 9314: 9310: 9307: 9303: 9300: 9299: 9294: 9291: 9287: 9283: 9278: 9277: 9276: 9275: 9274: 9273: 9269: 9265: 9264:Tasty monster 9243: 9240: 9236: 9232: 9228: 9224: 9223: 9222: 9218: 9214: 9210: 9206: 9203: 9199: 9195: 9190: 9189: 9188: 9187: 9186: 9183: 9182: 9177: 9176: 9175: 9172: 9168: 9164: 9160: 9159: 9158: 9154: 9150: 9146: 9145: 9144: 9141: 9137: 9133: 9128: 9127: 9126: 9122: 9118: 9114: 9113: 9112: 9109: 9105: 9101: 9097: 9096: 9095: 9094: 9090: 9086: 9085:Tasty monster 9074: 9071: 9067: 9063: 9059: 9058: 9057: 9054: 9049: 9045: 9041: 9040: 9039: 9035: 9031: 9027: 9026: 9025: 9024: 9021: 9016: 9013: 9003: 8999: 8994: 8987: 8986: 8985: 8981: 8977: 8972: 8971: 8962: 8958: 8954: 8950: 8949: 8948: 8944: 8940: 8936: 8935: 8934: 8929: 8923: 8922: 8920: 8912: 8911: 8910: 8906: 8902: 8898: 8895: 8892: 8891: 8890: 8889: 8885: 8881: 8877: 8872: 8868: 8867: 8861: 8860: 8848: 8837: 8834: 8830: 8829: 8819: 8818: 8817: 8816: 8815: 8814: 8809: 8805: 8801: 8796: 8792: 8789: 8788: 8787: 8786: 8783: 8780: 8778: 8772: 8768: 8764: 8763:User:Polargeo 8760: 8756: 8752: 8748: 8744: 8743: 8740: 8736: 8732: 8728: 8724: 8723: 8722: 8721: 8717: 8713: 8705: 8702: 8700: 8694: 8692: 8689: 8684: 8683: 8682: 8681: 8678: 8673: 8669: 8665: 8650: 8646: 8642: 8638: 8635: 8634: 8633: 8630: 8626: 8623:He does, and 8622: 8621: 8620: 8616: 8612: 8608: 8607: 8606: 8605: 8604: 8603: 8600: 8599: 8596: 8590: 8586: 8582: 8578: 8573: 8572: 8567: 8563: 8559: 8555: 8552: 8550: 8546: 8542: 8538: 8534: 8533: 8532: 8529: 8524: 8523: 8522: 8521: 8517: 8513: 8509: 8498: 8494: 8490: 8486: 8485: 8484: 8481: 8477: 8476: 8475: 8472: 8470: 8463: 8462: 8457: 8453: 8452: 8451: 8450: 8447: 8445: 8438: 8437: 8434: 8421: 8417: 8413: 8409: 8408: 8407: 8404: 8402: 8395: 8394: 8393: 8392: 8388: 8384: 8379: 8375: 8371: 8367: 8366: 8365: 8362: 8360: 8353: 8349: 8345: 8341: 8337: 8336: 8335: 8334: 8331: 8327: 8323: 8318: 8317: 8304: 8301: 8297: 8295: 8289: 8288: 8287: 8283: 8279: 8274: 8270: 8266: 8265: 8264: 8261: 8260: 8259: 8256: 8253: 8248: 8243: 8242: 8241: 8240: 8239: 8238: 8237: 8236: 8229: 8225: 8221: 8217: 8214: 8211: 8210: 8209: 8206: 8204: 8197: 8193: 8189: 8185: 8180: 8179: 8178: 8175: 8171: 8167: 8166: 8165: 8161: 8157: 8153: 8152: 8151: 8150: 8147: 8145: 8128: 8124: 8120: 8116: 8115: 8114: 8110: 8106: 8102: 8101: 8100: 8097: 8093: 8091: 8085: 8082: 8079: 8075: 8071: 8070: 8069: 8065: 8061: 8057: 8056: 8055: 8052: 8048: 8046: 8040: 8036: 8035: 8034: 8033: 8029: 8025: 8000: 7996: 7992: 7989: 7986: 7985: 7984: 7979: 7973: 7972: 7970: 7962: 7961: 7960: 7959: 7956: 7953: 7947: 7946: 7943: 7940: 7939: 7938: 7933: 7927: 7926: 7924: 7916: 7915: 7914: 7913: 7910: 7907: 7901: 7900: 7899: 7894: 7888: 7887: 7885: 7876: 7875: 7874: 7873: 7870: 7867: 7862: 7856: 7852: 7849: 7846: 7840: 7839: 7838: 7834: 7830: 7825: 7824: 7823: 7818: 7812: 7811: 7809: 7800: 7799: 7798: 7795: 7792: 7787: 7786: 7785: 7781: 7777: 7772: 7771: 7770: 7769: 7766: 7750: 7746: 7742: 7738: 7737: 7736: 7733: 7730: 7726: 7725: 7724: 7720: 7716: 7712: 7710: 7706: 7702: 7698: 7697: 7696: 7693: 7690: 7686: 7685: 7684: 7681: 7679: 7674: 7670: 7665: 7664: 7663: 7662: 7659: 7656: 7647: 7644: 7638: 7637: 7630: 7629: 7625: 7624: 7623: 7622: 7612: 7608: 7604: 7599: 7598: 7597: 7596: 7593: 7589: 7585: 7580: 7579: 7576: 7573: 7570: 7566: 7565: 7564: 7563: 7559: 7555: 7551: 7540: 7537: 7532: 7531: 7530: 7529: 7526: 7519: 7516: 7515: 7514: 7507: 7504: 7500: 7499: 7498: 7494: 7490: 7483: 7476: 7475: 7474: 7473: 7470: 7466: 7462: 7450: 7446: 7442: 7438: 7437: 7436: 7432: 7428: 7424: 7423: 7419: 7418: 7417: 7414: 7410: 7409: 7408: 7407: 7404: 7397: 7387: 7384: 7383: 7382: 7366: 7362: 7358: 7354: 7349: 7348: 7347: 7343: 7339: 7331: 7327: 7326: 7325: 7322: 7318: 7314: 7313: 7312: 7308: 7304: 7296: 7295: 7294: 7293: 7290: 7278: 7274: 7270: 7262: 7261: 7260: 7259: 7258: 7257: 7252: 7249: 7248: 7243: 7235: 7234: 7233: 7232: 7229: 7225: 7221: 7213: 7212: 7203: 7200: 7199: 7194: 7187: 7183: 7180: 7179: 7177: 7173: 7169: 7168: 7166: 7165: 7164: 7163: 7162: 7161: 7160: 7159: 7150: 7147: 7146: 7141: 7133: 7132: 7131: 7130: 7129: 7128: 7127: 7126: 7119: 7116: 7111: 7110: 7109: 7105: 7101: 7096: 7092: 7091: 7090: 7089: 7080: 7077: 7073: 7069: 7065: 7060: 7059: 7058: 7055: 7050: 7049: 7048: 7044: 7040: 7035: 7034: 7033: 7032: 7025: 7024: 7023: 7022: 7021: 7020: 7017: 7002: 6999: 6995: 6992: 6988: 6985: 6984: 6983: 6972: 6969: 6965: 6961: 6957: 6956: 6955: 6954: 6951: 6947: 6940: 6936: 6932: 6927: 6925: 6922: 6918: 6914: 6910: 6909: 6908: 6907: 6903: 6899: 6887: 6884: 6879: 6875: 6874: 6871: 6867: 6863: 6858: 6846: 6843: 6839: 6835: 6830: 6829: 6828: 6824: 6820: 6815: 6814: 6813: 6809: 6805: 6797: 6796: 6795: 6792: 6788: 6784: 6779: 6778: 6777: 6773: 6769: 6762: 6758: 6757: 6756: 6753: 6749: 6745: 6740: 6739: 6738: 6737: 6733: 6729: 6703: 6700: 6695: 6694: 6693: 6690: 6688: 6682: 6681: 6680: 6676: 6672: 6667: 6663: 6660: 6659: 6658: 6655: 6653: 6647: 6646: 6645: 6642: 6638: 6637: 6636: 6633: 6631: 6624: 6623: 6622: 6621: 6618: 6612: 6611: 6600: 6596: 6592: 6588: 6587: 6586: 6585: 6582: 6577: 6575: 6565: 6564: 6563: 6562: 6559: 6555: 6551: 6547: 6537: 6533: 6529: 6524: 6523: 6522: 6519: 6517: 6510: 6509: 6508: 6503: 6501: 6493: 6492: 6491: 6488: 6486: 6480: 6479: 6478: 6473: 6471: 6462: 6458: 6454: 6450: 6446: 6445: 6444: 6441: 6439: 6433: 6432: 6413: 6409: 6406: 6400: 6399: 6398: 6395: 6393: 6387: 6378: 6374: 6370: 6366: 6362: 6358: 6354: 6350: 6346: 6342: 6338: 6337: 6336: 6333: 6330: 6325: 6321: 6320: 6319: 6316: 6314: 6308: 6299: 6295: 6291: 6287: 6282: 6281: 6280: 6277: 6274: 6269: 6265: 6260: 6259: 6258: 6254: 6250: 6246: 6245: 6241: 6237: 6233: 6226: 6225: 6224: 6220: 6216: 6211: 6210: 6209: 6206: 6204: 6197: 6196: 6191: 6187: 6183: 6179: 6175: 6170: 6166: 6164: 6159: 6157: 6151: 6150: 6149: 6148: 6147: 6143: 6137: 6136: 6131: 6125: 6121: 6117: 6116: 6115: 6114: 6110: 6106: 6091: 6088: 6084: 6080: 6076: 6075: 6074: 6071: 6069: 6063: 6062: 6061: 6060: 6057: 6053: 6049: 6045: 6030: 6026: 6022: 6015: 6014: 6013: 6010: 6008: 6002: 6001: 6000: 5996: 5992: 5985: 5984: 5983: 5980: 5978: 5972: 5971: 5970: 5969: 5966: 5962: 5958: 5951: 5947: 5944: 5943: 5935: 5931: 5927: 5922: 5921: 5920: 5919: 5914: 5910: 5904: 5891: 5887: 5883: 5876: 5875: 5874: 5870: 5866: 5862: 5861: 5860: 5859: 5858: 5854: 5850: 5843: 5842: 5834: 5833: 5829: 5828: 5818: 5815: 5810: 5809: 5808: 5804: 5800: 5796: 5795: 5790: 5789: 5788: 5787: 5783: 5779: 5775: 5764: 5763: 5759: 5758: 5750: 5749: 5745: 5744: 5736: 5735: 5731: 5730: 5724: 5723: 5719: 5715: 5702: 5698: 5694: 5690: 5686: 5685: 5684: 5683: 5678: 5675: 5673: 5668: 5660: 5659: 5658: 5654: 5650: 5649: 5644: 5641: 5638: 5634: 5630: 5626: 5622: 5619: 5616: 5612: 5608: 5607: 5606: 5605: 5601: 5597: 5590: 5586: 5582: 5581: 5576: 5573: 5570: 5566: 5562: 5559: 5556: 5552: 5548: 5547: 5546: 5545: 5541: 5537: 5533: 5532: 5526: 5525: 5521: 5517: 5513: 5508: 5507: 5504: 5502: 5497: 5495: 5486: 5482: 5478: 5477: 5472: 5471:User:Marskell 5469:), a sock of 5468: 5465: 5462: 5458: 5454: 5453: 5452: 5451: 5447: 5443: 5435: 5431: 5427: 5426: 5421: 5420: 5415: 5414: 5410: 5409: 5404: 5401: 5397: 5396: 5395: 5394: 5391: 5388: 5380: 5375: 5374: 5371: 5367: 5363: 5362: 5357: 5354: 5350: 5347: 5344: 5341: 5338: 5335: 5332: 5329: 5326: 5323: 5320: 5317: 5314: 5309: 5306: 5305: 5293: 5289: 5283: 5276: 5275: 5272: 5269: 5265: 5263: 5257: 5253: 5249: 5248: 5247: 5246: 5243: 5239: 5235: 5234: 5229: 5225: 5224: 5223: 5222: 5218: 5214: 5208: 5201: 5200:User:Marskell 5197: 5196: 5195: 5194: 5191: 5188: 5184: 5182: 5176: 5175: 5170: 5167: 5165: 5160: 5152: 5151: 5150: 5146: 5142: 5138: 5137: 5136: 5135: 5132: 5129: 5127: 5122: 5114: 5113: 5112: 5110: 5106: 5104: 5099: 5097: 5089: 5088: 5084: 5079: 5078: 5075: 5072: 5067: 5066: 5061: 5060: 5056: 5055: 5049: 5048: 5044: 5040: 5027: 5023: 5019: 5015: 5011: 5007: 5006: 5005: 5004: 5003: 5002: 5001: 5000: 4993: 4989: 4985: 4981: 4976: 4975: 4974: 4973: 4972: 4971: 4966: 4962: 4958: 4954: 4949: 4948: 4947: 4946: 4939: 4935: 4931: 4930: 4929: 4928: 4921: 4917: 4916: 4915: 4914: 4908: 4904: 4900: 4896: 4895: 4894: 4893: 4888: 4884: 4880: 4876: 4875: 4874: 4873: 4870: 4866: 4862: 4857: 4853: 4849: 4848: 4847: 4846: 4842: 4838: 4834: 4830: 4826: 4822: 4798: 4794: 4790: 4786: 4785: 4784: 4780: 4776: 4772: 4769: 4768: 4767: 4763: 4759: 4755: 4754: 4753: 4749: 4745: 4740: 4739: 4738: 4734: 4730: 4725: 4724: 4723: 4719: 4715: 4711: 4710: 4709: 4708: 4707: 4706: 4702: 4698: 4694: 4691:Not helpful. 4689: 4688: 4670: 4666: 4662: 4657: 4656: 4655: 4654: 4653: 4652: 4651: 4650: 4649: 4648: 4647: 4646: 4645: 4644: 4627: 4626: 4625: 4624: 4623: 4622: 4621: 4620: 4619: 4618: 4617: 4616: 4615: 4614: 4597: 4596: 4595: 4594: 4593: 4592: 4591: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4587: 4586: 4585: 4584: 4567: 4566: 4565: 4564: 4563: 4562: 4561: 4560: 4559: 4558: 4557: 4556: 4555: 4554: 4538: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4525: 4520: 4516: 4512: 4507: 4506: 4505: 4504: 4501: 4497: 4493: 4490: 4486: 4482: 4479: 4475: 4474: 4473: 4472: 4468: 4464: 4447: 4443: 4439: 4434: 4432: 4429: 4425: 4424: 4423: 4419: 4415: 4410: 4409: 4408: 4407: 4406: 4405: 4404: 4403: 4402: 4401: 4392: 4388: 4384: 4383:67.117.146.38 4380: 4377: 4376: 4375: 4371: 4367: 4364: 4361: 4360: 4359: 4355: 4351: 4350:67.117.146.38 4347: 4343: 4339: 4335: 4330: 4329: 4328: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4320: 4316: 4312: 4308: 4304: 4300: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4290: 4289: 4288: 4284: 4280: 4276: 4275: 4272: 4268: 4264: 4259: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4252: 4248: 4243: 4228: 4224: 4220: 4215: 4211: 4206: 4202: 4198: 4194: 4190: 4186: 4182: 4178: 4174: 4173: 4172: 4168: 4164: 4163:67.117.146.38 4159: 4157: 4153: 4149: 4145: 4142: 4140: 4137: 4130: 4129: 4128: 4124: 4120: 4119:Pieter Kuiper 4115: 4114: 4113: 4109: 4105: 4100: 4099: 4098: 4094: 4090: 4089:Pieter Kuiper 4086: 4085: 4080: 4076: 4072: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4058: 4054: 4048: 4046: 4041: 4038: 4034: 4030: 4025: 4018: 4017: 4013: 4012: 4009: 3991: 3988: 3984: 3983: 3982: 3977: 3975: 3967: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3960: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3949: 3947: 3939: 3935: 3932: 3928: 3927: 3926: 3921: 3919: 3911: 3903: 3900: 3895: 3894: 3893: 3892: 3889: 3884: 3882: 3874: 3872: 3869: 3864: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3854: 3853: 3846: 3841: 3839: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3822: 3818: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3805: 3803: 3794: 3790: 3783: 3782: 3778: 3777: 3768: 3761: 3757: 3753: 3749: 3746: 3745: 3742: 3738: 3734: 3733:67.117.146.38 3729: 3728: 3721: 3717: 3713: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3702: 3700: 3692: 3688: 3684: 3680: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3668: 3666: 3658: 3654: 3650: 3644: 3639: 3637: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3623: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3608: 3603: 3601: 3593: 3585: 3581: 3577: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3554: 3551: 3546: 3545: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3526: 3521: 3519: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3503: 3500: 3495: 3494: 3481: 3476: 3474: 3471: 3467: 3465: 3461: 3456: 3449: 3447: 3443: 3439: 3435: 3432: 3431: 3422: 3418: 3414: 3409: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3399: 3395: 3391: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3381: 3377: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3350: 3346: 3342: 3337: 3336: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3310: 3307: 3306: 3301: 3300: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3287: 3285: 3280: 3275: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3260: 3256: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3245: 3243: 3239: 3235: 3224: 3223: 3220: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3206: 3203: 3197: 3195: 3189: 3188: 3184: 3180: 3174: 3167: 3166: 3163: 3159: 3155: 3151: 3147: 3144: 3143: 3128: 3124: 3118: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3081: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3072: 3068: 3066: 3060: 3058: 3053: 3051: 3046: 3040: 3036: 3032: 3027: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3014: 3008: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2983: 2980: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2971: 2969: 2964: 2959: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2944: 2940: 2938: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2915: 2912: 2907: 2906: 2902: 2901: 2897: 2894: 2888: 2887: 2877: 2876: 2872: 2871: 2863: 2862: 2858: 2857: 2841: 2838: 2836: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2812: 2809: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2780: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2753: 2749: 2747: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2736: 2728: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2675: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2654: 2652: 2642: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2615: 2613: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2601: 2597: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2587: 2585: 2576: 2566: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2539: 2537: 2531: 2525: 2522: 2520: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2495: 2490: 2489: 2485: 2479: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2447: 2442: 2436: 2435: 2433: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2420: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2406: 2402: 2401: 2398: 2397: 2393: 2392: 2389: 2377: 2374: 2366: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2357: 2353: 2349: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2340: 2339: 2332: 2331: 2328: 2327: 2323: 2322: 2310: 2307: 2306: 2302: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2291: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2264: 2263: 2246: 2241: 2235: 2234: 2232: 2223: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2214: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2204: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2145: 2139: 2138: 2136: 2127: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2118: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2103: 2095: 2094: 2081: 2078: 2073: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2060: 2056: 2050: 2036: 2032: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1953: 1952: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1936: 1933: 1929: 1925: 1922: 1921: 1917: 1916: 1906: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1885: 1881: 1876: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1836: 1833: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1796: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1787: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1735: 1732: 1725: 1724:edit conflict 1720: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1703: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1695: 1693: 1686: 1685: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1662: 1661: 1657: 1656: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1596: 1593: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1566: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1501: 1498: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1460: 1456: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1406: 1403: 1398: 1397: 1390: 1387: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1361: 1358: 1354: 1353: 1347: 1346: 1341: 1336: 1331: 1330: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1310: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1279: 1274: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1248: 1245: 1239: 1237: 1230: 1225: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1103: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1002: 998: 994: 993:already on it 990: 989: 988: 984: 980: 976: 975: 974: 970: 966: 962: 961: 960: 956: 952: 947: 946: 945: 941: 937: 933: 929: 925: 924: 923: 920: 916: 911: 910: 909: 908: 904: 900: 890: 886: 882: 877: 874: 873: 872: 871: 868: 864: 860: 855: 854: 849: 845: 841: 836: 835: 834: 830: 824: 822: 821: 814: 813: 806: 802: 798: 793: 789: 785: 784: 783: 782: 781: 780: 771: 768: 763: 758: 757: 756: 755: 754: 753: 752: 751: 740: 736: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 717: 714: 709: 705: 702: 701: 697: 692: 691: 690: 685: 681: 674: 670: 669: 668: 665: 659: 657: 650: 649: 648: 647: 643: 642: 630: 627: 625: 618: 617: 616: 612: 608: 604: 600: 596: 592: 588: 585:Thank you. -- 584: 583: 582: 579: 577: 570: 569: 568: 567: 564: 560: 556: 552: 548: 547: 546: 545: 542: 539: 531: 528: 525: 524: 523: 517: 513: 510: 509: 508: 498: 495: 490: 485: 484: 483: 482: 481: 480: 471: 470: 469: 465: 461: 456: 452: 451: 450: 449: 446: 443: 438: 437: 428: 425: 420: 419: 418: 417: 416: 415: 414: 413: 406: 403: 401: 394: 393: 392: 391: 390: 389: 384: 380: 376: 371: 370: 369: 368: 367: 362: 358: 354: 350: 349: 326: 322: 318: 314: 313: 312: 311: 310: 306: 302: 298: 294: 290: 285: 284: 283: 279: 275: 270: 269: 268: 267: 266: 262: 258: 253: 249: 248: 247: 244: 242: 235: 234: 233: 229: 225: 220: 219: 218: 217: 216: 215: 214: 211: 209: 202: 201: 200: 199: 195: 191: 181: 178: 174: 173: 172: 169: 165: 164: 163: 162: 159: 149: 146: 142: 141: 140: 139: 138: 133: 132: 128: 127: 119: 118: 114: 113: 107: 100: 97: 95: 92: 90: 87: 84: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 65: 62: 61: 53: 49: 45: 44: 39: 32: 31: 23: 19: 11380: 11379: 11350: 11341: 11340: 11298: 11288: 11239: 11226: 11186:Dr. Loosmark 11185: 11177: 11164: 11074:Dr. Loosmark 11073: 11031: 11028: 10961: 10933: 10922:Dr. Loosmark 10921: 10915: 10911: 10907: 10905: 10902: 10822:Dr. Loosmark 10821: 10802: 10766:Dr. Loosmark 10765: 10761: 10726: 10675: 10669: 10661: 10552: 10548: 10529: 10463: 10456: 10439:) for more. 10421: 10391: 10378: 10308: 10304: 10289: 10266: 10186: 10181: 10119: 10118: 10079: 10078: 10044: 10043: 10018: 10015: 9962:this article 9929: 9896: 9863: 9852:Roger Davies 9851: 9837:Arthur Rubin 9832: 9780: 9776: 9747:Arthur Rubin 9741: 9737: 9720: 9655: 9640: 9599:Roger Davies 9598: 9553:Roger Davies 9552: 9539:Arthur Rubin 9530: 9526: 9494: 9466: 9399: 9369: 9362:mind reading 9348: 9312: 9260: 9226: 9179: 9081: 9017: 9008: 8918: 8917: 8874: 8869: 8846: 8825: 8794: 8790: 8777:Roger Davies 8776: 8708: 8699:Roger Davies 8698: 8671: 8667: 8663: 8661: 8636: 8592: 8588: 8584: 8580: 8576: 8536: 8507: 8505: 8464: 8460: 8444:Roger Davies 8443: 8439: 8430: 8400: 8381: 8377: 8373: 8369: 8358: 8293: 8272: 8268: 8252: 8251: 8246: 8203:Roger Davies 8202: 8144:Roger Davies 8143: 8139: 8089: 8080: 8044: 8021: 7968: 7967: 7948: 7945: 7941: 7922: 7921: 7902: 7883: 7882: 7860: 7857: 7807: 7806: 7761: 7678:Roger Davies 7677: 7672: 7651: 7642: 7639: 7627: 7569:Arthur Rubin 7548: 7522: 7517: 7512: 7457: 7420: 7390: 7380: 7352: 7329: 7285: 7238: 7189: 7181: 7170: 7136: 7063: 7013: 7000: 6993: 6986: 6980: 6943: 6895: 6877: 6760: 6721: 6687:Roger Davies 6686: 6652:Roger Davies 6651: 6630:Roger Davies 6629: 6613: 6609: 6607: 6573: 6516:Roger Davies 6515: 6499: 6485:Roger Davies 6484: 6469: 6437: 6391: 6377:in the right 6323: 6312: 6198: 6194: 6162: 6155: 6133: 6123: 6119: 6101: 6067: 6041: 6007:Roger Davies 6006: 5977:Roger Davies 5976: 5949: 5900: 5832:Announcement 5830: 5794:The Signpost 5793: 5776: 5772: 5762:Announcement 5760: 5748:Announcement 5746: 5734:Announcement 5732: 5711: 5688: 5662: 5646: 5639: 5628: 5624: 5617: 5593: 5578: 5571: 5557: 5529: 5527: 5512:October 2008 5509: 5500: 5493: 5489: 5474: 5463: 5438: 5423: 5417: 5416:Per ArbCom: 5359: 5355: 5345: 5339: 5333: 5327: 5321: 5315: 5281:Neutralhomer 5261: 5255: 5251: 5231: 5228:Neutralhomer 5206:Neutralhomer 5180: 5154: 5116: 5102: 5095: 5090: 5082: 5059:Announcement 5057: 5039:67.119.3.248 5036: 4952: 4938:sidestepping 4937: 4933: 4919: 4898: 4855: 4832: 4820: 4818: 4770: 4460: 4427:afterwards). 4379:Yes you can. 4239: 4049: 4042: 4036: 4029:five pillars 4021: 4016:Announcement 4014: 3973: 3945: 3917: 3880: 3862: 3837: 3801: 3786: 3781:Announcement 3780: 3766: 3747: 3698: 3664: 3656: 3652: 3635: 3599: 3534: 3517: 3483: 3433: 3407: 3338: 3319: 3303: 3296: 3268: 3231: 3193: 3172:Neutralhomer 3149: 3145: 3102: 3101: 3083: 3079: 3064: 3056: 3055: 3049: 3048: 3025: 2992: 2991: 2952: 2936: 2916: 2913: 2910: 2905:Announcement 2903: 2892: 2889: 2875:Announcement 2873: 2861:Announcement 2859: 2835:Roger Davies 2834: 2745: 2699: 2697: 2661: 2651:Roger Davies 2650: 2612:Roger Davies 2611: 2584:Roger Davies 2583: 2536:Roger Davies 2535: 2519:Roger Davies 2518: 2487: 2459: 2431: 2430: 2394: 2334: 2326:Announcement 2324: 2303: 2286: 2230: 2229: 2134: 2133: 2114: 2093:The Guardian 2092: 2088: 2034: 1918: 1871: 1853: 1687: 1683: 1665: 1658: 1624: 1620: 1564: 1478: 1459:two thousand 1458: 1454: 1449: 1445: 1419: 1416: 1350: 1339: 1334: 1308: 1306: 1277: 1272: 1235: 1228: 1052: 1048: 949:or shut up. 931: 914: 895: 819: 818: 791: 787: 761: 698: 672: 655: 644: 624:Roger Davies 623: 576:Roger Davies 575: 535: 521: 505: 454: 453:FT2, I have 400:Roger Davies 399: 365: 289:some editors 241:Roger Davies 240: 208:Roger Davies 207: 186: 155: 144: 136: 129: 115: 105: 82: 47: 41: 11359:Renaissance 11355:Middle-Ages 11313:—Preceding 11180:user:Rlevse 11012:discussed.( 10860:prorogation 10833:Newyorkbrad 10729:Will Beback 10709:Newyorkbrad 10678:Will Beback 10672:user:Rlevse 10666:Resignation 10643:Newyorkbrad 10364:Count Iblis 10316:Count Iblis 9966:Count Iblis 9901:Count Iblis 9706:Count Iblis 9661:Cube lurker 9644:Count Iblis 9610:Cube lurker 9578:Cube lurker 9533:fall under 9499:Cube lurker 8976:Count Iblis 8953:Count Iblis 8712:Newyorkbrad 8672:undisclosed 8581:exactly one 8105:Cube lurker 8060:Cube lurker 7603:Count Iblis 7554:Count Iblis 7241:Will Beback 7192:Will Beback 7139:Will Beback 6232:Ncmvocalist 5909:Gavia immer 5799:Ncmvocalist 5714:Newyorkbrad 5596:Newyorkbrad 5442:Newyorkbrad 5141:Cube lurker 5018:Brews ohare 4957:Brews ohare 4837:Brews ohare 4661:Count Iblis 4366:Count Iblis 4363:No we can't 4311:Count Iblis 4263:Count Iblis 4247:Brews ohare 4148:Brews ohare 4053:Brews ohare 3298:OhanaUnited 3194:HJ Mitchell 1999:Ncmvocalist 1971:Ncmvocalist 1940:Ncmvocalist 1422:are mine). 1236:HJ Mitchell 680:Gavia immer 656:HJ Mitchell 40:This is an 22:Noticeboard 10916:bureaucrat 10743:Seconded. 10349:Beeblebrox 10235:dave souza 10145:ScottyBerg 10099:Beeblebrox 10023:Carcharoth 9981:Carcharoth 9948:ScottyBerg 9934:Beeblebrox 9915:ScottyBerg 9881:ScottyBerg 9786:Beeblebrox 9467:Sandstein 9149:Beeblebrox 9044:Remedy 1.2 8992:SPhilbrick 8901:ScottyBerg 8828:pixie dust 8611:ScottyBerg 8541:ScottyBerg 8489:ScottyBerg 8456:Polargeo 2 8454:So why is 8322:Beeblebrox 8074:Polargeo 2 7584:Carcharoth 7353:ad nauseum 6574:Sandstein 6500:Sandstein 6470:Sandstein 6449:MickMacNee 6382:Literature 6303:Literature 6249:MickMacNee 6215:MickMacNee 6178:MickMacNee 6124:punishment 6120:protection 6105:MickMacNee 5926:Dougweller 5865:Dougweller 5693:Carcharoth 5400:SunCreator 5343:block user 5337:filter log 4984:Carcharoth 4953:censorship 4899:Carcharoth 4861:Carcharoth 4775:Skinwalker 4744:Skinwalker 4714:Skinwalker 4693:Carcharoth 4334:Carcharoth 4279:Beeblebrox 4219:Carcharoth 4104:Carcharoth 4033:guidelines 3752:Carcharoth 3712:Carcharoth 3679:Carcharoth 3454:SPhilbrick 3438:Carcharoth 3413:Beeblebrox 3376:Off2riorob 3154:Carcharoth 2761:Dougweller 2727:the clerks 2666:DuncanHill 2624:DuncanHill 2596:DuncanHill 2565:Rangeblock 2548:DuncanHill 2503:DuncanHill 2463:DuncanHill 1758:Beeblebrox 1283:Carcharoth 1058:Carcharoth 1021:Carcharoth 951:Beeblebrox 859:Beeblebrox 797:Carcharoth 742:discerned. 735:provisions 99:Archive 15 94:Archive 14 89:Archive 13 83:Archive 12 77:Archive 11 72:Archive 10 11351:relations 11132:Scott Mac 10995:Skomorokh 10884:SirFozzie 10695:SirFozzie 10641:I agree. 10629:SirFozzie 10614:T. Canens 10583:Scott Mac 10565:SirFozzie 10555:Scott Mac 10522:Scott Mac 10396:Scott Mac 10293:Wikidemon 10267:attention 10199:Stevehhll 10172:Scott Mac 10059:SirFozzie 9445:T. Canens 8893:See also 8833:Jehochman 8528:Jehochman 8480:Jehochman 8174:Jehochman 7765:Scott Mac 7489:T. Canens 7482:sanctions 7441:T. Canens 7427:T. Canens 7039:SirFozzie 6361:WP:WEIGHT 6324:strategic 6298:WP:WEIGHT 5536:MZMcBride 5516:MZMcBride 5385:Skomorokh 5349:block log 4897:Reply to 3987:Scott Mac 3959:Scott Mac 3931:Scott Mac 3899:Scott Mac 3868:Scott Mac 3655:, I mean 3576:SirFozzie 3394:MZMcBride 3345:MZMcBride 3327:MZMcBride 3052:said what 2806:Skomorokh 2733:Skomorokh 2417:Skomorokh 2405:Peachey88 2371:Skomorokh 2301:Cool Hand 2268:Ironholds 2201:Skomorokh 2184:SirFozzie 2169:Ironholds 2155:Ironholds 2112:Cool Hand 2100:Skomorokh 2017:SirFozzie 1985:SirFozzie 1957:SirFozzie 1924:SirFozzie 1565:Example:- 1424:Sole Soul 1402:Jehochman 1194:MZMcBride 1121:Sole Soul 1087:MZMcBride 997:MZMcBride 965:MZMcBride 936:MZMcBride 899:MZMcBride 820:Wizardman 739:consulted 696:Cool Hand 353:SirFozzie 64:Archive 5 11315:unsigned 11299:Giacomo 11227:Giacomo 10852:Treasury 10780:Treasury 10516:Resolved 10332:Awickert 10271:Awickert 10248:Awickert 9592:decision 9305:warning. 9181:MastCell 8084:contribs 7791:FloNight 7357:Mackan79 7027:devolve. 6819:Jclemens 6528:Mackan79 6405:PrBeacon 6365:WP:CIVIL 6351:, it is 6349:WP:TRUTH 6286:WP:CIVIL 6135:BWilkins 5741:Tothwolf 5643:contribs 5633:Marskell 5621:contribs 5575:contribs 5565:Marskell 5561:contribs 5467:contribs 5319:contribs 4829:a ruling 4037:hijacked 3974:Giacomo 3946:Giacomo 3918:Giacomo 3881:Giacomo 3838:Giacomo 3802:Giacomo 3699:Giacomo 3665:Giacomo 3636:Giacomo 3600:Giacomo 3518:Giacomo 3470:jpgordon 3122:contribs 3059:was said 3026:Endorse! 3012:contribs 1883:Chequers 1786:jpgordon 1455:millions 1053:disagree 20:‎ | 11273:carrots 11240:project 11221:Arbcom? 11114:Thanks( 11039:"this." 10441:Uncle G 10263:my talk 9742:exactly 9564:Collect 9535:WP:TBAN 9459:WP:TBAN 7337:Georgia 7302:Georgia 7268:Georgia 7219:Georgia 7115:alanyst 7064:visible 7054:alanyst 7016:alanyst 6862:Wehwalt 6803:Georgia 6767:Georgia 6727:Georgia 6608:Roger: 6591:Wehwalt 6550:Wehwalt 6357:WP:NPOV 6345:realism 6341:realism 6290:WP:NPOV 6229:Cheers, 6020:Georgia 5990:Georgia 5956:Georgia 5881:Georgia 5848:Georgia 5627:a sock 5534:.... -- 4833:nothing 4181:physics 3897:ever.-- 3793:User:!! 3105:Phantom 2995:Phantom 2979:Deskana 2337:MBisanz 1802:ElKevbo 1772:ElKevbo 1743:ElKevbo 1731:Deskana 1707:ElKevbo 1668:ElKevbo 1625:prevent 1420:italics 538:Deskana 297:provoke 43:archive 11391:Gloria 11385:Honor 11357:, the 11248:Frank 11202:Frank 11162:MLauba 11099:there. 10803:Ks0stm 10495:Ucucha 10115:Jayron 10075:Jayron 10040:Jayron 9840:(talk) 9781:spirit 9750:(talk) 9542:(talk) 9365:clear. 8401:Ks0stm 8359:Ks0stm 7955:(talk) 7909:(talk) 7869:(talk) 7692:(talk) 7669:policy 7658:(talk) 7628:Motion 7572:(talk) 7552::) . 6931:Risker 6408:(talk) 6264:WP:AGF 6141:←track 5689:please 5356:Query: 5012:& 5010:Stifle 4934:insist 4214:WP:NOR 4210:WP:COI 3817:Risker 3657:prompt 3653:prompt 3622:Kirill 3323:WP:100 2982:(talk) 2779:anchor 2388:User:Δ 2222:WP:BAN 2126:WP:BAN 1857:Risker 1734:(talk) 1497:Kirill 1371:EdChem 1314:EdChem 1229:wasn't 1210:Risker 1155:EdChem 1138:Risker 1107:Risker 1078:least. 1074:right? 979:Risker 881:Keegan 840:Keegan 541:(talk) 460:EdChem 301:EdChem 274:Risker 257:EdChem 252:assume 224:EdChem 190:EdChem 11363:Asian 11254:talk 11208:talk 11141:olive 11116:olive 11085:olive 11055:olive 11014:olive 10874:Coren 10405:MONGO 10382:MONGO 10168:Toast 10166:, or 9871:Adler 9820:BozMo 9763:Adler 9531:would 9527:their 9382:Adler 9370:being 8921:levse 8688:Coren 8629:Coren 8595:Coren 8585:other 7971:levse 7925:levse 7886:levse 7848:Adler 7810:levse 7802:what. 7732:Adler 7335:Sandy 7330:avoid 7317:WP:AE 7300:Sandy 7266:Sandy 7217:Sandy 6946:WP:AE 6801:Sandy 6765:Sandy 6725:Sandy 6392:T@1k? 6369:WP:RS 6332:Adler 6313:T@1k? 6294:WP:RS 6276:Adler 6129:talk→ 6018:Sandy 5988:Sandy 5954:Sandy 5879:Sandy 5846:Sandy 5814:Coren 5666:Aiken 5230:. -- 5158:Aiken 5120:Aiken 5071:Coren 4856:every 4831:with 3861:Even 3283:comms 3273:fetch 3227:Amory 3108:Steve 2998:Steve 2967:comms 2957:fetch 2434:levse 2290:Shell 2233:levse 2213:Shell 2137:levse 2076:scent 2071:iride 2057:) · 2037:ism. 2011:Yup, 1879:Spiel 1621:cause 1343:open. 1340:quite 713:Shell 673:won't 317:ATren 168:Coren 16:< 11382:Per 11361:and 11323:talk 11145:talk 11120:talk 11105:talk 11089:talk 11059:talk 11045:talk 11018:talk 10983:here 10943:talk 10914:and 10888:talk 10837:talk 10749:talk 10734:talk 10713:talk 10699:talk 10683:talk 10647:talk 10633:talk 10618:talk 10596:talk 10569:talk 10544:here 10540:this 10532:here 10485:talk 10457:ROUX 10445:talk 10368:talk 10353:talk 10336:talk 10320:talk 10297:talk 10275:talk 10256:talk 10239:talk 10224:talk 10149:talk 10103:talk 10063:talk 10027:talk 9985:talk 9970:talk 9952:talk 9938:talk 9919:talk 9905:talk 9885:talk 9868:Hans 9860:this 9833:That 9823:talk 9790:talk 9760:Hans 9727:talk 9710:talk 9681:talk 9665:talk 9648:talk 9614:talk 9582:talk 9568:talk 9517:talk 9503:talk 9485:talk 9449:talk 9435:talk 9424:The 9403:this 9379:Hans 9321:talk 9217:talk 9153:talk 9121:talk 9034:talk 8980:talk 8957:talk 8943:talk 8927:Talk 8905:talk 8896:and 8884:talk 8804:talk 8769:and 8735:talk 8716:talk 8645:talk 8639:. -- 8615:talk 8589:soft 8562:talk 8545:talk 8516:talk 8493:talk 8468:Talk 8416:talk 8387:talk 8344:talk 8326:talk 8294:xeno 8282:talk 8257:fold 8254:Hers 8224:talk 8188:talk 8160:talk 8123:talk 8109:talk 8090:xeno 8078:talk 8064:talk 8045:xeno 8028:talk 7995:talk 7977:Talk 7931:Talk 7892:Talk 7845:Hans 7833:talk 7816:Talk 7794:♥♥♥♥ 7780:talk 7776:Gigs 7745:talk 7729:Hans 7719:talk 7705:talk 7701:Gigs 7607:talk 7588:talk 7558:talk 7493:talk 7445:talk 7431:talk 7361:talk 7342:Talk 7307:Talk 7273:Talk 7246:talk 7224:Talk 7197:talk 7144:talk 7104:talk 7043:talk 6935:talk 6902:talk 6866:talk 6823:talk 6808:Talk 6772:Talk 6761:only 6732:Talk 6675:talk 6595:talk 6554:talk 6532:talk 6453:talk 6385:geek 6367:and 6329:Hans 6306:geek 6296:and 6273:Hans 6253:talk 6236:talk 6219:talk 6202:Talk 6182:talk 6156:ROUX 6109:talk 6025:Talk 5995:Talk 5961:Talk 5930:talk 5913:talk 5886:Talk 5869:talk 5853:Talk 5803:talk 5782:talk 5718:talk 5697:talk 5653:talk 5648:Cirt 5637:talk 5625:both 5615:talk 5600:talk 5585:talk 5580:Cirt 5569:talk 5555:talk 5540:talk 5520:talk 5494:ROUX 5481:talk 5476:Cirt 5461:talk 5446:talk 5430:talk 5425:Cirt 5366:talk 5361:Cirt 5331:logs 5313:talk 5287:Talk 5262:xeno 5238:talk 5233:Cirt 5212:Talk 5181:xeno 5145:talk 5096:ROUX 5043:talk 5022:talk 4988:talk 4961:talk 4920:some 4907:here 4903:here 4883:talk 4865:talk 4852:here 4841:talk 4793:talk 4779:talk 4762:talk 4748:talk 4733:talk 4718:talk 4697:talk 4665:talk 4515:talk 4496:talk 4477:now. 4467:talk 4442:talk 4418:talk 4387:talk 4370:talk 4354:talk 4338:talk 4315:talk 4307:here 4303:here 4283:talk 4267:talk 4251:talk 4240:The 4223:talk 4212:and 4191:and 4179:and 4167:talk 4152:talk 4123:talk 4108:talk 4093:talk 4075:talk 4057:talk 3821:talk 3756:talk 3737:talk 3716:talk 3683:talk 3580:talk 3442:talk 3417:talk 3408:zero 3398:talk 3380:talk 3366:talk 3349:talk 3343:. -- 3331:talk 3259:talk 3215:talk 3178:Talk 3158:talk 3116:talk 3092:talk 3065:xeno 3061:). – 3057:what 3035:talk 3006:talk 2937:xeno 2924:talk 2765:talk 2746:xeno 2716:talk 2708:talk 2670:talk 2628:talk 2600:talk 2552:talk 2507:talk 2478:here 2467:talk 2440:Talk 2305:Luke 2272:talk 2239:Talk 2188:talk 2173:talk 2159:talk 2143:Talk 2116:Luke 2059:@942 2054:talk 2021:talk 2003:talk 1989:talk 1975:talk 1961:talk 1944:talk 1928:talk 1874:Ϣere 1861:talk 1821:talk 1806:talk 1795:mean 1776:talk 1762:talk 1747:talk 1711:talk 1691:Talk 1672:talk 1633:talk 1487:talk 1468:talk 1428:talk 1375:talk 1318:talk 1287:talk 1214:talk 1198:talk 1159:talk 1142:talk 1125:talk 1111:talk 1091:talk 1062:talk 1049:high 1025:talk 1017:here 1013:Here 1001:talk 995:. -- 991:Ha, 983:talk 969:talk 955:talk 940:talk 903:talk 885:talk 863:talk 844:talk 801:talk 700:Luke 684:talk 611:talk 591:talk 559:talk 473:job. 464:talk 455:seen 379:talk 357:talk 321:talk 305:talk 293:bait 278:talk 261:talk 228:talk 194:talk 11388:et 10962:AGK 10855:Tag 10783:Tag 9864:not 9408:Lar 9331:Lar 9282:Lar 9231:Lar 9227:you 9194:Lar 9163:Lar 9132:Lar 9100:Lar 9062:Lar 8773:. 8686:— 8668:not 8664:not 8637:Now 8577:not 8537:lot 8273:had 8247:had 8041:. – 7861:not 7671:is 7461:Lar 7068:Lar 6960:Lar 6913:Lar 6834:Lar 6783:Lar 6744:Lar 6665:to. 6438:AGK 6079:Lar 6068:AGK 6048:Lar 5629:and 5014:AGK 4031:or 3088:Avi 3084:not 3080:was 3050:who 2580:. 2493:Man 2348:Lar 2035:ban 1894:Lar 1832:FT2 1592:FT2 1450:all 1386:FT2 1357:FT2 1309:any 932:not 919:FT2 792:how 767:FT2 494:FT2 442:FT2 424:FT2 295:or 177:FT2 158:FT2 147:"), 11372:, 11325:) 11275:→ 11251:| 11205:| 11147:) 11122:) 11107:) 11095:) 11091:) 11061:) 11047:) 11020:) 10945:) 10934:is 10890:) 10863:─╢ 10850:╟─ 10847::P 10839:) 10791:─╢ 10778:╟─ 10751:) 10715:) 10701:) 10649:) 10635:) 10620:) 10598:) 10571:) 10518:– 10487:) 10447:) 10370:) 10355:) 10338:) 10322:) 10299:) 10277:) 10258:) 10237:, 10226:) 10151:) 10122:32 10105:) 10082:32 10065:) 10047:32 10029:) 9987:) 9972:) 9964:. 9954:) 9940:) 9921:) 9907:) 9887:) 9804:TS 9792:) 9738:if 9729:) 9712:) 9683:) 9667:) 9650:) 9616:) 9584:) 9570:) 9519:) 9505:) 9487:) 9461:. 9451:) 9437:) 9410:: 9406:++ 9352:TS 9350:-- 9333:: 9323:) 9284:: 9270:) 9268:TS 9266:(= 9233:: 9219:) 9196:: 9165:: 9155:) 9134:: 9130:++ 9123:) 9102:: 9091:) 9089:TS 9087:(= 9064:: 9053:TS 9051:-- 9036:) 9020:TS 8982:) 8959:) 8945:) 8930:• 8924:• 8915:— 8907:) 8899:. 8886:) 8831:. 8806:) 8795:is 8765:, 8761:, 8757:, 8753:, 8749:, 8737:) 8718:) 8677:TS 8647:) 8617:) 8564:) 8547:) 8518:) 8495:) 8461:NW 8433:TS 8418:) 8389:) 8376:; 8372:; 8346:) 8328:) 8284:) 8226:) 8190:) 8162:) 8125:) 8111:) 8066:) 8030:) 7997:) 7980:• 7974:• 7965:— 7934:• 7928:• 7919:— 7895:• 7889:• 7880:— 7835:) 7827:-- 7819:• 7813:• 7804:— 7782:) 7747:) 7721:) 7707:) 7609:) 7590:) 7560:) 7536:TS 7534:-- 7525:TS 7523:-- 7503:TS 7495:) 7487:? 7485:}} 7479:{{ 7463:: 7447:) 7433:) 7413:TS 7403:TS 7399:}} 7393:{{ 7363:) 7344:) 7321:TS 7309:) 7289:TS 7287:-- 7275:) 7226:) 7106:) 7070:: 7045:) 6962:: 6950:TS 6937:) 6915:: 6904:) 6883:TS 6878:do 6868:) 6836:: 6825:) 6810:) 6785:: 6774:) 6746:: 6734:) 6699:TS 6677:) 6641:TS 6617:TS 6615:-- 6597:) 6556:) 6534:) 6455:) 6388:| 6363:, 6359:, 6309:| 6292:, 6288:, 6255:) 6238:) 6221:) 6195:NW 6184:) 6144:) 6111:) 6081:: 6050:: 6027:) 5997:) 5963:) 5932:) 5907:— 5888:) 5871:) 5855:) 5812:— 5805:) 5784:) 5720:) 5699:) 5655:) 5602:) 5587:) 5542:) 5522:) 5483:) 5448:) 5432:) 5381:? 5368:) 5290:• 5284:• 5240:) 5215:• 5209:• 5147:) 5092:→ 5045:) 5024:) 4990:) 4963:) 4885:) 4867:) 4843:) 4795:) 4781:) 4764:) 4750:) 4735:) 4720:) 4699:) 4667:) 4517:) 4498:) 4469:) 4444:) 4420:) 4389:) 4372:) 4356:) 4340:) 4317:) 4285:) 4269:) 4253:) 4225:) 4169:) 4154:) 4125:) 4110:) 4095:) 4077:) 4059:) 3863:if 3823:) 3758:) 3739:) 3718:) 3685:) 3582:) 3540:am 3537:At 3489:am 3486:At 3444:) 3419:) 3400:) 3382:) 3368:) 3351:) 3333:) 3261:) 3240:• 3236:• 3217:) 3198:| 3181:• 3175:• 3160:) 3125:\ 3094:) 3037:) 3015:\ 2926:) 2782:}} 2776:{{ 2767:) 2718:) 2672:) 2662:me 2644:}} 2638:{{ 2630:) 2602:) 2578:}} 2572:{{ 2568:}} 2562:{{ 2554:) 2509:) 2483:TN 2469:) 2443:• 2437:• 2428:— 2350:: 2274:) 2242:• 2236:• 2227:— 2190:) 2175:) 2161:) 2146:• 2140:• 2131:— 2061:· 2051:· 2048:X! 2039::) 2023:) 2005:) 1991:) 1977:) 1963:) 1946:) 1930:) 1896:: 1863:) 1823:) 1808:) 1778:) 1764:) 1749:) 1713:) 1684:NW 1674:) 1635:) 1489:) 1470:) 1430:) 1377:) 1320:) 1289:) 1240:| 1216:) 1200:) 1161:) 1144:) 1127:) 1113:) 1093:) 1064:) 1027:) 1003:) 985:) 971:) 957:) 942:) 905:) 887:) 865:) 846:) 803:) 678:— 660:| 613:) 593:) 561:) 466:) 381:) 359:) 323:) 307:) 280:) 263:) 230:) 196:) 68:← 11398:✍ 11321:( 11151:) 11143:( 11126:) 11118:( 11103:( 11087:( 11065:) 11057:( 11043:( 11027:" 11024:) 11016:( 10985:. 10978:) 10974:( 10941:( 10886:( 10857:► 10835:( 10785:► 10747:( 10711:( 10697:( 10645:( 10631:( 10616:( 10609:) 10605:( 10594:( 10567:( 10483:( 10464:₪ 10443:( 10435:( 10366:( 10351:( 10334:( 10318:( 10295:( 10273:( 10254:( 10222:( 10147:( 10101:( 10061:( 10025:( 9983:( 9968:( 9950:( 9936:( 9917:( 9903:( 9883:( 9788:( 9725:( 9708:( 9679:( 9663:( 9646:( 9612:( 9580:( 9566:( 9515:( 9501:( 9483:( 9447:( 9433:( 9416:c 9414:/ 9412:t 9339:c 9337:/ 9335:t 9319:( 9290:c 9288:/ 9286:t 9239:c 9237:/ 9235:t 9215:( 9202:c 9200:/ 9198:t 9171:c 9169:/ 9167:t 9151:( 9140:c 9138:/ 9136:t 9119:( 9108:c 9106:/ 9104:t 9070:c 9068:/ 9066:t 9032:( 8997:T 8978:( 8955:( 8941:( 8919:R 8903:( 8882:( 8802:( 8733:( 8714:( 8643:( 8613:( 8560:( 8543:( 8514:( 8491:( 8471:) 8465:( 8414:( 8385:( 8342:( 8324:( 8280:( 8222:( 8186:( 8158:( 8121:( 8107:( 8081:· 8076:( 8062:( 8026:( 7993:( 7969:R 7923:R 7884:R 7831:( 7808:R 7778:( 7743:( 7717:( 7703:( 7605:( 7586:( 7556:( 7491:( 7469:c 7467:/ 7465:t 7443:( 7429:( 7359:( 7340:( 7305:( 7271:( 7222:( 7102:( 7076:c 7074:/ 7072:t 7041:( 6968:c 6966:/ 6964:t 6933:( 6921:c 6919:/ 6917:t 6900:( 6864:( 6842:c 6840:/ 6838:t 6821:( 6806:( 6791:c 6789:/ 6787:t 6770:( 6752:c 6750:/ 6748:t 6730:( 6673:( 6593:( 6552:( 6530:( 6451:( 6402:- 6251:( 6234:( 6217:( 6205:) 6199:( 6180:( 6163:₪ 6126:( 6107:( 6087:c 6085:/ 6083:t 6056:c 6054:/ 6052:t 6023:( 5993:( 5959:( 5928:( 5915:) 5911:( 5884:( 5867:( 5851:( 5801:( 5780:( 5716:( 5695:( 5671:♫ 5651:( 5640:· 5635:( 5618:· 5613:( 5598:( 5583:( 5572:· 5567:( 5558:· 5553:( 5538:( 5518:( 5501:₪ 5479:( 5464:· 5459:( 5444:( 5428:( 5364:( 5351:) 5346:· 5340:· 5334:· 5328:· 5322:· 5316:· 5311:( 5236:( 5163:♫ 5143:( 5125:♫ 5103:₪ 5041:( 5020:( 4986:( 4959:( 4881:( 4863:( 4839:( 4791:( 4777:( 4771:I 4760:( 4746:( 4731:( 4716:( 4695:( 4663:( 4513:( 4494:( 4465:( 4440:( 4416:( 4385:( 4368:( 4352:( 4336:( 4313:( 4281:( 4265:( 4249:( 4221:( 4165:( 4150:( 4121:( 4117:/ 4106:( 4091:( 4073:( 4055:( 3819:( 3754:( 3735:( 3714:( 3681:( 3578:( 3549:頭 3543:a 3498:頭 3492:a 3459:T 3440:( 3415:( 3396:( 3378:( 3364:( 3347:( 3329:( 3321:( 3278:· 3270:— 3257:( 3244:) 3242:c 3238:t 3234:u 3232:( 3213:( 3156:( 3119:| 3113:/ 3090:( 3033:( 3009:| 3003:/ 2962:· 2954:— 2922:( 2763:( 2714:( 2706:( 2668:( 2626:( 2598:( 2550:( 2505:( 2488:X 2465:( 2432:R 2356:c 2354:/ 2352:t 2270:( 2231:R 2186:( 2171:( 2157:( 2135:R 2045:( 2019:( 2001:( 1987:( 1973:( 1959:( 1942:( 1926:( 1902:c 1900:/ 1898:t 1859:( 1819:( 1804:( 1774:( 1760:( 1745:( 1726:) 1722:( 1709:( 1694:) 1688:( 1670:( 1631:( 1485:( 1466:( 1426:( 1373:( 1316:( 1285:( 1212:( 1196:( 1157:( 1140:( 1123:( 1109:( 1089:( 1060:( 1023:( 999:( 981:( 967:( 953:( 938:( 901:( 883:( 861:( 842:( 799:( 686:) 682:( 609:( 589:( 587:B 557:( 555:B 462:( 377:( 375:B 355:( 319:( 303:( 276:( 259:( 226:( 192:( 54:.

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

Knowledge

talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 12 - Knowledge

Index