Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case

6364:, binding mediation is about "reaching an agreement that can be acceptable to everyone". I don't think anyone should be concerned whether I, as a party to the mediation, find a solution acceptable. The objective should be to reach an agreement that maximizes compliance with policies and guidelines whether I or anyone else likes it or not. It should be possible to demonstrate that it is a near-optimal solution based on evidence in the sources, not the happiness of the participants. Having watched this issue for years, it seems to me that it is not possible for some editors to agree to a solution that does not include the unattributed statement of fact in Knowledge's voice that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". No amount of evidence in the form of sources that present the information in ways other than a statement fact will persuade these editors that the inconsistency matters and is a policy violation. It's therefore not possible to reach "an agreement that can be acceptable to everyone" that also maximizes compliance with policies and guidelines at the moment. They are mutually exclusive and will remain so unless the behavioral issues are fixed and editors are forced to follow the rules. I can see mediation working if it had zero tolerance for various behaviors such as voicing a personal opinion on an issue rather than citing a source/repeatedly making demonstrably false statements/using original research/arguing from first principals etc and the editor was immediately removed from the mediation process. At the moment there is zero cost for behavior that disrupts the process of finding a solution that complies with policy. Until that changes so that this is only about the sources, the policies and the guidelines, I don't think mediation can resolve it. 1892:. I find this statement to be an accurate summary of just some of the improper misuse by the subject Admin of the tools and powers which have been entrusted to him by the community particularly with regard to the fair use of non-free images (as well as on several images for which I clearly owned the copyright), the Admin's routinely ignoring of community consensus, his disrespectful, and dismissive attitude toward "ordinary" editors with whom he has disagreed. I find particularly unacceptable the subject Admin's use of those tools to impose his own particular "interpretations" of WP's policies and guidelines by unilaterally deleting content clearly against consensus many of which are later reversed on appeal, altering fully protected templates without discussion as noted immediately above, and engaging in practices such as the mass removal of long standing fair use images from from articles (and the rationales from the images' host pages), and then using that as a reason to speedy delete them as "orphaned non-free" files. This Admin has also engaged in a wide variety of other similar such practices in order to "game" or subvert both the spirit and the letter of WP policies and guidelines and done so over a long period of time. 3187:

whether he responds on-wiki. We don't need to take any action immediately, because he isn't using administrator tools right now and there's no reason to believe he's about to start again soon. If, as appears, SchuminWeb has had enough of administrator duties on Knowledge, the best course might be for him to resign as an administrator. If he does wish to continue as an administrator, he needs to respond to the concerns that have been raised, but I'm willing to give him a reasonable amount of time to do it if he asks. SchumanWeb should also bear in mind that there is a lot more to editing Knowledge than administrating, and especially administrating in one notoriously contentious area, and perhaps stepping away from adminship or at least from NFCC work would allow him to recapture the more pleasant aspects of being an editor that presumably drew all of us here to begin with. In other words, he has choices here other than "arbitrate" and "retire," and I hope he will think about that. I would also like to thank many of the editors who have participated in the RfC and in this discussion, for keeping the tone much more temperate than we sometimes have seen in other cases.

1075:. Last year he started a campaign against a set of fair-use images from the Denver Public Library and some related images, beginning with a deletion in September 2011 which was overturned. Most of these images were uploaded back in 2005 by users who haven't edited in years, so it was easy to delete a lot of them simply because (a) they weren't being watched anymore, and (b) SchuminWeb often employed tactics which allowed him to delete the image before anyone knew it was marked for deletion. This campaign increasingly ran into opposition. Centpacrr got caught up in this because a lot of his articles were losing images, and he was more vocal in chasing down the FfDs and objecting. In the middle of this SchuminWeb marked a personal picture of Centpacrr for deletion, first because of a logo, but then on the grounds that someone else had been holding the camera. This elicited a lot of complaint, as did a completely unrelated fair-use deletion in which SchuminWeb closed his own deletion nomination (which was overturned). SchuminWeb then largely dropped out of Knowledge for the next month or two, ostensibly to work on his personal website. 8020:

seeking process. There is no need for either ArbCom or AE admins to get involved. As Knowledge develops so we are ensuring that various forms of disruption can be dealt with. Knowledge does have problems with content disputes, but as a community we are working on ways that we can directly solve them. I don't feel that having ArbCom - which is a last resort mechanism - stepping in at this stage is sending out the right message to support and encourage the community to continue working on solving content disputes. The Committee could have allowed the community the opportunity to resolve this - so far there have been talkpage discussions, and two failed attempt at mediation (which requires all parties to agree - something that is not always possible), but there has been no RfC. In a case like this where there is no user misconduct, and insufficient attempt to engage the Knowledge community in resolving the issue has been made, coming to ArbCom is not appropriate. It's worth revisiting

4607:

Jclemens and Courcelles are making that for an administrator repeatedly to walk away from the project when his or her actions are being criticized is not useful. Nonetheless, I would prefer to err on the side of allowing an administrator in this position some more time to be heard from before we remove the tools for good. (I think this is what the community was trying to say to us in response to our motion in the EncycloPetey case, as well.) Whether to suspend adminship pending SchuminWeb's return, or to leave it in place but direct him not to use the tools or not to use them controversially, is a fine point. On balance, I don't see a likelihood that he's going to come back and immediately start deleting things, knowing the drama that this would cause. This is the case of a dedicated long-time administrator who may have gotten carried away and burnt out, but AGF still applies; we aren't talking about Archtransit here.

1816:

or what the image represents in the article the image is used in, it meets NFCC#8". That said, I point to my statement above: FFD has normally operated on very little input with defaults to delete if there's no counterstatements to the nominator's statement that reflect policy. That itself is a problem that needs to be addressed by better notification of interested parties (as right now the only requirement for notification is the uploader, who may be long-gone as an editor). I do not believe that a NFCC discussion would be needed, given that the policy is always under some type of review, and that my perception is that the bulk of editors know what they need to provide for NFCC#8. Schumin's closure of these, outside of rapid fire closing, under NFCC policy really isn't the issue, since any other admin that regularly closes FFD would likely have closed these the same way. --

6386:

reports I've watched but it goes back to at least Archive34 and AE is currently on Archive127. What I haven't seen is evidence that complicated issues covered by ARBPIA like persistently biased editing, anything that could involve large amounts of evidence, can be handled at AE. AE hasn't dealt with issues like that for ARBPIA. It has been used to deal with technical violations/edit warring and editors who make patently disruptive edits in the topic area. If AE could deal with (and editors could be bothered to file reports about) the longer term more fuzzy behavioral issues, I don't think we would be here today. The only people who could survive in the topic area would be those who follow the rules and edit neutrally. I would like to see AE become a venue that could deal with these kind of issues but that would probably involve filing test cases (and a lot of drama).

6638:

things about the article have to change too. For example at present the infobox shows the Israeli flag of Jerusalem, Israeli emblem for Jerusalem, the mayor of Jerusalem. These would all have to be changed along with huge amounts of the article if the small number of editors got their way and had the article act as though Jerusalem is not the capital and a city in Israel. Also none of those demanding change have produced evidence that a country cannot decide its own capital, or that a capital is dependent on international recognition. The international community officially do not recognise Jerusalem as the capital (something that is made clear) but there are numerous sources showing that Jerusalem does serve as Israels capital. Some countries do not recognise the fact the state of Israel even exists, we do not seek to say it may not exist in the first article of the

3572:

in this case. Once he indicates he is willing to proceed, his admin tools will be restored; though he will be under a temporary injunction not to delete any page from the File Namespace. This injunction will expire when the case closes. The Arbitrators in office when the case resumes shall hear the matter Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within one year of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the desysop will be considered permanent, and he will only be able to gain the tools again through a fresh Request for Adminship." This would solve the immediate problem, ensure there would be no more, and yet neither presupose guilt or move the goalposts if/when the admin decides to face the case. I think this motion as proposed does improperly assume guilt, when what we have is proof there are things to be concerned about, and the

2735:@ArbCom 1: Yet another case where people are coming out of the woodwork to complain about an NFCC enforcer. NFCC is absolutely thankless work. The very few people who do it are frequently the target of personal attacks, reports to WP:AN/I, and more. Such people attract huge numbers of editors who are 'against' them. It becomes a personal issue, regardless of the policy issues. A person conducting NFCC work is, by default, wrong. In accepting this case, ArbCom is going to have to take a careful look at what actions were taken with respect to NFCC compliance. You shouldn't shy from cautioning people that their actions with respect to NFCC are wrong. Already in the statements above I am seeing linked material trying to hang SW for not adding a rationale, and instead tagging it for deletion. NFCC 6880:

solution. For example: I don't want to spend hours discussing the issue. Nableezy not being invited would also be beneficial (he declined mediation but kept on arguing on the talk page) while others could also take a step back and let those without such passion hammer it out in a more structured, concise, cooler, and objective manner. An RfC might be fine but a select group of editors already involved might fix this in mediation. Conversely, people are going to argue over this issue no matter what the wording is so maybe the status quo is perfectly fine. The article might actually be sufficient as is and the issue is primarily talk page behavior instead of how the article currently comes across to the reader. I lean towards the former since there is nothing that cannot be improved.

2760:@Arbitrators: In your 4th motion, it states "The Arbitrators in office when the case resumes shall hear the matter." This is hardly necessary. Of course you would hear it. But, you are setting yourself up for a bureaucratic headache. Because of long term problems with your lack of training for your task, you have no established procedures for handling cases that cross from one sitting ArbCom to another. As a result, a newly elected arbitrator can sit a case that was already accepted and in progress before the new arbitrator(s) took office. This motion supersedes that common (if not delineated) behavior. Should this case resume, say, late next year you are going to have bureaucratic complaints about case management. This, for a sentence that is wholly unneeded for the motion. -- 6283:

comply with our policies and guidelines. It should be easy but it has not been possible, largely it seems because the information in the sources gets convolved with editor's personal opinions on the real world issues. If the only thing that came out of this was that it stopped editors from writing their personal opinions/personal analyses based on what they think they know about the real world issue without "utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions" (to quote the discretionary sanctions) or what they think about other editors, it would be a huge leap forward. It's difficult to convey how low the signal to noise ratio is on that discussion page or how rarely people actually survey and look at how sources handle the contested status of Jerusalem.

5837:

mind. Some people are going to hold fast to their positions that their opponents are guilty of blocking or filibustering or violating some policy. Some people are going to continually misstate their opponents' positions. Some people are going to continue to respond to straw-man arguments, and insist that the straw-man arguments be defended. I did not sign up for Knowledge to be subjected to such abuse and stress, and it is a colossal waste of time, especially at this time of year, to be dodging that while discussing some text that has no importance or consequences on Knowledge, let alone in the real world, with people who care so much more about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And without any third-party observation or intervention, this will continue.

6714:

already had participants who disagree with doing so at all. It's true that it's theoretically possible for the community to force people to abide by the result through extensive policing; in practice, the community has practically never had the patience or collective attention span (and collective attention span is a really hard thing to achieve in any case) to police it well enough. Coming from the perspective of an AE admin, I would generally be unwilling to enforce in cases like this without AE rules to back me up. So if you're convinced we don't need a binding RFC at all, fine, but please don't go down this road of "we don't need a motion, the community can do it itself". That position is not grounded in the reality of what Knowledge is like.

2477:

delinking them from all of the places they appear - then claiming that they are orphaned images and speedy-deleting them before there can be informed discussion). This RfA is all about how he handles disputes about his actions. My personal issue with him wasn't about NFCC#8 at all. He demanded that the resolution of a fair-use image be reduced and then ignored the near-unanimous agreement that (a) that didn't need to be done, (b) that it would utterly destroy the article in which the image was used if it were to be resized and (c) he'd completely misunderstood the copyright status of the image. He simply wouldn't engage in discussion - deleting the image, refusing point blank to restore it and saying things like: "

4414:

indicates he is willing to proceed, his admin tools will be restored; though he will be under a temporary injunction not to delete any page from the File Namespace. This injunction will expire when the case closes. The Arbitrators in office when the case resumes shall hear the matter. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within six months of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the desysop will be considered permanent, and he will only be able to gain the tools again through a fresh Request for Adminship. If at any time before six months from this motion passing SchuminWeb submits and passes a new RFA, this matter shall be considered dismissed without further action.

6335:

the people there who actually does what they are supposed to do, surveys them and cites them in discussions. Of course I know that there are sources that say Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Of course NMMNG knows that I know this because I have explicitly acknowledged it on several occasions and I have told him many times that there is diversity in the sources and that we have to deal with the mess. And NMMNG should know by now that I never pretend about anything. There is no possible justification for this kind of misrepresentation, no one should have to deal with it. It needs to stop. Is the example I gave above dismissive of the views expressed by the editor

2004:@Hammersoft Please note that most of the Statements posted in this RfA have much less to do with NFCC itself, and are much more about the subject Admin's long standing patterns of incivility and intemperate language in dealing with the community, episodes of retaliative Wikistalking against editors with which he had disagreements, ignoring consensus, employing subterfuge and inappropriate techniques to "game" the system, unilaterally and surreptitiously altering protected templates without discussion, failing to respond to process or the questions of others about his administrative actions, and a variety of other violations of the spirit and letter of 1790:

as we really should have more input, which I'm trying to figure out how to address by a slight change in FFD nominating practice). The nom gives a policy reason, the two others do not, and because we're talking NFC policy where we usually default to delete if we can't prove the image meets NFC, the deletions were generally appropriate. The ones that were subsequently individually challenged sometimes did, sometimes didn't, have more discussion and Schumin should have closed those no consensus (hence the trout for doing this too fast). But of about 260 others, Schumin had every reason and support from previous FFDs to close those as he did.

2780:

their admin conduct, for any reason whatsoever. Temporary desysop (to keep those demanding action at bay, and to prevent gaming the system), option for editor to resume editing as a non-admin (without asking permission or admitting guilt), option for editor to reopen the case to regain sysop tools (if they change their mind, or if whatever was preventing them from participating goes away), conversion to permanent desysop in a year (for finality), no presumption of guilt (for fairness), option of a new RFA, no need for committee and involved parties to wait in limbo while editor chooses whether or not to respond ... all of that is

6312:. Why is it problematic ? It ignores countless sources that present Israel's claim that Jerusalem (complete and united) is their capital as a claim, rather than presenting it as a statement of fact. The statement is predicated on the editor's personal view that it is a fact that "Jerusalem is israel's dejure and defacto capital", and it is that belief, not the data in the sources, that is used to make content decisions. Also, no one wants "to pretend that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel". The issue is, as always, presenting a disputed claim as a unattributed statement of fact using Knowledge's narrative voice. 4378:

administrator (as no judgement has been made to remove the tools). Considering he was not available to answer the case, we do not want them using the tools without first going through the case to determine whether the mistakes they made warrant removal of administrative tools. Basically, we're not saying that a removal is warranted, nor are we saying it's unwarranted, but solely that there is enough questions whether removal of the tools is warranted we do not wish them to use the tools until first going through with us. And if they don't answer, then we remove them as we cannot leave these cases upon indefinitely.

2461:- a situation where the resolution of a test image was under debate, SchuminWeb acted in a very high-handed manner - eventually going against a unanimous "strong keep" decision from a significant number of experienced editors who were well-versed in the subject matter and using his admin powers to reverse the strongest consensus I've seen in years - and in such a manner that no non-admin could fix up the resulting mess. This feels to me like admin-burnout. Sadly (because I'm sure SchuminWeb has done great work in the past), I think it's time for him to hang up his spurs, hand over his badge and retire gracefully. 7162:

held their own auditions and applied for mediation in the normal way (e.g. to formulate an RfC question). I don't think there would be any clear benefit to ArbCom assuming this role. The risk, on the other hand, is that disputants may decide not to respect the outcome, on the grounds that ArbCom chose badly. For the Muhammad RfC, the in-advance/when-the-time-comes issue was decided (by disputants) in favour of the former, so that editors would not be able to bypass the RfC and instead appeal directly to the closers. The decision here might be different, but I think it should not be a matter for ArbCom.

6779:), however I note that preference seems to be leaning towards holding a binding RFC as opposed to some other form of binding resolution (like mediation). If I could offer my thoughts on the matter, binding RFCs have been used now and then on Knowledge, with varying results. Some have success and bring peace, others are hopeless failures. Sometimes this is because the issue is so bitter that reconcilliation between editors is impossible, and the period in which an RFCs result is binding serves only as a brief ceasefire in a bitter war. In other situations (like the 1620:: The case is already accepted, and all further needed information should be provided when it begins. There is no need to keep expanding your statement in this moment, as it will look like you have a great personal interest in the matter. What needs to be done, will be done, and what doesn't need to be done, won't. Arbitrators have already expressed their willingness to suspend SW's administrative tools as a preventative measure until the case is started, so my opinion is that no more additional information is needed by now. I may be incorrect, of course. — 4392:@ Davewild: while pending and suspend come originally from the same root, they are not synonyms. As far as the policy provision is concerned, it is sometimes helpful to look at the intention as well as the wording. The objective of the policy provision was to provide continuity during the transition from one year's committee to the next and and to prevent the disruption that would result from half of the committee changing in the middle of the workshop or midway through voting on an intricate proposed decision. Neither of those circumstances apply here ;) 6206:

the issue, the Arbcom will be able to say who is working in the global spirit of our wikipedia rules and who does not and it will be able to take a decision based on concrete facts. Doing so, we move forward, we don't need to dig the history of the articles and the discussions to prove this one or that one is the bad guy. We could even find a solution by ourselves because everybody knows that the Arbcom will just look at us. That is also a good opportunity to synthetize all arguments and refresh the discussions. And all in all, it is the more constructive.

3661:

opportunity to provide an explanation of his actions: he has; he's chosen to not do so, inasmuch as he spent several minutes redirecting talk page archives and such when he could have been typing even the most cursory of response. Furthermore, yes, the simple and straightforward motion does presume guilt: not guilt of any case-related conduct he's been accused of, but the straightforward and essentially incontrovertable "guilt" of failing to make any effort to respond. That failure is already covered in policy at

2603:

This attitude is toxic, particularly in one with Admin powers. Let me take this opportunity to thank all NFCC workers who quietly improve the quality of Knowledge by their unabusive hard work. This does not extend to those who see their Admin powers as an opportunity to experience the joy of vendetta, the joy of destroying, just because they can, the hard work of experienced editors who are also attempting to improve Knowledge, and who are not bugs that need to be swatted. Let me ask Hammersoft if, after reading

2746:. ArbCom, your 'solution' has always been to take out the person being attacked, rather than looking at the attackers. With respect, I don't think ArbCom has the wherewithal to avoid doing anything other than taking out the subject rather than truly looking at the behavior of all parties involved. You complain of not having enough time, ignore the workshop and evidence pages (at least some of you do), and put out fires by removing what is on fire, rather than looking at the real problems. I hope for better. -- 6751:@SilkTork nooooo. Having been in a similar boat many years ago, a binding RFC is what is needed, and is what the committee can do here. Otherwise, there is nothing binding about the RFC if parties do not agree to it. But why would I think that they wouldn't agree to it? Because they didn't agree to mediation, for the exact same reason: what if they lose? Then they have to forfeit the right to argue endlessly and continue disrupting the subject area in the process, while trying to get what they want. -- 2078:"SchuminWeb's conduct as an administrator is so concerning that we have accepted the arbitration request; it is quite unthinkable to decide it is appropriate that, upon our realising he will not respond to the arbitration case, we should leave his administrator tools alone. Without prejudging the outcome of the arbitration, nor wishing to treat SchuminWeb unkindly, I merely consider it sensible that we desysop this administrator until he is ready to engage in the arbitration process." 3036:

email, that notification may also fall on deaf ears. Regardless, the RFC does appear to document a number of long-lasting concerns that do merit further investigation. I'll withhold voting on acceptance until the end of the week to give Schumin time to respond, but I agree with Risker - if his inactivity does continue, my intention will be to vote to accept the case and support a temporary injunction desysopping Schumin and suspending the case until he should return to the project.

7930:

Knowledge, so the need diminishes to have a restricted and exclusive system such as ArbCom. I wish to encourage that, and in general I feel that the current Committee has also supported that view. Where the community can set up an RfC themselves I find it inappropriate for the Committee to set up a formal motion asking them to do that. More appropriate for us to simply reject this request with a note that the people involved can set up a RfC - which is what we normally do.

1519:

procedure for the deletion, and discussion of deletion, of images (and non-free content in general). This is not a new behaviour recently spotted from SchuminWeb; previous issues out of his behaviour have been appointed in the last 5 years, starting from his very request for adminship in 2007, when one of the opposers stated that he'd "be worried that his actions as an admin would be more about him than the encyclopaedia", which has been demonstrated by his actions. —

6258:: I may be right or I may be wrong in considering that contributors refuse to move forward constructively and WP:GAME the system. We can comply to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF strictly but then nothing will evolve and this talk page will remain a WP:BATTLEFIELD (or a multi-players on-line game, whichever is the less childish). According to your point of view, how can we manage this contracdiction ? What community's principles give an answer to such a situation ? 6818:@ArbCom, my experience with the I/P articles is that people are reluctant to get involved because of the environment that exists in the topic area. The other thing I note is that the arbitration motion directs the community to set up the process, which in the past has had varying results. An RFC format is too free-form for a dispute of this nature. I think that mediation should be used to develop alternate proposed lede sections, like in the 1900:, a completely meaningless claim. Even if that were true (which is wasn't), that does not in any way constitute "vandalism" (which is defined as "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Knowledge such as by adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense") and is a very serious charge and violation of assuming good faith for any editor to make, and 5670:

and I'm sure I'm not alone in this -- am worried that if a compromise is struck again, there is no guarantee, without a third-party observer, that the editors involved in this discussion will drop it for good. I'm not confident an arbitration case will end this matter either, and I'm sure this time of the year and the ArbCom calendar is not ideal, but we need to try and I urge the Arbitration Committee to consider this case. --

1514:

like Web's behaviour when heavily confronted because of his questionable actions is to take an unannounced wikibreak, and return when things have calmed down to avoid any procedure to take effect against him in a preventative way. There is a clear concern by a considerable part of the community about the way he uses personal preferences over policy when it comes to delete images. As Mangoe states in the RFC, seems like Web's

2679:

having addressed any concerns at all; this seems to have been a tactic used in the past and I have no reason to believe that he will come back with any change in attitude or approach; his past history would indicate the opposite will occur. Recommend removing admin bits under a cloud, forcing a new Rfa. We are not hard up enough for admins that we need accept this type of deafness to community concerns. One puppy's opinion.

2900: 6110:

significant uninvolved input in this topic area? What do you think the chances are that this ends in anything other than a "no consensus" result? Is a "no consensus" result binding for 3 years? If so, does that mean that the current wording is enshrined for 3 years? If not, where would we be other than right back here? How would the RFC question be formulated? Why not binding mediation instead of a binding RFC?

6606:

with arbitration and not the wider problem. Firstly we have in recent months seen a number of attempts to change the article, some of which have not been specific proposals, merely the fact some editors believe the current article introduction is wrong. There have been clear opposition to proposals and more editors times seem to support the current wording than any change, let alone a specific change.

3284:, with a view to then 1) indefinitely suspending the case (until the respondent returns to Knowledge), and 2) desysopping SW until he answers the community's concerns and the arbitration case against him. I echo Roger's suggestion to SchuminWeb that he contact the committee if he is reading this page but is merely too burned-out to respond to this request. I would never have us hear this case 2235:

we have two choices: we can either give in to the hordes that insist on decorating Knowledge with screenshots, or we can figure out how to be more supportive of admins that wind up in his situation. I think there's a case here, but the case needs to be determining a way to help the SchuminWebs in our admin corps, not simply allowing the horde to smother an opponent by sheer weight of numbers.—

1677:- I say remove his advanced permissions immediately - his lack of communication and effort to explain his edits which as an admin he has a responsibility to do are damning = deysop - I will add that I agree completely with his cautious interpretation of the wikipedia foundations copyright and non free use statements but he needs to comment to defend them and his admin actions here. 1642:: Although not needed, I'd like to express my satisfaction with the passing motion. It prevents SchuminWeb from performing any administrative action until this matter is solved, and sets a limit of three months for a desysopping in case he is really retired from the encyclopedia. I agree that an immediate desysopping may be too fast, and these restrictions, although acting as a 4120:

administrative tools, the case will be closed and no further action taken. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within three months of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the account will be desysopped. If the tools are resigned or removed in either of the circumstances described above, restoration of the tools to SchuminWeb will require a

1896:

created, otherwise owned the copyright, or were clearly in PD) and challenged most of them on a variety of specious grounds resulting in the necessity to waste large amounts of time to defend them. In the course of this "campaign" against my image file contributions this Admin also gratuitously accused me of "vandalism" on the completely unsupported grounds that I was

3062:, and I likely will propose a temporary injunction of some sort either removing his admin rights entirely, or barring him from making use of them, until he participates in the case. If he does indeed retire, then regrettable that we've lost an editor but the issue at hand is resolved. If he does return, then the issue of his admin rights can be resolved then. 3251:, and look toward suspending SchuminWeb's access to administrative tools until the case. This is non-prejudicial to the handling of the case, but instead its a way to make sure that no furtherpossibly disputed actions can take place until they come back to handle the case. If they are indeed retiring, we could make it permanent, but we'll see how events go. 2743:@ArbCom 2: Yet another case going as far back in the past as possible to dredge up as much crap as possible that incriminates the target of an RFAR. Whether SW is in the right or wrong is pretty irrelevant. Enough crap, and you can bring someone down. SW, in his last note before (hours later) wiping everything and retiring, noted this problem 2426:

they establish this sitewide policy but then foist it on their volunteers to deal with its enforcement and the abuse that comes with it. I tried to enforce NFCC once and got crapped on. I'm never doing it again, not until the Foundation steps up and defends the policy itself, at the very least by defending those who enforce it.

1115:

judges and often supervote. In his case (and again, he isn't the only one) he treated challenges to his judgement with contempt, and when confronted with the problems in behaving this way, he turned around and did it again. NFCC may be a chore, but is not a crusade against stupid uploaders, and that's the way it came across.

1729:, and I filed edit requests for the protected templates that SchuminWeb made this edit on, but I'm somewhat disappointed that no admin has stepped up to undo those edits - after all, with no discussion or consensus behind them, these are the personal edits of SchuminWeb, and it doesn't seem at all reasonable for him to make 3646:

urgency given that he is not editing (let alone dministrating), although I agree that at some point some action would be required. I don't see the end-of-year changeover in arbitrators as a relevant factor; this is not a sprawling, long-term case that it would be unfair to expect new arbitrators to enter in the middle of.

6855:

would be willing to do so. I am not asking ArbCom to order mediation, but if the only option is a bad one (and I rarely talk out against ArbCom, but I only do so in this instance because I feel that throwing this dispute into an RFC in the deep end would be a bad idea) - then it should be passed back to the community.

6700:

result of such a process would be honoured. The naming of Macedonia-related articles was dealt with by an RFC mandated by the committee itself and has as such been clearly enforceable. Leaving it to the community to sort it out without ArbCom's authority tends to lead to more and more discussion with no results.

7042:" determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent 'basic law' on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith." 5718:", "racist", and "hatikvah brigade" (to say nothing of the standard "Israeli POV-pushers") have been thrown around recently. A second notable issue is that Dailycare is now arguing against the current wording, saying that cannot have consensus because it's not supported by policy-based reasons -- despite 5616:

months, the issue has been rekindled with a fire and desperation like never before. While there have been more than ninety threads on this matter, at least four RfCs, and at least two attempts at mediation (both rejected, including one rejected just this month), we have been left with zero ends in sight.

7279:

There is a good point below -- is there enough misconduct to justify the time spent on a case, or can we get to the point quicker, and where a case would surely end up, by ordering a binding RFC by motion as we have done in cases with similar problems in the past? (Abortion, Ireland, Muhammad Images,

7161:

Noting the suggestion that RfC closers should be appointed in advance. I don't strongly mind if this happens, but in past successful binding RfCs (e.g. VnT, Muhammad), these details have been left to disputants and have not been imposed by anyone. Editors have put out their own "adverts" for closers,

5991:

because it will never happen. The unreliability and poor quality of articles on the Arab-israeli conflict will be a permanent feature of wikipedia for decades to come. As long as prominent notices alert the reader to the manipulations of the more active/effective side (currently Israeli nationalists)

5836:

I really don't give a shit anymore. When whatever process or medium is set up to resolve this issue once and for all, feel free to ping me and I will provide my input as appropriate. But, until then, I have no interest in the proceedings here and on the talk page. No one is going to change his or her

5813:

Once again regarding the binding RfC: If you all are going to leave this with suggesting a binding RfC, can one of you at least provide the framework for it? Perhaps a small group of administrators could be charged with unanimously agreeing on its conclusion and paying attention to it to some extent?

3571:

Here's what I'd rather pass: "The request for arbitration filed on 17 December 2012 concerning SchuminWeb is accepted. As he is not actively editing, the case will be held pending his return to active editing. SchuminWeb's admin tools are removed until he returns to editing and agrees to participate

3206:, which would remain in place until the conclusion of the RfC. If, at the end of the RfC the community feel they still have confidence in SchuminWeb, the temporary desyopping is reversed; if the community feel they do not have confidence in SchuminWeb we hold a motion to make it a formal desysopping. 3138:

the case, based on the RfC, and suspend it. That gives SchuminWeb the opportunity to take a break from editing and adminning and, as NYB says, decide how he feels about things. If he decides to return having had a break, we can look at the matter more thoroughly at that point. If there is a desire in

3001:

I have asked that a clerk ensure SchuminWeb is notified of this RFAR via email as well as the notice that has been placed on his talk page. I would hope that he responds within a few days. If not, I think the Committee may consider a temporary desysop until such time as SchuminWeb returns to address

2815:

I think a full Arbitration case is not needed here. I think instead that a motion to desysop until the user returns and is prepared to participate in some forum of dispute resolution in good faith is all that is needed. The tools can be promptly, prior to DR, but on the condition of participation.

2602:

Response to "uninvolved Hammersoft": You use the phrase "Yet another case where people are coming out of the woodwork", a phrase used by SW as well to characterize anyone objecting to his abuse of Admin powers, as if anyone objecting to such abuse is some sort of destructive infestation of Knowledge.

2548:

When the AN/ANI report was active I sent a gentle, friendly e-mail to SchuminWeb that really just recommend he show up at that report say "Hmm...I may have made an error, I'll make sure it doesn't happen again; sorry". The angry reply e-mail accusing me and other admins of circling the wagons showed

2221:

I closed the DRV related to SchuminWeb's mass deletion. I'm not aware of any previous interactions with him, although undoubtedly there are some trivial ones. This looks to me to be a problem that all admins face, and I'm well aware of how difficult it can be to deal with. The NFCC criteria represent

2120:

been demonstrated as undisputed that the subject Admin has both a documented previous history of disappearing periodically when complaints about his stewardship of WP's administrative tools got too hot, and that he has utterly refused to participate in this current process both during the earlier RfC

1815:

Our en.wiki NFCC policy has had #8 prior to the Foundation Resolution, and in fact the Foundation used our NFCC as an example of an appropriate EDP. Yes, #8 is the most subjective of the NFCC clauses, but most editors basically have come to understand that "if there is sourced discussion of the image

1789:

I do want to point out that when one steps away from the mass closure, the individual closes that SchuminWeb did followed normal practice at FFD for most of the images given. That is, they only has 2-3 !votes, one from the nominator and a couple others - this is typical of FFD (and a possible issue,

1188:

The alternative possibility, that SchuminWeb has been driven away because he is unwilling to face his accusers because he finds questions about his use of the tools stressful, is incompatible with being an admin on Knowledge. Answering questions about your tool use is not optional, so this too leads

1180:

I do not recall ever being in conflict with SchuminWeb. I am not here to raise a beef with him. My position is simply that the community has expressed concerns about SchuminWeb's use of the admin tools, and admins must answer such concerns when they are raised. They should not be permitted to hide

1154:

The broad nature of the support behind the concerns raised at the RFC makes this request even more weighty and deserving of the Committee's attention. While I know the Committee has in the past declined to hear cases regarding a party in absentia, I agree with TParis' point at the RFC that permitting

7856:

I've given this a lot of thought, and I think this is the best solution. Ideally, mediation would have netted a good result, but I hold out little hope of successful mediation given the entrenched positions involved; further, I think it is far outside of our scope to pressure MedCom to accept a case

6675:

Second, arbitrator SirFozzie has suggested "binding arbitration" as a solution. I would strongly support such an approach if one existed. But, as far as I know, there is no such thing as binding arbitration (am I wrong?). The latest attempt at arbitration failed because not all the parties agreed to

6671:

First, editors and arbitrators who are looking for a permanent solution to this problem should be disabused: there is no permanent solution, because the situation is not permanent. The political forces affecting Jerusalem's status are constantly changing, and the article should reflect that. What we

6334:

Thank you NMMNG, that is another example of a behavioral issue, misrepresentation, NMMNG saying that I am "pretending the people they disagree with do not base their views on reliable sources, which is patently false and obviously dismissive." Of course I know what the sources say because I'm one of

6109:

I dont know if any of the arbs are reading this or not, or anything else, but in the hopes that you are could I ask that you play this out and answer a few questions? What brief, neutral statement could possibly exist that would summarize this dispute? What do you think the chances of an RFC getting

5866:

I support this request for arbitration. We've been to formal mediation twice (or, more exactly, twice the formal mediation didn't go ahead due to incomplete assent). Overall editors have been discussing the issue for years with RFCs and threads. Progress in content has been glacial to put it gently,

5747:

Some pointers that would clear the air. Do the user conduct issues have weight? Is there "blocking"? Are some people breaking a compromise? What does a compromise mean? I understand ArbCom doesn't rule on content, but I would hope that you could rule on the framework that would allow this dispute to

4078:

I can accept this approach in principle, but I think that a year is too long. We must be respectful of the (perhaps temporary, perhaps not) disaffection of the administrator whose conduct has been challenged, but we must also be fair to others who would participate in the case if it proceeds. To ask

3686:

The accepted case will be suspended pending SchuminWeb's return to editing. Schumin is instructed not to use his administrator tools to close deletion discussions until the closure of the case; doing so, or failure to engage with the case upon return, will be grounds for removal of his administrator

3645:

It seems to me that the appropriate next step is for someone to reach out privately to SchuminWeb and ask if whether, in light of his announced retirement, he is prepared to resign his adminship. I believe we should allow a few days for this to happen before formally voting on motions, as there's no

3340:

that a case was in process; since that case had been set to open based on arbitrator votes and elapsed time since such votes had been made; and that accepting a case and suspending it indefinitely over the end of the year creates a situation where the arbitrators hearing the resumed case will differ

3163:

Note, I would not support a motion to remove sysop as an emergency measure, as I see no grounds for doing so while SchuminWeb is not editing and has stated publically that he intends to leave the project. I think if he returned to editing without addressing this matter, that would be grounds for an

3082:

I have no doubt that SW will become aware of this Arb request sooner or later, but he also hasn't been editing since the RfC. While we have proceeded with cases when it was perceived the absence was deliberate to avoid scrutiny or they had stalled proceedings as long as possible, I don't think we've

2852:

The Arbitration policy says "An arbitrator whose term expires while a case is pending may remain active on that case until its conclusion". If motion 3 passes, as it seems likely to, will arbitrators whose terms end in a few days be able to take part in the case if SchuminWeb returns in say 2 months

2779:

While I have no opinion on the specific case here, I'm commenting because it reminded me of a recent similar case I was involved in. I think Courcelles' proposal should be the template you use in the future whenever an admin chooses not to, or is not able to, participate in an ArbCom case regarding

2443:

As a project we are dreadful at supporting users who are burning out and the usual reaction to users whose actions show evidence of burnout is to reach for the pitchforks and flaming torches. I'm sure I said this at an earler RFAR several years ago but it appears that we have learned nothing in the

2305:

This point, raised at several FFD discussions, and proven, was not replied to by Schuminweb prior to closing. To me, this is a red flag. Whether closed "blind" or "read and ignored", I consider this to be breaking faith, and admins just shouldn't do it. I did not expect 272 comments, just (perhaps)

2249:

To be clear, I think SchuminWeb is probably a lost cause. I would strongly object to using this discussion as a platform for undermining NFCC#8, though, and I don't think Arbcom has the right to do so. What we need is a mechanism to deal with the situations where we have large clusters of users that

2234:

violations a day we wouldn't be done for several months. Since SchuminWeb is one of the few that tries, he gets abused and constantly dragged to DRV. After a while, he's faced with two choices: stop working, or stop responding to what has become a chronic source of irritation and annoyance. In turn,

1785:

I've been involved in the post discussion on the validity of the FFD closings in the DRV and subsequent ANI thread and on KWW's talk page (who closed the DRV), and do agree some trouting of SchuminWeb was needed for what seemed to be blind closing of all of those. (this being unaware of any previous

1216:

There's discussion below about NFCC#8 and what constitutes normal practice at FFD. The correct venue for discussing SchuminWeb's actions in this specific case is deletion review. The correct venue for a broader discussion about whether NFCC#8 is appropriately phrased or how it should be dealt with

7929:

I can't speak for the person who opened this case request, though I have noticed that sometimes people request ArbCom assistance earlier than unnecessary. As the community develops dispute resolution procedures which are open to all and can be managed in the open, collegiate manner which epitomizes

7891:

The community should not be asked or directed by ArbCom - particularly in regard to content matters. The community are quite capable of opening a RfC by themselves. I have already offered to assist in closing an RfC as an independent admin, but I feel it would be inappropriate for me to do so if it

7189:

Sent by me to the clerks' mailing list, a moment ago: "Dear clerks, You will notice that it is now mathematically impossible for the Jerusalem RFAR to be accepted. However, an arbcom-l thread regarding this case request is pending, and we are waiting to hear back from one arbitrator on a particular

6879:

The talk page has obviously failed. Editors are filibustering to the point that it is almost as disruptive as edit warring and it appears that no one wants to budge out of fear of hurting their cause. As mentioned on the talk page, a request for mediation with certain parties not invited could be a

6854:

case, the case closed at the end of November 2011, but wasn't opened until the end of February, after being set up by yours truly. The wording of the proposed motion below asks the community to set up and hold an RFC on the issue. But given the nature of the dispute, I have to wonder whether anyone

6679:

Nishidani and others are right that this case is outside the formal purview of the arbitration committee. I would suggest, however, that this is a time for you to take a bold step, live by the spirit of the fifth pillar, ignore all rules, and accept this case. To do otherwise would be to admit that

6637:

So theres no case based on Knowledge policies, and no case based on sources for the change they propose. Also there is a third problem that is often overlooked. If we are to change the article to pretend that Jerusalem is not the defacto and dejure capital of Israel (and in Israel), then many other

6617:

Certain editors are insistent that the article introduction be changed to treat Palestine and Israels current situation in regards Jerusalem as entirely equal. That is not the case, and if we tried to treat them as equal it would be giving clear undue weight to the Palestinian POV. Jerusalem is the

6613:

The other two problems are content issues. The current wording is neutral and balanced. It states that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel but that this is not internationally recognised. That is accurate and balanced, and was a significant change prior to two years ago when the introduction did not

6609:

Those of us supporting the status quo (which was based on the compromise agreed around two years ago) have on a number of occasions been accused of breaking the rules or doing something wrong, merely for supporting the status quo. So one thing Arbcom could probably help with is reinforcing the fact

6416:

Writing that recent discussions have been 'rekindled with a fire and desperation like never before', is hyperbole, and would appear hysterical were it not from the fact that that is not Tariq's style. Very level headed people (not myself) have honestly tried to work out a compromise and met a stone

6237:

At least 3 arbitrators suggest a '(binding) RfC' closed by a designed independant editor/admin. This was tried in the past and suggested that 3 admins close such RfC. But the contributors could never be found. Given they are not involved and it seems there is a a least consensus to refer to ArbCom,

6205:

I would propose the following to the ArbCom. Don't analyse the past but let's see the good will of contributors to solve this "under the eyes of the ArbComs". Let's create a page of discussion where a few contributors will intervene and let's see how it moves forward. If we don't succeed in solving

5948:

says this). In this sense if editors just show up to say no, they couldn't force a "no consensus" result. The edits could even be done in rounds, so that each editor can contribute one comment in "round one", which is then followed by "round two" and "round three". This may in fact sound a bit like

4152:

A further alternative introducing a shorter (three-month) period than that proposed above. It also extends the prohibition on tool use to all areas; this really is the best interests both of the community and SchuminWeb; any tool use is bound to become a major source of unpleasant drama. Other than

3536:

Desysopping without the case and without a pressing emergency feels too much like judgement before a hearing. If Schumin is not editing, there's no threat of tool misuse. I will post an alternate motion tonight; while I think the issue of new vs. old admins is a difficult one to foresee, I think we

3509:

SchuminWeb fails to communicate with the committee, his administrative tools will be temporarily withdrawn on 6th January 2013, pending a hearing of this case upon his return to editing. If the committee hears nothing by 20th January 2013, the temporary removal of the tools will be become permanent

3186:

Hold for now and await a statement from SchuminWeb, per my colleagues' comments above. It appears there are ample grounds presented for an arbitration case. Given that SchuminWeb has now confirmed (via Twitter) that he is aware of the request for arbitration, we can afford to wait a few days to see

2479:

To restore that image requires an administrator to do since it involves deletion. No administrator with a healthy understanding of WP:NFCC would be willing to do so. In short: it is against WP:NFCC to have the larger image. So please do not ask me again about restoring the image, because it will

2390:

This situation is probably better handled through a motion to desysop ShuminWeb pending his response, as opposed to a full case. The question is not whether his deletions are in violation of policy, which is debatable in itself — it's the fact that he doesn't always communicate with people when his

1895:

After my interactions with this Admin in the Fall of 2011 over several the fair use Perry railroad images in which some of his deletions and other actions were reversed, in apparent retaliation he then systematically went through all of the images which I had uploaded over time (most of which I had

1245:

If SchuminWeb has really retired then desysopping him does him no harm. If he has not, then ArbCom's unwillingness to desysop would harm the community. Removing the tools should be described as a technical measure designed to ensure that this user engages with community concerns if he comes back,

1114:

The big problem is that the subjectivity of NFCC#8 is being ignored. What it should mean is that disputes about whether it is being satisfied need to be addressed in a discussion whose consensus should prevail. What's happening instead is that admins like ShuminWeb have appointed themselves supreme

1067:

in which SchuminWeb did not participate. This is not atypical, as in the RfC various people pointed out how he was wont to delete requests to reconsider his decisions by saying "take it to DRV." The DRV upheld his deletions, but it also raised awareness of his behavior a lot. Thus, when the RfC was

7398:

What specific allegations of misconduct are you making? Tariq's initial statement mentions a number of different accusations made by a number of people towards a number of people, but doesn't seem to make any claims of his own. Dailycare's also alleges misconduct, but not by any specific user, and

7214:

I wish to point out, that the initial question of this subject was the both part of this sentence. Those two parts namely "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" and "although not internationally recognized as such" were equally but separately viewed as they are already balanced. Numerous sources are

6732:

I've been thinking about the same thing for days, and Heimstern beat me to it. What makes the binding RFC binding is ArbCom's say-so. Otherwise, one of the parties won't agree to it just as they wouldn't agree to the mediation, and the whole thing will be a wash. You need at least a motion for it.

6645:

So again, im not convinced arbitration is the right way forward, but if there was a ruling that editors are entitled to oppose proposals and support the status quo, it would at least help bring to an end some of the dismissive tones by those demanding the change, as though we have no right to take

6605:

I am not convinced that Arbitration on this matter is the right way forward although i agree with a lot of what Tariqabjotu has said. There are three primary problems at present it seems to me and as Arbcom does not usually rule on content matters only one aspect of the situation might be resolved

6569:

We have Dailycare, who agreed to the current wording as a compromise only to come back later, challenge it, POV tag it, change it while declaring he has "consensus by default" because whoever doesn't agree with him is part of the "hatikva brigade" and their views are not valid. Now he pretends the

6018:

I dont honestly see what an ArbCom case would do to resolve this issue. There hasnt been any edit-warring, or at least nothing on the scale as to require a case to resolve, and while the talk page may be a bit uncomfortable it hasnt reached a point that the standard discretionary sanctions couldnt

5998:

The bad acting partisans are intelligent calculating and don't give a hoot about wikipedia and are acting based on nationalistic motivations. So the realistic energy-optimal strategy towards them is not confrontation or arbitration but containment. Anyone who thinks the interests of their precious

5840:

MedCom rejected this issue. ArbCom has rejected it. Some aren't even sure this needs some direction. I'm sorry, but if that's the way the Knowledge community feels about this, if a hundred threads over nine years, with the current talk page containing more than 500KB of heated text from at least a

5814:

Perhaps you could dictate where and how the RfC is advertised (if at all) to gain a broad section of the community? Binding RfCs don't generally come organically (especially as very little is truly "binding" around here) and, as you've seen, seemingly permanent resolutions have not really held. --

5669:

So I'm calling the bluff, requesting that these accusations (and any other issues) be considered. Unaddressed, any sort of resolution is impossible, as it is impossible to discuss with people who believe your every word is in bad faith and intended to push a point of view. Further, I personally --

5644:

Unsurprisingly, this has fostered an environment in which the improbable has been rendered impossible. Several people from both sides (myself included) have said that even attempting to discuss this matter with one or more adversaries is a waste of time. A few editors have stated that there are no

3665:

and in my opinion provides a sufficient base for returning the decision about SchuminWeb's future admin status to the community, via the RfA mechanism. The oppose votes and alternative motions tacitly reward administrator failure to respond to legitimate complaints, in a manner not necessitated by

3201:

The community are dealing with this appropriately; however, there is an incomplete RfC on hold because SchuminWeb is absent. An ArbCom case should also be put on hold as he would not be able to appropriately explain his actions, therefore I don't feel opening a case would be a suitable option. The

2833:

Just a note re: Motion #3: Courcelles, I do not read that as giving the crats authority to desysop him if he makes an admin action. It says if he makes an admin action it will be grounds for desysopping. Arbcom is the one who would determine if such a violation warrants desysopping; not the crats.

2678:

on ANI, in which IDHT was the response. The issue is the same as in the Rfc; high-handed admin action, and hostility to all who have concerns, which he then later buried. I have grave concerns about allowing this admin to "retire" and be able to come back to Knowledge with the bits intact, without

2476:

The issue here isn't so much that SW removes images that shouldn't be removed - sure, that can happen, everyone is human. It's his failure to respond to serious debate about whether they should have been removed and the way that the underhanded ways that he sometimes employs to remove them (eg by

1948:

desysopping issue relating to the subject Admin's long term unacceptable behaviors (including ignoring consensus, "gaming" the system, high handed and dismissive treatment of anyone who disagreed with his actions, and refusal to be accountable to the community) in clear violation of the tenants of

1701:

Doing an entirely unrelated task, I've just discovered that on November 19th SchuminWeb, without any consensus discussion that I can find, changed the wording on every "Non-free" template so that they no longer required an "Appopriate rationale" but instead a "Complete rationale". To do this on a

1192:

However, the desysopping should not be understood as a punishment. SchuminWeb is entitled to answer the accusations that have been made against him before we reach any conclusions. Rather than a punishment, the desysopping I propose should be understood as a technical measure designed to prevent

7838:

In reply to the suggestion that we order mediation or binding mediation: I have deep reservations about the "binding mediation" system, which has never helped to resolve a dispute, and I am opposed to compelling the Mediation Committee to mediate a dispute that they have already decided would not

7618:

must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator,

7499:

as this is a content dispute (which is now spilling out onto this case request), and such a dispute is best sorted via a RfC where it is agreed at the start that it will be closed by a named independent admin, and that the outcome will be binding on all users, and can only be changed by a further

7484:

I'd like the parties to answer whether they think a binding RfC would be a good venue to attempt a more enforced compromise. As mentioned in the statements, this is a relatively "simple" question in terms of the actual content that is the source of the dispute--and ArbCom wouldn't and couldn't be

6794:

I agree with what Nableezy said about a binding RFC being a bad idea. This situation seems to be too entrenched for anything except a split vote to occur, with minimal community input due to the contentious nature of the dispute, ending with a result of no consensus. Binding mediation has no real

6699:

Arbs who are suggesting a binding RFC or mediation, are you going to make a motion mandating one? If not, I can't see how this is going to happen. Number one, there's no guarantee the parties will make an agreement to such a method, and number two, without ArbCom's stamp, there's no guarantee the

5615:

explaining the controversy. In October 2010, a (further?) compromise was struck that called for noting immediately after the contested point that Jerusalem's status as capital is not widely recognized. While that seemed to maintain calm for the better part of both 2011 and 2012, over the past few

4097:

Would six months be a decent compromise? I definitely see your point on being fair to all parties, and that's what the motion is an attempt at. The time period is an absolute outside limit, but I don't know if Schumin is more or less likely to come back in X months after he's spent Y months away.

4038:

Should SchuminWeb resign his administrative tools, the case will be closed and no further action taken. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within one year of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the account will be desysopped. In either event, restoration of the

2660:

In October of 2011, I had my one and only encounter with SchuminWeb; in that encounter he was high-handed, dismissive, insulting, and generally obnoxious to the several admins and editors (myself as one) who tried to discuss an action of his, which was within the letter of the law, I suppose, but

2627:

Masem is right about the individual deletions; in most part they are generally correct; people forget that deletions at FFD default to delete, not keep, if the case for their free use can't be proved and they don't pass NFCC. Apart from that, I think Spartaz and Heimstern said it best. I spent a

2606:

and really UNDERSTANDING the objections of the various editors, he supports SW's behavior in this case. I totally support his statement that the behavior of both sides needs to be looked at. In this particular case, I think there is no downside to that for those who are objecting to this abuse of

2510:

I like the part where Lexein wrote "is this really the right place to attack editors not involved in this particular discussion?" and then two sentences later: "You, like Koavf, falsify the intent and language of other editors, and of policy: time to stop." Is this somehow about me? If so, please

2425:

It's really regrettable this kind of thing happens. I applaud the people who can deal with the abuse being heaped on them for enforcing NFCC, but those are a small number of people, and it seems we're losing more and more of them to burnout. Frankly, I think it's a disgrace to the Foundation that

1513:

As a participant of the RFC, and after investigating SchuminWeb's past administrative actions, as well as they way he interacts with users (administrators included) that question his actions, I consider that an arbitration case is needed. To try not to rewrite what has been said in the RFC, seems

7143:

Perhaps two discussions should be held, one on how to observe the neutrality policy and one on the actual wording, with the former being the more necessary. Some previous discussions have ended with a show of hands on who thinks that it´s a fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, subverting the

6713:

SilkTork, yes, it is absolutely true that the community can call RFCs on its own. What it cannot do is make them binding. You ask for people to agree that the result will be binding. That will not happen willingly in heated national/ethnic disputes like this one, it simply will not. Notice we've

6385:

Casliber, you said "reports of transgressions should be brought to Arbitration Enforcement". I see this kind of comment quite often but do you have any evidence based reason to believe that AE can handle it ? I don't. I've been editing in the ARBPIA topic area for years. I don't know how many AE

4564:

First and only choice. SchuminWeb's conduct as an administrator is so concerning that we have accepted the arbitration request; it is quite unthinkable to decide it is appropriate that, upon our realising he will not respond to the arbitration case, we should leave his administrator tools alone.

2673:

in which Future Perfect at Sunrise, followed by myself and others, voiced concern that he had completely and utterly negated the speedy for fair use, by his changes in the verbiage of the template, hamstringing the speedy process for fair use, which would of course have grave concerns for all of

1518:

is to silently orphan the images and then tagging them as such before deleting them, although he has also showcased move visible actions against consensus in deletion discussions. In my personal opinion, this is a very alarming way to game the system and to achieve his goals against the standard

1303:

Based on my experience with RFC and ArbCom, it strikes me that there's a strong incentive for anyone who's in the wrong not to engage with the process, because if you talk to people you'll get sanctions but if you just stay away from Knowledge, then there will be lots of wringing of hands and no

1078:

Be that as it may, the consensus of the RfC was that we do not want him coming back after this dies down and resuming his administration work. His complete lack of response to criticism of his behavior, we felt, is unacceptable. I personally would be satisfied if he were barred from the deletion

1062:

There have been complaints for at least a couple of years about SchuminWeb's imperious and idiosyncratic use of his admin powers in closing deletions, particularly with respect to fair-use images. This has come to a head at least twice that I know of. Most recently, he deleted a bunch of TV show

8019:

For Heim: The community have already set up provision for ensuring that a consensus decision is enforced without having to resort to ArbCom. An uninvolved admin can block a user who consistently and disruptively refuses to comply with a clear consensus decision or who disrupts a valid consensus

7249:

We need better management of case requests. Something is very wrong when an experienced administrator has an expletive-containing hissy fit after the arbitration committee refuses to take a case related to an intractable dispute. Would you all please stop abdicating your responsibilities: you

7127:

Israeli position outside Knowledge, ignoring the counter-arguments and falsifying the position of what is commonly referred to as the international community. A set of double standards has been applied in order to minimise, or avoid, mentioning the Palestinian position on Jerusalem in the Lead.

6544:

East Jerusalem to become part of the state of Israel.' is the only way that sentence could be redeemed, since it is an (improbable) hypothetical astutely rephrased as a combination of a factitious 'fact' and an improbable conditional outrider, since the resident Palestinian majority of the East

6282:

I agree with much of what Pluto2012 has said. The content issue is embarrassingly simple to resolve in principal because it is about correcting a basic error. Many sources have already solved it in ways that comply with our policies. All that is required is for editors to follow the sources and

3757:

As proposer--this addresses the issues brought by the filing parties regarding improper deletions, and provides an incentive to engage with the case. Per Courcelles' idea in the previous motion, it comes with a built-in expiration date (we shouldn't expect future arbs to have to deal with stale

3035:

If Schumin were still editing, I'd be voting to accept this case now. As it is, it appears as though his last edit was several days before the RFC was filed, so it's entirely possible that he is unaware of the RFC, and it's almost certain he is unaware of this case request. If he's not checking

8004:

I'll note that I originally opposed the wording that passed in the Muhammad Images case, and while I'm not repudiating my oppose in that case, and some of my objections to the wording apply equally well to this case, I'm also mindful that the wording and the ensuing process was accepted by the

7339:

I also await statements, but I note the apparent failure of community-bred compromise to hold for any great length of time, and I consider that failure to indicate that an arbitration case may be necessary. The failure of previous attempts at mediation is particularly concerning, and I welcome

7126:

a fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Therefore, what looks as though it should be a trivial matter to fix, has taken on the dimensions of an ideological struggle. To support their position, editors taking the Israeli view have advanced identical, partisan arguments to those advancing the

7112:

Given the above, I cannot see how "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is not a seriously contested assertion and that making it in the Lead of the article does not, therefore, breach the neutrality policy. In fact, the first sentence in the Lead doesn't even properly summarise the body of the

5943:

One way to make any binding RFC more useful could be to limit the number of responses to three per editor. Each editor could then lay out his case in these three edits, and the closing admins could then assess the relative merits of the arguments to assess whether the proposal on the table has

4606:

I'm frankly afraid that the distinction among all these motions may be moot, as SchuminWeb's comments elsewhere do not suggest he will be returning to Knowledge, and certainly not that he'll be looking to take on the burdens of administration again. That being said, I understand the point that

2739:

a rationale, and it also notes it is required of the people wishing to use such materials to provide a rationale. Yet, SW needs to lose his admin bit because he didn't write a rationale? This sort of attack on an NFCC worker must be called out for what it is. Further, two very experienced NFCC

4413:

The request for arbitration filed on 17 December 2012 concerning SchuminWeb is accepted. As he is not actively editing, the case will be held pending his return to active editing. SchuminWeb's admin tools are removed until he returns to editing and agrees to participate in this case. Once he

3660:

And the opposes are a good example of why people complain about ArbCom's soft-on-administrator-abuse stance. Roger's initial oppose gives any admin a "get out of de-sysop'ing free" card for the simple price of refusing to make a statement. Hersfold's implies that SchuminWeb has not had the

3516:

In the meantime, SchuminWeb is prohibited indefinitely from making any administrative action of whatever nature. In the unlikely event that this prohibition is ignored, SchuminWeb's administrative tools may be summarily removed by motion of any three arbitrators pending the hearing of a full

2320:

Admins should not play cat and mouse with editors, nor play NFCC#8 and #1 against each other: that is, if an image or the subject in it is described and commented on by critics or reviewers, that description should not be used as an excuse to then claim, "See? It can be described in text!"

6497:

appears to be deftly sidestepped here have endeavoured over several years to find a more balanced formula, in which the clash here between truth propositions that contradict each other would be replaced with a perspectival phrasing that clarifies neutrally the competing claims. The issue is

6412:

I concur with Pluto's suggestions and Sean.Hoyland's follow up remarks, though I think Nableezy has made the right technical call, unfortunately, because it's realistic enough to appreciate that there is no clear behavioural issue in the extensive discussions that would call for the kind of

5619:

The impetus for this mediation is less a direct accusation of misconduct by some of my adversaries, but more a request to consider the accusations made by them. Over the past few weeks, there have been an increasing number of accusations from them that some people are "blocking" any sort of

1953:, and how he has previously used periodic specious "Wikibreaks" when things got hot to avoid explaining his misuse of the Admin tools ("bits"). KillerChihuahua's statement accurately and succinctly elucidates why the Admin bits need to be immediately and permanently removed with prejudice. 1344:

I'll be as brief as I can - partly for time, and partly because there's no need to repeat what's already been said at the RFCU (of which I was a certifier). For me, the issue is two fold - it relates to the inappropriate deletion of images against apparent consensus, and it also relates to

4377:

In answer to the opposes.. if we removed them prior to a case, the overwhelming view would be that we would be judging them guilty without a chance to respond, and that they would have the burden of proof upon their return to be given the tools back. Here, they may be technically still an

3800:

I find this sufficient. The request and subsequent comments contain information that warrants a case; however, I do not believe that the threshold has been reached that would require immediate desysop. The case will proceed should SchuminWeb return to editing at any time in the next year.

4119:

The accepted case is hereby suspended pending SchuminWeb's return to editing. SchuminWeb is instructed not to use his administrator tools in any way until the closure of the case; doing so will be grounds for removal of his administrator userrights. Should SchuminWeb decide to resign his

2486:

consensus from highly experienced editors. As I pointed out at the time - as an admin, he is supposed to listen to the editors and help them towards a decision, then implement that decision. What he actually did (and has evidently done many times) is to form his own decision, act on it

7116:

In line with the neutrality policy, editors have been asked to modify the Lead so that it either states something that it is not disputed, such as that Jerusalem is the declared capital of Israel or that it is the capital under Israeli law, or that it represents the claim that Jerusalem

7707:

With two caveats, as there is no decision in the usual sense, the disc. sanctions should refer back to the I/P case; and 2) we should likely decide who the closers are going to be now so they can guide and supervise the RFC instead of being thrown a megabyte of text in a couple months.

5735:

I'm not sure what you mean by "in which members of the entire community participated". Are you suggesting some sort of RfC that actively attracts members from outside the Israeli-Palestinian topic area? Or is this nothing beyond a normal RfC? If you were thinking of the latter, neither

7121:

the capital as the Israeli point of view. Nobody is particularly exercised over the form of words used, so long as the neutrality policy is adhered to. However, ignoring the Knowledge definition of what a fact is, it is an article of faith with editors taking the Israeli view that it

2705:

Where any administrator is the subject of an Arbitration case, and retires without participating in such a case, their rights as an administrator shall be removed for not less than six months, following which they may regain them either through a new RfA or through application to the

6790:

for mediation when fourteen out of the sixteen listed participants who commented on the case (out of a total nineteen) accepted the request (and the requirements of acceptance was changed earlier this year to not require unanimous acceptance), but nevertheless, what's done is done.

6417:

wall, but manners (AGF compliancy) have been almost impeccable. Just for the record, the humongous threads may be summed up in a thumbail form (Knowledge#Jerusalem-lead for dummies), which you can without offense take as a time-saving device to avoid reading those massive archives.

6052:

without once providing a cause. You cannot refuse to discuss the content and then complain that it was never discussed. What is this, kindergarten? No I wont play soccer. No I wont play basketball. I wont talk about what game to play. Teacher! They're playing football without me!!!!

6420:

There are two deeply problematical assertions in the lead, problematical because the form they take, is, per sources, self-contradictory, and represent poor compromises because of their clumsiness, which confuses two POVs with two facts, while pretending their is no POV problem.

1193:

any accidental failure to follow the correct process. It follows that in the event that SchuminWeb reappears, he should be resysopped. In this case the Committee will, no doubt, want to assure itself SchuminWeb is genuinely engaging in a community discussion about his tool use.—

6937:. What we need is an entrance fee. Every time someone feels the need to file such a case they need to cough up, say, 70$ (I dunno, give it to the Wikimedia Foundation, or better yet, some charity). Every time someone feels like they must comment on the case, it's 10 smackeroos. 3503:"Absent an emergency, the committee is reluctant to remove administrative tools without first providing the administrator with an opportunity to respond. Accordingly, this case is suspended until after 5th January 2013. If, between the passing of this motion and 5th January 2013: 1242:

There are two kinds of evil to avoid. One is the evil done to SchuminWeb by desysopping him without hearing him. The other is the evil done to the community by allowing contributors to avoid consequences by retiring or seeming to retire. ArbCom should find the latter evil the

4244:

I think this covers things quite well. The instruction not to use the tools on penalty of forced removal is in effect the same as a desysopping. The situation that concerns Courcelles appears to also arise in Motion 4, that we have an injunction that will need to be enforced.

6795:

precedent that I know of, but it may be what's needed. For what it's worth, I'd be happy to mediate such a dispute - I think I'd be able enough to do so. But it all comes down to what's best for the dispute. I'd suggest mediation, failing that, a salted earth remedy like the

6944:

That way, if there's a truly serious problem which really is deserving of a case, the person or persons concerned will be perfectly willing to cough up the cash, forkout the funds, bankroll the blocks. If it's the standard frivolous bullshit, they'll think twice about

4062:

I included the specific mention just because I haven't seen indications that Schumin had blocked his opposition or abused rollback, etc; the issue is with his nature towards opens/closes of FFD/deletion discussions. I'd be interested in input from other arbs, however.

4337:

Why are we "instructing" SchuminWeb not to use his tools? If we wish him not to use his sysop permissions, then we should revoke them. This sort of "gentlemen's agreement" is rather silly, and I would prefer that anything we do with permission removals be watertight.

3980:

1000:

as the proposer of the desired outcome, and the other next three as the major participants in the actual conflicts that brought about this request. If some of those I've listed decide they don't want to go forward with this, I'm OK with their removal from the case.

572: 5641:). These accusations have been countered by allegations that some are pushing the Palestinian POV, reminding them the current formulation is the result of the October 2010 discussion (in which some of the current proponents of change were actually participants). 5841:

dozen editors, only necessitate rejection, the weakest of imperatives, and the suggestion from an elected member of the most powerful committee on Knowledge that this matter might have been brought to its attention "earlier than necessary", well, forgive me for

2632:

time doing NFCC enforcement and I tell you, it isn't worth it for anyone. The amount of abuse you get it ridiculous, and the community, numerous ArbComs, and the Foundation have repeatedly refused to do anything about it. Indeed, I've even seen (former) Arbs

6145:

That's my mind and indeed the situation is contested except that I personnaly cannot believe any more in the good faith of some other editors. If we would apply the rules of NPoV quietly (ie just referring to what reliable sources state) that would be easy to

6019:

deal with. If this were to be accepted as a case, the outcome would likely follow the pattern of you banning anybody who knows anything about the dispute, resulting in a new group of partisans arguing on an even lower level. The Knowledge way, tried and true.

5687:

P.S. I didn't know where precisely to stop with naming parties. I tried to only list people that were recently active in this dispute so as not to unnecessarily drag people in, but people who would like to be apart of this could presumably add themselves. --

2343:@Kww - nobody is trying to ignore or subvert NFCC anything. I do however insist that the actual words used in NFCC be respected in practice, and I strongly feel they are not. "How we always do it" is wrong, where it goes directly against the text of NFCC 1101:, and while I would agree that a lot of the survivors could be readily deleted, I strongly suspect that the administrator who appears to be running through them now is going to ignore any "keep" messages I left and delete them anyway. Of the 160 5649:

because of that. In recent days, it seems like there has been focus on a particular wording that mentions, but distinguishes between, Israeli and Palestinian claims, but some are still arguing that's not far enough. Throughout, there have been

6091:

Please listen to Steven. And would a "no consensus" RFC be binding for three years as well? Binding mediation would be an exponentially better method to resolve this dispute. RFCs in this topic area rarely get meaningful uninvolved comments.

1345:

SchuminWeb's failure to engage with any subsequent discussions on the matter. There have been disucssions at DRV, AN, his own talk page and finally the RFCU - as far as I can tell he has not appropriately engaged on the matter at any venue.

1920:

In my view the only satisfactory outcome to this process is to involuntarily desysop this user with prejudice but permit him to remain as an active "ordinary" editor if he wishes to remain so. Centpacrr (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

5709:

It was intentional to not make any accusations; I (and others who support the current wording) am more the target of accusations than one making them. However, some of their statements, in the course of making their accusations, suggest a

321: 2989:

so this issue doesn't get lost --perhaps with a clause that makes the temp desysop permanent if he hasn't returned within, say, 180 days. If he returns soon, though, such measures will be unnecessary, and the case can proceed as normal.

7144:

principle that, in Knowledge, facts are based on sources, not editors's opinions. A bit of regard for policies would be nice. On the question of whether there have been any behavioural issues, I'd say, definitely yes, nine years worth.

6621:

Yet a few editors are demanding the introduction say Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel and Palestine. When I challenged one of the editors demanding the change to provide sources for this claim saying it would help justify the proposal

5529: 1050:. Other steps have not been undertaken in part because SchuminWeb has been completely unresponsive and indeed has not edited since 27 November, and in part because the consensus response of the RfC would require ARBCOM to carry it out. 7485:

saying what version is correct or proper, so it would be a lot of time and energy that might be better spent at RfC rather than ArbCom. Alternatively, I'd like to see all parties provide more examples of serious behavioral problems.

2008:. The Statements posted here also came from a wide cross section of WP editors giving accounts of incidents unrelated to each other. Some may have issues of interpretation of NFCC at their origin, but the way that the subject Admin 1415:

are strong enough for me to believe that he should not use his tools until he addresses the issue. Mangoe's evidence leads me to believe that his disappearance is a way of avoiding the issue rather taking time out to reflect on it.

5768:

In response to the suggestion by one of the ArbCom members, I'm perfectly happy with a binding mediation (or RfC), but as you see, voluntary mediation didn't work and I don't think mediation could be made involuntary otherwise. --

317: 2302:

Yes, #8 is the most subjective of the NFCC clauses, but most editors basically have come to understand that "if there is sourced discussion of the image or what the image represents in the article the image is used in, it meets

411: 2336:"Significantly increase understanding" is being exaggerated in practice, without regard to its range of meaning. And no, this doesn't mean I want a flood of images at TV articles, but it does mean that I want images of scenes 429: 405: 7050:"that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel which purport to alter the status of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, are invalid and cannot change that status." 6502:. Every suggestion that tries to address this has failed, in the face of a resolute preference for the text more or less as it stands, which, some argue, privileges the Israeli POV by prioritizing its basic claims as facts ( 2655: 3111:

SchuminWeb is now aware, so we can reasonably wait a short while for some kind of response. Kww makes an interesting point though. If he is right, this is the third admin I have seen implode over NFCC issues, particularly

5871:

behaviour involved, and frustration has manifested as uncivility in the long discussions. This does, of course, relate to a significant real-life controversy that arouses strong passions so this shouldn't be surprising.

1155:

further administrative action by Schumin in absence of a response and resolution to the concerns raised is impermissible. I would suggest the Committee pass a series of motions in line with the March 22 motions regarding

313: 305: 6786:), the structure of the discussion/vote is the cause of downfall. I would suggest mediation to be the better alternative, under the guidance of an experienced mediator. I am quite surprised that the Mediation Committee 6774:

The issue at hand is no doubt a complex one which has been an issue almost since the inception of Knowledge. Some community members and arbitrators have suggested a method of binding content resolution for this dispute

4480:

Puts the ball in his court over a few options on how to proceed, does not require active monitoring for compliance, nor a fresh motion to do so, and permits a bypass of this process for an RFA should he so desire it.

6618:

defacto, and dejure capital of Israel, rightly or wrongly that is indisputably the situation, although the future status of the city is certainly part of the dispute and that is already explained in the introduction.

1382:: The RfC/U was closed citing that SchuminWeb has not edited prior to the RfC starting. Several highly endorsed viewpoints of concern, and that the issue was referred to ArbCom. So the ball is now in ArbCom's court. 7016:

Some history: after the 1967 War, the UN passed a series of resolutions stating that any current or past unilateral Israeli attempts to change the status of Jerusalem, East and West, were invalid, including Israel's

7801:

Yes, worth trying. I've made a small copy-edit, echoing Courcelles above. That is changing "under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision" to "under the discretionary sanctions already authorised in

6240:

Anyway, I still think a 'binding mediation' eg by the same 3 could be much more efficient. If this mediation could be done on a dedicated page to which we could refer in case of failure, that would even be better.

6680:

the Knowledge way has failed: that there are some topics about which we cannot write objectively, and that there are content disputes so intractable that the collaborative editing approach is doomed to failure. --

1870:

I have edited down my original Statement to roughly 500 words. The full original text of my statement with greater detail and additional links to be considered when the ArbCom case is formally opened can be found

8024:

to see the suggestions that are made, which have not been explored in this case, and to note that ArbCom is seen as the last resort. And so that it is clear that I am not shifting responsibility elsewhere, I had

2811:

that the users concerned are only those who have a previous beef with him. I had never heard of him prior to this. An editor cannot remain an admin as long as they view themselves as above community scrutiny.

1097:: It is, perhaps, a tedious job to do these NFCC deletion nominations, but it is a thankless and largely pointless job to bother reviewing them. Right now I've been through the remaining Simpsons screenshots in 309: 301: 7690: 7440:

as a primarily content-based dispute. I would also suggest a binding RFC to resolve this matter. If it can be demonstrated that there is misconduct preventing discussion beyond the issue of the introduction to

1702:

number of templates that are fully protected, he had to use his admin bit to make the change. Is the use of admin powers to make potentially controversial edits on locked templates without discussion allowed?

6940:

If you wanna translate this into Wikipdia-costs, then make it an automatic week long block for filing a case, and a day block for commenting. Standard procedure, no stigma, you just got to lay off for awhile.

2675: 2732:@Collect: Re-word to add that the admin's use of tools must be under scrutiny. Being involved in a case for nothing to do with use of tools should not be subject to losing tools for failure to participate. 7082:"... no state has sovereignty over Jerusalem. The UK believes that the city's status has yet to be determined, and maintains that it should be settled in an overall agreement between the parties concerned." 7390:

Just to make it clear up front, the Committee will not rule on the content-based part of the dispute (although I don't think the filer expects that); we will only review the allegations of misconduct. I'm

3687:

userrights. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within one year of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the account will be desysopped; returning the tools will require a

3506:

SchuminWeb resigns his administrator tools, such resignation will be irrevocable, and the case will be closed without further action; any return of his tools may only take place following a successful RfA.

1181:

from them. I assume good faith, so I must suppose that SchuminWeb's sudden wikibreak at this time is a coincidence rather than a tactical withdrawal in the face of questions he cannot answer. If so, the

1109:, nobody has the stamina to look through them all, and I assume that the nominator read exactly none of the articles in which they appear, given that he used Twinkle to knock them off in less than an hour. 7803: 7620: 5559: 2665:. The discussion on his talk page was moved, then blanked, then redirected, but you can see it (albeit with the retired banner above, as that is templated across all his pages using an earlier template) 2191:

response (i.e. within three months of its filing on December 17, 2012) that he must reapply and go through the normal open process to again achieve the trust of the community to serve as an Admin on WP.

1300:

Do we look like a howling lynch mob? Are we waving pitchforks, or preparing to tar and feather? Is the Witchsmeller Pursuivant in charge? Or is this a consensus of moderate and reputable editors with

297: 7230:

etc. So if this sources without any dispute point out that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, our lead is at least already balanced with the negation of this claim through "international community" --

6197:

I think that a part of the problem is that too many people intervene. No discussion can evolve because it goes in all directions and people do not answer to others'arguments and everything turns around.

1908:

I found this experience to be both intimidating and a clear case of overt "Wikistalking" by using the powers of an Admin to retaliate against me for successfully challenging his previous administrative

5926:

4) An RFC would fail if the same group of editors can "just say no" to prevent an outcome as are saying no currently to prevent an outcome. If this possibility is somehow controlled, an RFC might work.

1917:

altogether because of the subject Admin's abusive behavior (carried out in conjunction with another Admin who is now retired and has resigned his adminship) toward both me and my contributions to WP.

453: 5795:

after it was reverted out). Other than that, I can't imagine needing to elaborate further; the tone and contents of some of the statements here speak for themselves... as I expected and intended. --

2338:

which are critically discussed in multiple sources which significantly increase understanding of a topic and which cannot briefly be trivially summarized in prose and meet all other NFCC restrictions

5535: 7823:) we will appoint "supervising administrators" for the discussion soon after the implementation of this motion, not immediately before a decision about the result of the discussion is to be made. 7406: 6819: 6183: 1889: 1408: 1134:: I object to him retaining his admin rights due to retirement. It's unreasonable that we should have to actively monitor him for returning so we can see whether the issues need to be re-raised. 1072: 7007:"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." 6573:

Pluto accuses whoever disagrees with him of gaming the system, as if having an opinion and stating it is some kind of sneaky underhanded attempt to play wikipedia's rules in order to corrupt it.

5732:

Perhaps. Someone even suggested to meet that that might be a good/better course of action. But, I'm not convinced an admin would have the courage to act on accusations that aren't very concrete.

2688: 4030:

Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within one year of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the account will be desysopped; returning the tools will require a

1275:

This wrongly puts an onus on the community to watch SchuminWeb's actions for breaches, instead of rightly putting the onus on SchuminWeb to contact the community before getting his tools back.—

442: 289: 2880:

Would a clerk please ensure that SchuminWeb is notified of this Request for Arbitration via "email this user" in addition to the notice that has already been placed on his talk page? Thanks.

7623:. The discussion will be closed by three uninvolved, experienced editors, whose decision about the result of the discussion will be binding for three years from the adoption of this motion. 6849: 6610:

people are free to support the status quo, and that a change should only take place if there is a consensus. Not a change imposed by a minority of editors seeking to push aside objections.

2945:

over two weeks ago, is his last edit. If he is burnt out, it would be good if he could communicate to the committee that he's taking some time out. Otherwise, awaiting further statements,

2923: 2230:

violations, and any admin that tries to deal with it winds up with cases where, indeed, hundreds of images need to be deleted at once. It's a fair bet that if every admin deleted a hundred

7445:

I may reconsider (and I would again ask for answers to the questions above, which most people seem to be ignoring), but I'm gathering from the statements so far that this is not the case.

7259: 4639:

Don't see the need to desysop at this point. The case presented is sufficient to accept and examine the behaviour, but I do not believe it is sufficient to desysop without an actual case.

4408: 4114: 3681: 6490:

In both these sentences, (a) an ostensibly factual proposition is asserted, and (b) then challenged as not true. The Israel POV is first asserted as a fact, and then denied as a fact.

1457:

There is a danger that this case may be side-tracked by the NFCC issue, which I believe is a side-issue at best. In fact SW did respond to the questions about the Simpson's images, see

6169:

A side is WP:GAMING the system in refusing any evolution of a pov-ed sentence based on the fact it has been in the article for months. I assume the other think that we are biaised (?).

2713:

Thus removing any "dramah" strictly relevant to the case at hand, and furnishing forewarning to administrators in the future that retirement does not forestall communisty displeasure.

7610:, with a specific emphasis on the lead section and how Jerusalem is described within the current, contested geopolitical reality. As with all decisions about content, the policies on 2316:

Some NFCC language is subjective, and should be clarified by more examples, because it is the source that delete/keep "sides" are both saying is "theirs." Expanding on this briefly:

1490:@David Fuchs - The wording of your motion would allow SW to make speedy deletions or PROD deletions. I wonder if this wise, given that one of the questioned deletions was a speedy. 3327: 4816: 7560: 3666:

policy. I see this as yet another missed opportunity to discourage this sort of avoidant behavior through natural, policy-based consequences for consistently failing to respond.

6308:"Oppose this wording. "claims" again this goes back to the suggestions we add proclaimed capital. If we are going to pretend that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel.." etc. 3513:

SchuminWeb notifies the committee that he wishes to participate in a case, the case will open SchuminWeb's earliest convenience and in any event no later than 20th January 2013.

793: 466: 418: 1436: 136: 124: 6968:

point-of-view pushing. Since about 2007, I've participated in a couple of the futile, labyrinthine and archive-spanning attempts to change it by means of talkpage discussion.

7636: 4427: 4079:

those parties to revisit their issues with SchuminWeb in (hypothetically) a month or two might be reasonable to all; to ask that they do it a year from now, perhaps less so.

3704: 3358: 3116:. This criterion requires a massive judgement call, cannot be dealt with as a factual matter, and has at its heart a philosophical view about what Knowledge is. The relevant 1064: 2953: 140: 120: 7077: 2195: 1059:

The immediate genesis of this case lies in the RfC linked above. I'm not going to repeat everything that is in that case, but will try to point out a few salient points.

132: 7274: 5995:

Ravpapa nicely states it as " there are some topics about which we cannot write objectively" This I think is absolutely correct and I believe the failure is inevitable.

556:. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. 2171:

that at a minimum the subject Admin's administrative "tools" be withdrawn forthwith (and with prejudice) by the community with no possibility of their being reinstated

6583: 5607:, discussions have raged on the talk page regarding the point in the lead that the city is the capital of Israel and, to a lesser extent, that it's the capital of the 5163: 1217:

is a community RFC. I urge ArbCom to focus on the desysopping issue and not get sidetracked into open-ended discussion on broad issues that the community can handle.—

564: 381: 6971:

That the current wording violates Knowledge's neutrality principle has been shown (and ignored) time after time in the nine years that the current wording has stood.

6843: 2958:@Mangoe. Don't worry; we're not just going to let this float away on the ether but we don't normally desysop immediately and automatically under such circumstances. 3173: 3148: 1304:

action at all, and it'll all blow over. The resolutions you prefer place a duty on "someone" to watch the SchuminWeb account for actions that transgress—but nobody

3019:

to look at SchuminWeb's communication and action as an administrator, and likely to look at the larger issue of NFCC#8, which seems to be informing his decisions.

1357: 5737: 552: 365: 2803:

I participated in the RFC/U: both leaving my own viewpoint and also endorsing someone else's. The issue of NFCC just really isn't relevant. What is relevant is

2368:

The discussion of "suspension of these proceedings pending return" seems unnecessarily tentative, since as of December 20, 2012, 2:05 AM, on his public website

5963:

I hope the 'withdrawing' of the filing party doesn't affect the rfc plan. There is clearly need to move this issue forward, we've had a few normal rfcs already.

2666: 7190:

point of discussion. Therefore, please do NOT archive this case request until further notice. I've copied this instruction to the on-site clerk notes section."

3129: 2402:. We might even want to consider whether it would be a good idea to create a new community process or noticeboard for discussing fair-use images; I don't think 6631:(which is what they have been demanded be added to the article).. the editor in question all but admits there are not the sources to back up such a statement. 6131:

I wrote on the Talk page that I would ask the ArbCom to study the issue if we could not find a way to move forward on the article. Tariqjabotku did it before.

2306:

six, in truth, and closed "no consensus", or not closed yet. Default-to-delete and I-hate-this-job may be an observed phenomenon, but should not be used as a

7088:

Jerusalem as the seat of government, rather than capital, of Israel (and East Jerusalem as the intended seat of government of Palestine). Another concerned a

6304:

Arbitrators asked for an example of behavioral issues. Here is one that just happened. It's typical, so I'm by no means singling out this particular editor.

2353:

in my opinion, if Schuminweb had stayed the course, engaged, and acted with calm and aplomb, and maybe more slowly, those (3? 5?) could have been retained in

2216: 2116:

indicating a broadly held community view that there is clear evidence of long term serious issues with the administrative behavior of the subject Admin, and;

527: 6591: 4300: 3548:

I have to agree with David; plus, if he should return at any point, he needs the opportunity to present his defense, as it were. This motion presumes guilt.

1752: 4671: 1391: 1374: 6868: 6835: 3529: 3411:

As proposer. "Retiring" in the face of criticism is unbecoming in any editor, but is furthermore incompatible with our expectations of administrators, per

2966: 2300:

I was directly involved with discussion at the mass FfD, mass close, and its DRV, and ongoing discussion on Schuminweb's talk page. I'm glad Masem stated:

2030:

silence (i.e. refusal to participate in the process) on the part of a subject Admin to avoid accountability (and especially invoking "Retirement" which is

6579:

Sean and Nishidani pretending the people they disagree with do not base their views on reliable sources, which is patently false and obviously dismissive.

4684: 4274: 4239: 4088: 4069: 3196: 3089: 1772: 7875: 7470:

As this case stands, I would suggest binding mediation or binding RfC, I'm not seeing enough "misconduct" to warrant a lengthy arbitration case hearing.

7004:"NPOV is a fundamental principle of Knowledge and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." 5825: 5806: 5780: 5759: 5699: 5611:. Around April 2007, just before the article achieved FA status (yes, I know, unbelievable), it was decided that the point would be settled by inserting 4616: 4188: 4104: 3104: 2977: 7491: 4400: 4174: 3884: 3260: 1780: 7814: 7296: 7284: 6763: 6194:

Would an RFC on the lead section, in which members from the entire community participated, work to bring a compromise to the central issue of content?

6008: 4662: 4533: 4292: 4263: 4225: 4211: 4139: 3943: 3496: 3276: 3243: 3220: 3054: 2994: 2549:

me we had an admin on the verge of going postal. I unfortunately believe an emergency de-sysop is required, and a case is going to either be required

2496: 1484: 1452: 1435:@Hersfold: SW may not have been aware of the RfC, but it is reasonable to assume that he was aware it was coming down the tracks, it was flagged up in 1332: 1292: 1266: 1234: 7975: 7753: 7479: 7412:

Would an RFC on the lead section, in which members from the entire community participated, work to bring a compromise to the central issue of content?

5999:

nation is more important than wikipedia should be barred from editing it. In lieu of that poor quality tagged dispute ridden articles will have to do.

4703: 4634: 3956: 3904: 3843: 3795: 3655: 3543: 3438: 2798: 7725: 7712: 7537: 7514: 7428: 7318: 6721: 6554: 6267: 6250: 5972: 5958: 5938: 4556: 4519: 4499: 4161: 4053: 3769:

I can support this, but would also prefer that the time frame be reduced to somewhere from three-six months. Roger's suggestions sound good as well.

3580: 3472: 3011: 2769: 2755: 2273: 2259: 2244: 2210: 627:

Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.

7738: 4648: 4601: 3975: 3868: 3821: 3764: 3488:

I cannot support in this form and in the absence of a statement from the admin. I'll try to work up instead something based on the Aitias motions.

2823: 1805: 1594:: I have no intentions to hurry up the committee; this is not an emergency case and there is no need to rush procedures. That said, I'd like to add 8043: 8014: 7944: 7924: 7906: 7796: 7776: 7554: 7458: 7332: 6658: 6545:

Jerusalem population refused Israeli citizenship. Of course, as such it has no place in the lead, nor in the text, being a conjectural speculation.

6102: 6063: 5180: 4485: 4332: 3675: 3599: 3566: 3458: 3075: 1888:

I fully concur with all the statements supporting desysop above and particularly by the summary posted by Mangoe, the user who filed this case, at

1030: 4387: 3929: 3300: 2915: 1711: 7866: 7629:

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

6614:

mention at all the international community view in the first sentence, because it is handled in detail in another paragraph of the introduction.

1646:

desysopping, leave grounds to alternate solutions in case SW wants to avoid a future RFA, or to address all the concerns raised here. Regards. —

7354: 6339:? I hope so. I'm not interested in what editors think is true, I'm only interested in what the sources say and how we can deal with that data. 5729:

I don't edit in other parts of this conflict, and only recently (in October) returned to this article after a two-year hiatus. So, I don't know.

4579: 4348: 2793: 2727: 6911: 6812: 6402: 6380: 6355: 6328: 6299: 5856: 3991: 3028: 1691: 1660: 1634: 1612: 1586: 1560: 1405: 1352: 1143: 1124: 166: 7833: 3614: 1758: 1156: 6560: 5681: 5587: 4844: 3424: 1851: 1828: 1813:

The relevant Foundation policy does not have anything in it that resembles clause 8. Perhaps it's time to hold another discussion about NFCC.

1471:

about a template deletion that led to the AN, and SW lack of response to the AN which led to the RFC. ADMINACCT is the issue here, not NFCC.

1106: 1098: 649: 7702: 6634:. Not only did they never provide the sources requested, none of the other editors demanding change stepped in to provide sources either. 6142:, applied in good faith by editors striving to reach a neutral statement describing a contested reality, is supposed to prevail. (Jclemens) 6036:

Tariq, that last comment is patently untrue. The formulation was discussed, the exact sentences and sequences were brought to the talk page

2740:

workers (Black Kite and Masem) have both said SW's actions with regards to NFCC were largely correct. Who is it that is in the wrong here?

2511:

notify me (I only stumbled upon this by accident.) If someone wants to let me know that this conversation involves me, that would be nice. —

6745: 5911:. The latter edits were made by an editor who is an administrator of the project, unless I'm mistaken. (Further examples are easy to find). 2470: 1503: 1429: 1210: 7089: 5787:

One more revision to my answer to Question 1 comes by looking at the recent edit history. A formulation that was never discussed was just

5517: 4490:

Equal second choice preference with the third motion, per the same rationale: the simplest solution is to just remove the tools outright.

2853:

from now. Motion 4 clearly says they will not, but motion 3 is not clear to my mind on whether a suspended case counts as a pending case?

7849: 7381: 7254: 6515: 6220: 5881: 5741: 4892: 3319: 2650: 2616: 2059: 2021: 1999: 6189:

I don't think sanctionning anybody could solve anything. WP:GAMING or WP:WIKILAWYERING cannot be solved by any "discretionary sanction".

607: 7239: 7171: 7151: 7137: 6120: 6084: 6029: 5982: 996:: There are potentially a long list of participants in this, as I'll note below. I've limited this to the subject of the case, myself, 560: 6707: 3164:

emergency desysop. If he has not returned within six months, then that would be grounds for removing the tools as a security measure.

3083:

reached that stage here. There's no ongoing disruption by virtue of Web not actually editing, so I'm not sure we should be accepting.

1404:

on 27 November, I consider myself at least semi-involved. I won't repeat what I said on the RFC. Despite what I said on the talk page

590: 550:

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the

6894: 6889: 6842:@ArbCom, I'm aware that ArbCom cannot order mediation. They can, however, encourage for such a thing to take place (this was done in 6689: 5276: 5174: 2973:

Awaiting statements, but inclined to accept, the admin's response to the RFC/U is concerning, so I fully understand why we are here.

2862: 2570: 1167: 1047: 913: 2774: 2433: 1717:

I have reverted SchuminWeb's edits to unprotected templates, as not being the result of a consensus discussion, and therefore being

1696: 6600: 6576:

Alertboatbanking, a pretty obvious sock which the resident "sockslayers" don't care about because he supports the result they want.

2842: 2722: 2448: 2415: 2325:"Described in prose" is subjective and needs to be revisited for clarifying examples, because if "described in prose" were applied 1598:. From this information, I won't expect any response from SchuminWeb anytime soon, so this case will have to follow without him. — 1533: 1365:

In response to the 18:13, 17 December 2012 message of Courcelles, SchuminWeb ceaced editing prior to the instigation of the RfC/U.

1088: 6498:

resolvable by using the word 'claim' for both parties in (A). (B) should not be in the lead since it is based on a highly dubious

3333: 7309:, applied in good faith by editors striving to reach a neutral statement describing a contested reality, is supposed to prevail. 6481:

Israel’s largest city (since the assertion includes East Jerusalem which in international law is outside of the state of Israel).

1969:

silence (i.e. refusal to participate in the process) on the part of the subject Admin (especially invoking "Retirement" which is

817: 3202:

community appear to be requesting a temporary desysop until SchuminWeb returns, when the RfC can be finished. I would therefore

2398:

as a community. Specifically, we need to try and figure out what would constitute an acceptable fair use rationale for an image

2310:

which overrides discussion. Especially when it just dumps the mess on others to deal with. You get the admin bit, you get to be

1673:

He is aware of this and had not commented at all - he failed to comment at his RFC user and here also- he claims he is close to

1668: 1339: 8005:

committee and the community, and thus prefer to repeat what has worked, rather than try and invent a substantially new remedy.

7565:

The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what will be included in the article

7292:

as a full case, though I support a motion ordering a binding RFC, and agree a motion is necessary to actually make it binding.

7101: 6769: 6277: 5228: 5132: 5036: 4988: 4838: 3341:

substantially from the arbitrators voting to accept the case, SchuminWeb is desysop'ed and may only regain the tools via a new

2816:

The evasive retirements cannot be allowed. Arbcom is not needed yet for DR, but the desysop requires an Arbcom motion.--v/r -

2538: 1182: 961: 865: 614: 482: 4758: 547:

lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

5719: 5566: 5372: 5324: 5084: 606:). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, either make the request in your statement section or 2557:

is not fair) or when he returns - DEFINITELY this de-sysop would be considered "under a cloud" if no case goes forward now (

2453: 1396: 1172: 6727: 5411: 4940: 4886: 2889: 2596: 98: 47: 7200: 6070:

Binding mediation would be a good idea. I dont think an RFC would be a good idea for this, its too involved an issue for *

1857: 683: 8026: 7244: 6407: 6126: 5861: 5453: 4420:

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

3697:

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

3576:

should look into whether the admin tools should be removed. Yet, the hard stop date does mot prolong this ad infinitum.

3351:

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

1022: 711: 631: 128: 2622: 2349:

I'm satisfied that of 272 nominated, three images survived DRV, though four, and possibly a very few more, should have.

1897: 7209: 7156: 6959: 6582:

I assume ZScarpia will be here shortly to try to chill his opponents with threats, and we'll have a perfect microcosm.

6013: 5270: 3337: 2482:" - this being in right in the middle of a carefully thought out, reasoned discussion of the issues and in the face of 2391:

decisions are questioned. If he were more willing to explain his actions, then this ArbCom case wouldn't be happening.

1014: 1010: 907: 5507: 1912: 1149: 1026: 1018: 7100:

subsequently updated its style guide so that it no longer calls Tel Aviv Israel´s capital, instaed just stating that

6874: 6663: 5198: 4780: 2808: 1461: 1458: 1402: 653: 344: 5417: 2847: 2543: 2385: 2379: 1739:

process, unless they, too, have the bit. I suggest that some admin needs to rise to the occasion and revert to the

1508: 1054: 6759: 6741: 6694: 6413:

corrective punishment Tariq's outline seems to suggest. Arbcom's remit is not to fix impossibly compromised pages.

5744:, both of which suggested no change (n.b. those were even before the October 2010 change), put this matter to rest. 5204: 1499: 1480: 1448: 1425: 1328: 1288: 1262: 1230: 1206: 811: 757: 152: 87: 36: 7747:

rather than at the end, however I have no idea what mechanism we wish to use. To we open the floor to volunteers?

7395:

going to wait on more statements, but I do have a few questions for those posting statements to provide input on:

5465: 4565:

Without prejudging the outcome of the arbitration, nor wishing to treat SchuminWeb unkindly, I merely consider it

2828: 2693: 2438: 7085: 6336: 6309: 5630: 5222: 5192: 5186: 5126: 5030: 4982: 4792: 2360:

If Schuminweb has retired (even temporarily), the admin rights should be turned off, then re-requested as usual.

955: 859: 158: 7096:

stating that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. The Commission ruled that there had been no breach of its code (

4868: 2744: 2420: 1468: 1185:. A temporary desysop will prevent SchuminWeb from returning to use the tools later without facing the process. 1068:

started, his behavior found lots of additional detractors, and no real defenders, again, not including himself.

664: 7792: 7533: 6632: 6629: 6626: 6623: 6570:

behavioral issue is with Tariq responding to his being a DICK and not with him being a dick in the first place.

6158:

I arrived lately in the discussion but per my understanding, mediators refused to take the mediation in charge.

6049: 6045: 6041: 6037: 5929:

5) An ideal outcome could be that a clearer vision is communicated with regard to civility and stonewalling. --

5663: 5651: 5646: 5639: 5636: 5633: 5627: 5624: 5621: 5459: 5447: 5435: 5429: 5366: 5318: 5078: 4862: 4810: 4798: 4515: 4207: 3900: 3454: 3239: 3120:

does not have anything in it that resembles clause 8. Perhaps it's time to hold another discussion about NFCC.

2566: 1867: 769: 21: 6238:

could the arbitrators suggest/chose 3 editors that would close the case ? I am confident that this would help.

5477: 5471: 5441: 4916: 4856: 4737: 2502: 526:

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs

171: 7584: 7579: 6587: 5423: 5168: 4934: 4786: 1401:

As one of the three editors who's questions about this administrator's deletions was removed as chastisement

787: 775: 180: 5300: 4904: 3098:

and hold until Schumin returns, per Elen. I think that NFCC is another matter that can't be addressed here.

2604: 2581: 2459: 1839:

to discuss images with questionable NFCC-meeting uses but without the demand of admin action to complete. --

1439:

that it was headed there before he stopped editing (and he didn't participate in the AN discussion either).

937: 7588: 7367:. As a result, only a content dispute is left, which this committee can merely pass back to the community. 7216: 5632:). There have been claims that those supporting the current wording are just pushing the Israeli POV (e.g. 5485: 4910: 4850: 4804: 1038: 763: 705: 603: 6822:, then followed by an RFC that is binding. It would create a more productive discussion. Please consider. 5908: 5904: 5900: 5896: 5892: 5888: 5792: 5788: 5288: 2575: 2382:). Seems pretty definitive to me. Return seems unlikely, so desysopping is merited, and I thought, usual. 925: 841: 5252: 5156: 5060: 5012: 3169: 3144: 3125: 2529: 2406:

is sufficient as a venue for this. Perhaps something to the effect of what I'm proposing already exists?

2068:

Of the four motions that the Arbs are considering I believe as one of the original involved parties that

985: 889: 781: 7363:

On reflection, existing conduct issues can be dealt with under the discretionary sanctions provision of

5396: 5348: 5108: 829: 7593: 7571: 7176: 6004: 5294: 5240: 5144: 5048: 5000: 4964: 4898: 4832: 2985:

and, if SchuminWeb doesn't return to editing, simply temporary desysop and hold the case in limbo, but

2784:. I suggest this be made Motion #2, and I imagine you could wrap this up with little to no downside. -- 973: 931: 877: 621: 7228: 7222: 7219: 5384: 5336: 5096: 735: 5549: 5545: 5541: 4952: 2683: 1249:

If we had a functioning community de-adminship process, then surely SchuminWeb would not survive it.—

3139:

the community to take more of a look at NFCC generally, that can go ahead unconnected to this case.

2867: 723: 7215:

relating to this subject, without mentioning international dispute in the lead. F.x CIA fact book

6654: 5726:, which can be cited from a few angles), but these are less conduct issues and more content issues. 5282: 4880: 4135: 2942: 919: 835: 176: 94: 43: 7605: 6361: 1890:

Knowledge talk:Requests for comment/SchuminWeb#The Wikibreak in December 2011 and what preceded it

1073:

Knowledge talk:Requests for comment/SchuminWeb#The Wikibreak in December 2011 and what preceded it

7772: 6628:, then when I asked for specific reliable sources that say Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine 5246: 5150: 5054: 5006: 4328:

motion if this one is violated? I despise doing it, but I'm going to be adding a fourth motion.

3562: 3050: 2533: 1872: 1748: 1707: 979: 883: 3429:

Second choice, prefer motion 2 (subject to my caveat there about the length of time permitted).

1977:

respond) to avoid accountability should be considered an affirmative, irrevocable, and absolute

1063:

screenshots which were used in articles on specific episodes. This came to deletion review as a

7084:

One recent demonstration of the disputed status of Jerusalem was at the London Olympics, where

6862: 6829: 6806: 6397: 6375: 6350: 6323: 6294: 5868: 5711: 5604: 5493: 5390: 5342: 5264: 5102: 3165: 3140: 3121: 3002:

the issues, as has been done in other situations. I sincerely hope it does not come to that.

1687: 1349: 901: 823: 6668:

There is so little one can add to a discussion so prolix! But I feel two things must be said:

3117: 1939: 7971: 6177:

There are problems on all articles relatived to the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

6000: 5234: 5138: 5042: 4994: 4958: 4827: 4774: 4612: 4235: 4084: 3939: 3651: 3434: 3192: 2789: 1793:

This is no way to approve or disapprove any other action Schumin may be investigated with. --

967: 871: 17: 5944:

consensus, giving each argument weight according to its merits, rather than counting votes (

5530:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Jerusalem as the capital of Israel

4324:

the restriction? Are we giving the crats authority to do so? Are we going to have to make

1957:

If as in this case a defendant/respondent holds him or herself voluntarily and deliberately

1543: 7721: 6756: 6738: 5378: 5330: 5090: 4569:

that we desysop this administrator until he is ready to engage in the arbitration process.

4529: 4184: 3880: 3468: 2765: 2751: 2680: 2646: 2492: 2466: 2278: 2122: 1962: 1767: 1595: 1569: 1495: 1476: 1444: 1421: 1324: 1284: 1258: 1226: 1202: 805: 751: 729: 617:

may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.

3849:

I'd prefer "not to use his adminsitrator tools in any way." But this gets a weak support.

8: 8021: 7872: 7734: 7475: 6907: 6718: 6704: 6650: 6550: 6511: 6263: 6246: 6216: 5968: 5954: 5934: 5877: 5216: 5120: 5024: 4976: 4946: 4875: 4668: 4658: 4383: 4297: 4170: 4131: 3925: 3864: 3854: 3830:

third choice, for the reasons I listed in my comments above, but anything is better than

3662: 3412: 3256: 2911: 2804: 2662: 2430: 2206: 2164: 2126: 2055: 2017: 2005: 1995: 1950: 1412: 949: 853: 517: 73: 7601: 7045: 6676:

participate. Which is why, I believe, Tariq chose this forum to move toward a solution.

4763: 4216:

Second preference. Still rewards bad behavior, but not as much as doing nothing would.

8038: 8010: 7939: 7901: 7786: 7698: 7527: 7509: 7328: 7314: 7235: 7167: 7147: 7133: 6113: 6095: 6077: 6056: 6022: 5608: 5360: 5312: 5072: 4698: 4551: 4509: 4495: 4258: 4221: 4201: 3970: 3894: 3839: 3671: 3594: 3448: 3420: 3272: 3233: 3215: 2858: 2558: 2082:

Allowing an admin to avoid the Arb process and its consequences simply by deliberately

1744: 1703: 717: 510: 502: 1546:. As he seems to be very active on Twitter, there is no way he cannot be aware now. — 1079:

processes, but the expressed consensus was that his administration rights be removed.

7807: 6885: 6857: 6824: 6801: 6780: 6685: 6389: 6367: 6342: 6315: 6286: 6155:

mediation has so far failed to achieve a lasting solution to this dispute ?" (AGK) :

5923:

3) I don't know. AE may be an option, although here we have several involved editors.

5612: 5259: 4928: 4677: 4393: 4154: 4046: 3522: 3489: 2959: 2946: 2718: 2153:

When the RfA case was accepted, the subject Admin's response was instead to formally

1679: 1464: 1387: 1370: 1346: 896: 688: 31: 7597: 6787: 7967: 7862: 7749: 7550: 7487: 7364: 7306: 6139: 5847: 5816: 5797: 5771: 5750: 5690: 5672: 5645:

policy-based arguments for maintaining the current wording, with one saying he has

5578: 4769: 4746: 4644: 4608: 4597: 4270: 4231: 4100: 4080: 4065: 3935: 3817: 3809: 3760: 3647: 3539: 3430: 3188: 3100: 3085: 3024: 3007: 2885: 2820: 2785: 2411: 1654: 1628: 1606: 1580: 1554: 1527: 1139: 1120: 1084: 699: 676: 7847: 7831: 7717: 7709: 7379: 7352: 7293: 7281: 7271: 7270:

Awaiting statements, though I see the argument that a case would be useful here.

7225: 7198: 6753: 6735: 6174:"Is this misconduct impacting other areas of contention within this topic area?" 5723: 5722:. There are probably several relevant policies that come into this dispute (like 5659: 4577: 4525: 4482: 4346: 4329: 4180: 3989: 3953: 3876: 3612: 3577: 3464: 3317: 3298: 3113: 2991: 2974: 2938: 2761: 2747: 2642: 2525: 2488: 2462: 2395: 2375: 2231: 2227: 2154: 1847: 1824: 1801: 1762: 1491: 1472: 1440: 1417: 1316: 1276: 1250: 1218: 1194: 1174: 997: 800: 746: 7743:

Seems like the best way forward. Per Courcelles, we do need to decide on admins

6202:"If this case is accepted, what would you see as an ideal outcome of the case?" 7730: 7615: 7575: 7471: 7251: 6903: 6715: 6701: 6546: 6507: 6494: 6259: 6242: 6212: 5964: 5950: 5930: 5873: 5553: 5497: 5211: 5115: 5019: 4971: 4654: 4379: 4166: 3921: 3860: 3850: 3252: 2907: 2427: 2202: 2187:

if the desysopping has been made permanent because of the lack of his making a

2125:

that he is aware of them and that this is in direct violation of provisions of

2051: 2013: 1991: 1836: 1246:

and not as a punishment in absentia, but ArbCom shouldn't shrink from doing it.

944: 848: 7415:

If this case is accepted, what would you see as an ideal outcome of the case?

7402:

Is this misconduct impacting other areas of contention within this topic area?

7305:

Awaiting statements, but I'll note that this sort of dispute is exactly where

6933:. This suggests that filing and commenting on Malleus related cases is simply 1735:

old edits using his admin bit that cannot be reverted by other editors in the

8031: 8006: 7932: 7912: 7894: 7840: 7824: 7782: 7759: 7694: 7523: 7502: 7446: 7416: 7372: 7345: 7324: 7310: 7231: 7191: 7163: 6930: 6776: 6466:

Put the sentence in propositional form, and you immediately see the problem.

6431:

Put the sentence in propositional form, and you immediately see the problem.

5945: 5355: 5307: 5067: 4691: 4622: 4570: 4544: 4505: 4491: 4339: 4280: 4251: 4217: 4197: 4121: 4040: 4031: 3982: 3963: 3890: 3835: 3783: 3770: 3688: 3667: 3605: 3587: 3549: 3444: 3416: 3342: 3310: 3291: 3290:(and, if I could, I would make this vote conditional upon our not doing so). 3268: 3229: 3208: 3063: 3037: 2854: 2612: 2592: 2562: 2403: 2269: 2255: 2240: 2222:

a case where the editors that attempt to ignore or subvert the criteria work

1736: 1726: 78: 7037: 2163:

respond to either the Arb case or to the community, and that being the case

7911:

If they're able to open an RFC by themselves... why are they here instead?

7611: 7344:

mediation has so far failed to achieve a lasting solution to this dispute.

6881: 6681: 5655: 4923: 2836: 2714: 2445: 1437:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive242#Admin smoke signals needed

1407:, I now believe that action by ArbCom is necessary given Mangoe's evidence 1383: 1366: 1359: 1161: 544: 7001:"Neutral point of view" is one of Knowledge's three core content policies. 6565:

This request is an exact mirror of the problems on the article talk page.

2580:

I was also involved, along with SteveBaker, in the Lenna controversy (see

2458:

I've had problems on one occasion with SchuminWeb - the matter relates to

589:

If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section (

7858: 7546: 6672:

decide (or, more likely, don't decide) today will not be right tomorrow.

5501: 4640: 4621:

Per my oppose to motion 1, although this is worded significantly better.

3813: 3805: 3803:

Minor copy edit, which I do not think changes the meaning of the motion.

3286: 3020: 3003: 2881: 2817: 2656:

Comment by Previously involved and how-did-I-miss-the-Rfc KillerChihuahua

2407: 2031: 1970: 1647: 1621: 1599: 1573: 1547: 1520: 1135: 1116: 1080: 694: 672: 7522:

reports of transgressions should be brought to Arbitration Enforcement.

2038:

respond) should be considered an affirmative, irrevocable, and absolute

641: 6964:

I'm in the camp which views the current wording as a prolonged case of

6428:

the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.'

4542:

choice. I think this is closer to what the community were looking for.

2512: 1840: 1817: 1794: 4320:

that leaves the tools in place in this circumstance. Who is going to

4045:" I still think a year is an eternity but can probably live with it. 7567: 7442: 7183:

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

5748:

be resolved. Maybe you'll even come up with something innovative. --

5597: 5521: 2874:

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

2487:

unilaterally, and then ignore all subsequent debate on the subject.

2200:

for this very procedure which has happened at least six times before.

3501:

I've put together the following, which derives from the Aitias case.

2608: 2588: 2265: 2251: 2236: 2040: 1979: 531: 7323:

I'm OK with a binding RfC, if that's the direction we want to go.

3309:

My vote to accept remains in place, no matter if a motion passes.

6451:(a) is Israel’s POV (b) is the POV of virtually all other states. 5715: 2100:

Since being posted just a week ago on December 17, this RfA has:

2094:

cooperation with the community's established arbitration process.

2046: 1985: 7053: 4249:

first choice, as the option for SchuminWeb to resign is useful.

3952:. Who is going to take the responsibility of watching for use? 2698:

I note the proposed motion, and would suggest a broader motion:

2250:

ignore our polices and grind down the admins that enforce them.—

1989:

renunciation by him or her of Adminship and access to its tools.

598: 6639: 5917: 5511: 3204:

decline a case, but accept a motion for a temporary desyopping

1743:

until a discussion cane be mounted that covers these changes.

559:

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see

479: 378: 338: 260: 187: 3812:) 20:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Only choice that I support. 2137:

of Adminship that had been granted by vote of the community.

7102:

Jerusalem should not be referred to as the capital of Israel

5518:

Talk:Jerusalem/capital/2010#Compromise on the first sentence

3228:

for review of tool use, which is one of our core functions.

2264:

I support Collect's notion of making this a general remedy.—

2104:

drawn statements of support from almost thirty individuals;

652:. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at 563:. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see 7819:

With the understanding that (unlike for the binding RFC in

2292:

Removed by author as irrelevant to the purpose of this page

6163:"What specific allegations of misconduct are you making?" 5987:

As I stated in my previous comments I favor no particular

565:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

430:

Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing

406:

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)

76:

to this revision, which may differ significantly from the

2400:

within the context of whatever article it's being used on

7619:

under the discretionary sanctions already authorised in

7371:

because, sadly, we can do no more good to this dispute.

6978:"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." 5556:: Latest threads on this issue, mostly since August 2012 2370: 2072:

is the only acceptable for exactly the reason stated by

2069: 1898:"uploading disruptive images with no encyclopedic value" 7140:(hats placed in text -- 12:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)) 7018: 4247:

Equal first choice with Motion 4, though leaning toward

1568:: I have established communication with SchuminWeb and 5405:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

4020:

May I suggest two copy-edits? They are: (i) deleting "

3134:

Given SchuminWeb's latest response to Hahc21, I would

1005:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

7260:

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/0/3)

6998:"Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views." 6166:

There are personnal attacks but that is not a problem

4230:

First choice. Minor copyedit (inserted "either of").

2924:

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (8/0/0/4)

2394:

On a related note, I think we really need to discuss

2076:

in his statement of support for that motion, to-wit:

1965:

that he or she is aware of the RfC or RfA, then such

1961:

after due notice to respond to process, and there is

7806:". Please revert if you disagree with this change, 3510:

and may only be restored following a successful RfA.

107: 62: 7758:Also agree that we should call for volunteers now. 6540:Israel's largest city in both population and area, 6527:Israel's largest city in both population and area, 6459:Israel's largest city in both population and area, 2637:in it. I wonder how long it will be before we have 2050:renunciation of Adminship and access to its tools. 1932:

ADDITIONAL NOTE RELATING TO PENDING ARBCOM MOTIONS:

1786:actions this case against Schumin is bringing up). 596:

Your section must not contain more than 500 words (

6486:(a) is the Israeli POV (b) is the non-Israeli POV. 2012:handled them is what resulted in the RfC and RfA. 1411:. The questions raised about SW's compliance with 634:will vote on accepting or declining the case. The 4653:Oppose in favor of the currently passing motion. 4153:that, a few copy edits for (hopefully) clarity. 2159:from WP thus indicating that it is his intent to 2143:seems tantamount to an affirmative acceptance of 1312:watch it. Because we're not a howling lynch mob. 1071:But this all had happened before, as reviewed in 2141:"wash(ing) my (his) hands for good of Knowledge" 1159:to resolve the matter pending Schumin's return. 222: 5887:Here are some examples of behavioral problems: 3859:Switching to oppose in favor of better option. 2026:@Jclemens (In Arb comments) Exactly my point: 1944:at 1.1.23 below which is "spot on" on both the 244: 7021:of 1980 which declared Jerusalem its capital. 3782:19:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC) (Second choice) 2284:(peripherally involved and having no position) 7076:Accordingly, the UK government, for example, 3443:Workable, could be fine tuned better though. 2331:no non-free images would remain on Knowledge. 2288:This was originally a response to Kww, above 1317: 1277: 1251: 1219: 1195: 1107:Knowledge:Files for deletion/2012 November 19 1099:Knowledge:Files for deletion/2012 November 18 650:Knowledge:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests 620:Banned users may request arbitration via the 7092:to the UK Press Complaints Commission about 7069:Example repercussions od UN resolutions ... 2807:of which this admin is in violation. He is 2584: 583:This page is for statements, not discussion. 6186:will not suffice to resolve this dispute?" 2671:Changes to Template:Di-replaceable fair use 2147:permanent resignation of adminship as well. 2086:to respond is little more than granting an 1308:watching the SchuminWeb account and nobody 8029:two days before this motion was proposed. 6918:The following discussion has been closed. 6360:Some comments on mediation - According to 5920:article with regard to the same statement. 5560:Knowledge:Requests for mediation/Jerusalem 3537:can still handle it a bit more elegantly. 561:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement 86:Revision as of 18:35, 27 December 2012 by 7409:will not suffice to resolve this dispute? 6134:The referees asked the right questions : 5662:or ArbCom for the alleged "blocking" and 2378:declared unambiguously that he has left ( 1911:I in fact at the time came very close to 1048:Knowledge:Requests for comment/SchuminWeb 489:No arbitrator motions are currently open. 280: 5508:Talk:Jerusalem/capital/2010#On the Table 3920:Oppose in favor of better option below. 2217:Statement by Kww (peripherally involved) 57: 7399:seems to focus more on content besides. 7265:Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other) 5536:Knowledge:Requests for mediation/Israel 4595:For same rationale as mentioned above. 2929:Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other) 2034:evidence that there is no intention to 1973:evidence that there is no intention to 1811:In response to Elen's statement below: 1183:appearance of justice is of the essence 85: 14: 6446:(recognized as) the capital of Israel. 2587:of the abuse and his recommendations. 2121:and this RfA case despite there being 5706:In response to Hersfold's questions: 2179:both responds to the Arb case and is 1781:Statement by non-quite-involved Masem 648:Declined case requests are logged at 54: 35: 5916:2) The same issue is present in the 4028:" in its place; and (ii) replacing " 2937:: I would really like to hear from 2799:Comments by mostly uninvolved TParis 2669:, scroll down to the first section, 2345:as understood by a reasonable human. 638:tally counts the arbitrators voting 494: 382:Clarification and Amendment requests 27: 6902:Irrelevant to this case request. -- 6362:Knowledge:DR#Last_resort:_Mediation 290:Backlash to diversity and inclusion 149: 118: 7647:Support votes needed for majority 6981:"Avoid stating opinions as facts." 6625:, they initially said they would 4438:Support votes needed for majority 4268:Equal preference to motion above. 3715:Support votes needed for majority 3369:Support votes needed for majority 553:arbitration guide to case requests 150: 8055: 7227:even in sports and entertainment 6974:Knowledge:Neutral point of view: 6493:Those who are unhappy at the way 6138:Sort of dispute is exactly where 5484:Confirmation that other steps in 3889:Weakly, but prefer three months. 2728:Comments by uninvolved Hammersoft 2139:Indeed his own words that he was 1463:. It was the lack of response to 1037:Confirmation that other steps in 654:Knowledge:Arbitration/Index/Cases 454:Amendment request: PIA Canvassing 108:→‎Motion regarding SchuminWeb (3) 72:. The present address (URL) is a 63:→‎Motion regarding SchuminWeb (3) 7407:existing discretionary sanctions 6929:The problem is obviously one of 6561:Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy 6184:existing discretionary sanctions 5538:(deleted): Rejected January 2010 5520:: Source of current phrasing in 5510:: Source of current phrasing in 4316:Sorry, but I just can't support 3758:messes.) Copyedits are welcome. 2898: 8039: 7940: 7902: 7748: 7689:As proposer. Adopted from the 7510: 7486: 7029:Example UN resolution text ... 6863: 6858: 6848:. I also point out that in the 6830: 6825: 6807: 6802: 6114: 6096: 6078: 6057: 6023: 5496:: Numerous threads (taken from 4699: 4596: 4552: 4409:Motion regarding SchuminWeb (4) 4269: 4259: 4115:Motion regarding SchuminWeb (3) 4099: 4064: 3971: 3857:) 21:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 3759: 3682:Motion regarding SchuminWeb (2) 3595: 3538: 3216: 3099: 3084: 2364:Schuminweb off-wiki declaration 2088:"avoid desyoping for free card" 1675:putting up the retired template 1655: 1648: 1629: 1622: 1607: 1600: 1581: 1574: 1555: 1548: 1528: 1521: 1358:Uninvolved Point of Order from 215: 7250:Tariq, and you The Committee. 6952:20:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC) 6856: 6823: 6800: 2684: 2357:instead of ever going to DRV. 1683: 1678: 1572:his awareness of this case. — 624:; don't try to edit this page. 237: 13: 1: 8044:18:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC) 8015:05:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 7976:21:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC) 7945:10:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC) 7925:19:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 7907:23:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 7892:were an ArbCom directed RfC. 7876:00:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC) 7867:05:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC) 7850:20:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC) 7841: 7839:benefit from their services. 7834:21:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC) 7825: 7815:20:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC) 7797:18:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 7777:17:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 7754:17:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 7739:16:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 7726:13:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 7713:07:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 7703:07:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 7555:22:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC) 7538:13:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC) 7515:01:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 7492:14:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 7480:09:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 7459:03:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 7429:01:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 7382:23:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC) 7373: 7355:01:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 7346: 7333:07:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 7319:01:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 7297:20:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC) 7285:18:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 7275:23:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC) 7255:14:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC) 7240:12:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC) 7201:23:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC) 7192: 7172:01:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 7152:13:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 7138:12:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 6912:20:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC) 6890:08:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 6869:05:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC) 6836:23:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 6813:14:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC) 6764:20:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC) 6746:08:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC) 6722:02:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 6708:08:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC) 6690:06:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 6659:01:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 6592:18:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 6555:14:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC) 6516:17:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 6403:20:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC) 6381:15:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 6356:18:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 6329:16:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 6300:13:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 6268:08:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 6251:07:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 6221:10:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 6121:21:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC) 6103:19:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 6085:07:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 6064:19:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 6048:. Instead you only said that 6030:05:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 6009:03:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 5983:Statement by Alertboatbanking 5973:09:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC) 5959:23:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 5939:16:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 5882:22:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC) 5857:19:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC) 5848: 5826:04:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 5817: 5807:18:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 5798: 5781:13:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 5772: 5760:03:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 5751: 5714:stance, with labels such as " 5700:20:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC) 5691: 5682:20:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC) 5673: 5588:19:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC) 5579: 4759:19:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC) 4747: 4704:13:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC) 4685:12:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC) 4672:00:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC) 4663:12:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC) 4649:05:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC) 4635:22:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC) 4617:21:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC) 4602:21:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC) 4580:21:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC) 4571: 4557:07:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC) 4534:02:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC) 4520:00:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC) 4500:22:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC) 4486:22:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC) 4401:11:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC) 4388:12:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC) 4349:21:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC) 4340: 4333:22:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC) 4301:00:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC) 4293:22:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC) 4275:21:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC) 4264:07:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC) 4240:19:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC) 4226:19:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC) 4212:09:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC) 4189:07:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC) 4175:07:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC) 4162:07:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC) 4140:18:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC) 4105:19:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 4089:14:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 4070:19:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 4054:14:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 4022:to close deletion discussions 3992:21:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC) 3983: 3976:07:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC) 3957:20:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC) 3944:19:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC) 3930:12:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC) 3905:06:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC) 3885:23:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 3869:12:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC) 3844:21:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 3822:05:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC) 3796:22:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC) 3765:14:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 3676:05:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 3656:18:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 3615:21:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC) 3606: 3600:07:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC) 3581:18:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 3567:17:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 3544:17:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 3530:19:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 3497:12:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 3473:07:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC) 3459:06:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC) 3439:14:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 3425:07:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 3320:21:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC) 3311: 3301:22:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC) 3292: 3277:06:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 3261:04:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 3244:02:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 3221:01:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 3197:23:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 3174:12:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC) 3149:00:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 3130:22:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 3105:01:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 3090:21:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 3076:02:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 3055:19:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 3029:23:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 3012:18:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 2995:01:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 2978:18:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 2967:18:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 2954:17:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 2916:19:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 2890:18:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 2863:11:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC) 2843:02:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC) 2824:16:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 2794:18:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 2770:18:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC) 2756:16:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 2723:16:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 2689:15:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 2651:12:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 2617:06:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 2597:22:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC) 2585:SteveBaker's characterization 2571:12:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC) 2539:07:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC) 2497:17:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC) 2471:04:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC) 2449:16:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 2434:14:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 2416:23:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 2274:16:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 2260:16:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 2245:22:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 2211:21:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC) 2133:do so in order to retain the 2060:05:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 2022:04:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 2000:20:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 1852:16:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 1829:16:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 1806:21:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 1773:17:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC) 1753:08:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 1712:19:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 1692:20:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 1661:03:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC) 1635:03:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 1613:00:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 1587:20:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 1561:19:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 1534:18:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 1504:14:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 1485:17:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 1453:19:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 1430:18:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 1392:14:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 1375:18:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 1353:18:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 1333:10:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC) 1293:16:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 1267:17:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 1235:12:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 1211:18:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 1168:18:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 1144:13:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 1125:17:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 1089:17:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 684:16:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 6895:Statement by Volunteer Marek 6463:East Jerusalem is included. 6390: 6368: 6343: 6316: 6287: 5851: 5820: 5801: 5775: 5754: 5720:agreeing to it two years ago 5694: 5676: 5582: 4750: 2641:admins willing to work FFD? 1298:On the opposes to motion #4: 7: 7857:they've already declined. 6601:Statement by BritishWatcher 6531:East Jerusalem is included. 6256:Question to the arbitrators 6182:"#Is there some reason why 5514:lead, January-February 2010 3328:Motion regarding SchuminWeb 2775:Comments by uninvolved Floq 1697:Question from Beyond My Ken 1686: 1315:Please reconsider, thanks.— 608:email the clerks email list 574:File an arbitration request 34:of this page, as edited by 10: 8060: 8027:offered to assist in a RfC 7561:Motion regarding Jerusalem 6777:which sounds very familiar 6231:Request to the arbitrators 4689:To bring this to a close. 3585:Prefer the later motions. 1757:Apparently addressed, see 1046:This is as a follow-on to 630:After a request is filed, 500: 105: 60: 7750:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 7488:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 7405:Is there some reason why 6770:Statement by Steven Zhang 6536:Per WP:NPOV,'(Jerusalem) 6278:Statement by Sean.hoyland 6044:to answer any questions, 5992:little more can be done. 5867:there may be significant 5550:Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 19 5546:Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 18 5542:Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 17 4598:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 4271:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 4122:new request for adminship 4101:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 4066:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 4041:new request for adminship 4032:new request for adminship 3761:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 3689:new request for adminship 3540:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 3101:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 3086:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 2226:. Knowledge is rife with 1938:endorse the statement of 1842: 1819: 1796: 1669:Statement by Youreallycan 1544:I have tweeted SchuminWeb 1340:Statement by GiantSnowman 399: 396: 393: 390: 358: 355: 279: 276: 273: 270: 208: 205: 202: 199: 7218:National Geography and 7044:As another example, see 6921:Please do not modify it. 5664:accusations of ownership 5567:Statement by Tariqabjotu 5562:: Rejected December 2012 3948:No, the tools should be 1926:VERSION EDITED FOR SPACE 1883:VERSION EDITED FOR SPACE 1132:On the motion to desysop 1032:notice posted at the RfC 530:votes to "accept" (or a 153:Requests for arbitration 6820:verifiability mediation 6728:Statement by Rschen7754 5600:article has a problem. 2454:Statement by SteveBaker 1837:non-free content review 1397:Statement by Quasihuman 55:18:35, 27 December 2012 7245:Statement by Jehochman 7054:Positions on Jerusalem 6799:case may be required. 6439:the capital of Israel. 6408:Statement by Nishidani 6127:Statement by Pluto2012 5862:Statement by Dailycare 5654:of bringing people to 5647:"consensus by default" 5494:Talk:Jerusalem/capital 3961:One year is too long. 3934:In favor of motion 3. 2583:) and I fully support 2129:requiring that Admins 1858:Statement by Centpacrr 1721:old edits that I have 622:committee contact page 341:Recently closed cases 7616:neutral point of view 7210:Statement by Tritomex 7157:Statement by formerip 6960:Statement by ZScarpia 6646:the positions we do. 6474:Israel’s largest city 6014:Statement by Nableezy 5504:) since October 2003 5452:No More Mr Nice Guy: 4039:tools will require a 3343:Request for Adminship 3332:Since SchuminWeb has 2674:Knowledge. There was 2623:Comment by Black Kite 2371:http://schuminweb.com 2070:Courcelles' Motion #4 159:Arbitration Committee 18:Knowledge:Arbitration 7036:As one example, see 6875:Statement by cptnono 6664:Statement by Ravpapa 6050:it would be reverted 5789:put into the article 4524:Equal first choice. 1150:Statement by MBisanz 366:Historical elections 8022:Knowledge:Consensus 7999:Arbitrator comments 7640: 7078:takes the position 6990:Further Clauses ... 6584:No More Mr Nice Guy 5164:No More Mr Nice Guy 4727:Arbitrator comments 4431: 4372:Arbitrator comments 4196:Second preference. 4015:Arbitrator comments 3875:Second preference. 3708: 3638:Arbitrator comments 3362: 2848:Comment by Davewild 2544:Comment by Bwilkins 2386:Statement by Kurtis 2279:Statement by Lexein 2066:Comment re Motions: 1914:leaving the project 1509:Statement by Hahc21 1055:Statement by Mangoe 125:← Previous revision 7635: 7340:comment regarding 7130:(more to follow) 6788:rejected a request 5845:giving a shit. -- 5742:a January 2010 RfC 5738:an August 2009 RfC 5609:State of Palestine 5524:lead, October 2010 5486:dispute resolution 5478:20:19, December 16 5472:20:19, December 16 5466:20:19, December 16 5460:20:18, December 16 5454:20:18, December 16 5448:20:17, December 16 5442:20:17, December 16 5436:20:16, December 16 5430:20:16, December 16 5424:20:15, December 16 5418:20:14, December 16 5412:01:44, December 17 5410:Alertboatbanking: 4426: 4179:First preference. 3703: 3463:Third preference. 3357: 2829:Comment by MBisanz 2694:Comment by Collect 2676:further discussion 2439:Comment by Spartaz 1929: 1886: 1039:dispute resolution 483:Arbitrator motions 472:30 September 2024 448:30 September 2024 7775: 7675: 7674: 7612:reliable sourcing 7266: 7109: 7108: 7061: 7060: 7013: 7012: 6957: 6956: 6695:Statement by Heim 6401: 6379: 6354: 6327: 6298: 6123: 6105: 6087: 6066: 6032: 5833: 5832: 5620:resolution (e.g. 4466: 4465: 4024:" and inserting " 3804: 3743: 3742: 3604:Prefer motion 4. 3565: 3397: 3396: 3166:Elen of the Roads 3141:Elen of the Roads 3122:Elen of the Roads 3118:Foundation policy 3053: 2930: 2421:Statement by Heim 2293: 2289: 1928: 1923: 1904:so for an Admin. 1885: 1880: 1835:@Kurtis: We have 1465:User:TonyTheTiger 1331: 1291: 1265: 1233: 1209: 1189:to a desysopping. 662: 661: 538:Arbitration is a 476: 475: 462: 438: 375: 374: 335: 334: 325: 257: 256: 250:16 December 2012 228:17 December 2012 8051: 8040: 8034: 7941: 7935: 7903: 7897: 7845: 7829: 7812: 7771: 7752: 7641: 7634: 7630: 7609: 7591: 7511: 7505: 7490: 7377: 7350: 7264: 7196: 7150: 7136: 7065: 7064: 7025: 7024: 6986: 6985: 6951: 6948: 6923: 6899: 6898: 6867: 6865: 6860: 6834: 6832: 6827: 6811: 6809: 6804: 6716:Heimstern Läufer 6702:Heimstern Läufer 6455:B. '(Jerusalem) 6392: 6387: 6370: 6365: 6345: 6340: 6318: 6313: 6289: 6284: 6116: 6111: 6098: 6093: 6080: 6075: 6059: 6054: 6025: 6020: 6001:Alertboatbanking 5853: 5850: 5822: 5819: 5803: 5800: 5793:reverted back in 5777: 5774: 5756: 5753: 5696: 5693: 5678: 5675: 5584: 5581: 5576:Withdrawing. -- 5572: 5571: 5416:BritishWatcher: 5400: 5373:deleted contribs 5352: 5325:deleted contribs 5304: 5277:deleted contribs 5256: 5229:deleted contribs 5208: 5181:deleted contribs 5160: 5133:deleted contribs 5112: 5085:deleted contribs 5064: 5037:deleted contribs 5016: 4989:deleted contribs 4968: 4941:deleted contribs 4920: 4893:deleted contribs 4872: 4845:deleted contribs 4828:Alertboatbanking 4820: 4764:Involved parties 4752: 4749: 4700: 4694: 4682: 4600: 4575: 4553: 4547: 4432: 4425: 4421: 4398: 4344: 4273: 4260: 4254: 4159: 4103: 4068: 4051: 3987: 3972: 3966: 3802: 3763: 3709: 3702: 3698: 3610: 3596: 3590: 3561: 3542: 3527: 3494: 3363: 3356: 3352: 3315: 3296: 3217: 3211: 3103: 3088: 3049: 2964: 2951: 2928: 2905: 2902: 2901: 2839: 2686: 2537: 2520: 2503:Comment by Koavf 2428:Heimstern Läufer 2308:reason to delete 2291: 2287: 2194:Indeed there is 2090:as a reward for 1924: 1881: 1844: 1821: 1798: 1770: 1765: 1690: 1685: 1682: 1658: 1652: 1632: 1626: 1610: 1604: 1584: 1578: 1558: 1552: 1531: 1525: 1323: 1321: 1283: 1281: 1257: 1255: 1225: 1223: 1201: 1199: 1164: 989: 962:deleted contribs 941: 914:deleted contribs 893: 866:deleted contribs 845: 818:deleted contribs 797: 739: 712:deleted contribs 689:Involved parties 601: 591:more information 585: 577: 575: 520: 513: 495: 461: 458: 437: 434: 388: 387: 353: 352: 348: 295: 282: 268: 267: 197: 196: 137:Newer revision → 115: 113: 111: 102: 81: 79:current revision 71: 70: 68: 66: 56: 52: 51: 8059: 8058: 8054: 8053: 8052: 8050: 8049: 8048: 8032: 7933: 7895: 7821:Muhammad images 7808: 7804:this topic area 7691:Muhammad images 7628: 7621:this topic area 7582: 7566: 7563: 7503: 7262: 7247: 7212: 7179: 7159: 7145: 7131: 7110: 7070: 7062: 7030: 7014: 6991: 6962: 6949: 6946: 6919: 6897: 6877: 6772: 6730: 6697: 6666: 6603: 6563: 6435:(a) Jerusalem 6410: 6280: 6129: 6016: 5985: 5869:WP:Stonewalling 5864: 5834: 5590: 5569: 5532:: May-July 2008 5488:have been tried 5358: 5310: 5262: 5214: 5166: 5118: 5070: 5022: 4974: 4926: 4878: 4830: 4772: 4766: 4740: 4692: 4678: 4667:Per SirFozzie. 4545: 4419: 4411: 4394: 4252: 4155: 4132:Alexandr Dmitri 4117: 4047: 4026:for any purpose 3964: 3696: 3684: 3588: 3523: 3521:Any thoughts? 3490: 3350: 3330: 3209: 2960: 2947: 2926: 2903: 2899: 2870: 2850: 2837: 2831: 2801: 2777: 2730: 2696: 2658: 2625: 2578: 2546: 2523: 2514: 2505: 2456: 2441: 2423: 2388: 2376:User:Schuminweb 2297: 2281: 2219: 1941:KillerChihuahua 1860: 1783: 1768: 1763: 1741:status quo ante 1699: 1671: 1511: 1399: 1363: 1342: 1240:On the motions: 1178: 1162: 1152: 1057: 1041:have been tried 998:User:S Marshall 947: 899: 851: 803: 749: 697: 691: 667: 640:accept/decline/ 632:the arbitrators 613:Arbitrators or 604:internal gadget 599:Word Count Tool 597: 581: 573: 571: 524: 523: 516: 509: 505: 493: 492: 491: 486: 485: 478: 477: 459: 435: 424:17 August 2024 385: 384: 377: 376: 350: 349: 342: 337: 336: 265: 264: 259: 258: 194: 193: 186: 172:purge this page 162: 155: 148: 147: 146: 145: 144: 129:Latest revision 117: 116: 106: 103: 92: 90: 77: 61: 58: 41: 39: 24: 12: 11: 5: 8057: 8047: 8046: 8017: 8002: 8001: 8000: 7994: 7993: 7992: 7991: 7988: 7987: 7981: 7980: 7979: 7978: 7964: 7963: 7956: 7954: 7953: 7952: 7951: 7950: 7949: 7948: 7947: 7920: 7917: 7888: 7887: 7881: 7880: 7879: 7878: 7869: 7854: 7853: 7852: 7817: 7799: 7781:Worth trying. 7779: 7767: 7764: 7756: 7741: 7728: 7715: 7705: 7686: 7685: 7673: 7672: 7669: 7665: 7664: 7661: 7657: 7656: 7653: 7649: 7648: 7645: 7633: 7632: 7562: 7559: 7558: 7557: 7540: 7517: 7494: 7482: 7465: 7464: 7463: 7462: 7461: 7454: 7451: 7432: 7431: 7424: 7421: 7413: 7410: 7403: 7400: 7387: 7386: 7385: 7384: 7358: 7357: 7337: 7336: 7335: 7303: 7302: 7301: 7300: 7299: 7261: 7258: 7246: 7243: 7211: 7208: 7206: 7204: 7203: 7186: 7185: 7178: 7175: 7158: 7155: 7107: 7106: 7090:complaint made 7086:the BBC listed 7072: 7071: 7068: 7063: 7059: 7058: 7046:Resolution 267 7038:Resolution 478 7032: 7031: 7028: 7023: 7011: 7010: 7009: 7008: 7005: 7002: 6999: 6993: 6992: 6989: 6984: 6983: 6982: 6979: 6961: 6958: 6955: 6954: 6925: 6924: 6915: 6914: 6896: 6893: 6876: 6873: 6872: 6871: 6839: 6838: 6771: 6768: 6767: 6766: 6729: 6726: 6725: 6724: 6696: 6693: 6665: 6662: 6651:BritishWatcher 6602: 6599: 6597: 6595: 6594: 6580: 6577: 6574: 6571: 6562: 6559: 6558: 6557: 6534: 6533: 6532: 6488: 6487: 6483: 6482: 6477:(b) Jerusalem 6475: 6470:(a) Jerusalem 6453: 6452: 6448: 6447: 6442:(b) Jerusalem 6440: 6424:A. 'Jerusalem 6409: 6406: 6332: 6331: 6279: 6276: 6275: 6274: 6273: 6272: 6271: 6270: 6253: 6239: 6210: 6209: 6208: 6207: 6200: 6199: 6198: 6192: 6191: 6190: 6180: 6179: 6178: 6172: 6171: 6170: 6167: 6161: 6160: 6159: 6149: 6148: 6147: 6128: 6125: 6107: 6106: 6068: 6067: 6040:, however you 6015: 6012: 5989:final solution 5984: 5981: 5980: 5979: 5978: 5977: 5976: 5975: 5927: 5924: 5921: 5913: 5912: 5863: 5860: 5831: 5830: 5829: 5828: 5810: 5809: 5784: 5783: 5765: 5764: 5763: 5762: 5745: 5733: 5730: 5727: 5703: 5702: 5592: 5591: 5575: 5570: 5568: 5565: 5564: 5563: 5557: 5554:Talk:Jerusalem 5539: 5533: 5527: 5526: 5525: 5515: 5498:Talk:Jerusalem 5490: 5489: 5481: 5480: 5474: 5468: 5464:Sean.hoyland: 5462: 5456: 5450: 5444: 5438: 5432: 5426: 5420: 5414: 5407: 5406: 5402: 5401: 5353: 5305: 5257: 5209: 5161: 5113: 5065: 5017: 4969: 4921: 4876:BritishWatcher 4873: 4825: 4765: 4762: 4739: 4736: 4735: 4734: 4733: 4732: 4729: 4728: 4722: 4721: 4720: 4719: 4716: 4715: 4709: 4708: 4707: 4706: 4687: 4674: 4665: 4651: 4637: 4630: 4627: 4619: 4604: 4592: 4591: 4585: 4584: 4583: 4582: 4562: 4561: 4560: 4522: 4502: 4488: 4477: 4476: 4464: 4463: 4460: 4456: 4455: 4452: 4448: 4447: 4444: 4440: 4439: 4436: 4424: 4423: 4410: 4407: 4406: 4405: 4404: 4403: 4390: 4374: 4373: 4367: 4366: 4365: 4364: 4361: 4360: 4354: 4353: 4352: 4351: 4335: 4313: 4312: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4295: 4288: 4285: 4279:First choice. 4277: 4266: 4242: 4228: 4214: 4191: 4177: 4164: 4149: 4148: 4116: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4092: 4091: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4057: 4056: 4017: 4016: 4010: 4009: 4008: 4007: 4004: 4003: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3978: 3959: 3946: 3932: 3917: 3916: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3887: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3824: 3798: 3791: 3788: 3778: 3775: 3767: 3754: 3753: 3741: 3740: 3737: 3733: 3732: 3729: 3725: 3724: 3721: 3717: 3716: 3713: 3701: 3700: 3683: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3658: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3627: 3626: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3602: 3583: 3569: 3557: 3554: 3546: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3514: 3511: 3507: 3485: 3484: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3461: 3441: 3427: 3408: 3407: 3395: 3394: 3391: 3387: 3386: 3383: 3379: 3378: 3375: 3371: 3370: 3367: 3355: 3354: 3329: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3304: 3303: 3279: 3263: 3246: 3223: 3199: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3071: 3068: 3045: 3042: 3033: 3032: 3031: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2925: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2893: 2892: 2877: 2876: 2869: 2866: 2849: 2846: 2830: 2827: 2800: 2797: 2776: 2773: 2729: 2726: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2695: 2692: 2657: 2654: 2624: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2577: 2576:Comment by PAR 2574: 2545: 2542: 2504: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2455: 2452: 2440: 2437: 2422: 2419: 2387: 2384: 2366: 2365: 2296:Starting over: 2295: 2280: 2277: 2218: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2150: 2149: 2123:proof positive 2097: 2096: 1963:proof positive 1859: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1832: 1831: 1782: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1698: 1695: 1670: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1637: 1589: 1570:he aknowledges 1563: 1516:modus operandi 1510: 1507: 1488: 1487: 1455: 1398: 1395: 1362: 1356: 1341: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1295: 1270: 1237: 1177: 1171: 1151: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1128: 1127: 1111: 1110: 1056: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1043: 1042: 1034: 1033: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1007: 1006: 991: 990: 942: 894: 846: 798: 744: 690: 687: 666: 663: 660: 659: 658: 657: 646: 636:<0/0/0: --> 628: 625: 618: 611: 594: 579: 578: 522: 521: 514: 506: 501: 498: 487: 481: 480: 474: 473: 470: 463: 456: 450: 449: 446: 439: 432: 426: 425: 422: 415: 408: 402: 401: 398: 395: 392: 386: 380: 379: 373: 372: 369: 361: 360: 357: 351: 340: 339: 333: 332: 329: 326: 293: 285: 284: 278: 275: 272: 266: 262: 261: 255: 254: 251: 248: 241: 233: 232: 229: 226: 219: 211: 210: 207: 204: 201: 195: 189: 188: 185: 184: 174: 169: 167:recent changes 163: 157: 156: 154: 151: 112:motion enacted 89:AlexandrDmitri 88: 74:permanent link 67:motion enacted 38:AlexandrDmitri 37: 26: 25: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 8056: 8045: 8042: 8041: 8036: 8035: 8028: 8023: 8018: 8016: 8012: 8008: 8003: 7998: 7997: 7996: 7995: 7990: 7989: 7985: 7984: 7983: 7982: 7977: 7973: 7969: 7966: 7965: 7961: 7960: 7959: 7958: 7957: 7946: 7943: 7942: 7937: 7936: 7928: 7927: 7926: 7923: 7922: 7921: 7918: 7915: 7910: 7909: 7908: 7905: 7904: 7899: 7898: 7890: 7889: 7885: 7884: 7883: 7882: 7877: 7874: 7871:Fair enough. 7870: 7868: 7864: 7860: 7855: 7851: 7848: 7846: 7844: 7837: 7836: 7835: 7832: 7830: 7828: 7822: 7818: 7816: 7813: 7811: 7805: 7800: 7798: 7794: 7791: 7788: 7784: 7780: 7778: 7774: 7770: 7769: 7768: 7765: 7762: 7757: 7755: 7751: 7746: 7742: 7740: 7736: 7732: 7729: 7727: 7723: 7719: 7716: 7714: 7711: 7706: 7704: 7700: 7696: 7692: 7688: 7687: 7683: 7682: 7681: 7680: 7679: 7678: 7670: 7667: 7666: 7662: 7659: 7658: 7654: 7651: 7650: 7646: 7643: 7642: 7638: 7631: 7626: 7625: 7624: 7622: 7617: 7613: 7607: 7603: 7599: 7595: 7590: 7586: 7581: 7577: 7573: 7569: 7556: 7552: 7548: 7544: 7541: 7539: 7535: 7532: 7529: 7525: 7521: 7518: 7516: 7513: 7512: 7507: 7506: 7498: 7495: 7493: 7489: 7483: 7481: 7477: 7473: 7469: 7466: 7460: 7457: 7456: 7455: 7452: 7449: 7444: 7439: 7436: 7435: 7434: 7433: 7430: 7427: 7426: 7425: 7422: 7419: 7414: 7411: 7408: 7404: 7401: 7397: 7396: 7394: 7389: 7388: 7383: 7380: 7378: 7376: 7370: 7366: 7362: 7361: 7360: 7359: 7356: 7353: 7351: 7349: 7343: 7338: 7334: 7330: 7326: 7322: 7321: 7320: 7316: 7312: 7308: 7304: 7298: 7295: 7291: 7288: 7287: 7286: 7283: 7278: 7277: 7276: 7273: 7269: 7268: 7267: 7257: 7256: 7253: 7242: 7241: 7237: 7233: 7229: 7226: 7223: 7220: 7217: 7207: 7202: 7199: 7197: 7195: 7188: 7187: 7184: 7181: 7180: 7174: 7173: 7169: 7165: 7154: 7153: 7149: 7141: 7139: 7135: 7128: 7125: 7120: 7114: 7105: 7103: 7099: 7095: 7091: 7087: 7083: 7079: 7074: 7073: 7067: 7066: 7057: 7055: 7052:(see article 7051: 7047: 7043: 7039: 7034: 7033: 7027: 7026: 7022: 7020: 7006: 7003: 7000: 6997: 6996: 6995: 6994: 6988: 6987: 6980: 6977: 6976: 6975: 6972: 6969: 6967: 6953: 6942: 6938: 6936: 6932: 6931:excess demand 6927: 6926: 6922: 6917: 6916: 6913: 6909: 6905: 6901: 6900: 6892: 6891: 6887: 6883: 6870: 6866: 6861: 6853: 6852: 6847: 6846: 6841: 6840: 6837: 6833: 6828: 6821: 6817: 6816: 6815: 6814: 6810: 6805: 6798: 6792: 6789: 6785: 6783: 6778: 6765: 6762: 6761: 6758: 6755: 6750: 6749: 6748: 6747: 6744: 6743: 6740: 6737: 6723: 6720: 6717: 6712: 6711: 6710: 6709: 6706: 6703: 6692: 6691: 6687: 6683: 6677: 6673: 6669: 6661: 6660: 6656: 6652: 6647: 6643: 6641: 6635: 6633: 6630: 6627: 6624: 6619: 6615: 6611: 6607: 6598: 6593: 6589: 6585: 6581: 6578: 6575: 6572: 6568: 6567: 6566: 6556: 6552: 6548: 6543: 6539: 6535: 6530: 6526: 6523:'(Jerusalem) 6522: 6521: 6520: 6519: 6518: 6517: 6513: 6509: 6505: 6501: 6496: 6491: 6485: 6484: 6480: 6476: 6473: 6469: 6468: 6467: 6464: 6462: 6458: 6450: 6449: 6445: 6441: 6438: 6434: 6433: 6432: 6429: 6427: 6422: 6418: 6414: 6405: 6404: 6400: 6399: 6394: 6393: 6383: 6382: 6378: 6377: 6372: 6371: 6363: 6358: 6357: 6353: 6352: 6347: 6346: 6338: 6330: 6326: 6325: 6320: 6319: 6311: 6307: 6306: 6305: 6302: 6301: 6297: 6296: 6291: 6290: 6269: 6265: 6261: 6257: 6254: 6252: 6248: 6244: 6236: 6232: 6229: 6228: 6227: 6226: 6225: 6224: 6223: 6222: 6218: 6214: 6204: 6203: 6201: 6196: 6195: 6193: 6188: 6187: 6185: 6181: 6176: 6175: 6173: 6168: 6165: 6164: 6162: 6157: 6156: 6154: 6150: 6144: 6143: 6141: 6137: 6136: 6135: 6132: 6124: 6122: 6118: 6117: 6104: 6100: 6099: 6090: 6089: 6088: 6086: 6082: 6081: 6073: 6065: 6061: 6060: 6051: 6047: 6043: 6039: 6035: 6034: 6033: 6031: 6027: 6026: 6011: 6010: 6006: 6002: 5996: 5993: 5990: 5974: 5970: 5966: 5962: 5961: 5960: 5956: 5952: 5949:mediation. -- 5947: 5942: 5941: 5940: 5936: 5932: 5928: 5925: 5922: 5919: 5915: 5914: 5910: 5906: 5902: 5898: 5894: 5890: 5886: 5885: 5884: 5883: 5879: 5875: 5870: 5859: 5858: 5855: 5854: 5844: 5838: 5827: 5824: 5823: 5812: 5811: 5808: 5805: 5804: 5794: 5790: 5786: 5785: 5782: 5779: 5778: 5767: 5766: 5761: 5758: 5757: 5746: 5743: 5739: 5734: 5731: 5728: 5725: 5721: 5717: 5713: 5708: 5707: 5705: 5704: 5701: 5698: 5697: 5686: 5685: 5684: 5683: 5680: 5679: 5667: 5665: 5661: 5657: 5653: 5648: 5642: 5640: 5637: 5634: 5631: 5628: 5625: 5622: 5617: 5614: 5610: 5606: 5601: 5599: 5594: 5593: 5589: 5586: 5585: 5574: 5573: 5561: 5558: 5555: 5551: 5547: 5543: 5540: 5537: 5534: 5531: 5528: 5523: 5519: 5516: 5513: 5509: 5506: 5505: 5503: 5499: 5495: 5492: 5491: 5487: 5483: 5482: 5479: 5475: 5473: 5469: 5467: 5463: 5461: 5457: 5455: 5451: 5449: 5445: 5443: 5439: 5437: 5433: 5431: 5427: 5425: 5421: 5419: 5415: 5413: 5409: 5408: 5404: 5403: 5398: 5395: 5392: 5389: 5386: 5383: 5380: 5377: 5374: 5371: 5368: 5365: 5362: 5357: 5354: 5350: 5347: 5344: 5341: 5338: 5335: 5332: 5329: 5326: 5323: 5320: 5317: 5314: 5309: 5306: 5302: 5299: 5296: 5293: 5290: 5287: 5284: 5281: 5278: 5275: 5272: 5269: 5266: 5261: 5258: 5254: 5251: 5248: 5245: 5242: 5239: 5236: 5233: 5230: 5227: 5224: 5221: 5218: 5213: 5210: 5206: 5203: 5200: 5197: 5194: 5191: 5188: 5185: 5182: 5179: 5176: 5173: 5170: 5165: 5162: 5158: 5155: 5152: 5149: 5146: 5143: 5140: 5137: 5134: 5131: 5128: 5125: 5122: 5117: 5114: 5110: 5107: 5104: 5101: 5098: 5095: 5092: 5089: 5086: 5083: 5080: 5077: 5074: 5069: 5066: 5062: 5059: 5056: 5053: 5050: 5047: 5044: 5041: 5038: 5035: 5032: 5029: 5026: 5021: 5018: 5014: 5011: 5008: 5005: 5002: 4999: 4996: 4993: 4990: 4987: 4984: 4981: 4978: 4973: 4970: 4966: 4963: 4960: 4957: 4954: 4951: 4948: 4945: 4942: 4939: 4936: 4933: 4930: 4925: 4922: 4918: 4915: 4912: 4909: 4906: 4903: 4900: 4897: 4894: 4891: 4888: 4885: 4882: 4877: 4874: 4870: 4867: 4864: 4861: 4858: 4855: 4852: 4849: 4846: 4843: 4840: 4837: 4834: 4829: 4826: 4824: 4818: 4815: 4812: 4809: 4806: 4803: 4800: 4797: 4794: 4791: 4788: 4785: 4782: 4779: 4776: 4771: 4768: 4767: 4761: 4760: 4757: 4754: 4753: 4744: 4743:Initiated by 4731: 4730: 4726: 4725: 4724: 4723: 4718: 4717: 4713: 4712: 4711: 4710: 4705: 4702: 4701: 4696: 4695: 4688: 4686: 4683: 4681: 4675: 4673: 4670: 4666: 4664: 4660: 4656: 4652: 4650: 4646: 4642: 4638: 4636: 4633: 4632: 4631: 4628: 4625: 4620: 4618: 4614: 4610: 4605: 4603: 4599: 4594: 4593: 4589: 4588: 4587: 4586: 4581: 4578: 4576: 4574: 4568: 4563: 4559: 4558: 4555: 4554: 4549: 4548: 4540: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4531: 4527: 4523: 4521: 4517: 4514: 4511: 4507: 4504:First choice 4503: 4501: 4497: 4493: 4489: 4487: 4484: 4479: 4478: 4474: 4473: 4472: 4471: 4470: 4469: 4461: 4458: 4457: 4453: 4450: 4449: 4445: 4442: 4441: 4437: 4434: 4433: 4429: 4422: 4417: 4416: 4415: 4402: 4399: 4397: 4391: 4389: 4385: 4381: 4376: 4375: 4371: 4370: 4369: 4368: 4363: 4362: 4358: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4350: 4347: 4345: 4343: 4336: 4334: 4331: 4327: 4323: 4319: 4315: 4314: 4310: 4309: 4308: 4307: 4302: 4299: 4296: 4294: 4291: 4290: 4289: 4286: 4283: 4278: 4276: 4272: 4267: 4265: 4262: 4261: 4256: 4255: 4248: 4243: 4241: 4237: 4233: 4229: 4227: 4223: 4219: 4215: 4213: 4209: 4206: 4203: 4199: 4195: 4192: 4190: 4186: 4182: 4178: 4176: 4172: 4168: 4165: 4163: 4160: 4158: 4151: 4150: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4142: 4141: 4137: 4133: 4129: 4125: 4123: 4106: 4102: 4096: 4095: 4094: 4093: 4090: 4086: 4082: 4077: 4076: 4071: 4067: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4055: 4052: 4050: 4044: 4042: 4035: 4033: 4027: 4023: 4019: 4018: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4011: 4006: 4005: 4001: 4000: 3999: 3998: 3993: 3990: 3988: 3986: 3979: 3977: 3974: 3973: 3968: 3967: 3960: 3958: 3955: 3951: 3947: 3945: 3941: 3937: 3933: 3931: 3927: 3923: 3919: 3918: 3914: 3913: 3912: 3911: 3906: 3902: 3899: 3896: 3892: 3888: 3886: 3882: 3878: 3874: 3870: 3866: 3862: 3858: 3856: 3852: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3841: 3837: 3833: 3829: 3825: 3823: 3819: 3815: 3811: 3807: 3799: 3797: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3789: 3786: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3776: 3773: 3768: 3766: 3762: 3756: 3755: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3738: 3735: 3734: 3730: 3727: 3726: 3722: 3719: 3718: 3714: 3711: 3710: 3706: 3699: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3690: 3677: 3673: 3669: 3664: 3659: 3657: 3653: 3649: 3644: 3643: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3629: 3628: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3616: 3613: 3611: 3609: 3603: 3601: 3598: 3597: 3592: 3591: 3584: 3582: 3579: 3575: 3570: 3568: 3564: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3555: 3552: 3547: 3545: 3541: 3535: 3531: 3528: 3526: 3515: 3512: 3508: 3505: 3504: 3502: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3495: 3493: 3487: 3486: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3474: 3470: 3466: 3462: 3460: 3456: 3453: 3450: 3446: 3442: 3440: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3426: 3422: 3418: 3414: 3410: 3409: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3392: 3389: 3388: 3384: 3381: 3380: 3376: 3373: 3372: 3368: 3365: 3364: 3360: 3353: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3344: 3339: 3335: 3321: 3318: 3316: 3314: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3302: 3299: 3297: 3295: 3289: 3288: 3283: 3280: 3278: 3274: 3270: 3267: 3264: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3250: 3247: 3245: 3241: 3238: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3224: 3222: 3219: 3218: 3213: 3212: 3205: 3200: 3198: 3194: 3190: 3185: 3184: 3175: 3171: 3167: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3137: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3127: 3123: 3119: 3115: 3110: 3106: 3102: 3097: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3087: 3081: 3077: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3069: 3066: 3061: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3052: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3043: 3040: 3034: 3030: 3026: 3022: 3018: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3009: 3005: 3000: 2996: 2993: 2988: 2984: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2965: 2963: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2952: 2950: 2944: 2940: 2936: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2917: 2913: 2909: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2878: 2875: 2872: 2871: 2865: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2845: 2844: 2841: 2840: 2826: 2825: 2822: 2819: 2813: 2810: 2806: 2796: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2783: 2772: 2771: 2767: 2763: 2758: 2757: 2753: 2749: 2745: 2741: 2738: 2733: 2725: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2707: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2691: 2690: 2687: 2682: 2677: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2653: 2652: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2631: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2605: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2582: 2573: 2572: 2568: 2565: 2564: 2560: 2556: 2552: 2541: 2540: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2522: 2518: 2509: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2485: 2481: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2451: 2450: 2447: 2436: 2435: 2432: 2429: 2418: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2397: 2392: 2383: 2381: 2377: 2373: 2372: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2358: 2356: 2352: 2347: 2346: 2341: 2339: 2335: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2319: 2314: 2313: 2309: 2304: 2298: 2294: 2285: 2276: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2262: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2247: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2201: 2199: 2198: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2157: 2152: 2151: 2148: 2146: 2142: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2098: 2095: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2048: 2043: 2042: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2024: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2002: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1990: 1988: 1987: 1982: 1981: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1954: 1952: 1947: 1943: 1942: 1937: 1933: 1927: 1922: 1918: 1916: 1915: 1910: 1905: 1903: 1899: 1893: 1891: 1884: 1879: 1878: 1876: 1875: 1869: 1864: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1838: 1834: 1833: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1814: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1791: 1787: 1774: 1771: 1766: 1760: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1745:Beyond My Ken 1742: 1738: 1734: 1733: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1709: 1705: 1704:Beyond My Ken 1694: 1693: 1689: 1681: 1676: 1662: 1659: 1657: 1653: 1651: 1645: 1641: 1638: 1636: 1633: 1631: 1627: 1625: 1619: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1611: 1609: 1605: 1603: 1597: 1596:another tweet 1593: 1590: 1588: 1585: 1583: 1579: 1577: 1571: 1567: 1564: 1562: 1559: 1557: 1553: 1551: 1545: 1541: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1532: 1530: 1526: 1524: 1517: 1506: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1459: 1456: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1403: 1394: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1361: 1355: 1354: 1351: 1348: 1335: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1320: 1313: 1311: 1307: 1299: 1296: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1280: 1274: 1273:On motion #2: 1271: 1269: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1254: 1247: 1241: 1238: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1222: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1198: 1190: 1186: 1184: 1176: 1173:Statement by 1170: 1169: 1166: 1165: 1158: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1130: 1129: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1113: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1103:Twilight Zone 1100: 1096: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1076: 1074: 1069: 1066: 1060: 1049: 1045: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1035: 1031: 1029: 1027: 1025: 1023: 1021: 1019: 1017: 1015: 1013: 1011: 1009: 1008: 1004: 1003: 1002: 999: 995: 987: 984: 981: 978: 975: 972: 969: 966: 963: 960: 957: 954: 951: 946: 943: 939: 936: 933: 930: 927: 924: 921: 918: 915: 912: 909: 906: 903: 898: 895: 891: 888: 885: 882: 879: 876: 873: 870: 867: 864: 861: 858: 855: 850: 847: 843: 840: 837: 834: 831: 828: 825: 822: 819: 816: 813: 810: 807: 802: 799: 795: 792: 789: 786: 783: 780: 777: 774: 771: 768: 765: 762: 759: 756: 753: 748: 745: 743: 737: 734: 731: 728: 725: 722: 719: 716: 713: 710: 707: 704: 701: 696: 693: 692: 686: 685: 682: 678: 674: 671: 670:Initiated by 655: 651: 647: 644: 643: 637: 633: 629: 626: 623: 619: 616: 612: 609: 605: 600: 595: 592: 588: 587: 586: 584: 576: 570: 569: 568: 566: 562: 557: 555: 554: 548: 546: 543: 541: 535: 533: 529: 519: 515: 512: 508: 507: 504: 499: 497: 496: 490: 484: 471: 468: 464: 457: 455: 452: 451: 447: 444: 440: 433: 431: 428: 427: 423: 420: 416: 414: 413: 409: 407: 404: 403: 391:Request name 389: 383: 370: 368: 367: 363: 362: 354: 346: 330: 327: 323: 319: 315: 311: 307: 303: 299: 294: 292: 291: 287: 286: 277:Evidence due 269: 252: 249: 247: 246: 242: 240: 239: 235: 234: 230: 227: 225: 224: 220: 218: 217: 213: 212: 200:Request name 198: 192: 191:Case requests 183:this template 182: 178: 175: 173: 170: 168: 165: 164: 160: 142: 138: 134: 130: 126: 122: 109: 100: 96: 91: 84: 83: 80: 75: 64: 49: 45: 40: 33: 23: 19: 8037: 8030: 7955: 7938: 7931: 7914: 7913: 7900: 7893: 7842: 7826: 7820: 7810:Roger Davies 7809: 7789: 7761: 7760: 7744: 7677: 7676: 7644:Abstentions 7627: 7564: 7542: 7530: 7519: 7508: 7501: 7496: 7467: 7448: 7447: 7437: 7418: 7417: 7392: 7374: 7368: 7347: 7341: 7289: 7263: 7248: 7224:Index mundi 7213: 7205: 7193: 7182: 7160: 7142: 7129: 7123: 7118: 7115: 7111: 7098:The Guardian 7097: 7094:The Guardian 7093: 7081: 7075: 7049: 7041: 7035: 7015: 6973: 6970: 6965: 6963: 6943: 6939: 6934: 6928: 6920: 6878: 6850: 6845:Prem Rawat 2 6844: 6796: 6793: 6781: 6773: 6752: 6734: 6731: 6698: 6678: 6674: 6670: 6667: 6648: 6644: 6636: 6620: 6616: 6612: 6608: 6604: 6596: 6564: 6541: 6537: 6528: 6524: 6503: 6499: 6492: 6489: 6478: 6471: 6465: 6460: 6456: 6454: 6443: 6436: 6430: 6425: 6423: 6419: 6415: 6411: 6396: 6391:Sean.hoyland 6388: 6384: 6374: 6369:Sean.hoyland 6366: 6359: 6349: 6344:Sean.hoyland 6341: 6333: 6322: 6317:Sean.hoyland 6314: 6303: 6293: 6288:Sean.hoyland 6285: 6281: 6255: 6234: 6230: 6211: 6152: 6133: 6130: 6112: 6108: 6094: 6076: 6071: 6069: 6055: 6021: 6017: 5997: 5994: 5988: 5986: 5865: 5846: 5842: 5839: 5835: 5815: 5796: 5770: 5749: 5712:battleground 5689: 5671: 5668: 5643: 5618: 5602: 5595: 5577: 5393: 5387: 5381: 5375: 5369: 5363: 5345: 5339: 5333: 5327: 5321: 5315: 5297: 5291: 5285: 5279: 5273: 5267: 5260:Sean.hoyland 5249: 5243: 5237: 5231: 5225: 5219: 5201: 5195: 5189: 5183: 5177: 5171: 5153: 5147: 5141: 5135: 5129: 5123: 5105: 5099: 5093: 5087: 5081: 5075: 5057: 5051: 5045: 5039: 5033: 5027: 5009: 5003: 4997: 4991: 4985: 4979: 4961: 4955: 4949: 4943: 4937: 4931: 4913: 4907: 4901: 4895: 4889: 4883: 4865: 4859: 4853: 4847: 4841: 4835: 4823:filing party 4822: 4813: 4807: 4801: 4795: 4789: 4783: 4777: 4755: 4745: 4742: 4741: 4697: 4690: 4680:Roger Davies 4679: 4676:Per above, 4624: 4623: 4572: 4566: 4550: 4543: 4541: 4538: 4512: 4468: 4467: 4435:Abstentions 4418: 4412: 4396:Roger Davies 4395: 4341: 4325: 4321: 4317: 4282: 4281: 4257: 4250: 4246: 4204: 4193: 4157:Roger Davies 4156: 4127: 4126: 4118: 4049:Roger Davies 4048: 4037: 4029: 4025: 4021: 3984: 3969: 3962: 3949: 3897: 3848: 3831: 3827: 3785: 3784: 3772: 3771: 3745: 3744: 3712:Abstentions 3695: 3685: 3663:WP:ADMINACCT 3607: 3593: 3586: 3573: 3551: 3550: 3525:Roger Davies 3524: 3492:Roger Davies 3491: 3451: 3413:WP:ADMINACCT 3399: 3398: 3366:Abstentions 3349: 3338:notification 3331: 3312: 3293: 3285: 3281: 3265: 3248: 3236: 3225: 3214: 3207: 3203: 3135: 3095: 3065: 3064: 3059: 3039: 3038: 3016: 2986: 2982: 2962:Roger Davies 2961: 2949:Roger Davies 2948: 2934: 2927: 2906:Email sent. 2873: 2851: 2835: 2832: 2814: 2805:WP:ADMINACCT 2802: 2781: 2778: 2759: 2742: 2736: 2734: 2731: 2712: 2704: 2697: 2670: 2659: 2638: 2634: 2629: 2626: 2579: 2561: 2554: 2550: 2547: 2516: 2507: 2506: 2483: 2478: 2457: 2442: 2424: 2399: 2393: 2389: 2369: 2367: 2359: 2354: 2350: 2348: 2344: 2342: 2337: 2333: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2317: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2301: 2299: 2286: 2283: 2282: 2263: 2248: 2223: 2220: 2196: 2193: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2165:WP:ADMINACCT 2160: 2155: 2144: 2140: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2127:WP:ADMINACCT 2117: 2113: 2112:Arb vote to 2109: 2108:achieved an 2105: 2101: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2081: 2077: 2073: 2065: 2045: 2039: 2035: 2027: 2025: 2009: 2006:WP:ADMINACCT 2003: 1984: 1978: 1974: 1966: 1958: 1956: 1955: 1951:WP:ADMINACCT 1945: 1940: 1935: 1931: 1930: 1925: 1919: 1913: 1907: 1906: 1901: 1894: 1887: 1882: 1873: 1865: 1862: 1861: 1812: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1740: 1731: 1730: 1725:everted per 1722: 1718: 1700: 1674: 1672: 1656: 1649: 1643: 1639: 1630: 1623: 1617: 1608: 1601: 1591: 1582: 1575: 1565: 1556: 1549: 1539: 1529: 1522: 1515: 1512: 1489: 1413:WP:ADMINACCT 1400: 1379: 1378: 1364: 1360:User:Hasteur 1343: 1318: 1314: 1309: 1305: 1302: 1297: 1278: 1272: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1239: 1220: 1196: 1191: 1187: 1179: 1160: 1153: 1131: 1105:pictures in 1102: 1094: 1077: 1070: 1065:mass request 1061: 1058: 993: 992: 982: 976: 970: 964: 958: 952: 934: 928: 922: 916: 910: 904: 897:GiantSnowman 886: 880: 874: 868: 862: 856: 838: 832: 826: 820: 814: 808: 790: 784: 778: 772: 766: 760: 754: 742:filing party 741: 732: 726: 720: 714: 708: 702: 680: 669: 668: 656:once closed. 639: 635: 582: 580: 558: 551: 549: 539: 537: 536: 525: 488: 410: 371:13 Sep 2024 364: 331:24 Oct 2024 328:10 Oct 2024 288: 253:{{{votes}}} 243: 236: 231:{{{votes}}} 221: 214: 190: 32:old revision 29: 28: 7968:Newyorkbrad 7177:Clerk notes 6966:prima facie 6797:Scientology 6337:in the diff 5502:Talk:Israel 5458:Pluto2012: 5446:Nishidani: 5434:Hertz1888: 5428:Dailycare: 4793:protections 4770:Tariqabjotu 4609:Newyorkbrad 4232:Newyorkbrad 4081:Newyorkbrad 3936:Newyorkbrad 3648:Newyorkbrad 3431:Newyorkbrad 3287:in absentia 3189:Newyorkbrad 2868:Clerk notes 2786:Floquenbeam 2555:in absentia 2480:not happen. 2340:to remain. 2327:ad absurdum 2175:he either: 2032:prima facie 2028:intentional 1971:prima facie 1967:intentional 1959:in absentia 1868:Arb request 770:protections 540:last resort 161:proceedings 30:This is an 7718:PhilKnight 7710:Courcelles 7639:reference 7294:Courcelles 7282:Courcelles 7272:Courcelles 6642:article. 6046:repeatedly 5716:hasbarists 5613:a footnote 5605:nine years 5476:ZScarpia: 5470:Tritomex: 5440:Nableezy: 5391:block user 5385:filter log 5343:block user 5337:filter log 5295:block user 5289:filter log 5247:block user 5241:filter log 5199:block user 5193:filter log 5151:block user 5145:filter log 5103:block user 5097:filter log 5055:block user 5049:filter log 5007:block user 5001:filter log 4959:block user 4953:filter log 4911:block user 4905:filter log 4863:block user 4857:filter log 4805:page moves 4526:PhilKnight 4483:Courcelles 4430:reference 4330:Courcelles 4181:PhilKnight 3954:Courcelles 3877:PhilKnight 3707:reference 3578:Courcelles 3465:PhilKnight 3361:reference 2992:Courcelles 2975:Courcelles 2939:SchuminWeb 2762:Hammersoft 2748:Hammersoft 2706:committee. 2661:amazingly 2643:Black Kite 2553:(although 2489:SteveBaker 2463:SteveBaker 2181:exonerated 2135:privileges 1902:especially 1764:SPhilbrick 1618:@Centpacrr 1492:Quasihuman 1473:Quasihuman 1441:Quasihuman 1418:Quasihuman 1319:S Marshall 1279:S Marshall 1253:S Marshall 1221:S Marshall 1197:S Marshall 1175:S Marshall 980:block user 974:filter log 932:block user 926:filter log 884:block user 878:filter log 836:block user 830:filter log 801:S Marshall 782:page moves 747:SchuminWeb 730:block user 724:filter log 665:SchuminWeb 467:orig. case 443:orig. case 419:orig. case 356:Case name 345:Past cases 281:Prop. Dec. 271:Case name 263:Open cases 216:SchuminWeb 206:Initiated 7773:non-admin 7731:SirFozzie 7568:Jerusalem 7472:SirFozzie 7443:Jerusalem 7365:WP:ARBPIA 7307:WP:YESPOV 7252:Jehochman 7113:article. 7048:of 1969: 7040:of 1980: 7019:Basic Law 6947:Volunteer 6935:too cheap 6904:Lord Roem 6547:Nishidani 6508:Nishidani 6260:Pluto2012 6243:Pluto2012 6213:Pluto2012 6140:WP:YESPOV 6038:yesterday 5965:Dailycare 5951:Dailycare 5931:Dailycare 5874:Dailycare 5598:Jerusalem 5522:Jerusalem 5422:Cptnono: 5397:block log 5349:block log 5301:block log 5253:block log 5212:Pluto2012 5205:block log 5157:block log 5116:Nishidani 5109:block log 5061:block log 5020:Hertz1888 5013:block log 4972:Dailycare 4965:block log 4917:block log 4869:block log 4799:deletions 4738:Jerusalem 4655:SirFozzie 4380:SirFozzie 4167:SirFozzie 3922:SirFozzie 3861:SirFozzie 3851:SirFozzie 3834:passing. 3563:non-admin 3253:SirFozzie 3114:WP:NFCC#8 3051:non-admin 2943:this edit 2908:Lord Roem 2809:convinced 2685:Chihuahua 2484:unanimous 2444:interim. 2396:WP:NFCC#8 2355:one step, 2232:WP:NFCC#8 2228:WP:NFCC#8 2203:Centpacrr 2197:precedent 2167:seems to 2145:voluntary 2052:Centpacrr 2014:Centpacrr 1992:Centpacrr 1592:Update #3 1566:Update #2 1301:concerns? 986:block log 945:Centpacrr 938:block log 890:block log 849:Ironholds 842:block log 776:deletions 736:block log 503:Shortcuts 238:Jerusalem 8033:SilkTork 8007:Jclemens 7934:SilkTork 7896:SilkTork 7793:contribs 7783:Casliber 7695:Jclemens 7637:Majority 7534:contribs 7524:Casliber 7504:SilkTork 7325:Jclemens 7311:Jclemens 7232:Tritomex 7164:Formerip 7148:ZScarpia 7134:ZScarpia 6851:Abortion 6782:Abortion 6538:would be 6310:see diff 6115:nableezy 6097:nableezy 6079:nableezy 6058:nableezy 6024:nableezy 5724:WP:UNDUE 5660:WP:RfC/U 5367:contribs 5356:ZScarpia 5319:contribs 5308:Tritomex 5271:contribs 5223:contribs 5175:contribs 5127:contribs 5079:contribs 5068:Nableezy 5031:contribs 4983:contribs 4935:contribs 4887:contribs 4839:contribs 4781:contribs 4693:SilkTork 4567:sensible 4546:SilkTork 4516:contribs 4506:Casliber 4492:Jclemens 4428:Majority 4318:anything 4253:SilkTork 4218:Jclemens 4208:contribs 4198:Casliber 4036:" with " 3965:SilkTork 3901:contribs 3891:Casliber 3836:Jclemens 3705:Majority 3668:Jclemens 3589:SilkTork 3455:contribs 3445:Casliber 3417:Jclemens 3359:Majority 3269:Jclemens 3240:contribs 3230:Casliber 3210:SilkTork 3094:Move to 2855:Davewild 2737:requires 2663:CLUEless 2635:involved 2563:BWilkins 2513:Justin ( 2312:patient. 2224:en masse 2156:"retire" 2084:refusing 2041:de facto 1980:de facto 1909:actions. 1500:contribs 1481:contribs 1469:question 1449:contribs 1426:contribs 1243:greater. 956:contribs 908:contribs 860:contribs 812:contribs 758:contribs 706:contribs 532:majority 518:WP:A/R/C 394:Motions 203:Motions 99:contribs 48:contribs 22:Requests 20:‎ | 7684:Support 7585:protect 7580:history 7543:Decline 7520:Decline 7497:Decline 7468:Decline 7438:Decline 7369:Decline 7290:Decline 6882:Cptnono 6682:Ravpapa 6649:Thanks 6495:WP:NPOV 6072:Support 6042:refused 5652:threats 4924:Cptnono 4475:Support 4326:another 4322:enforce 4147:Support 4128:Enacted 3950:removed 3832:nothing 3752:Support 3406:Support 3334:retired 3136:accept 2935:Comment 2838:MBisanz 2782:spot on 2715:Collect 2607:power. 2446:Spartaz 2380:archive 2303:NFCC#8" 2169:require 2047:de jure 1986:de jure 1640:@ArbCom 1384:Hasteur 1367:Hasteur 1350:Snowman 1163:MBisanz 1095:On NFCC 400:Posted 359:Closed 245:Motions 223:Motions 181:discuss 7962:Recuse 7886:Oppose 7873:Kirill 7859:Risker 7693:case. 7589:delete 7547:Risker 7280:etc.) 7080:that: 6859:Steven 6826:Steven 6803:Steven 6719:(talk) 6705:(talk) 6640:Israel 6479:is not 6444:is not 6146:solve. 5946:WP:RFC 5918:Israel 5852:abjotu 5821:abjotu 5802:abjotu 5776:abjotu 5755:abjotu 5695:abjotu 5677:abjotu 5583:abjotu 5552:, and 5512:Israel 4811:rights 4787:blocks 4751:abjotu 4669:Kirill 4641:Risker 4590:Oppose 4311:Oppose 4298:Kirill 3915:Oppose 3828:second 3814:Risker 3806:Risker 3517:case." 3483:Oppose 3336:after 3282:Accept 3266:Accept 3249:Accept 3226:Accept 3096:accept 3060:Accept 3021:Risker 3017:Accept 3004:Risker 2983:Accept 2882:Risker 2681:Killer 2431:(talk) 2408:Kurtis 2189:timely 2183:, or; 2173:unless 2114:accept 1769:(Talk) 1737:WP:BRD 1727:WP:BRD 1684:really 1540:Update 1460:& 1380:Update 1157:Aitias 1136:Mangoe 1117:Mangoe 1081:Mangoe 788:rights 764:blocks 695:mangoe 673:Mangoe 642:recuse 615:clerks 511:WP:ARC 412:Motion 274:Links 209:Votes 7986:Other 7606:views 7598:watch 7594:links 7500:RfC. 6950:Marek 6864:Zhang 6831:Zhang 6808:Zhang 5849:tariq 5818:tariq 5799:tariq 5791:(and 5773:tariq 5752:tariq 5692:tariq 5674:tariq 5656:WP:AE 5580:tariq 4748:tariq 4714:Other 4539:First 4359:Other 4194:First 4002:Other 3826:Weak 3625:Other 2161:never 1936:fully 1863:NOTE: 1644:quasi 1347:Giant 545:WP:DR 528:4 net 397:Case 16:< 8011:talk 7972:talk 7919:fold 7916:Hers 7863:talk 7787:talk 7766:fold 7763:Hers 7735:talk 7722:talk 7699:talk 7668:4–5 7660:2–3 7652:0–1 7614:and 7602:logs 7576:talk 7572:edit 7551:talk 7528:talk 7476:talk 7453:fold 7450:Hers 7423:fold 7420:Hers 7393:also 7329:talk 7315:talk 7236:talk 7221:and 7168:talk 6908:talk 6886:talk 6760:7754 6757:chen 6742:7754 6739:chen 6686:talk 6655:talk 6588:talk 6551:talk 6542:were 6512:talk 6398:talk 6376:talk 6351:talk 6324:talk 6295:talk 6264:talk 6247:talk 6217:talk 6005:talk 5969:talk 5955:talk 5935:talk 5899:and 5878:talk 5843:ever 5740:nor 5603:For 5596:The 5500:and 5379:logs 5361:talk 5331:logs 5313:talk 5283:logs 5265:talk 5235:logs 5217:talk 5187:logs 5169:talk 5139:logs 5121:talk 5091:logs 5073:talk 5043:logs 5025:talk 4995:logs 4977:talk 4947:logs 4929:talk 4899:logs 4881:talk 4851:logs 4833:talk 4775:talk 4659:talk 4645:talk 4629:fold 4626:Hers 4613:talk 4530:talk 4510:talk 4496:talk 4459:3–4 4451:1–2 4384:talk 4287:fold 4284:Hers 4236:talk 4222:talk 4202:talk 4185:talk 4171:talk 4136:talk 4085:talk 3940:talk 3926:talk 3895:talk 3881:talk 3865:talk 3855:talk 3840:talk 3818:talk 3810:talk 3790:fold 3787:Hers 3777:fold 3774:Hers 3736:3–4 3728:1–2 3672:talk 3652:talk 3574:case 3556:fold 3553:Hers 3469:talk 3449:talk 3435:talk 3421:talk 3390:3–4 3382:1–2 3273:talk 3257:talk 3234:talk 3193:talk 3170:talk 3145:talk 3126:talk 3070:fold 3067:Hers 3044:fold 3041:Hers 3025:talk 3008:talk 2987:open 2941:but 2912:talk 2886:talk 2859:talk 2790:talk 2766:talk 2752:talk 2719:talk 2667:here 2647:talk 2630:long 2613:talk 2593:talk 2493:talk 2467:talk 2412:talk 2290:and 2270:talk 2256:talk 2241:talk 2207:talk 2131:must 2056:talk 2044:and 2036:ever 2018:talk 1996:talk 1983:and 1975:ever 1946:real 1874:here 1843:ASEM 1820:ASEM 1797:ASEM 1759:here 1749:talk 1708:talk 1496:talk 1477:talk 1445:talk 1422:talk 1409:here 1388:talk 1371:talk 1310:will 1140:talk 1121:talk 1085:talk 994:Note 968:logs 950:talk 920:logs 902:talk 872:logs 854:talk 824:logs 806:talk 752:talk 718:logs 700:talk 677:talk 567:. 460:none 436:none 283:due 177:view 141:diff 135:) | 133:diff 121:diff 95:talk 44:talk 7843:AGK 7827:AGK 7745:now 7545:. 7375:AGK 7348:AGK 7342:why 7194:AGK 7146:← 7132:← 7104:). 6945:it. 6784:RFC 6153:why 5658:or 5626:, 4817:RfA 4573:AGK 4342:AGK 3985:AGK 3608:AGK 3313:AGK 3294:AGK 2609:PAR 2589:PAR 2551:now 2508:Huh 2404:IfD 2374:, 2351:But 2266:Kww 2252:Kww 2237:Kww 2110:8-0 2092:non 2074:AGK 2010:mis 1866:At 1688:can 1680:You 1650:ΛΧΣ 1624:ΛΧΣ 1602:ΛΧΣ 1576:ΛΧΣ 1550:ΛΧΣ 1523:ΛΧΣ 1467:'s 794:RfA 534:). 316:) ( 308:) ( 300:) ( 179:or 53:at 8013:) 7974:) 7865:) 7795:) 7737:) 7724:) 7701:) 7671:5 7663:6 7655:7 7604:| 7600:| 7596:| 7592:| 7587:| 7583:| 7578:| 7574:| 7553:) 7536:) 7478:) 7331:) 7317:) 7238:) 7170:) 7124:is 7119:is 7056:) 6910:) 6888:) 6754:Rs 6736:Rs 6733:-- 6688:) 6657:) 6590:) 6553:) 6529:if 6525:is 6514:) 6506:). 6504:is 6500:if 6472:is 6461:if 6457:is 6437:is 6426:is 6395:- 6373:- 6348:- 6321:- 6292:- 6266:) 6249:) 6233:: 6219:) 6119:- 6101:- 6083:- 6074:. 6062:- 6028:- 6007:) 5971:) 5957:) 5937:) 5907:, 5903:, 5895:, 5891:, 5880:) 5872:-- 5666:. 5638:, 5635:, 5629:, 5623:, 5548:, 5544:, 4821:, 4756:at 4661:) 4647:) 4615:) 4532:) 4518:) 4498:) 4462:6 4454:7 4446:8 4443:0 4386:) 4238:) 4224:) 4210:) 4187:) 4173:) 4138:) 4130:- 4124:. 4087:) 3942:) 3928:) 3903:) 3883:) 3867:) 3842:) 3820:) 3739:6 3731:7 3723:8 3720:0 3691:. 3674:) 3654:) 3471:) 3457:) 3437:) 3423:) 3415:. 3393:6 3385:7 3377:8 3374:0 3345:. 3275:) 3259:) 3242:) 3195:) 3172:) 3147:) 3128:) 3027:) 3010:) 2914:) 2888:) 2861:) 2792:) 2768:) 2754:) 2721:) 2649:) 2639:no 2615:) 2595:) 2569:) 2567:←✎ 2559:✉→ 2519:vf 2515:ko 2495:) 2469:) 2414:) 2334:3. 2329:, 2323:2. 2318:1. 2272:) 2258:) 2243:) 2209:) 2185:B) 2177:A) 2118:C) 2106:B) 2102:A) 2080:. 2058:) 2020:) 1998:) 1934:I 1850:) 1827:) 1804:) 1761:-- 1751:) 1710:) 1542:: 1502:) 1498:• 1483:) 1479:• 1451:) 1447:• 1428:) 1424:• 1390:) 1373:) 1306:is 1142:) 1123:) 1087:) 740:, 681:at 679:) 602:; 593:). 469:) 445:) 421:) 320:/ 318:pd 312:/ 310:ws 304:/ 302:ev 127:| 123:) 110:: 97:| 65:: 46:| 8009:( 7970:( 7861:( 7790:· 7785:( 7733:( 7720:( 7697:( 7608:) 7570:( 7549:( 7531:· 7526:( 7474:( 7327:( 7313:( 7234:( 7166:( 6906:( 6884:( 6775:( 6684:( 6653:( 6586:( 6549:( 6510:( 6262:( 6245:( 6235:2 6215:( 6151:" 6003:( 5967:( 5953:( 5933:( 5909:3 5905:2 5901:1 5897:3 5893:2 5889:1 5876:( 5399:) 5394:· 5388:· 5382:· 5376:· 5370:· 5364:· 5359:( 5351:) 5346:· 5340:· 5334:· 5328:· 5322:· 5316:· 5311:( 5303:) 5298:· 5292:· 5286:· 5280:· 5274:· 5268:· 5263:( 5255:) 5250:· 5244:· 5238:· 5232:· 5226:· 5220:· 5215:( 5207:) 5202:· 5196:· 5190:· 5184:· 5178:· 5172:· 5167:( 5159:) 5154:· 5148:· 5142:· 5136:· 5130:· 5124:· 5119:( 5111:) 5106:· 5100:· 5094:· 5088:· 5082:· 5076:· 5071:( 5063:) 5058:· 5052:· 5046:· 5040:· 5034:· 5028:· 5023:( 5015:) 5010:· 5004:· 4998:· 4992:· 4986:· 4980:· 4975:( 4967:) 4962:· 4956:· 4950:· 4944:· 4938:· 4932:· 4927:( 4919:) 4914:· 4908:· 4902:· 4896:· 4890:· 4884:· 4879:( 4871:) 4866:· 4860:· 4854:· 4848:· 4842:· 4836:· 4831:( 4819:) 4814:· 4808:· 4802:· 4796:· 4790:· 4784:· 4778:· 4773:( 4657:( 4643:( 4611:( 4528:( 4513:· 4508:( 4494:( 4382:( 4234:( 4220:( 4205:· 4200:( 4183:( 4169:( 4134:( 4083:( 4043:. 4034:. 3938:( 3924:( 3898:· 3893:( 3879:( 3863:( 3853:( 3838:( 3816:( 3808:( 3670:( 3650:( 3467:( 3452:· 3447:( 3433:( 3419:( 3271:( 3255:( 3237:· 3232:( 3191:( 3168:( 3143:( 3124:( 3023:( 3006:( 2910:( 2904:Y 2884:( 2857:( 2821:P 2818:T 2788:( 2764:( 2750:( 2717:( 2645:( 2611:( 2591:( 2536:☯ 2534:M 2532:☺ 2530:C 2528:☮ 2526:T 2524:❤ 2521:) 2517:a 2491:( 2465:( 2410:( 2268:( 2254:( 2239:( 2205:( 2054:( 2016:( 1994:( 1877:. 1848:t 1846:( 1841:M 1825:t 1823:( 1818:M 1802:t 1800:( 1795:M 1747:( 1732:B 1723:R 1719:B 1706:( 1494:( 1475:( 1443:( 1420:( 1386:( 1369:( 1329:C 1327:/ 1325:T 1289:C 1287:/ 1285:T 1263:C 1261:/ 1259:T 1231:C 1229:/ 1227:T 1207:C 1205:/ 1203:T 1138:( 1119:( 1083:( 988:) 983:· 977:· 971:· 965:· 959:· 953:· 948:( 940:) 935:· 929:· 923:· 917:· 911:· 905:· 900:( 892:) 887:· 881:· 875:· 869:· 863:· 857:· 852:( 844:) 839:· 833:· 827:· 821:· 815:· 809:· 804:( 796:) 791:· 785:· 779:· 773:· 767:· 761:· 755:· 750:( 738:) 733:· 727:· 721:· 715:· 709:· 703:· 698:( 675:( 645:. 610:. 542:. 465:( 441:( 417:( 347:) 343:( 324:) 322:t 314:t 306:t 298:t 296:( 143:) 139:( 131:( 119:( 114:) 104:( 101:) 93:( 82:. 69:) 59:( 50:) 42:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.