Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

5526:- In general I agree with the view that neutral notifications to editors possibly unaware of the fractiousness of an area (not the case here, as all those affected were well aware of the tensions in the topic area) should be used liberally and widely, not seen as warnings and should not be able to be appealed, but just seen as polite notifications. i.e. the 'older wording' referred to in some places above. I agree that stern warnings are something else altogether, and should be firmly linked to a diff of the conduct that provoked the warning, and should be able to be appealed, though leaving Knowledge altogether seems an over-reaction to me (and that's putting it mildly). My general view, which should come as no surprise to anyone who has heard what I've said on the subject before (I once engaged Noetica on their talk page in a discussion about this), is that over-specialisation in article titles and manual of style issues isn't really the greatest idea. It can work up to a point, but the peculiar tensions of an environment that anyone can edit means that certain ideals just aren't attainable and you can't get to the point where editors can work harmoniously together following a manual of style the right way (which means not following it all the time), and at the same time resist the temptation to argue over the manual of style or article titles instead (in real-world editing environments, people do argue over style, but if they are professional about it, they don't let those arguments affect their actual editing, and they keep the focus on the editing rather than what sometimes happens on Knowledge where people get drawn more into the arguments about style than the editing work that really needs doing). 3662:

principle should be that if someone is warned outside AE it is a matter of individual conduct by an editor, admin or not. When it is a formal AE finding it should be open to appeal, though logically the notification would stick. Essentially, the result would be that the finding of fault is vacated, but the editor will be considered to have been constructively notified. It would essentially go from a warning about misconduct to a polite notification of discretionary sanctions. The purpose of a notification is partly to insure an editor is aware that there are unique restrictions in a topic area and acts accordingly. It would mean essentially that a repeat instance of similar edits would not be automatically treated as an offense, let alone a repeat offense, and that a minor escalation would not be immediately taken as deserving of sanction even if it rose to the point of an actual violation of policy. Were they to do some serious and obvious policy violations after the vacated warning, however, they would not be able to argue that the rescinded warning means they can't be sanctioned for it as they would still be considered aware of the restrictions. In other words, you can dispute accusations of a repeat offense, but cannot claim ignorance of the discretionary sanctions to get out of an actual serious offense.--

4108:, given the general though not unanimous pattern of agreement I'm seeing below among Arbs that this sort of warning (i.e. one that indicates an alleged finding of wrongdoing) must necessarily be appealable. I don't want to rock the boat or be seen as squeaking just to get grease, but I want our names cleared on that issue (especially in my case because I use my real name here). Also, at the frivolous new WP:AE report SarekOfVulcan made against me the other day with regard to my opposition to a candidate at RfA, Sandstein used the fact that I have not filed such an RFARB request yet as if it were a salient fact when formulating his "uninvolved" response. I feel I'm left with little choice but to proceed to RFARB, even if this ARCA discussion is still lingering. But if there's a way to resolve the matter without that step, I'm all for it. (It seems to me that the most obvious would be for Sandstein to simply retract the warnings as having been based on a misunderstanding of what our posts in that Apteva vs. Noetica WP:AE case meant and referred to – namely already-concluded, specific and relevant determinations of disruptive editing at WP:AN, not vague antagonistic "aspersions" – because he wasn't aware of that background.) — 4916:

idea that I amongst others should be warned for 'casting aspersions on a fellow editor', I didn't take it seriously for I never thought that a seasoned AE admin for whom I hold in utmost respect would actually seriously consider doing that based on his legal training – certainly for what I (specifically) and the others (incidentally) had written, otherwise I would have objected there and then. I mean, my comments were factual and only personal to the degree that was strictly necessary to state the case. I stated, with evidence, that the plaintiff had a history of disruption, had had disagreements with the defendant, and that the complaint was vexatious because the allegations were spurious. Of course I don't believe you could "unwarn" somebody, and I would have had no issue with a neutrally-worded 'warning' or notification, but Sandstein's wording was anything but neutral, as it implied improper conduct. Thus I believe Arbcom must be open to appealing or repealing such an official rap on the knuckles for the stigma that may cause, and the undoubted use to which such a warning be put by anyone seeking "dirt" to exploit against the "warned" editors in their own disputes and disagreements. --

4070:

MOS-related proposals, mentioning both Sandstein's warning and SarekOfVulcan's bogus AE against me for comments in my vote at this RFA. Then (guess who?) SarekOfVulcan deleted Neotarf's comments, and went to WP:AN about it. If this isn't clear indication of some serious problems with regard to both the ARBATC warning/threat/accusation that's under discussion in this ARCA, and admin behavior outlined here, I'm not sure what is. I also honestly feel unable to state what the latter problems might be any more specifically than I already have without being accused yet again of "personalizing the debate" in a ARBATC-violating way despite the fact that style/title matters are only tenuously connected to this discussion, just like they were at the AE filing I got censured for commenting on by Sandstein. If anyone can't make out the patterns I'm outlining here and why they're actual issues that need resolution, I don't know what else to say. —

3769:, have already resigned editing Knowledge over Sandstein's warning for reasons similar to those for which I have been contemplating quitting as well. I refuse to continue volunteering massive amounts of my time to a project in which I can be falsely accused of wrongdoing by random administrators, and put in a "sword of Damocles" position of being blockable with impunity by the first admin to disagree with my approach to any style/titles matter, yet never having been subject to any kind of procedure topic-banning or otherwise restricting me for anything, and, ultimately having no recourse at all. As I use my real name here, the "reputation-bash-ipedia" factor is not in any way trivial to me. It isn't just, and it's not a tenable system of dispute resolution. 4445:@Coren and @Salvio—Normally, what you're saying makes sense: a warning is just providing information and there is therefore nothing to appeal. eg. "Hey just reminding you about 3rr regarding your edits at such-and-such article." — There's no stigma, no judgment, etc there. Fine. But the warnings in question here seem to carry a sense of judgment: "it has been officially determined that you did something bad." Please see Hans Adler's detailed description, I won't repeat it here. Simply stating that there's nothing to appeal doesn't quite fit with these warnings. If an admin closes a discussion regarding misconduct and gives me an official looking notice with the phrase "If you continue to misconduct" then I want a way to appeal it. Or something. 3933:, below: I agree with your summation of the difference between a general, unappealable notice with regard to a topic area being contentious, vs. a stern surely-must-be-appealable warning, that alleges wrongdoing, like I and three others received. The fact that these are clearly and importantly different is why we're here talking about this. I also agree with your side point (which is tangential to this particular WP:ARCA request, but pertinent to the underlying issues that led to it), namely that MOS/AT "specialization" is problematic. It's something I don't actually do, and the stability and consistency of MOS is more important to me than it's exact particulars. Most of what I do on WP is 5335:

As such, I think the way discretionary sanctions are set up IS the latter case in practice as well as perception. The warning must be officially "on record" rather than simply noticing the sign as you drive past (or see it at the top of a talk page). As to how to improve this, we've little options, because as noted above not everyone will notice a thing on a talk page, and new users won't have been around when the case in question was held, and so can't be expected to simply "know." Perhaps one option could be adding a generic template warning to the edit notice of all affected pages to the effect of "This page, part of a number on the subject of BLAH, is subject to

3938:

thing in MOS (MOS necessarily only addresses style matters on which people are likely to disagree). It's genuinely problematic when people go on tendentious, system-gaming, forum-shopping anti-MOS campaigns over trivial crap like wanting to replace dashes with hyphens. People who try to uphold the hard-won consensuses at MOS from such nonsense should not be receiving the threatening, disruption-alleging type of ARBATC warnings we received, especially given that the accusations of wrongdoing behind them (i.e. the casting of broad, vague, irrelevant aspersions without evidence simply to personalize the debate) are demonstrably false. —

4604:

of the subject. Can you imagine someone going to a section of WP dealing with internal combustion engines, demanding to have the concept of "carburetor" explained, and complaining bitterly that the presence and comments of engineers and car mechanics prevented ordinary people from participating in the discussion? Unfortunately there are a number of people who want to insert partially remembered grammar advice from their third grade teacher, a badly written book from their football coach, or an original and bizarre theory, and explaining things to these people quickly becomes a full time job for several editors.

3632:

why an editor would be annoyed with such a warning. Certainly, I was incensed at Sandstein's suggestion to warn me when my comment was perfectly consistent with drawing attention to inappropriate use of AE. Other editors were, in my opinion, also acting within the appropriate bounds of policy. I specifically believe OhConfucius made a reasonable argument, with evidence, that the filer of the AE case had also been disruptive in the topic area. Some of Sandstein's comments on this matter seem incredibly misguided with regards to AE procedure and are not what I would expect from an admin who frequents that area.--

5203:

meant to protect editors from unpleasant surprises, by making them aware of the fact that their behaviour may lead to sanctions, I see no reason to restrict the ability in any way. Also, because, technically, warnings are not sanctions, I don't believe they can be appealed – their only function is to make users aware of the discretionary sanctions currently in place and it's not possible to "unmake someone aware of something". Finally, as far as I'm concerned all sanctions and restrictions imposed by an administrator must be appealable, first to the community (the policy reads

5365:

review it is felt that there was insufficient misconduct for a formal warning, then the warning should be rescinded, and should not be taken into account when dealing with any future potential misconduct by that user. I trust the AE admins to make the appropriate on-the-spot decisions, but anyone can make a mistake, and it's right and fair that if an action is questioned, that it can be looked into and reversed if necessary. If the decision was appropriate, then the warning is kept in place, and the user who was warned has had confirmation that their actions were problematic.

2418:

to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts". Adding broadly construed I would not construe to mean and all ethnicities and both Armenia and Azerbaijan. I would say the editor in question is correct that they should be able to freely edit Armenia articles, but not any section or sentence that deals with the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan or with the related ethnic conflicts. For example, someone native to either country might be well suited to add useful information but would be unsuitable to add information about the conflict due to their extreme bias.

4492:) was to try to muzzle him, at a time that turned out be just a few months before Noetica led the 60-editor discussion that converged on the new MOS dash guidelines, which settled the disputes and were then stable for over a year, until Apteva came along and started stirring up trouble again. So Noetica got "warned" after Apteva's disruptive accusations against him! Makes no sense. Sandstein has been clueless about what's going on, and has caused us a disaster by driving away this very thoughtful and professional editor. Surely there's a way this can be undone. 3694:

appeal, such as (but not necessarily limited to) a) possible factual errors or unsupportable assumptions with regard to the actions of the editor(s) being warned, and b) questionable applicability/scope of the ArbCom case the warning cites to the discussion or other context of the actions being sanctioned by the warning. The logic espoused by both Sandstein and NE Ent that, basically, warnings are just warnings and have no force, and so do not matter, is not actually always going to be applicable. In the instance that brings us here right now, it

4881:

through their alternate account (the sock that lead to a one year block, which has now expired), and is other than one other, the editor who has made the most edits to the MOS. I am not as indicated topic banned from AT or MOS, but not likely welcomed by those who are not very civil at MOS either, nor can I be called difficult for having an honest desire to fix something. Tenacious, yes, but tendentious, no. Tenacious is a good quality, tendentious is a bad quality. That anyone who edits the MOS or MOS talk page would be uncivil is a huge problem.

5443:

expect one disputant to make a serious attempt at educating another disputant as to how his or her conduct can be improved; such an system is a non-starter. I would also prefer that we avoid having these warnings turn into another arrow in the disputants' quiver—though I have been out of the enforcement game for over a year, so I would welcome comment as to whether this is a serious ongoing issue or merely a potential problem. Hans Adler gives good examples of where the language in our sanctions concerning "non-admin" warnings is ambiguous.

5325:

there's really no need for an appeal system; if it is the latter, then there should be, because the clear undertone has to be that you've done something wrong, and that you're on notice for a substantive sanction of some form 'next time'. Sadly, I think the perception is the latter case, and this isn't really ideal. There has to be a way to not make it so confrontational of an encounter, and not a mere prerequisite for sanctions, but I've shoveled far too much snow today to have any grand ideas tonight.

5155:"falsely accused." Going back to the first hand, though, an inability to acknowledge one's faults in the face of clear evidence is a red flag that sanctions will be required at some point. Anyway, I'm rambling, but I think the point is that while appealing a simple warning may appear to be moot, there is both a practical and a psychological reason for doing so. As such, I think appeals of warnings should be permitted; as to how appeals can be conducted, I agree with Coren's comments on the subject. 2940:

sanctions would apply to a dispute about an article concerning the street plan of Yerevan, or an art gallery in Baku. But I can see that we would want the sanction to apply if, for example, an editor wrote (these are deliberately fanciful examples) "the street plan in Yerevan was stolen from one commonly used in Azerbaijan" or "the Baku Gallery is full of artworks plundered from Armenians." Heck, we might want to be able to apply a warning and then sanctions even if such an edit were made to

2166:

topic only related to Armenia, not to "Armenia-Azerbaijan". In the event, the question presented above did not become relevant, as the enforcing administrators agreed that the edit at issue did relate to the conflict between the two countries and so was covered by the topic ban in any case. However, the question may become relevant in future enforcement requests. It would therefore be helpful to know how the scope of the topic covered by discretionary sanctions is to be interpreted.

3710:. It effectively constitutes something closely akin to a topic-ban, as after the warning is issued, any admin may block the so-warned user for any perceived transgression of ARBATC without further discussion or warning. The special discretionary sanction remedy warnings available under ARBATC (and other ARBCOM cases I'm less familiar with) can also demonstrably encourage the taking of other punitive, inappropriate actions, such as the recent bogus 5251:@The Devil's Advocate. I oppose the process you propose as it would be nothing but byzantine bureaucracy; the end result would be that nothing has really changed, as the editor would still be warned and there is no requirement that a user must have misbehaved repeatedly to be sanctioned. So, in essence, this would be a waste of the community's (or ArbCom's) time which would lead to no appreciable difference. Knowledge is not moot court. 3606:@AGK " only an administrator can reverse an enforcement action, it must only be the views of uninvolved administrators that are counted towards the determination of consensus. "??? Total non sequitur. Only admins can delete articles, but views of editors are counted towards determination of consensus. Only bureaucrats can reverse a sysop, it must only be the views of uninvolved bureaucrats that are counted ... you get the idea. 3719:, as just one example. The bare fact that MOS is mentioned at all is being used as a rationale for grossly over-extending ARBATC's scope to cover both WP:AE and WP:RFA, despite the fact that both are processes in which all discussions are automatically "personalized" already by definition, and in which discussion of MOS/AT matters and their relationship to editor behavior is entirely appropriate when relevant. The point being, 4395:. (It's exactly the same issue as incorrect blocks remaining in a block log, leading to subsequent "look at the length of the block log!" comments.) Given this, there ought to be some mechanism for getting a formal "you should not have received this warning" notice that the editor in question can point to later on should it be necessary. Whether it's a discussion on ANI, an Arbcom motion, or a formal vote at a 2247:

construed. The editor Sandstein mentions, clearly violated the topic ban explicitly because some of the content being removed was about Nagorno-Karabakh and most of the fund's activities noted in the article concerned the NKR. Perhaps what needs to be clarified is that the discretionary sanctions concern the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts broadly construed.--

5478:

purpose of the discretionary sanctions system for these notices to be appealable; they are supposed to be a courtesy notice to editors who are new to problematic topic areas, not a formal prerequisite to the giving of sanctions. Discretionary Sanctions is designed so that misconduct can be sanctioned efficiently and effectively; I am therefore vehemently opposed to any attempt to make it

4754:

notifications, so that anyone can check quickly who has and hasn't been notified in the past. There should be no assumption of wrongdoing on the part of a recipient; rather, the notification will just fulfill the requirement for users to be notified of special sanctions before any such sanction can be applied. A notification is not appealable because it does not imply wrongdoing.

4935:

showing himself to be a technocrat who is too welded to procedure and has lost touch with his sense of justice. He might still salvage some credibility if he were to put his morals, his legal training, and his diplomatic skills into together into an suitably amended statement to replace the original "warning" with wording similar to what Killerchihuahua proposes below. --

5475:

argued) constitute a finding of guilt, placing an editor "on notice" is tantamount to giving them advice; advising is not sanctioning—so these notices cannot be appealed as though they were an enforcement action or sanction. I'm not persuaded by any of the counter-arguments that have been offered in the statements above, and therefore I maintain my position.

5405:

on the sanctions page it says: "Warnings should ... identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways", and the warning template uses the phrase "If you continue to misconduct". This makes sense. Why would anyone want to warn someone with a formal template when they were editing appropriately in a sanctioned area? There would need to be a

2278:

alone. Secondly, I'm inclined to agree with Sandstein because I have seen topic banned users in other topic areas just switch their problematic editing from articles relating directly to the conflict to articles relating to their political opponents' countries, culture or religion and so on for the duration of their ban, which in my view is just

3962:

mildly)" judgments from ArbCom members or anyone else. Leaving WP on principle when confronted with what the editor feels is administrative abuse for which there's no clear recourse, is not the same as threatening in a tantrum to leave WP, with no intention to actually do so, in order to "win" a content dispute and shut other editors up – an

462: 470: 5275:

again or we'll sanction you", and therefore requires an antecedent finding of misconduct. To muddy the waters further, I also recall an earlier clarification request in which it was said that warnings can be made by anyone, and not just uninvolved administrators, and AE has long taken the view that a warning is not appealable.

4424:, and is explicitly not "a demonstrable notification of the existence of sanctions in a topic area", and the statement "a warning does not necessarily imply that there was any misconduct" is flat-out untrue. The exact wording (on the template page, so presumably anyone using the template can't claim to be unaware of it) is 2297:@Sandstein: Regardless of the actual wording pertaining to the various national or ethnic conflicts that are subject to discretionary sanctions, there is a broad principle at stake here that needs to be recognized, otherwise we will end up with one standard for one such topic area and a different standard for others. 4280:) to the new standard formulation that I believe came with the new irreversible sanctions and was implemented retroactively with an omnibus motion in October 2011 ("Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning." 2173:, which refers to the countries separately, in defining the affected area as "articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as a wide variety of related topics." However, because the wording of the decision is ambiguous, an explicit clarification (and perhaps an amendment of the wording) would be welcome. 4583:

to work together to follow an automobile repair manual. Anyone can get behind the wheel and drive; anyone can edit WP. No one has ever been blocked for using a comma in the wrong place, and no one has ever been arrested for not changing the oil every 3000 miles. The style manual is used mostly by bots and

5339:. Please be warned that any disruptive conduct on or relating to this page may result in sanctions up to and including blah blah blah..." It doesn't have to be terribly detailed or even very forceful, it just has to be noticeable enough that anyone editing the page has no excuse to say they didn't know. 5334:

That's actually an interesting analogy to use; the cop would be well within his authority to issue a full ticket rather than a warning if he wanted to; however, if he does issue you a warning, then you've no excuse the next time you get pulled over and the warning shows up in the second cop's system.

5138:

I've not reviewed the AE request this pertains to, although I am vaguely familiar with it. Regarding appealing warnings, the simple fact of the matter is that if an warning was successfully appealed, nothing has really changed, except that (per the wording of discretionary sanctions) the user must be

4915:

I'm in agreement with The Devil's Advocate, who has correctly nuanced the issue at hand between a third party notification, an involved editor's warning, an "friendly" official reminder (without any implied misconduct) and an official warning for implied misconduct. When Sandstein floated the initial

4362:

This should be clear enough, except it isn't because it's hidden in a section titled "For administrators", where nobody would be looking for it! To make matters worse, due to the semicolon (which I guess should be a full stop), the second part of the sentence must be read as potentially modifying the

3937:

cleanup, and when I focus on long-haul topical editing it is usually with regard to cats and billiards, not style. I've left MOS alone entirely for months at a time before, and most of my editing with regard to it is answering talk page queries about its applicability. No one agrees with every single

3693:

I agree that this needs to be clarified and codified, very much. Please note that people are leaving Knowledge over it. However, I cannot support the notion that it be limited to the sole question of whether the admin who issued the warning is uninvolved or not, but must also permit other bases for

2336:

As is apparent from the AA2 case, that arbitration meant to cover not only Armenia-Azerbaijan related topics, but also topics related to Armenia-Turkey and Azerbaijan-Iran relations. This is why it mentions "related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted". As an example, there was previously a request

2277:

Firstly, I think it's worth pointing out that the same ambiguity probably exists regarding all ethnic or national conflicts covered by discretionary sanctions, not just the Armenia-Azerbailan conflict, so it would be better to resolve this question for all such topic areas rather than this topic area

5404:

makes it clear that the warnings are a formal part of the process - "Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning", "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning". Actual misconduct is built into the process,

4895:

Per the proposed edit, I would support a change to "If you fail to conduct yourself". I would also comment that a real life standard warning is "I am not saying that you did anything wrong but I am warning you that such and such is not tolerated, etc." When what is really meant is I saw you do that,

4662:

long been the accepted understanding that if someone has contributed to an area under sanctions and has participated at AE or other discussions asking for others to be sanctioned that their awareness of the probation/sanctions and the ruling is sufficient notice prior to being sanctioned themselves.

4582:

A stable MOS is necessary for all the invisible people and bot operators working behind the scenes who improve WP in subtle ways to make it look polished and readable. There is no need for "editors work harmoniously together following a manual of style" any more than there is a need for car drivers

4399:

page (which would be a valuable resource, as it would keep all the people who are interested in that kind of meta crap arguing with each other rather than wasting everyone else's time), there ought to be some mechanism for this, and Arbcom are the only people mandated to set this kind of process up.

4310:

The current text says: "after an initial warning". That seems to imply that the first time an editor breaks an arbitration ruling, they get this initial warning instead of the sanction. This is also why only admins can warn nowadays. The previous text ("despite being warned") is closer to the spirit

3961:

PS: Whether someone feels that being falsely accused by an admin, among other problems, is reason enough to leave a project they volunteer for out of the goodness of their own hearts, is a personal decision that doesn't really seem to lend itself to gratuitous "over-reaction...(and that's putting it

3631:

warn" was a red flag). To me it seems obvious that warnings can create friction because they are rightly seen as stepping stones to sanctions. In addition, a warning involves an allegation of misconduct and where an editor believes their conduct is within the bounds of policy it is hard to not grasp

2543:

Modifying what I said at AE: I believe that a standard topic ban ought to cover anything relating to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, whether that covers the actions that the governments have taken with respect to each other or individual citizens doing things that antagonize citizens of

5474:

To various: Even if these notices (as has been argued) damage an editor's perceived reputation, I do not think our creating a bureaucratic process of appealing the notice would be an effective solution to any case where such reputation damage has been wreaked. And even if these notices (as has been

5308:

I'll need to think more about the second issue, but I do want to say that I strongly disagree with any suggestion that AE sanctions cannot be appealed at AE. I also think that AE is a rather awkward fit under the current page structure, and it is a good idea to move it back to its previous location

4988:

is vexatious (which it clearly is; its filer is someone I very recently tried to have Apteva's topic-ban extended to cover at WP:AN for MOS-related disruption, and who has frequently been at loggerheads with me, Noetica, et al., on various style issues he never gains consensus for), and I said that

4865:

we use a four level warning system for vandalism. Pretty much by definition anyone who is topic banned, such as from using automated edits, is considered to be an otherwise valuable editor, and I would like to note that a similar four level warning system for topic bans should be automatic, instead

4841:

illustrating the fact that the area is under higher scrutiny. This notification should be served as neutral as possible - not really "appeal-able" yet. If the editor starts tenuous editing in this area, then serve a warning to them, citing the original RFAR case. This warning can be appealed if the

4603:

Likewise I have a hard time understanding objections to people with specialized knowledge who contribute to MOS. I would think that previous experience with publication would be an advantage to the Project. MOS seems to be unique in its broad participation of individuals who have no prior knowledge

4587:

to polish articles, as justification for the repetitive edits that would be too time consuming to do manually, but it also prevents arguments over format from breaking out in every single article. When I write an article, I do not always have the time to look up every style detail, so I appreciate

4001:: Virtually everyone else here is recognizing the distinction between "just a warning" and the actual wording and intent of the not-just-a-warning that Sandstein used. This entire long discussion is mostly about these distinctions. Please read more of this until the distinction is clear to you. — 3756:

Either of these points, but especially the former (the false accusations matter), should be enough of a basis for an appeal, even if the admin issuing the warning were clearly uninvolved, and I would like to make such an appeal as soon as the avenue is clear to do so. Not because I'm going to have

3626:

that led to these warnings and was even threatened with such a warning myself for suggesting that the filing editor was using AE disruptively to illustrate a point because the editor was the subject of an AE discussion at that time and admins were suggesting that a warning be given in that case (in

3416:

provides that "Discretionary sanctions imposed under these provisions may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate noticeboard (currently Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement), or the Committee". This does establish a venue of appeal, but raises more questions: Who makes the

3359:

Warnings serve to inform editors about the possibility of discretionary sanctions in the event of later misconduct. Assuming the warning is somehow undone, does the authority to impose sanctions based on that warning also disappear? If yes, this may make the discretionary sanctions system much more

2450:

over the last year+, and ethnic viewpoint-pushing will surely return to these articles almost immediately if AA2 is suddently no longer applicable simply because these cat articles touch on Armenian–Turkish and Armenian–Kurdish relations but don't also involve Azerbaijan. If it were interpreted as

2417:

states that the two countries are technically still at war, so I would define the only edits within the ban to be edits that affect both countries, and that any edit about either country that does not affect the other country is acceptable. As I read it the sanctions are quite clear "Topics related

2282:

of their topic ban. I would only add the caveat that I think some editors could probably be allowed to continue editing articles about the nation or ethnic group they support, at the discretion of the adjudicating AE admins, because I think some topic banned editors can still add worthwhile content

5442:

involved in the subject area. (I see no reason to restrict the ability to give warnings to only uninvolved sysops; so long as the editor giving the advice and warning is not involved in the dispute, whether he or she is a sysop is irrelevant.) I am so minded because it seems utterly bone-headed to

5409:

for a warning. In the AE discussion in question, there were 14 people involved, four of whom were selected for a warning. If there is no reason for a warning, then a warning should not be given - and I assume there was a reason for warning those four editors in particular, otherwise all 14 editors

5384:

That never was the intent of the warnings, SilkTork, and if they are understood this way then we need to clarify the matter. The point of the warning is to avoid anyone getting sanctions while not knowing there was DS in place – not any sort of "formal warning" system. Indeed, we have previously

5364:

seems appropriate and necessary. A sanction cannot be applied without a formal warning, so tagging someone with a formal warning puts them a step closer to being blocked. They can appeal the block itself, but not the warning (even if incorrectly placed), that allowed the block to take place. If on

4857:

I agree with AGK that warnings are not appealable and are irrevocable. Blocks yes, bans yes, but warnings no. I also note that I have been inappropriately mentioned by three editors here. It is only by accident that I saw this, not because of being notified that I was mentioned. At least a hundred

4609:

In the year that I have been following MOS, the discussions have been dominated by three difficult individuals: one a sock of a banned user, one who was warned about disruption in an Arbcom decision, and a third who has been disrupting MOS since September and was recently topic banned from MOS and

4593:

I too have seen the disdainful comments about editing in WP space as opposed to editing in article space. The fact is that most, if not all MOS editors are also content editors. Not everyone has the same temperament and the same skills. Some people who are no good at creating content may be very

4390:

With no opinion on this particular case—I have no desire to read through the history of what looks at first glance to be yet another border skirmish of the Great Em-dash War—warnings, particularly official-looking AE warnings that those unfamiliar with Knowledge's byzantine internal processes will

4228:

The additional text prevents the interpretation of the incorrect sentence in the template as a harmless mistake. This was not just a neutral warning that the sanctions in question exist. It was an accusation that these four editors had broken the ruling and would have been subject to sanctions had

3871:

violation, is one of several reasons that appealability of this particular type of warning is not "silly" as Hersfold suggests some people dismissively think it is. And it has nothing to do with "undoing a notice", as Salvio suggests, but formally voiding an accusation where the accuser refuses to

3836:

misuse of ARBATC to just shut me up at all costs and punish me is clearly happening to me right now in WP:AE, spearheaded by an admin (not Sandstein) whom I legitimately questioned in my sole comment in the previous Apteva vs Noetica AE request that Sandstein issued me an ARBATC warning for! It's

3661:

subject to scrutiny as it becomes a civility issue. When an "uninvolved" administrator does the same thing it is generally seen as a minor misuse of authority at best. Part of the issue with these warnings is the suggestion that these editors did something that could lead to sanctions. I think the

3370:

I recommend to clarify (and codify) that warnings can only be appealed with regard to the question of whether the warner is an uninvolved administrator. This helps others to avoid inadvertently making unactionable arbitration enforcement (AE) requests based on the invalid warning. However, appeals

2437:

It must be "either Armenia or Azerbaijan", because of the scope of AA2, as noted by Grandmaster. I posit that this was not only intentional at the time, it's a good situation to maintain, because those who will rant for or against Armenia and Armenians, Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis, etc., are also

2165:

A recent enforcement request concerned the application of a topic ban from "topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts", i.e., using the same wording as in the abovementioned decision. The defendant argued that his edit at issue did not violate the ban because it concerned a

4958:

isn't vexatious, nor is Sandstein the instigator. Based on the lack of consensus even among sysops as to blocking/banning you, it would certainly be unwise of Sandstein to action his "threat". He doesn't need any encouragement, for it was one lone comment that got him "warning" us four. But if he

4934:

On reflection, Sandstein's coming to Arbcom was a despicable cop-out. This compounded a lack of sincerity with his failure to acknowledge that he made a mistake. He obviously wanted Arbcom to back him, but it's now clear that Arbcom is split on the issue. Sandstein has gone down in my estimation,

4224:"Please take care, in future disputes concerning the issues mentioned above, not to misuse the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (or other fora) to cast aspersions against others or to otherwise continue personalizing stylistic disagreements, as directed by the Arbitration Committee's reminder." 4034:

the phrase "effective bans". I have suggested throughout the discussion, from user talk to here, that there is effectively no real difference between a topic ban the community imposes by consensus, violation of which can result in an immediate block after further discussion e.g. at WP:ANI, and a

2999:

I'm sorry but I agree with Brad here. The proposed wording now authorises sanctions for: pages about anything to do with Armenia, pages about anything to do with Azerbaijan and/or pages about anything to do with related ethnic conflicts. The sense of intersection is gone. As I agree entirely with

2725:

Useful clarification which doesn't extend the discretionary sanctions but more properly identifies the range. I understand NYB's quibble, but I think that "Pages" or "Edits" would point to the same activity: an edit to a page related to.... I think Wikipedians understand what is meant either way.

2571:

The standard topic ban in an area does not necessarily have to cover the entire area for which DS is authorized. For example, we authorized DS for India, Pakistan and Afghanistan; it does not mean that every topic ban in that area needs to cover all three. Authorizing DS for the broad area allows

2191:

Gatoclass: I'm not aware that the same ambiguity could exist in other cases. The topics in other cases are relatively clearly described, e.g., as "related to the Balkans" or "to Eastern Europe". Only this decision employs a very peculiar hyphenated construction ("Armenia-Azerbaijan") in which the

5453:

has been placed on an editor's talk page (with the appropriate parameter used so that a link to the final decision is included), the warning is irrevocably given and no appeal of it can be made. The notion that one could appeal a mere "notice" of discretionary sanctions—as though the warning and

5274:

Our procedures governing warnings lack coherency and needs to be fixed. Either warnings are simply to notify editors that an area is under discretionary sanctions, and can therefore be issued without a finding of misconduct; or a warning is supposed to tell someone who behaved badly "don't do it

5202:

As usual, a couple of random thoughts. First of all, I believe that all editors are allowed to issue the warning that a given topic area is under discretionary sanctions and not only admins – if memory serves me correctly, this has already been clarified by ArbCom in the past. Since warnings are

5124:

as reliable as that where it was imposed can be garnered. In practice, the latter means AE or AN, but I would think that AE itself is the "natural" first venue, even in cases where the remedy does not otherwise specify a specific venue of appeal. The restriction you mention does indeed clearly

4880:

TLDR summary of some of the above with some corrections. This is not about the purpose of the MOS or a list of who is welcome there, but a discussion on the purpose of warnings and whether they can be appealed. The topic banned user though characterized as "difficult" made almost no edits at MOS

4797:. It caused lots of problems and opportunities for wikilawyering. The main problem: we made requests for uninvolved admins in ANI, but no admin wanted to get involved in complex disputes. Discretionary sanctions are supposed to make enforcement easier and quicker, this would be a step backwards. 4765:

should be regarded both as a notification about AE sanctions as in 1/ above, and as an offical sanction for misconduct. Because such a warning is indeed a form of sanction, it should be appealable. Warnings should be logged both as a notification on the notification page, and as a warning on the

4251:

An arbitration sanctions warning that comes with an accusation of sanctionable behaviour that did not actually occur is a veiled threat of sanctioning the target in similar situations in the future, whether they are actually sanctionable or not. This does not just exacerbate Sandstein's personal

2984:

If someone edits an otherwise-unrelated-to-X page to add X-related material, then that edit makes the page related to X in the relevant part and discretionary sanctions applicable. The "pages" formulation is used in all current discretionary sanctions authorizations, and I'd rather not introduce

5277:

Now, if warnings mean "you did something bad, don't do it again or you'll be sanctioned", then they should be appealable in principle, and should be limited to uninvolved administrators, who are the only one who can actually make a finding of misconduct, but that is a big departure from current

5154:

misconduct; the way discretionary sanctions are set up, The Devil's Advocate is correct in that warnings are essentially the "stepping stone" to actual sanctions. I can certainly see where a warning would have a chilling effect on a user when they genuinely feel they have done no wrong and were

4291:

While researching this, I learned that also in October 2011, Will Beback discovered the persistent inconsistency in the rules for arbitration sanctions warnings which is complicating this case. (Warning only after misbehaviour or as pure information?) It appears that he was ignored at the time.

3738:

for which I was ARBATC-warned were false accusations. I do not say this as a means of antagonizing Sandstein; it's simply a fact, and I've proven it. Furthermore, even under the hard-to-credit assumption that ARBATC can logically apply to user-behavior process pages like AE (and AN, AN/I, RFA,

2412:

Normally if there is a combination of subjects, like Israel/Palestine, or in this case Armenia/Azerbaijan the contentious edits are the ones that only concern both subjects. That being said, it can be difficult to tell where one topic ends and the other begins. In this case, though, our article

2316:

Comment: Use caution; slightly vague is not necessarily a bad thing. If we're too specific, we'll get editors who complain that their edits aren't covered because the exact conditions were not spelled out on the sanctions page. Any attempt to make it too specific may cause more problems than it

5477:

Those rebuttals aside, I make two further observations. First, the vast majority of notices, in my experience, are warranted; I think, as a community, we are mature enough to informally dismiss those few cases where a notice is given unjustly. Second, it would fly in the face of the spirit and

5324:

This settles on the question of what a warning actually is. If you're driving down the interstate, is a warning more akin to your passenger pointing out a speed limit sign, or is it a cop pulling you over, running your license, and writing you a warning "this time"? If it is the former, then

2246:

Looking over the second arbitration case, it seems the dispute extended to other areas involving Armenians and Azeris. Most notably matters concerning Armenia-Turkey and Azerbaijan-Iran were brought up in the opening statements of the case. I think it was intended to focus on conflicts broadly

3586:

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and

4753:

to any other user in a contentious topic area. The notification should be in the form of a standard template, written in neutral language, which simply informs the recipient that special sanctions exist in the topic area. There should probably be a separate page someplace for logging of such

4069:

It is important that Neotarf also interpreted Sandstein's warning this way. I'm not just coming up with "crazy shit" as SarekOfVulcan put it yesterday at AE Neotarf indicated, at the same RFA I commented on, a reluctance to speak his/her actual concerns about the candidate's controversial

4064:

sought to have me sanctioned further (probably blocked) at AE (in a request no one is taking seriously), for my comments at RfA, using Sandstein's warning as his sole basis. He then did the same thing at AN against Neotarf, for comments at the same RfA. My concerns here are based not on idle

2939:

The core disputes that led to the two cases, and to the numerous enforcement requests under them, relate to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan—not to articles relating exclusively to Armenia or exclusively to Azerbaijan. Thus, I don't think we necessarily intended that discretionary

5058:

So, now we've got an appeal of a DS sanction at AE, and I don't know if we can process it there because the committee seems to actively disagree on this, but is doing jack squat to actually resolve it. Any chance we could at least get a clarification if we can do anything on that request?

5485:

To Sandstein: in reply to your third question, I would answer both WP:AE and WP:AN. In reply to your fourth, I think the views of all uninvolved editors should be welcomed in appeals; but, as only an administrator can reverse an enforcement action, it must only be the views of uninvolved

5278:

practice, and would likely multiply the workload of AE admins. The last thing we want is for someone to argue "but I did nothing wrong when I got this warning 3 months ago and it was by an involved editor, so the warning is ineffective and you can't sanction me now!" in an AE thread.

4896:

I know you did that, but I am just going to warn you this time, so you got off lucky this time. The advice about not overwarning is fine, but our warnings serve a technical function – for almost everything we require a formal warning first (everything but the more serious offenses).

4229:

they been warned earlier. That may or may not be the case (I have not fully researched this as it would take a lot of effort), but Sandstein has subsequently made it quite clear that he was not in a position to know if it was the case and that he is not willing to prove that it was.

4858:

times I would estimate I have reminded editors to say I think, not you said, or someone said, without naming them, and thus personalizing the discussion. Am I mistaken, or wasn't that what two of them were warned about? Anyone think it would be worth warning whoever else did this?

4773:

rather than a notification, which is his right as an uninvolved adjudicating admin, but since such a warning is clearly a stain on the reputation of the recipient, it should obviously be appealable in my view, just as for any other kind of discretionary sanction applied at AE.

4051:

It cannot be what the ArbCom intended. And even if a block under ARBATC discretionary sanctions would actually require a discussion at WP:AE first (I doubt it, but the thick legalistic nitpicking that hovers around ArbCom/AE like a fog is largely impenetrable to me), there's

2382:

While the article Konullu edited was Azerbaijan related, it was not related to AA conflict, and Konullu's edits were not controversial. So here's the question. Was Konullu banned from everything Azerbaijan related, or was he banned only from anything related to AA conflict?

4287:

At least for me, the new formulation did carry a slightly stronger suggestion that only uninvolved administrators can warn, though the language was ambiguous in both cases. I am surprised that the principle of admin-only warning seems to have been reversed in the meantime.

4255:

With the principle that arbitration sanctions cannot be undone by other admins, Arbcom has created a potential playground for admins on a power trip. It is its duty to police it. If it fails to do this, this will have bad consequences for the retention of content editors.

3406:(but not others?) to overturn AE actions except "following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI)." Phrased as a restriction, this does not create a venue of (or right to) appeal, as 3421:

a discretionary sanction according to the meaning of the second provision, and therefore appealable? Are there now separate procedures for appealing DS and for appealing other AE actions? The two provisions and their relationship to one another require clarification.

3371:

should not be admissible with regard to the reasons given (if any) for the warning, perhaps excepting patent abuse. That's because the warning does not impose any restrictions, but only reminds editors of the conduct standards expected of them in any case. Also, the

4375:

This mess of contradictory information is an example for Arbcom's communication problem. I can understand how it can happen, especially with the amount of work that you have to do. But with more effective communication you might ultimately have less work to do.

446:

Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including

5119:

On the second point (and without going into its applicability to warnings): I would opine that an AE sanction can be appealed in general either (a) to the committee, (b) to the admin actually applying the sanction or (c) to a suitable venue where a consensus

3866:

I have disproved that I did in fact misconduct myself in the first place. (I can reiterate this proof if needed, but that's better saved for an appeal, not discussion of what the avenue of appeal is). The fact that this can constitute a false accusation, a

2985:

nonuniformity and uncertainty by using "editing" for one area and "pages" for the others. If we want to change "pages" to "editing" wholesale, we can do it later by adding it to the general discretionary sanctions motions currently being worked on.

2226:

In my view the key word here is "conflict". Edits that have no bearing on any conflict should not bring this ruling into play, regardless of what countries they involve. If any sort of conflict is involved, the ruling should be construed broadly.

4489: 4325:

Thanks for the link. That happened during my long break, so I missed it. But it appears that this 'clarification' was not flanked by complete implementation. A great number of cases still has the text that strongly suggests otherwise, and even

4204:

All editors are responsible for all statements they make on-wiki. This includes statements in warning templates which they leave on other editors' talk pages. The discretionary sanctions template which Sandstein put on four editors' talk pages

4057: 3751:

went back to the now-blocked disruptive editor engaging, sometimes, in editwarring and forumshopping over a style issue (and other times sockpuppeteering in energy/power topics); the connection to MOS/AT and thus to ARBATC's scope is extremely

4610:

TITLE. It is these three individuals, and not those with specialized knowledge, who have made it difficult to engage meaningfully in the topic and have exhausted the patience of those who have been trying to contribute to MOS in good faith.

3739:

etc.), the AE discussion in question was not even within ARBATC's scope to begin with, as it was not directly related to style or article title matters even "broadly construed", but user behavior matters (stemming from an earlier dispute at

5437:

editor—not merely by an uninvolved editor or administrator. While we are here, I would be minded to amend the standard discretionary sanctions procedure so that it requires any admissible notices or warnings to be given by an editor who is

275: 5486:

administrators that are counted towards the determination of consensus. This last point is ambiguous and would therefore need clarification by motion from this committee. I'll try this week to write some motions to resolve these issues.

3970:

behavior myself, but retracted my characterization of it as such about a week ago, as I better understand where it's coming from. I'm curious on what basis you would renew such an "overreaction" aspersion this late in the discussion? —

3021: 3417:

appeal decision – uninvolved admins, as is usual at WP:AE, or all uninvolved editors, as per the abovementioned provision? What is the correct forum – WP:AN(/I), as per the first provision, or WP:AE, as per the second provision? Is a

4503:

Since September some of us have been trying to deal with the disruptions of User: Apteva, who has been given every consideration, every explanation possible. There have been repeated patient discussions on the talk page. A lengthy

3714:

case against me, dependent directly upon Sandstein's ARBATC warning, in which ARBATC is being used to attempt to censor my criticism and questioning of an admin candidate who has proposed very unusual, draconian approaches to the

271: 4800:

A warning is just a warning. It only makes people aware that they are editing in an area where sanctions are easer to come by. Editors can no longer claim that they are unaware of discretionary sanctions. The current wording of

4546:) 13:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC) @SMcCandlish: Yes, those of us who received these "warnings" did nothing more than defend Noetica against Apteva's accusations. I would note that all four of us were also among the 28 editors 3823:

be an avenue of appeal when a warning like this is issued and its appropriateness and/or accuracy is questionable, because otherwise other editors (including admins) can pile on the warning with a threatening, harassing "Ah

2548:

for example), there should be a way to do that. For that reason, I'm going to hold back on supporting Tim's motion for now. A motion would be useful, but I'm not sure this particular wording covers what I would like to see.

3757:

my feelings hurt and cry because I was warned, but because the false accusations have a character-assassinating effect, regardless of Sandstein's intentions, and I should be able to clear my name unequivocally and formally.

5102:

of a warning isn't one of giving a "first strike", nor does it allege misbehaviour; it simply provides a demonstrable notification of the existence of sanctions in a topic area. It is not a sanction in any meaning of the

136: 124: 267: 259: 4526:

But there is no doubt that some admins consider the "warnings" to be useful. Once this template has been placed on an editor's talk page, some admins believe themselves justified in trying to get an editor blocked for

3721:

the actual consequences of warnings issued under color of ArbCom/AE authority are considerably more serious and less predicable than those attendant upon some random administrative warning that might be addressable at

140: 120: 132: 5359:

As the warnings are being used as part of a formal sanction process, and the implication is that some form of misconduct has taken place, then appealing against a warning using the appeal procedures as outlined on

4564:@Carcharoth: Interesting questions raised about notifications, specialization, and leaving Knowledge. Unfortunately RL is quite busy for me at the moment; if I can, I will try to shed some light on these later. — 4522:

I have absolutely no clue of what I am accused of doing, or where. I seriously doubt that I have done anything irregular; my recent comments have been mundane, and filled with boring diffs and policy references.

4140:

request, his intent to personally ban me from any and all MOS-related discussions. I feel I have no choice to but renew my claim that Sandstein, SarekOfVulcan and several others are engaged in active campaign of

263: 255: 3901:

by NE Ent's revision, above, and Iridescent, below, seems to be conclusive. Even if the original idea was informational warnings that aren't stigmatizing, the actual warnings depart radically from this idea. —

4272:

There was a time when I gave such non-judgemental warnings myself w.r.t. homeopathy. Then at some point I think I was told that only admins can do it. And in fact, non-admins seemed to have stopped doing it.

5182:, which doesn't explicitly say any misconduct must exist, however I suppose the "should be counseled to improve his or her editing" bit could imply that. Anyway, I'll rephrase my comments above accordingly. 3617: 251: 3043: 5088: 4769:

I might add that in the Noetica case, there was never any requirement for a notification since that requirement had already been fulfilled in the previous case. Sandstein appears to have issued a

4989:

Sandstein had announced an intention to see me banned; I did not say the vexatious request was Sandstein's. I haven't done anything new and different Sandstein can magically ban/block me for. —

2129: 2032: 243: 4392: 4281: 2004: 1999: 1992: 1987: 1982: 1977: 1972: 1967: 1962: 1957: 1952: 1947: 1942: 1937: 1932: 1927: 1922: 1917: 1912: 1907: 1900: 1895: 1890: 1885: 1880: 1875: 1870: 1865: 1860: 1199: 1194: 1187: 1182: 1177: 1172: 1167: 1162: 1157: 1152: 1147: 1142: 1137: 1132: 1127: 1122: 1117: 1112: 1107: 1102: 1095: 1090: 1085: 1080: 1075: 1070: 1065: 1060: 1055: 5016: 1855: 1850: 1845: 1840: 1835: 1830: 1825: 1820: 1815: 1808: 1803: 1798: 1793: 1788: 1783: 1778: 1773: 1768: 1763: 1758: 1753: 1748: 1743: 1738: 1733: 1728: 1723: 1716: 1711: 1706: 1701: 1696: 1691: 1686: 1681: 1676: 1671: 1666: 1661: 1656: 1651: 1646: 1641: 1636: 1631: 1624: 1619: 1614: 1609: 1604: 1599: 1594: 1589: 1584: 1579: 1574: 1569: 1564: 1559: 1554: 1549: 1544: 1539: 1532: 1527: 1522: 1517: 1512: 1507: 1502: 1497: 1492: 1487: 1482: 1477: 1472: 1467: 1462: 1457: 1452: 1447: 1440: 1435: 1430: 1425: 1420: 1415: 1410: 1405: 1400: 1050: 1045: 1040: 1035: 1030: 1025: 1020: 1015: 1010: 1003: 998: 993: 988: 983: 978: 973: 968: 963: 958: 953: 948: 943: 938: 933: 928: 923: 918: 911: 906: 901: 896: 891: 886: 881: 876: 871: 866: 861: 856: 851: 846: 841: 836: 831: 826: 819: 814: 809: 804: 799: 794: 789: 784: 779: 774: 769: 764: 759: 754: 749: 744: 739: 734: 727: 722: 717: 712: 707: 702: 697: 692: 687: 682: 677: 672: 667: 662: 657: 652: 647: 642: 635: 630: 625: 620: 615: 610: 605: 600: 595: 4060:" admin warns then AE enforces), other than the lack of consensus process to arrive at a topical restriction for that particular editor to begin with. (Note also that SarekOfVulcan almost 2438:

prone to making pro- or anti-Turk, pro- or anti-Kurd, etc. rants and POV-pushing edits. I have used the applicability of AA2 to very good effect in curtailing editwarring of this sort at

4598:

that it is the newer editors who create new content, while the more experienced editors tweak and format old content. The trick with Knowledge is to find what you are good at and do that.

3375:

do not seem to even require any misconduct as a reason for a warning, as they require case-specific counseling only "where appropriate". Implicitly, they only require that the warner has

1395: 1390: 1385: 1380: 1375: 1370: 1365: 1360: 1355: 590: 585: 580: 575: 570: 565: 560: 555: 550: 4385: 2761: 4717:@SMcC: Both you and Neotarf inferred that Sandstein's warnings were tantamount to bans. You state above: that the warning "effectively constitutes something closely akin to a topic-ban" 4276:

The change may have happened with the switch from the earlier evolving sanctions language ("Any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions if, despite being warned, that editor ."

1330: 525: 5264: 5244: 4035:

wrongdoing-alleging "special warning" under ARBATC, violation of which can result in an immediate block without any further discussion at all, other than that the latter simply throws

3687: 3682: 3652: 2798: 2782: 2581: 1315: 510: 3008: 2544:

the other country. This allows it to be narrowly tailored enough to stop most disruptive behavior, but if the scope needs to be expanded to cover something apparently unrelated (say

2267: 2241: 5231: 3344: 2846: 2054: 4910: 4788: 4737: 3322: 2812: 2790: 2342: 4396: 1251: 5318: 4440: 4199: 2922: 2904: 2890: 2740: 2706: 5221: 5008: 4975: 4947: 4193: 4164: 2994: 2507: 4463:— Please see what I've written here and above. These "warnings" are written as if to say "it has been officially determined that you are naughty"; how can there be no appeal? 3101: 2821: 2112: 5254:@Sandstein. I have probably been as clear as mud (again, sigh...) but you got my position wrong... In my opinion, warnings cannot be appealed and all users can issue them... 4852: 4832: 4718: 4434: 2627: 2566: 5518: 5391:

The prerequisite to sanction is "the editor knows that the topic is under DS"; a warning is just the most straightforward way of making sure an editor demonstrably knew. —

5048: 2965: 2720: 2492: 5535: 5352: 5329: 4742:

This is a problem that has been brewing for some time, and which obviously was not fully addressed in the previous case. While it is some time since I have participated at

4495: 2215: 4240:"Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." 5379: 5195: 5173: 3579: 3557: 3372: 3332: 2326: 2169:

My view is that the Committee likely intended the second interpretation (either Armenia or Azerbaijan), based both on the "broadly interpreted" clause and the finding at

5389:

knew of the sanction (for instance, by having been a party to the case and been notified of its results) then the warning was unnecessary for AE to enforce the sanction.

5129:

which only and administrator would have been capable of lifting. The point being that no AE-derived sanction can be lifted without a consensus in a suitable venue. —

4633:@SMcCandlish: not so sure about your statement that "Sandstein, SarekOfVulcan and several others are engaged in active campaign of harassment/hounding against me." If 4089: 4020: 2979: 2817:

Given the sprawling nature of the conflict, I'd rather case a wide net now even if it means reexamining the situation later to see if it is reasonable to narrow it. —

2538: 5424: 5395: 5133: 5113: 128: 5029:

and move forward? This whole thing seems to be about the "continue to" verbiage, which as noted above was not the earlier phrasing. (although it was added in May 2008

4731: 4410: 3990: 3957: 3921: 3891: 3856: 3808: 2132:

provides that "Topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions." Does this mean that

5464: 4500:

I am flattered to find my name on a list of "experienced editors", but the fact is I am a relatively new editor, with barely a thousand edits and a year of editing.

4277: 3623: 3328: 2170: 4928: 4827: 4651: 4354:

This also strongly suggests the same thing. Then far down the page we find guidance that doesn't merely contradict what came before but is even self-contradictory:

2470: 3335:

to the four experienced editors mentioned above. These warnings have been criticized at great length, notably by one warned user and party to the underlying case,

2311: 319: 5053: 4783: 4478: 4454: 4380: 4315: 4298: 4260: 3530:

Whose views matter in determining consensus about appeals of AE measures to a community forum – those of uninvolved admins, or uninvolved editors, or all editors?

3458: 2402: 2363: 486:

If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use

5401: 4721: 4516: 3562: 1229:

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

5496: 4174:: Re: "I'll try this week to write some motions to resolve these issues" – Any progress on that? I'm basically just in a holding pattern on what to do here. — 3772:

PS: The fact that admins have a strong collective tendency to reflexively side with other admins any time admin judgement is questioned means that avenues like

2306: 2292: 2185: 1246:

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.

5105:

That said, giving a warning of the sort should be seen like using any other templated notice: habitually misusing them is likely to be viewed as disruptive or

4866:

of an AN/AE discussion leading to a lengthy block for something that may or may not have even been a violation. Doing that would eliminate a lot of the drama.

4703:

However it should be noted that a number of statements above have over-stated the function of such warnings as "effective bans" this is thoroughly inaccurate--

2432: 4847: 4693:

Also, I see no reason that these formal warnings of AC/DS cannot be rescinded by AE. As it stands the wording at WP:AC/DS makes these warnings analogous to a

4216:

to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban."

3552: 2236: 5071: 4905: 4890: 4875: 4842:

editor believes it shouldn't have been served. Short version: One notification should just be a courtesy note, the actual warning re: DS can be appealed. -

4761:

as a result of an AE case, for any reason as they see fit. In the case of users who have not previously been informed of sanctions in a given topic area, a

4646: 4628: 4573: 4559: 2380: 4955: 2331: 2272: 2121: 3612: 3601: 2803:

Am willing to support this, even after reading the concerns below. If this is a step too far, and proves unworkable, a new amendment request can be made.

2427: 5249:@Hans. I agree with you that we should reword the template and its documentation so that it's clearer. This request is the perfect opportunity to do so! 5066: 2221: 3657:@AGK The main issue here would be that the warnings were issued per an official finding of fault at AE. However, improper warnings from regular editors 4711: 2689: 4065:

speculation or unreasonable "terriblizing" anxieties, but on very recent actual administrative behaviors stemming directly from the Sandstein warning.

4483: 4127: 2407: 4206: 443:

Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

4588:

it when someone comes along to polish and add non-breaking spaces and date formatting and such that improve the readability of what I have written.

4528: 425: 3864:

Hans Adler correctly points out below that the problem exists from the outset in the warning itself: "If you continue to misconduct yourself...."

4615:

If some editors are too competent to participate in MOS, this should not decided by one admin as a proxy for community discussion and consensus.

4794: 3762: 3109: 179: 2956:, deals with disputes between Armenia(ns) and Azerbaijan(is). Or am I overintellectualizing this when I should just be supporting the motion? 1337: 532: 4393:

as people see the previous warnings and assume "this editor is a troublemaker" or "this editor has officially been told they're in the wrong

1294: 1240: 5139:

warned again before any sanctions can be applied. This seems on its face somewhat silly, as one can't simply forget that they were warned

3676: 3646: 3360:

prone to obstruction, as it provides an opportunity for extremely lengthy and acrimonious discussions (as in this case) long before any

2372:

was "topic-banned indefinitely from all edits to articles or discussions relating to Armenian–Azerbaijani conflicts, broadly construed".

2261: 5281:

My view is that we should strike "identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways" from point 4 in the top section of

3383:(somewhat dubiously?) is to even allow discretionary sanctions in some cases where the editor has not even been individually warned for 4720:, and Neotarf says in reference to that same warning that "four editors who are effectively banned from WP by the actions of one admin" 4244:

Sandstein did not link to any page that actually is under the arbitration sanctions in question, or mention any. Instead, he linked to

3443: 3407: 5076: 4490:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive222#Topic ban proposal concerning the lame "Mexican-American War" hyphen/en-dash dispute

2451:"both-and" not "either-or", then "related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted" would have virtually no meaning or applicability. — 184: 3465: 2475: 4400:("Consensus" won't be a goer, as the squabbling about what form the process should take will run on for three years and go nowhere— 3285: 3179: 2970:

Agree with NYB: it is the edit, not the page, that is relevant. I could support this if the word "page" is changed to "editing".

1298: 4815:

too harsh, and it assumes that the editor has misbehaved. I prefer the older wording: "This is to inform you about that decision."

4293: 3340: 1233: 412: 4679:(which carries an explicit accusation of misconduct); this difference is strange considering that both warnings are required 4701:. There's no reason why AE can't rescind this, as it can other formal actions by admins relating to the RFAR's enforcement. 2344:

But I agree with Sandstein that the wording is a bit vague, and a more precise description of the scope would be advisable.

5294: 4634: 3470:

Thanks for your responses so far. The following attempts to summarize them, updated as of the time in the signature below:

3232: 3126: 474:

of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a

5509:. I have limited time or access (partly because of the storm) until Monday. I'll post some comments on Monday or Tuesday. 5125:

applies to any editor – it used "administrator" in its wording because, at the time it was written, AE mostly only issued

2620:

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

203: 4426:" is intentionally worded to apply only after an editor begins to misbehave; preemptive warnings are considered hostile" 3392:

In what (if any) venue may such warnings be appealed? Who reviews the appeal, and how is a successful appeal determined?

2375:

Soon after he was blocked for 2 weeks for violation of his topic ban by editing an article about Azerbaijani politician

5030: 4509: 3540:

There are 15 active arbitrators, so a majority is 8. So far no answer has the support of a majority of the Committee.

5211:, after all) and, so, this means AN and not AE, in my opinion, and, then, if said appeal is unsuccessful, to ArbCom. 5003: 4656:

I just want to make a quick submission as an AE admin on the general process of warnings, and not the case in point.

4188: 4159: 4122: 4084: 4015: 3985: 3952: 3916: 3886: 3851: 3803: 3279: 3173: 2465: 298: 5433:

Under the present system of discretionary sanctions, "warning or notice" of discretionary sanctions can be given by

4532: 2373: 4683:

administrative action can be taken against a particular user. Perhaps the question the committee needs to ask is: "

4473: 3434:

review; or to clarify that either only DS are appealable (with decisions made by consensus of uninvolved admins at

2512:

These sanctions are deliberately meant to be broadly interpreted, so I'd say it's any articles relating to Armenia

2414: 5039:

and just doing it, but I suppose some Arbs might be irritated if I take that upon myself while this is underway.

4963:

block you for the aforementioned, that will confirm for me beyond doubt that Sandstein's judgement is impaired. --

3343:

to appeal the warning. This raises some procedural questions. After ArbCom members did not respond to an informal

3671: 3641: 3315: 3209: 3065: 2256: 2076: 171: 4363:

first. However, the guidance as to who can warn is only implicit in the documentation for setting the parameter

4096: 3761:

I cannot impress upon the Arbitration Committee enough how serious a matter this is, as two productive editors,

3398:

Obviously they can be appealed directly to the Committee. But what, if any, venues for community review exist?

2020: 1215: 3399: 2589: 489: 21: 4723:. Also SMC both I and Lord Roem asked you to reduce the length of your posts and I will reiterate that again-- 4367:, which is easy to miss. Especially for an editor who stopped reading after the default text of the template: 2610:

are authorized for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted.

3262: 3226: 3156: 3120: 3077: 2088: 193: 4547: 3387:

reason: article-level sanctions, and sanctions against parties to the original case and earlier AE requests.

2480: 3309: 3203: 3095: 3083: 2106: 2094: 1323: 518: 4515:

At the same time we have four editors who are effectively banned from WP by the actions of one admin, and

3727:. They should really be called something other than "warnings", like "orders", so they're distinguishable. 4358:"A warning need not be issued by an administrator; see the template's documentation for further details." 4311:

of what you say. I suspect the switch was made to soften the move to irreversible arbitration sanctions.

3297: 3191: 3071: 2082: 98: 47: 5445:

As for Sandstein's questions: I do not consider warnings to be appealable. Therefore, in my view, once

5314: 5290: 5286: 5094:

It is my view that warnings cannot be meaningfully appealed (nor, indeed, is there something to appeal

3663: 3633: 3256: 3150: 3089: 2990: 2900: 2755: 2685: 2577: 2503: 2248: 2100: 4861:

Right now there is a lengthy discussion going on about enforcing incivility. I will only note that at

5262: 5242: 5219: 5043: 4334:"2. Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning;" 3716: 3303: 3244: 3197: 3138: 2321: 4505: 3049:

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

2895:

The point is that I for one have no idea what exactly "Armenia-Azerbaijan" is. This makes it clear.

2060:

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

78: 4816: 2776: 2614:

Previous or existing sanctions, warnings, and enforcement actions are not affected by this motion.

2560: 189: 5169: 4685:

does a notification of AC/DS need to be so strongly worded or would something along the lines of

3734:, as the discussion's been a bit mobile), that Sandstein's accusations with regard to my post at 3428:

I recommend to either delegate all appeals to a (rotating?) panel of arbitrators, while allowing

3291: 3185: 2534: 87: 36: 4512:, AN, and AE, complete with all proper notifications and step by step instructions for appeals. 3829: 3595:

an enforcement action and should be subject to appeal, but going by the latter it wouldn't be.

2572:

sanctions to be readily handed out for spillover into related areas, which frequently happens.

3000:

your point about conformity, it is probably best to leave this particular change be for now.

5514: 5448: 5310: 5300: 4997: 4823: 4805: 4793:

Best not to restrict warnings to uninvolved admins. We already made that back in the days of

4686: 4676: 4672: 4417: 4371:"This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision" 4182: 4153: 4116: 4078: 4009: 3979: 3946: 3910: 3880: 3845: 3797: 3569:

4. Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions,

3273: 3250: 3167: 3144: 2986: 2961: 2896: 2842: 2745: 2681: 2573: 2499: 2459: 2393: 2354: 483:

Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.

17: 5531: 5257: 5237: 5214: 5040: 4469: 4450: 4377: 4312: 4295: 4257: 2808: 2318: 1274: 4837:

Personal preference: New editors who first edit in areas where DS is in affect can have a

4757:

2/ At the same time, uninvolved administrators have always had the prerogative to issue a

4136:: Things are getting worse, not better. Sandstein has announced, at a patently vexatious 8: 5063: 4779: 3963: 3707: 3484:

Yes, as regards warnings that imply misconduct, but not as regards neutral notifications:

3238: 3132: 3059: 2795: 2768: 2552: 2302: 2288: 2070: 73: 4538:@Gatoclass: You seem to regard Sandstein as "uninvolved", however see Dicklyon's link. — 4342:"4. Warnings should identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways;" 3817:

The "red flag" that The Devil's Advocate raises is essentially the same one I'm raising.

2130:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Standard discretionary sanctions

497:

Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

161: 5419: 5374: 4694: 4350:"Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning" 2735: 2232: 1257: 153: 4642: 4624: 4569: 4555: 4543: 4049:

pretty much amount to a weird, "consensus-free" form of topic ban by individual fiat.

4036: 3833: 3773: 3731: 3220: 3114: 3001: 1254:. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page: 383: 31: 5178:@ Iridescent: Interesting, thanks for that. I was actually going off the wording of 4233: 3706:

is a "special" kind of warning, even in Sandstein's own words in our discussions at

3491:

Coren, Timotheus Canens (after amending procedure accordingly), AGK, Salvio giuliano

5510: 5232:

Knowledge talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 11#Request for clarification: WP:AC/DS

4992: 4966: 4938: 4919: 4901: 4886: 4871: 4819: 4595: 4177: 4148: 4142: 4111: 4073: 4004: 3974: 3941: 3905: 3875: 3840: 3792: 3703: 3608: 3597: 3336: 3268: 3162: 2975: 2957: 2838: 2599: 2545: 2454: 2423: 2384: 2345: 2279: 1289: 1279: 4594:

good with bots, templates, or disambiguation pages, or even arbing. There is also

5527: 5494: 5462: 5361: 5336: 5326: 5282: 5179: 5106: 4666: 4584: 4464: 4446: 4429: 4405: 4327: 4282:

WP:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 7#Omnibus motion amending past cases

4103: 4040: 3934: 3744: 3413: 2804: 2787: 2718: 2607: 1284: 1248:

There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section.

94: 43: 4637:

is any indication, the original target of the capitalization case was Noetica. —

2520:

any related ethnic conflicts, that last bit of course being somewhat redundant.

5060: 5027:"If you fail to conduct yourself appropriately on pages relating to this topic" 4775: 4698: 4519:, without diffs, without notifications, without discussion, without consensus. 3967: 3543: 3449: 3395:

Such warnings are AE actions, but how these are appealed is generally unclear:

3054: 3031: 2447: 2376: 2298: 2284: 2206: 2176: 2065: 2042: 1264: 475: 4675:(which states that "this isn't a warning or an accusation of misconduct") and 3506:

Timotheus Canens?, AGK (after amending procedure accordingly), Salvio giuliano

3379:

grounds on which to be concerned about the warned editor's edits. Practice at

2016: 1211: 458:

Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:

5412: 5367: 5340: 5183: 5156: 4862: 4843: 4220:

This was followed by free text containing the following indirect accusation:

4056:

no effective difference (the community topic-bans then ANI enforces, vs. an "

3868: 3837:

completely circular reasoning from which there is no clear path of appeal. —

2910: 2878: 2728: 2694: 2521: 2368:

Since we are talking a bit abstract now, I will provide a concrete example.

2228: 1269: 3730:

In this particular case, I have shown (at my talk, Sandstein's talk, and at

4743: 4638: 4620: 4565: 4551: 4539: 4245: 4137: 3872:

retract it and there's no or insufficient evidence of actual wrongdoing. —

3766: 3740: 3735: 3723: 3711: 3435: 3380: 3215: 2369: 4671:

Furthermore another inconsistency exists in the divergence of approach of

3828:, now we've got you by the short hairs!" campaign. Precisely this kind of 4897: 4882: 4867: 4724: 4704: 4338:

Clearly this refers to warnings given by admins only. In connection with

3591:

with no mention of identifying specific misconduct. Going by the top, it

2971: 2945: 2941: 2443: 2419: 5141:, and a warning does not necessarily imply that there was any misconduct 5023:"If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic" 2021: 1216: 5392: 5130: 5110: 4578:@Further comments on the specialization question raised by Carcharoth: 2818: 5109:, especially if it is done in a retributive or retaliatory manner. — 4248:, where he unconvincingly claims that problematic behaviour occurred. 4102:

At this juncture, I am wondering whether I should formally request at

2597:: That the section entitled "Standard discretionary sanctions" in the 5083:

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

4252:

attack against four editors, it is also a concerning abuse of power.

4031: 2487:

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

5230:

This is a common misconception: all editors may issue warnings (cf.

2837:

Regretful oppose to this wording per my and others' comments below.

5487: 5455: 5205:

following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved

5145:

I cannot imagine why a warning would need to be issued except where

4746:, my initial thoughts on this matter at this time are as follows: 2711: 2018: 1213: 4043:

in the trash can in two different ways. I hope that is clearer.

4488:

It's really sad that Sandstein's prior involvement with Noetica (

3430: 2439: 2338: 3022:

Clarification request: Discretionary sanctions appeals procedure

1252:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests

384:

Clarification request: Discretionary sanctions appeals procedure

359: 5482:

difficult to sanction editors who are misconducting themselves.

2195: 1239:

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail

5297:, and rename that principle "Rationales in sanction notices". 4422:

explicitly only to be used if an editor has breached sanctions

4278:

WP:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary sanctions

3510:

In which (if any) community forum can AE measures be appealed?

2022: 1217: 409: 332: 292: 214: 200: 4391:

assume are Arbcom-mandated, do have a scarlet letter effect,

4346:

it appears that that was meant seriously. Also further down:

2171:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Context

1236:

may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

3966:

tactic. At first I actually mistook Noetica's decision for

1250:

Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at

5098:), even if the admin giving the warning was involved. The 2199: 4045:

Sandstein's warning, if left unappealed and unappealable,

3782:

suitable for this, and a more formal deliberative process

3479:

Yes, and a successful appeal removes the warning's effect:

76:

to this revision, which may differ significantly from the

5402:

Knowledge:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions

3563:

Knowledge:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions

2194:(Oh, and please nobody start arguing about whether the 5021:

Why not just change the verbiage on uw-sanctions from

4665:

Thus there is an inconsistency between the wording of

3627:

the editor's filing the comment "here is someone you

2192:

hyphen can be read either as an "and" or as an "or".

4404:

every policy debate in the history of Knowledge.) –

2498:

I'd say either/or. I'd support a motion to clarify.

439:

of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

5295:

WP:AESH#Rationales in warnings and sanction notices

5454:advice it gives can be "unlearned"—defies logic. 5410:would have been reminded that DS was applicable. 3475:Can discretionary sanctions warnings be appealed? 210:Currently, there are no requests for arbitration. 3438:); or that this DS appeals procedure is open to 5228:This is also why only admins can warn nowadays. 4749:1/ Firstly, any user should be able to issue a 4669:, the sanctions templates AND actual practice. 2948:. So the best test might really be whether the 3573:and advise how the editor may mend their ways; 463:Click here to file a request for clarification 1331: 526: 452:To file a clarification or amendment request: 4461:I do not consider warnings to be appealable. 3536:AGK (after clarifying procedure accordingly) 3347:, I ask them here to clarify the following: 1295:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification 2033:Clarification request: Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 360:Clarification request: Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 2159:are placed under discretionary sanctions? 1338: 1324: 533: 519: 471:Click here to file a request for amendment 3565:is not coherent -- the top section says 419:No arbitrator motions are currently open. 234: 5385:ruled in the past that, because someone 4725: 4705: 466:of an arbitration decision or procedure. 426:Requests for clarification and amendment 57: 85: 14: 3356:be meaningfully rescinded or appealed? 2877:I don't feel like this does anything. 86:Revision as of 13:45, 5 March 2013 by 5209:at a community discussion noticeboard 2603:case be replaced with the following: 1241:directly to the Arbitration Committee 54: 35: 2337:for clarification regarding whether 336:Clarification and Amendment requests 27: 4990: 4548:who signed the RFC/U against Apteva 4175: 4146: 4109: 4106:an appeal of Sandstein's accusation 4071: 4002: 3972: 3939: 3903: 3873: 3838: 3790: 3672: 3642: 2452: 2257: 244:Backlash to diversity and inclusion 149: 118: 5032:so it isn't exactly new, either.) 4795:the "cold fusion" arbitration case 3664: 3634: 2638:Support votes needed for majority 2249: 150: 5548: 5293:, and "or giving a warning" from 5148:the issuance of a warning implies 4208:contains the following sentence: 3618:Statement by The Devil's Advocate 2242:Statement by The Devil's Advocate 72:. The present address (URL) is a 5305:should be reworded accordingly. 5035:I'm seriously thinking of being 3333:discretionary sanctions warnings 2608:Standard discretionary sanctions 5420: 5375: 5291:WP:AESH#Administrators reminded 5287:WP:AC/P#Discretionary sanctions 5089:Arbitrator views and discussion 4430: 4406: 4266:Re non-admin sanctions warnings 2736: 2493:Arbitrator views and discussion 2317:resolves. One puppy's opinion. 5044: 2322: 476:contentious topics restriction 13: 1: 5536:21:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC) 5519:02:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC) 5497:23:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC) 5488: 5456: 5353:05:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC) 5265:13:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC) 5196:05:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC) 5049:14:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC) 5017:Suggestion by Killerchihuahua 4948:02:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC) 4929:01:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC) 4906:04:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC) 4891:05:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC) 4876:03:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC) 4848:09:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC) 4828:19:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC) 4784:09:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC) 4732:00:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC) 4647:16:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC) 4629:04:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC) 4574:07:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC) 4560:08:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC) 4479:01:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC) 4165:13:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC) 4128:21:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC) 4090:21:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC) 4021:21:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC) 3991:21:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC) 3958:21:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC) 3683:05:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC) 3613:02:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC) 3553:15:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC) 2995:00:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC) 2980:22:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC) 2966:20:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC) 2923:18:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC) 2905:18:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC) 2891:18:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC) 2775: 2762:08:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC) 2741:08:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC) 2721:22:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC) 2712: 2707:18:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC) 2690:16:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC) 2582:18:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC) 2567:18:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC) 2559: 2539:16:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC) 2508:14:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC) 2428:04:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC) 2364:18:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC) 2341:was covered by AA2 remedies: 2327:17:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC) 2307:18:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC) 2293:17:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC) 2268:16:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC) 2237:16:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC) 2216:18:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC) 2186:13:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC) 2055:13:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC) 5465:22:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC) 5425:15:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC) 5396:14:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC) 5380:09:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC) 5330:07:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC) 5319:01:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC) 5245:15:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC) 5222:23:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC) 5174:23:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC) 5134:22:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC) 5114:22:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC) 4712:18:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC) 4517:their reputations besmirched 4455:23:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC) 4435:00:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC) 4411:23:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC) 4381:15:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC) 4316:14:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC) 4299:01:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC) 4261:23:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC) 3922:00:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC) 3892:23:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC) 3857:23:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC) 3809:23:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC) 3653:23:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC) 3602:23:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC) 3459:21:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC) 3352:Can discretionary sanctions 3044:21:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC) 2767: 2756: 2551: 2415:Armenia–Azerbaijan relations 454:(you must use this format!) 7: 4386:Quick comment by Iridescent 3931:Re: Carcharoth's commentary 3677: 3647: 2262: 1313:Clarification and Amendment 508:Clarification and Amendment 365: 107: 62: 34:of this page, as edited by 10: 5553: 4533:writing a word in all caps 3534:Uninvolved administrators: 2312:Comment by KillerChihuahua 2014: 1309: 1209: 504: 151: 105: 60: 5067:12:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC) 5009:21:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC) 4976:10:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC) 4956:The AE case you mentioned 4194:09:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC) 3964:"argument by psychodrama" 3743:, itself stemming from a 3009:07:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC) 2847:00:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC) 2822:13:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC) 2813:00:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC) 2799:20:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC) 2791:04:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC) 2783:03:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC) 2471:02:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC) 2403:20:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC) 1227:This is not a discussion. 431:Use this page to request 353: 350: 347: 344: 312: 309: 233: 230: 227: 224: 4911:Statement by Ohconfucius 4789:Statement by Enric Naval 4529:making comments at a RFA 3688:Statement by SMcCandlish 2433:Statement by SMcCandlish 5337:discretionary sanctions 5072:Statement by other user 4441:Statement by ErikHaugen 4397:WP:Requests for appeals 4200:Statement by Hans Adler 3504:All uninvolved editors: 3495:Who may issue warnings? 2872:Comments by arbitrators 2476:Statement by other user 4738:Statement by Gatoclass 4416:@Coren & Hersfold— 3899:The evidence presented 3622:I was involved in the 3341:announced their intent 3329:closed a WP:AE request 3323:Statement by Sandstein 2332:Comment by Grandmaster 2273:Statement by Gatoclass 2122:Statement by Sandstein 295:Recently closed cases 4833:Statement by Penwhale 4766:original case page. 4695:yellow card in soccer 4689:be more constructive? 4687:Template:Uw-probation 4677:Template:Uw-sanctions 4673:Template:Uw-probation 4484:Statement by Dicklyon 4418:Template:Uw-sanctions 3364:are even considered. 2222:Statement by Looie496 490:Arbitration CA notice 172:Arbitration Committee 18:Knowledge:Arbitration 5309:as a subpage of AN. 4496:Statement by Neotarf 3666:The Devil's Advocate 3636:The Devil's Advocate 3499:Only administrators: 3466:Summary of responses 2600:Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 2251:The Devil's Advocate 320:Historical elections 4853:Statement by Apteva 4143:harassment/hounding 3708:User talk:Sandstein 3571:identify misconduct 3558:Statement by NE Ent 3481:Hersfold, SilkTork 2631: 2408:Statement by Apteva 125:← Previous revision 55:13:45, 5 March 2013 4658:As Coren notes it 4321:Re Salvio Giuliano 4135: 4107: 4029: 4000: 3932: 3900: 3865: 3818: 3717:WP:Manual of Style 3345:request for advice 2952:, rather than the 2626: 2147:topics related to 2136:topics related to 413:Arbitrator motions 5172: 5006: 4974: 4946: 4927: 4477: 4191: 4162: 4133: 4125: 4101: 4087: 4027: 4018: 3998: 3988: 3955: 3930: 3919: 3898: 3889: 3863: 3854: 3816: 3806: 3611: 3600: 3551: 3521:Timotheus Canens 3457: 3408:Coren highlighted 3039: 2666: 2665: 2537: 2468: 2214: 2203: 2184: 2050: 2028: 2027: 2010: 2009: 1223: 1222: 1205: 1204: 406: 405: 399: 392: 378:22 February 2013 375: 329: 328: 289: 288: 279: 5544: 5492: 5460: 5452: 5421: 5415: 5376: 5370: 5304: 5261: 5241: 5229: 5218: 5168: 5061:Heimstern Läufer 5046: 5007: 5002: 5001: 4973: 4970: 4964: 4945: 4942: 4936: 4926: 4923: 4917: 4810: 4804: 4729: 4709: 4652:Statement Cailil 4467: 4432: 4408: 4192: 4187: 4186: 4163: 4158: 4157: 4126: 4121: 4120: 4088: 4083: 4082: 4019: 4014: 4013: 3989: 3984: 3983: 3956: 3951: 3950: 3920: 3915: 3914: 3890: 3885: 3884: 3855: 3850: 3849: 3807: 3802: 3801: 3702:A warning under 3679: 3674: 3668: 3649: 3644: 3638: 3607: 3596: 3575:(emphasis mine) 3550: 3548: 3541: 3456: 3454: 3447: 3362:actual sanctions 3313: 3286:deleted contribs 3260: 3233:deleted contribs 3207: 3180:deleted contribs 3154: 3127:deleted contribs 3105: 3038: 3036: 3029: 3006: 2779: 2771: 2758: 2752: 2737: 2731: 2716: 2632: 2625: 2621: 2563: 2555: 2546:Armenian cuisine 2533: 2469: 2464: 2463: 2400: 2391: 2361: 2352: 2324: 2283:of this nature. 2264: 2259: 2253: 2213: 2211: 2204: 2193: 2183: 2181: 2174: 2116: 2049: 2047: 2040: 2023: 1352: 1351: 1340: 1333: 1326: 1307: 1306: 1249: 1228: 1218: 547: 546: 535: 528: 521: 502: 501: 493: 473: 465: 453: 402:8 February 2013 398: 395: 391: 388: 374: 371: 342: 341: 307: 306: 302: 249: 236: 222: 221: 164: 137:Newer revision → 115: 113: 111: 102: 81: 79:current revision 71: 70: 68: 66: 56: 52: 51: 5552: 5551: 5547: 5546: 5545: 5543: 5542: 5541: 5446: 5413: 5368: 5298: 5255: 5235: 5227: 5212: 5091: 5079: 5074: 5056: 5054:Comment by Heim 5019: 4996: 4968: 4965: 4940: 4937: 4921: 4918: 4913: 4855: 4835: 4808: 4802: 4791: 4740: 4654: 4498: 4486: 4443: 4388: 4202: 4181: 4152: 4145:against me. — 4115: 4099: 4077: 4008: 3978: 3945: 3909: 3879: 3844: 3830:WP:BATTLEGROUND 3796: 3788: 3785: 3781: 3778: 3690: 3681: 3651: 3620: 3560: 3544: 3542: 3526:Salvio giuliano 3514:WP:AE or WP:AN: 3468: 3450: 3448: 3426:Recommendation: 3368:Recommendation: 3325: 3271: 3218: 3165: 3112: 3057: 3032: 3030: 3024: 3002: 2746: 2729: 2619: 2592: 2495: 2483: 2478: 2458: 2435: 2410: 2394: 2385: 2355: 2346: 2334: 2314: 2275: 2266: 2244: 2224: 2207: 2205: 2177: 2175: 2124: 2068: 2043: 2041: 2035: 2030: 2029: 2024: 2019: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1318: 1304: 1303: 1247: 1232:Arbitrators or 1226: 1224: 1219: 1214: 541: 540: 539: 513: 492:|SECTIONTITLE}} 487: 469: 461: 451: 428: 423: 422: 421: 416: 415: 408: 407: 396: 389: 372: 339: 338: 331: 330: 304: 303: 296: 291: 290: 219: 218: 213: 212: 207: 206: 199: 185:purge this page 175: 168: 167: 160: 156: 148: 147: 146: 145: 144: 129:Latest revision 117: 116: 106: 103: 92: 90: 77: 61: 58: 41: 39: 24: 12: 11: 5: 5550: 5540: 5539: 5538: 5521: 5503: 5502: 5501: 5500: 5469: 5468: 5431: 5430: 5429: 5428: 5427: 5357: 5356: 5355: 5348: 5345: 5322: 5272: 5271: 5270: 5269: 5268: 5200: 5199: 5198: 5191: 5188: 5164: 5161: 5136: 5117: 5090: 5087: 5086: 5085: 5078: 5075: 5073: 5070: 5055: 5052: 5018: 5015: 5014: 5013: 5012: 5011: 4987: 4979: 4978: 4951: 4950: 4912: 4909: 4854: 4851: 4834: 4831: 4790: 4787: 4739: 4736: 4735: 4734: 4702: 4699:police caution 4692: 4670: 4664: 4657: 4653: 4650: 4617: 4616: 4612: 4611: 4606: 4605: 4600: 4599: 4590: 4589: 4497: 4494: 4485: 4482: 4442: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4387: 4384: 4373: 4372: 4360: 4359: 4352: 4351: 4344: 4343: 4336: 4335: 4323: 4322: 4308: 4307: 4305: 4270: 4269: 4267: 4242: 4241: 4226: 4225: 4218: 4217: 4201: 4198: 4197: 4196: 4168: 4167: 4098: 4095: 4094: 4093: 4063: 4055: 4050: 4048: 4024: 4023: 3995: 3994: 3927: 3926: 3895: 3894: 3860: 3859: 3827: 3822: 3813: 3812: 3786: 3783: 3779: 3776: 3750: 3726: 3697: 3689: 3686: 3670: 3640: 3619: 3616: 3582:section says 3559: 3556: 3538: 3537: 3532: 3527: 3522: 3517: 3512: 3507: 3502: 3497: 3492: 3487: 3482: 3477: 3467: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3404:administrators 3389: 3324: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3266: 3213: 3160: 3107: 3023: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 2968: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2918: 2915: 2886: 2883: 2873: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2858: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2834: 2833: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2815: 2801: 2793: 2785: 2764: 2743: 2723: 2709: 2702: 2699: 2692: 2677: 2676: 2664: 2663: 2660: 2656: 2655: 2652: 2648: 2647: 2644: 2640: 2639: 2636: 2624: 2623: 2612: 2611: 2591: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2541: 2529: 2526: 2510: 2494: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2482: 2479: 2477: 2474: 2448:Turkish Angora 2434: 2431: 2409: 2406: 2377:Ilgar Mammadov 2333: 2330: 2313: 2310: 2274: 2271: 2255: 2243: 2240: 2223: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2157: 2156: 2145: 2144:Azerbaijan, or 2123: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2034: 2031: 2026: 2025: 2017: 2015: 2012: 2011: 2008: 2007: 2002: 1996: 1995: 1990: 1985: 1980: 1975: 1970: 1965: 1960: 1955: 1950: 1945: 1940: 1935: 1930: 1925: 1920: 1915: 1910: 1904: 1903: 1898: 1893: 1888: 1883: 1878: 1873: 1868: 1863: 1858: 1853: 1848: 1843: 1838: 1833: 1828: 1823: 1818: 1812: 1811: 1806: 1801: 1796: 1791: 1786: 1781: 1776: 1771: 1766: 1761: 1756: 1751: 1746: 1741: 1736: 1731: 1726: 1720: 1719: 1714: 1709: 1704: 1699: 1694: 1689: 1684: 1679: 1674: 1669: 1664: 1659: 1654: 1649: 1644: 1639: 1634: 1628: 1627: 1622: 1617: 1612: 1607: 1602: 1597: 1592: 1587: 1582: 1577: 1572: 1567: 1562: 1557: 1552: 1547: 1542: 1536: 1535: 1530: 1525: 1520: 1515: 1510: 1505: 1500: 1495: 1490: 1485: 1480: 1475: 1470: 1465: 1460: 1455: 1450: 1444: 1443: 1438: 1433: 1428: 1423: 1418: 1413: 1408: 1403: 1398: 1393: 1388: 1383: 1378: 1373: 1368: 1363: 1358: 1348: 1347: 1343: 1342: 1335: 1328: 1320: 1319: 1311: 1310: 1305: 1302: 1301: 1292: 1287: 1282: 1277: 1275:WP:A/R/C&A 1272: 1267: 1261: 1256: 1221: 1220: 1212: 1210: 1207: 1206: 1203: 1202: 1197: 1191: 1190: 1185: 1180: 1175: 1170: 1165: 1160: 1155: 1150: 1145: 1140: 1135: 1130: 1125: 1120: 1115: 1110: 1105: 1099: 1098: 1093: 1088: 1083: 1078: 1073: 1068: 1063: 1058: 1053: 1048: 1043: 1038: 1033: 1028: 1023: 1018: 1013: 1007: 1006: 1001: 996: 991: 986: 981: 976: 971: 966: 961: 956: 951: 946: 941: 936: 931: 926: 921: 915: 914: 909: 904: 899: 894: 889: 884: 879: 874: 869: 864: 859: 854: 849: 844: 839: 834: 829: 823: 822: 817: 812: 807: 802: 797: 792: 787: 782: 777: 772: 767: 762: 757: 752: 747: 742: 737: 731: 730: 725: 720: 715: 710: 705: 700: 695: 690: 685: 680: 675: 670: 665: 660: 655: 650: 645: 639: 638: 633: 628: 623: 618: 613: 608: 603: 598: 593: 588: 583: 578: 573: 568: 563: 558: 553: 543: 542: 538: 537: 530: 523: 515: 514: 506: 505: 500: 499: 498: 495: 484: 481: 480: 479: 467: 449: 448: 444: 429: 427: 424: 417: 411: 410: 404: 403: 400: 393: 386: 380: 379: 376: 369: 362: 356: 355: 352: 349: 346: 340: 334: 333: 327: 326: 323: 315: 314: 311: 305: 294: 293: 287: 286: 283: 280: 247: 239: 238: 232: 229: 226: 220: 216: 215: 208: 202: 201: 198: 197: 187: 182: 180:recent changes 176: 170: 169: 166: 165: 157: 152: 88: 74:permanent link 37: 26: 25: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5549: 5537: 5533: 5529: 5525: 5522: 5520: 5516: 5512: 5508: 5505: 5504: 5499: 5498: 5495: 5493: 5491: 5483: 5481: 5473: 5472: 5471: 5470: 5467: 5466: 5463: 5461: 5459: 5450: 5441: 5436: 5432: 5426: 5423: 5422: 5417: 5416: 5408: 5403: 5400: 5399: 5398: 5397: 5394: 5388: 5383: 5382: 5381: 5378: 5377: 5372: 5371: 5363: 5358: 5354: 5351: 5350: 5349: 5346: 5343: 5338: 5333: 5332: 5331: 5328: 5323: 5321: 5320: 5316: 5312: 5306: 5302: 5296: 5292: 5288: 5284: 5279: 5273: 5267: 5266: 5263: 5260: 5259: 5252: 5248: 5247: 5246: 5243: 5240: 5239: 5233: 5225: 5224: 5223: 5220: 5217: 5216: 5210: 5208: 5201: 5197: 5194: 5193: 5192: 5189: 5186: 5181: 5177: 5176: 5175: 5171: 5167: 5166: 5165: 5162: 5159: 5153: 5149: 5146: 5142: 5137: 5135: 5132: 5128: 5123: 5118: 5116: 5115: 5112: 5108: 5101: 5097: 5093: 5092: 5084: 5081: 5080: 5069: 5068: 5065: 5062: 5051: 5050: 5047: 5042: 5038: 5033: 5031: 5028: 5024: 5010: 5005: 4999: 4995: 4994: 4985: 4983: 4982: 4981: 4980: 4977: 4972: 4971: 4962: 4957: 4953: 4952: 4949: 4944: 4943: 4933: 4932: 4931: 4930: 4925: 4924: 4908: 4907: 4903: 4899: 4893: 4892: 4888: 4884: 4878: 4877: 4873: 4869: 4864: 4859: 4850: 4849: 4845: 4840: 4830: 4829: 4825: 4821: 4817: 4814: 4807: 4798: 4796: 4786: 4785: 4781: 4777: 4772: 4767: 4764: 4760: 4755: 4752: 4747: 4745: 4733: 4730: 4728: 4722: 4719: 4716: 4715: 4714: 4713: 4710: 4708: 4700: 4696: 4690: 4688: 4682: 4678: 4674: 4668: 4661: 4649: 4648: 4644: 4640: 4636: 4631: 4630: 4626: 4622: 4614: 4613: 4608: 4607: 4602: 4601: 4597: 4596:some evidence 4592: 4591: 4586: 4581: 4580: 4579: 4576: 4575: 4571: 4567: 4562: 4561: 4557: 4553: 4549: 4545: 4541: 4536: 4534: 4530: 4524: 4520: 4518: 4513: 4511: 4507: 4501: 4493: 4491: 4481: 4480: 4475: 4471: 4466: 4462: 4457: 4456: 4452: 4448: 4436: 4433: 4427: 4423: 4419: 4415: 4414: 4413: 4412: 4409: 4403: 4398: 4394: 4383: 4382: 4379: 4370: 4369: 4368: 4366: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4333: 4332: 4331: 4329: 4320: 4319: 4318: 4317: 4314: 4306: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4300: 4297: 4294: 4289: 4285: 4283: 4279: 4274: 4268: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4262: 4259: 4253: 4249: 4247: 4239: 4238: 4237: 4235: 4234:WP:NPA#WHATIS 4230: 4223: 4222: 4221: 4215: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4207: 4195: 4190: 4184: 4180: 4179: 4173: 4170: 4169: 4166: 4161: 4155: 4151: 4150: 4144: 4139: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4124: 4118: 4114: 4113: 4105: 4092: 4091: 4086: 4080: 4076: 4075: 4067: 4061: 4059: 4053: 4046: 4044: 4042: 4038: 4033: 4026: 4025: 4022: 4017: 4011: 4007: 4006: 3997: 3996: 3993: 3992: 3987: 3981: 3977: 3976: 3969: 3965: 3959: 3954: 3948: 3944: 3943: 3936: 3929: 3928: 3925: 3923: 3918: 3912: 3908: 3907: 3897: 3896: 3893: 3888: 3882: 3878: 3877: 3870: 3862: 3861: 3858: 3853: 3847: 3843: 3842: 3835: 3831: 3825: 3820: 3815: 3814: 3811: 3810: 3805: 3799: 3795: 3794: 3775: 3770: 3768: 3764: 3759: 3755: 3753: 3748: 3746: 3742: 3737: 3733: 3728: 3725: 3720: 3718: 3713: 3709: 3705: 3700: 3695: 3692: 3691: 3685: 3684: 3680: 3675: 3669: 3667: 3660: 3655: 3654: 3650: 3645: 3639: 3637: 3630: 3625: 3624:AE discussion 3615: 3614: 3610: 3604: 3603: 3599: 3594: 3589: 3588: 3583: 3581: 3576: 3574: 3572: 3566: 3564: 3555: 3554: 3549: 3547: 3535: 3531: 3528: 3525: 3520: 3515: 3511: 3508: 3505: 3500: 3496: 3493: 3490: 3485: 3480: 3476: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3461: 3460: 3455: 3453: 3445: 3441: 3437: 3433: 3432: 3427: 3423: 3420: 3415: 3411: 3409: 3405: 3401: 3396: 3393: 3390: 3388: 3386: 3382: 3378: 3374: 3369: 3365: 3363: 3357: 3355: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3346: 3342: 3338: 3334: 3330: 3317: 3311: 3308: 3305: 3302: 3299: 3296: 3293: 3290: 3287: 3284: 3281: 3278: 3275: 3270: 3267: 3264: 3258: 3255: 3252: 3249: 3246: 3243: 3240: 3237: 3234: 3231: 3228: 3225: 3222: 3217: 3214: 3211: 3205: 3202: 3199: 3196: 3193: 3190: 3187: 3184: 3181: 3178: 3175: 3172: 3169: 3164: 3161: 3158: 3152: 3149: 3146: 3143: 3140: 3137: 3134: 3131: 3128: 3125: 3122: 3119: 3116: 3111: 3108: 3103: 3100: 3097: 3094: 3091: 3088: 3085: 3082: 3079: 3076: 3073: 3070: 3067: 3064: 3061: 3056: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3046: 3045: 3042: 3037: 3035: 3028: 3027:Initiated by 3010: 3007: 3005: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2977: 2973: 2969: 2967: 2963: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2924: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2916: 2913: 2909:Fair enough. 2908: 2907: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2884: 2881: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2848: 2844: 2840: 2836: 2835: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2823: 2820: 2816: 2814: 2810: 2806: 2802: 2800: 2797: 2794: 2792: 2789: 2786: 2784: 2781: 2778: 2772: 2770: 2765: 2763: 2759: 2753: 2751: 2750: 2744: 2742: 2739: 2738: 2733: 2732: 2724: 2722: 2719: 2717: 2715: 2710: 2708: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2700: 2697: 2693: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2679: 2678: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2661: 2658: 2657: 2653: 2650: 2649: 2645: 2642: 2641: 2637: 2634: 2633: 2629: 2622: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2609: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2602: 2601: 2596: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2565: 2562: 2556: 2554: 2547: 2542: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2527: 2524: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2509: 2505: 2501: 2497: 2496: 2488: 2485: 2484: 2473: 2472: 2467: 2461: 2457: 2456: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2430: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2416: 2405: 2404: 2401: 2399: 2398: 2392: 2390: 2389: 2381: 2378: 2374: 2371: 2366: 2365: 2362: 2360: 2359: 2353: 2351: 2350: 2343: 2340: 2329: 2328: 2325: 2320: 2309: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2295: 2294: 2290: 2286: 2281: 2270: 2269: 2265: 2260: 2254: 2252: 2239: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2217: 2212: 2210: 2201: 2197: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2182: 2180: 2172: 2167: 2164: 2160: 2154: 2150: 2146: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2131: 2128: 2114: 2111: 2108: 2105: 2102: 2099: 2096: 2093: 2090: 2087: 2084: 2081: 2078: 2075: 2072: 2067: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2057: 2056: 2053: 2048: 2046: 2039: 2038:Initiated by 2013: 2006: 2003: 2001: 1998: 1997: 1994: 1991: 1989: 1986: 1984: 1981: 1979: 1976: 1974: 1971: 1969: 1966: 1964: 1961: 1959: 1956: 1954: 1951: 1949: 1946: 1944: 1941: 1939: 1936: 1934: 1931: 1929: 1926: 1924: 1921: 1919: 1916: 1914: 1911: 1909: 1906: 1905: 1902: 1899: 1897: 1894: 1892: 1889: 1887: 1884: 1882: 1879: 1877: 1874: 1872: 1869: 1867: 1864: 1862: 1859: 1857: 1854: 1852: 1849: 1847: 1844: 1842: 1839: 1837: 1834: 1832: 1829: 1827: 1824: 1822: 1819: 1817: 1814: 1813: 1810: 1807: 1805: 1802: 1800: 1797: 1795: 1792: 1790: 1787: 1785: 1782: 1780: 1777: 1775: 1772: 1770: 1767: 1765: 1762: 1760: 1757: 1755: 1752: 1750: 1747: 1745: 1742: 1740: 1737: 1735: 1732: 1730: 1727: 1725: 1722: 1721: 1718: 1715: 1713: 1710: 1708: 1705: 1703: 1700: 1698: 1695: 1693: 1690: 1688: 1685: 1683: 1680: 1678: 1675: 1673: 1670: 1668: 1665: 1663: 1660: 1658: 1655: 1653: 1650: 1648: 1645: 1643: 1640: 1638: 1635: 1633: 1630: 1629: 1626: 1623: 1621: 1618: 1616: 1613: 1611: 1608: 1606: 1603: 1601: 1598: 1596: 1593: 1591: 1588: 1586: 1583: 1581: 1578: 1576: 1573: 1571: 1568: 1566: 1563: 1561: 1558: 1556: 1553: 1551: 1548: 1546: 1543: 1541: 1538: 1537: 1534: 1531: 1529: 1526: 1524: 1521: 1519: 1516: 1514: 1511: 1509: 1506: 1504: 1501: 1499: 1496: 1494: 1491: 1489: 1486: 1484: 1481: 1479: 1476: 1474: 1471: 1469: 1466: 1464: 1461: 1459: 1456: 1454: 1451: 1449: 1446: 1445: 1442: 1439: 1437: 1434: 1432: 1429: 1427: 1424: 1422: 1419: 1417: 1414: 1412: 1409: 1407: 1404: 1402: 1399: 1397: 1394: 1392: 1389: 1387: 1384: 1382: 1379: 1377: 1374: 1372: 1369: 1367: 1364: 1362: 1359: 1357: 1354: 1353: 1350: 1349: 1341: 1336: 1334: 1329: 1327: 1322: 1321: 1317: 1314: 1308: 1300: 1299:.../Amendment 1296: 1293: 1291: 1288: 1286: 1283: 1281: 1278: 1276: 1273: 1271: 1268: 1266: 1263: 1262: 1259: 1255: 1253: 1244: 1242: 1237: 1235: 1230: 1208: 1201: 1198: 1196: 1193: 1192: 1189: 1186: 1184: 1181: 1179: 1176: 1174: 1171: 1169: 1166: 1164: 1161: 1159: 1156: 1154: 1151: 1149: 1146: 1144: 1141: 1139: 1136: 1134: 1131: 1129: 1126: 1124: 1121: 1119: 1116: 1114: 1111: 1109: 1106: 1104: 1101: 1100: 1097: 1094: 1092: 1089: 1087: 1084: 1082: 1079: 1077: 1074: 1072: 1069: 1067: 1064: 1062: 1059: 1057: 1054: 1052: 1049: 1047: 1044: 1042: 1039: 1037: 1034: 1032: 1029: 1027: 1024: 1022: 1019: 1017: 1014: 1012: 1009: 1008: 1005: 1002: 1000: 997: 995: 992: 990: 987: 985: 982: 980: 977: 975: 972: 970: 967: 965: 962: 960: 957: 955: 952: 950: 947: 945: 942: 940: 937: 935: 932: 930: 927: 925: 922: 920: 917: 916: 913: 910: 908: 905: 903: 900: 898: 895: 893: 890: 888: 885: 883: 880: 878: 875: 873: 870: 868: 865: 863: 860: 858: 855: 853: 850: 848: 845: 843: 840: 838: 835: 833: 830: 828: 825: 824: 821: 818: 816: 813: 811: 808: 806: 803: 801: 798: 796: 793: 791: 788: 786: 783: 781: 778: 776: 773: 771: 768: 766: 763: 761: 758: 756: 753: 751: 748: 746: 743: 741: 738: 736: 733: 732: 729: 726: 724: 721: 719: 716: 714: 711: 709: 706: 704: 701: 699: 696: 694: 691: 689: 686: 684: 681: 679: 676: 674: 671: 669: 666: 664: 661: 659: 656: 654: 651: 649: 646: 644: 641: 640: 637: 634: 632: 629: 627: 624: 622: 619: 617: 614: 612: 609: 607: 604: 602: 599: 597: 594: 592: 589: 587: 584: 582: 579: 577: 574: 572: 569: 567: 564: 562: 559: 557: 554: 552: 549: 548: 545: 544: 536: 531: 529: 524: 522: 517: 516: 512: 509: 503: 496: 491: 485: 482: 477: 472: 468: 464: 460: 459: 457: 456: 455: 445: 442: 441: 440: 438: 434: 433:clarification 420: 414: 401: 394: 387: 385: 382: 381: 377: 370: 368: 367: 363: 361: 358: 357: 345:Request name 343: 337: 324: 322: 321: 317: 316: 308: 300: 284: 281: 277: 273: 269: 265: 261: 257: 253: 248: 246: 245: 241: 240: 231:Evidence due 223: 211: 205: 204:Case requests 196:this template 195: 191: 188: 186: 183: 181: 178: 177: 173: 163: 159: 158: 155: 142: 138: 134: 130: 126: 122: 109: 100: 96: 91: 84: 83: 80: 75: 64: 49: 45: 40: 33: 23: 19: 5523: 5506: 5489: 5484: 5479: 5476: 5457: 5449:uw-sanctions 5444: 5439: 5434: 5418: 5411: 5406: 5390: 5386: 5373: 5366: 5342: 5341: 5307: 5301:uw-sanctions 5280: 5276: 5256: 5253: 5250: 5236: 5213: 5206: 5204: 5185: 5184: 5158: 5157: 5151: 5147: 5144: 5140: 5126: 5121: 5104: 5099: 5095: 5082: 5057: 5036: 5034: 5026: 5022: 5020: 4991: 4969:Ohconfucius 4967: 4960: 4941:Ohconfucius 4939: 4922:Ohconfucius 4920: 4914: 4894: 4879: 4860: 4856: 4839:notification 4838: 4836: 4812: 4806:uw-sanctions 4799: 4792: 4770: 4768: 4762: 4758: 4756: 4751:notification 4750: 4748: 4741: 4726: 4706: 4684: 4680: 4659: 4655: 4632: 4618: 4577: 4563: 4537: 4525: 4521: 4514: 4502: 4499: 4487: 4460: 4458: 4444: 4425: 4421: 4401: 4389: 4374: 4364: 4361: 4353: 4345: 4337: 4330:still says: 4324: 4309: 4290: 4286: 4275: 4271: 4254: 4250: 4243: 4231: 4227: 4219: 4213: 4203: 4176: 4171: 4147: 4110: 4100: 4072: 4068: 4066: 4003: 3999:@Enric Naval 3973: 3960: 3940: 3924: 3904: 3874: 3839: 3791: 3771: 3767:User:Neotarf 3763:User:Noetica 3760: 3758: 3754: 3729: 3701: 3699: 3665: 3658: 3656: 3635: 3628: 3621: 3605: 3592: 3590: 3585: 3584: 3577: 3570: 3568: 3567: 3561: 3545: 3539: 3533: 3529: 3523: 3518: 3513: 3509: 3503: 3498: 3494: 3488: 3483: 3478: 3474: 3469: 3451: 3442:AE actions, 3439: 3429: 3425: 3424: 3418: 3412: 3403: 3397: 3394: 3391: 3384: 3376: 3367: 3366: 3361: 3358: 3353: 3351: 3326: 3316:notification 3306: 3300: 3294: 3288: 3282: 3276: 3263:notification 3253: 3247: 3241: 3235: 3229: 3223: 3210:notification 3200: 3194: 3188: 3182: 3176: 3170: 3157:notification 3147: 3141: 3135: 3129: 3123: 3117: 3098: 3092: 3086: 3080: 3074: 3068: 3062: 3048: 3047: 3040: 3033: 3026: 3025: 3004:Roger Davies 3003: 2953: 2949: 2912: 2911: 2880: 2879: 2773: 2766: 2748: 2747: 2734: 2727: 2713: 2696: 2695: 2668: 2667: 2635:Abstentions 2618: 2613: 2598: 2594: 2593: 2557: 2550: 2523: 2522: 2517: 2513: 2486: 2453: 2436: 2411: 2396: 2395: 2387: 2386: 2370:User:Konullu 2367: 2357: 2356: 2348: 2347: 2335: 2315: 2296: 2276: 2250: 2245: 2225: 2208: 2198:should be a 2178: 2168: 2163:Explanation: 2162: 2161: 2158: 2152: 2148: 2141: 2137: 2126: 2125: 2109: 2103: 2097: 2091: 2085: 2079: 2073: 2059: 2058: 2051: 2044: 2037: 2036: 1312: 1245: 1238: 1231: 1225: 507: 450: 436: 432: 430: 418: 364: 335: 325:13 Sep 2024 318: 285:24 Oct 2024 282:10 Oct 2024 242: 209: 32:old revision 29: 28: 5511:Newyorkbrad 5507:Placeholder 5143:. However, 5077:Clerk notes 4993:SMcCandlish 4984:I said the 4820:Enric Naval 4635:this thread 4178:SMcCandlish 4149:SMcCandlish 4112:SMcCandlish 4074:SMcCandlish 4062:immediately 4032:No one used 4005:SMcCandlish 3975:SMcCandlish 3942:SMcCandlish 3906:SMcCandlish 3876:SMcCandlish 3841:SMcCandlish 3793:SMcCandlish 3587:guidelines. 3516:Coren, AGK 3486:Carcharoth 3331:by issuing 3327:Recently I 3269:SMcCandlish 3163:Ohconfucius 3106:(initiator) 3078:protections 2958:Newyorkbrad 2946:art gallery 2942:street grid 2839:Newyorkbrad 2516:Azerbaijan 2481:Clerk notes 2455:SMcCandlish 2444:Turkish Van 2117:(initiator) 2089:protections 494:to do this. 174:proceedings 30:This is an 5528:Carcharoth 5327:Courcelles 4954:@Stanton: 4465:ErikHaugen 4447:HaugenErik 4431:iridescent 4407:iridescent 4378:Hans Adler 4313:Hans Adler 4296:Hans Adler 4258:Hans Adler 4037:WP:PROCESS 3834:WP:WINNING 3789:needed. — 3780:may not be 3749:ultimately 3546:Sandstein 3452:Sandstein 3339:, who has 3304:block user 3298:filter log 3251:block user 3245:filter log 3198:block user 3192:filter log 3145:block user 3139:filter log 3090:page moves 3034:Sandstein 2805:Carcharoth 2788:Courcelles 2680:Proposed. 2630:reference 2209:Sandstein 2179:Sandstein 2155:Azerbaijan 2101:page moves 2045:Sandstein 310:Case name 299:Past cases 235:Prop. Dec. 225:Case name 217:Open cases 5311:T. Canens 5170:non-admin 5045:Chihuahua 4776:Gatoclass 4531:, or for 4097:Now what? 4058:univolved 3704:WP:ARBATC 3698:the case. 3337:WP:ARBATC 3310:block log 3257:block log 3204:block log 3151:block log 3084:deletions 3055:Sandstein 2987:T. Canens 2897:T. Canens 2682:T. Canens 2574:T. Canens 2535:non-admin 2500:T. Canens 2323:Chihuahua 2299:Gatoclass 2285:Gatoclass 2280:WP:GAMING 2127:Question: 2095:deletions 2066:Sandstein 1290:WP:A/R/CA 1280:WP:A/R/CL 1258:Shortcuts 437:amendment 5414:SilkTork 5369:SilkTork 5362:WP:AC/DS 5283:WP:AC/DS 5180:WP:AC/DS 5122:at least 5004:Contrib. 4844:Penwhale 4667:WP:AC/DS 4474:contribs 4365:admin=no 4328:WP:AC/DS 4304:Re Coren 4214:continue 4212:"If you 4189:Contrib. 4160:Contrib. 4123:Contrib. 4104:WP:RFARB 4085:Contrib. 4041:WP:BLOCK 4016:Contrib. 3986:Contrib. 3953:Contrib. 3935:WP:GNOME 3917:Contrib. 3887:Contrib. 3852:Contrib. 3804:Contrib. 3752:tenuous. 3745:WP:RFC/U 3580:guidance 3578:but the 3414:WP:AC/DS 3402:forbids 3354:warnings 3280:contribs 3227:contribs 3174:contribs 3121:contribs 3066:contribs 2730:SilkTork 2628:Majority 2595:Proposed 2466:Contrib. 2229:Looie496 2151:Armenia 2140:Armenia 2077:contribs 1316:archives 1285:WP:A/R/A 511:archives 488:{{subst: 348:Motions 154:Shortcut 108:→‎Motion 99:contribs 63:→‎Motion 48:contribs 22:Requests 20:‎ | 5524:Comment 5387:clearly 5226:@Hans. 5207:editors 4986:request 4771:warning 4763:warning 4759:warning 4639:Neotarf 4621:Neotarf 4566:Neotarf 4552:Neotarf 4540:Neotarf 4508:. Then 4028:@Cailil 3968:WP:DIVA 3777:are not 3747:, that 3444:per AGK 3431:en banc 3419:warning 3216:Neotarf 3110:Noetica 2857:Abstain 2675:Support 2440:Van cat 2339:Van cat 1265:WP:ARCA 354:Posted 313:Closed 194:discuss 162:WP:ARCA 5407:reason 5289:, and 5258:Salvio 5238:Salvio 5215:Salvio 5150:there 5127:blocks 5107:pointy 5064:(talk) 5041:Killer 4898:Apteva 4883:Apteva 4868:Apteva 4863:WP:RCP 4727:Cailil 4707:Cailil 4681:before 4585:gnomes 4459:@AGK: 4134:Update 3869:WP:NPA 3819:There 3787:may be 3678:cntrb. 3648:cntrb. 3609:NE Ent 3598:NE Ent 3524:WP:AN: 3519:WP:AE: 3096:rights 3072:blocks 2972:Risker 2832:Oppose 2796:Kirill 2590:Motion 2518:and/or 2514:and/or 2420:Apteva 2397:master 2358:master 2319:Killer 2263:cntrb. 2196:hyphen 2149:either 2107:rights 2083:blocks 1270:WP:ARA 1234:Clerks 447:bans). 366:Motion 228:Links 5393:Coren 5131:Coren 5111:Coren 5103:term. 5100:point 4998:Talk⇒ 4744:WP:AE 4697:or a 4246:WP:AE 4232:From 4183:Talk⇒ 4154:Talk⇒ 4138:WP:AE 4117:Talk⇒ 4079:Talk⇒ 4054:still 4010:Talk⇒ 3980:Talk⇒ 3947:Talk⇒ 3911:Talk⇒ 3881:Talk⇒ 3846:Talk⇒ 3798:Talk⇒ 3774:WT:AE 3741:WP:AN 3736:WP:AE 3732:WT:AE 3724:WP:AN 3712:WP:AE 3696:isn't 3436:WP:AE 3381:WP:AE 3373:rules 2819:Coren 2460:Talk⇒ 2388:Grand 2349:Grand 351:Case 89:Coren 38:Coren 16:< 5532:talk 5515:talk 5480:more 5347:fold 5344:Hers 5315:talk 5190:fold 5187:Hers 5163:fold 5160:Hers 5096:from 5037:bold 5000:ɖכþ 4961:does 4902:talk 4887:talk 4872:talk 4824:talk 4818:. -- 4780:talk 4643:talk 4625:talk 4570:talk 4556:talk 4544:talk 4506:RFCU 4470:talk 4451:talk 4428:. – 4185:ɖכþ 4172:@AGK 4156:ɖכþ 4119:ɖכþ 4081:ɖכþ 4047:does 4039:and 4012:ɖכþ 3982:ɖכþ 3949:ɖכþ 3913:ɖכþ 3883:ɖכþ 3848:ɖכþ 3821:must 3800:ɖכþ 3765:and 3673:tlk. 3643:tlk. 3400:AC/P 3377:some 3292:logs 3274:talk 3239:logs 3221:talk 3186:logs 3168:talk 3133:logs 3115:talk 3060:talk 2991:talk 2976:talk 2962:talk 2954:page 2950:edit 2917:fold 2914:Hers 2901:talk 2885:fold 2882:Hers 2843:talk 2809:talk 2777:Talk 2757:talk 2749:Worm 2701:fold 2698:Hers 2686:talk 2659:3–4 2651:1–2 2578:talk 2561:Talk 2528:fold 2525:Hers 2504:talk 2462:ɖכþ 2446:and 2424:talk 2303:talk 2289:talk 2258:tlk. 2233:talk 2200:dash 2138:both 2071:talk 1297:and 397:none 390:none 373:none 237:due 190:view 141:diff 135:) | 133:diff 121:diff 95:talk 44:talk 5490:AGK 5458:AGK 5440:not 5435:any 5152:was 5025:to 4846:| 4813:way 4811:is 4660:has 4550:. — 4510:ANI 4420:is 4284:). 3659:are 3629:can 3489:No: 3440:all 3385:any 3102:RfA 2944:or 2714:AGK 2142:and 2113:RfA 2005:128 2000:127 1993:126 1988:125 1983:124 1978:123 1973:122 1968:121 1963:120 1958:119 1953:118 1948:117 1943:116 1938:115 1933:114 1928:113 1923:112 1918:111 1913:110 1908:109 1901:108 1896:107 1891:106 1886:105 1881:104 1876:103 1871:102 1866:101 1861:100 1200:128 1195:127 1188:126 1183:125 1178:124 1173:123 1168:122 1163:121 1158:120 1153:119 1148:118 1143:117 1138:116 1133:115 1128:114 1123:113 1118:112 1113:111 1108:110 1103:109 1096:108 1091:107 1086:106 1081:105 1076:104 1071:103 1066:102 1061:101 1056:100 435:or 270:) ( 262:) ( 254:) ( 192:or 53:at 5534:) 5517:) 5451:}} 5447:{{ 5317:) 5303:}} 5299:{{ 5285:, 5234:. 4904:) 4889:) 4874:) 4826:) 4809:}} 4803:{{ 4782:) 4691:" 4645:) 4627:) 4572:) 4558:) 4535:. 4472:| 4453:) 4402:cf 4236:: 4030:: 3826:ha 3784:is 3593:is 3501:– 3446:. 3410:. 3041:at 2993:) 2978:) 2964:) 2903:) 2845:) 2811:) 2769:NW 2760:) 2688:) 2662:6 2654:7 2646:8 2643:0 2580:) 2553:NW 2506:) 2442:, 2426:) 2379:. 2305:) 2291:) 2235:) 2202:.) 2153:or 2052:at 1856:99 1851:98 1846:97 1841:96 1836:95 1831:94 1826:93 1821:92 1816:91 1809:90 1804:89 1799:88 1794:87 1789:86 1784:85 1779:84 1774:83 1769:82 1764:81 1759:80 1754:79 1749:78 1744:77 1739:76 1734:75 1729:74 1724:73 1717:72 1712:71 1707:70 1702:69 1697:68 1692:67 1687:66 1682:65 1677:64 1672:63 1667:62 1662:61 1657:60 1652:59 1647:58 1642:57 1637:56 1632:55 1625:54 1620:53 1615:52 1610:51 1605:50 1600:49 1595:48 1590:47 1585:46 1580:45 1575:44 1570:43 1565:42 1560:41 1555:40 1550:39 1545:38 1540:37 1533:36 1528:35 1523:34 1518:33 1513:32 1508:31 1503:30 1498:29 1493:28 1488:27 1483:26 1478:25 1473:24 1468:23 1463:22 1458:21 1453:20 1448:19 1441:18 1436:17 1431:16 1426:15 1421:14 1416:13 1411:12 1406:11 1401:10 1260:: 1243:. 1051:99 1046:98 1041:97 1036:96 1031:95 1026:94 1021:93 1016:92 1011:91 1004:90 999:89 994:88 989:87 984:86 979:85 974:84 969:83 964:82 959:81 954:80 949:79 944:78 939:77 934:76 929:75 924:74 919:73 912:72 907:71 902:70 897:69 892:68 887:67 882:66 877:65 872:64 867:63 862:62 857:61 852:60 847:59 842:58 837:57 832:56 827:55 820:54 815:53 810:52 805:51 800:50 795:49 790:48 785:47 780:46 775:45 770:44 765:43 760:42 755:41 750:40 745:39 740:38 735:37 728:36 723:35 718:34 713:33 708:32 703:31 698:30 693:29 688:28 683:27 678:26 673:25 668:24 663:23 658:22 653:21 648:20 643:19 636:18 631:17 626:16 621:15 616:14 611:13 606:12 601:11 596:10 478:). 274:/ 272:pd 266:/ 264:ws 258:/ 256:ev 127:| 123:) 112:+s 110:: 97:| 67:+s 65:: 46:| 5530:( 5513:( 5313:( 4900:( 4885:( 4870:( 4822:( 4778:( 4641:( 4623:( 4619:— 4568:( 4554:( 4542:( 4476:) 4468:( 4449:( 3832:/ 3318:) 3314:( 3312:) 3307:· 3301:· 3295:· 3289:· 3283:· 3277:· 3272:( 3265:) 3261:( 3259:) 3254:· 3248:· 3242:· 3236:· 3230:· 3224:· 3219:( 3212:) 3208:( 3206:) 3201:· 3195:· 3189:· 3183:· 3177:· 3171:· 3166:( 3159:) 3155:( 3153:) 3148:· 3142:· 3136:· 3130:· 3124:· 3118:· 3113:( 3104:) 3099:· 3093:· 3087:· 3081:· 3075:· 3069:· 3063:· 3058:( 2989:( 2974:( 2960:( 2899:( 2841:( 2807:( 2780:) 2774:( 2754:( 2684:( 2576:( 2564:) 2558:( 2502:( 2422:( 2301:( 2287:( 2231:( 2115:) 2110:· 2104:· 2098:· 2092:· 2086:· 2080:· 2074:· 2069:( 1396:9 1391:8 1386:7 1381:6 1376:5 1371:4 1366:3 1361:2 1356:1 1339:e 1332:t 1325:v 591:9 586:8 581:7 576:6 571:5 566:4 561:3 556:2 551:1 534:e 527:t 520:v 301:) 297:( 278:) 276:t 268:t 260:t 252:t 250:( 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.