1488:
are well meaning contributors worried about the influence a user is having on an article they believe she is intimately connected to. Usually identity outing of this type is used to bully and intimidate. I don't think that is the intention here, but I do think it is the effect. Most of us who chose not to disclose our real names could be outed in this way, it's hard to keep private information off-line, but that doesn't mean it is OK to go looking for it. We rely on the courtesy and civility that
Wikipedians are supposed to show each other to keep our privacy. Those posting this information feel that it is justified in this case, because of the alleged connection between the user and the article she is editing. I would say that this is not relevant, what is important is the edits, not the editor. If Agapetos angel is making bad or biased edits, then we need to tackle that, and not the side issue of her identity. I am not convinced that those involved in this will ever agree with this, and past attempts to look at the situation have been marred by further postings of the information (see the deleted RfC). I think an arbitration ruling would be very helpful in this case, and a quick one is needed before it becomes impossible to reverse the damage.
1888:, she has no standing on which to object to others who have reservations about whether the participation of an involved party is indeed appropriate. The easy way for her to settle this matter and spare the community further disruption would be to just speak up as to whether she is indeed related to Sarfati. Instead, Agapetos angel has chosen to play coy, which naturally raises suspicions that Agapetos angel is relying on intentional ambiguity in the hope that she can continue a POV campaign and relying of false charges of harassment against those who may stumble upon the truth. Agapetos angel has yet tell the community that truth, despite numerous requests and occasions where doing so would be appropriate and helpful. If indeed she is not an involved party, setting the record straight would have little risk to herself and only bolster her credibility while earning her an apology from me and settling this matter for good for the community.
1246:
The reported harassment on the WP:AN/I was the most recent violation in a series of personal attacks for which I have been attempting to resolve by many different avenues. I contacted the persons in question via their talk page to no avail, tried to reason with them in the article talk page, and tried several times to bring the article’s talk page back to discussion of the content and the other attempts listed above. Admittedly frustrated with being unable to find the correct and conclusive way to resolve this ongoing problem, I closed off my participation in the WP:AN/I and decided to ignore the attacks. Instead, I readdressed a neutral issue in the talk attempting to once again bring the discussion back away from personalities to content. This failed in that the next post by User:FeloniousMonk below mine was another personal attack. SlimVirgin had offered informal moderation in the form of a separate talk/dispute page.
1582:". I also strongly disagree with their previously attempted defence of public availablity as the (dubious) source in question does not draw the conclusions that the admin/editors purport": Obviously, this charge cannot be directly be disputed here, but I will note the following: Google caches its data each time an item is searched for. Given that the item in question had been searched for on 13 Feb 2006, there is zero chance that the alleged cache from 25 Jan 2005 could be legitimate on 16 Feb 2006, thus the claim of the "dubious" nature of the source is in and of itself dubious. 23:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
2196:
connection, it's fairly clear that she wished to remain anonymous. It's not like her name has been published in the New York Times linked with this identity; it just happens to be available in some corner of the web. If her edits show bias, great, repost the request for comment on that alone and I'm sure people will be happy to act on that; it sounds like it is fairly clear that she is biased without needing to "out" her. I don't think an emergency injunction is quite in order, but I do think people should not use any more force than necessary here, and are strongly advised to make their case
1268:
also strongly disagree with their previously attempted defence of public availablity as the (dubious) source in question does not draw the conclusions that the admin/editors purport. This WP:V violation would not be allowed in an article, and should be even less allowable against a contributor, especially as used as personal attack/harassment. That defence would open a wide hole allowing speculations based on other sources, such as white/yellow page listings which are also 'public knowledge' on the
Internet, to be used in like manner. Thank you.
873:
you and I simply had a 'misunderstanding'. You linked to WP:DR. Again, can you honestly say and prove that you followed those steps? Or did you instead disrupt Talk, and continue to post the information there and elsewhere after being shown where an admin said it was a offence that could result in being banned? This was harassment intended to subdue an opponent, pure and simple. That the participants in the harassment became subdued after RfAr was filed is not evidence that it did not happen.
1585:"That defence would open a wide hole allowing speculations based on other sources, such as white/yellow page listings which are also 'public knowledge' on the Internet, to be used in like manner.": Were the information found to have been as trivial as AA suggests, she would have a point. However, that was not the case. See the deleted comments from FM and Raul's comments to discern why the case is somerthing other than implied by AA. 23:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
1343:. I asked Guettarda to stop trolling my talk pages or I would remove any further posts. He posted twice more after my second similar request, which I removed, then archived the posts to their own page for review. I do not view my use of the word 'trolling' to be a personal attack in this context, and point to the usage by Guettarda himself when he removed the one comment I left on his talk page with the same sort of comment regarding 'trolling'
1797:
1738:
2110:
Agapetos_angel's personal information amounts to a serious lie-by-omission, in that he fails to mention in any way the non-trivial reason they were doing it - that she was editing (in a very biased way) of someone she personally knew. No one even mentioned Jack
Safarti's name until FM did. Ridiculous. How do people expect us to make sense of these things if they only tell us 20% of the story and expect us to psychically know the rest?
1573:"wikistalking" -- no one has stalked AA. In fact, prior to stumbling across the Sarfati article I had never even heard of her. In addition, while I know from looking at her edit history that she has edited numerous other pages, to the best of my knowledge, I have never edited any of those pages except Noah's Ark -- my contribs to which predate AA's, nor have any of the others. Thus the charge of wikistalking is unfounded.
38:
1254:
original talk. This supports that these admin, whose participation in the alternate talk page has been limited (and civil), were causing an insurmountable disruption that resulted in a hostile enviornment. Additionally, while the alternate talk page was approximately 12 hours into discussion, compromise, and consensus, the above editors filed a (now deleted) RfC against me.
1579:"posting another person's personal information" -- since FM's explanation was blanked, is there anyt reason to exect that my explanation of the reasons and history that necessitated the use of public knowledge wouldn't also be blanked? Thus, I see no reason to answer this charge as I need not waste keystrokes on an item likely to be removed. 23:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
1174:" - what harrassment? He has defined good faith attempts at dispute resolution as harrassment. So, if we don't abide by some arbitrary and unspecifed code of behaviour that Tony has defined as "harrassment", he will block us. It's menacing to make threats like that. Since Tony is well known for his unlateral actions, these do not appear to be idle threats. He says "
2706:
1824:, so I'll just direct readers there and add my own brief summary of how I believe Agapetos angel caused this event to escalate herself through misrepresentation and insisting on disrupting an article in which there is strong evidence that she has a personal stake. Agapetos angel has a history of being disruptive at
2772:
While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still
2739:
Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction
1617:
I commend Kim on his decision to drop the request for injunction, however, I believe that this RfAr should be closed and an RfC pursued first (I believe that to be the proper Wiki path, but if I am wrong, let me know). My basis for this request is that AA's assertions differ in content from those of
1598:
One making the following assertion needs to provit: Finally, another proof that I am not the disruption as purported is also supported by the fact that even after I removed myself from talk and from the WP:AN/I to participating in the alternate page for discussion with the informal mediator, the WP:H
1517:
First, I agree with
Guettarda. This "emergency request" was undertaken in an underhanded manner and apparently without any attempt to see both sides of the issue. Is there a reason it took 19 hours to inform the parties of an "emergency" request? It seems that the notification was taken only after
1267:
and continuation of harassment beyond the attempts to move discussion to resolve, WP:AGF does not apply in that there is no indication that this behaviour will stop. I support the request for injunction to stop these (and any other editors/admin) from continuing this harassment as outlined above. I
2077:
It seems to me that info that can be gleaned from the web is not really private at all. it's publically available. Am I right in thinking that the only info released is the person's name and her relationship to the people whose articles she has edited? Not her address or telephone number or anything
1487:
Wikimedia's privacy policy doesn't explicitly deal with privacy issues between users, but it's an issue that has come up quite a lot over the years. Usually there is quite a clear "bad guy" putting out private information, and they are quickly banned and the information removed. In this case there
1146:
Tony, feel free to. Lar, your definition of "assume good faith" seems a bit odd to me. Tony and Lar, Knowledge (XXG) is neither the begining nor end of my life -- I came here to have a positive impact on the availability of knowledge, and there are many other opportunities to do so. I did not come
928:
In any case, I'm sure that you will all note that AA was resistant to Slims idea at first, needing prodding from Flo Night to join in. I intentionally stayed out of it for a while so that AA would have a chance to cool off. Anything I've posted there since about 2/20 or so has been constructive to
2222:
I'm rejecting this case because I don't think publishing this information is a breach of any specific policy. However, I do think it is a bad idea to "out" people who wish to remain anonymous. Cases are really about policy violation, or disruptive behaviour of various sorts, and if the individual
2182:
I think that it's quite obivously a violation of civility to expose personal information, and that claiming that an email address is the one used to privately and off-wiki email participants is absolutely and obviously such exposure (no, that's not repetition of publically-known information). There
2050:
and those it privileges with extra access to sensitive information - developers, those with CheckUser, the Arbcom, et al. Regular
Knowledge (XXG) users are not bound by that policy, and I do not think the Foundation is bound to keep information private that has been released by others, not through
1746:
Actually, it's impossible as the e-mail address can be held by only one person, and the e-mail address is in fact that of the person in question here. Additionally, there are issues regarding tampering with Google templates that will not be disclosed here, but that are relevant and can be provided
1334:
of the situation, which I feel is valid based on two pieces of evidence (one prior and one afterwards), followed with a request for
Guettarda to explain how my assessment was incorrect based on the facts presented. Instead of responding to that request, my talk page was spammed (i.e., trolling) 10
1253:
I had been raising for weeks to no avail. Ironically, most of the consensus has been very close to my original (and repeated) suggestions (with minor compromises). This illustrates with compromise from all parties, and no personal attacks directed at me, we would have resolved the disputes in the
853:
Evidence of harassment? Jim stated that this was all a 'failure to communicate' and that it 'bothers deeply' that I believe 'that people are out to harass' me. Would he care to post evidence that the steps in dispute resolution were followed? There is myriad evidence that there was harassment.
2400:
6) Knowledge (XXG) users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgment
2384:
5) The recruitment of new editors to
Knowledge (XXG) for the purpose of influencing a survey, perform reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be
2095:
So people used publically available information to make a connection between
Agapetos_angel and the articles she was causing trouble on. This is (a) not at all a breach of the foundation privacy policy and (b) a commedable effort in keeping our articles free of bias created by editing from someone
1692:
Rather than delete the entire statement, only the second paragraph needed to be deleted (if anything did). Was this how the Min Zhu/WebEx case was handled? Maybe in the regular business world the concept of a "conflict-of-interest" means little, but where I work it means everything, so perhaps I
1632:
In all honesty, that AA still believes that people are out to harass her bothers me deeply. If we look through the evidence we will see that harassment was not part of the issue: NPOV and honesty were. As for myself, were harassment really my goal, would I have retracted two statements I made in
1249:
which I initially questioned/resisted participation for reasons of disillusionment, but after a peptalk from FloNight and a nice email from another editor, I began the process as requested. In just a couple of days, and in an all-over reasonable tone, the participating editors have nearly reached
1245:
which include wikistalking (for the purposes of disruption), targeted personal attacks (repeated personal attacks on a particular editor), and posting another person's personal information (which would logically by extension include associating my user name with an offline name and email address).
1114:
I'm missing where Tony is making "menacing threats". He's stating that he will take actions as an admin and giving the criteria under which he'll act. That's not a threat, much less a menacing one. Further, by offering to "take this one to Jimbo" he's offering to help resolve issues expeditiously.
1048:
Tony, I do not appreciate your tone. You are taking on a menacing, uncalled for and uncivil attitude in the guise of righting a perceived wrong regarding civility. First, you have made an assumption (ascribing motives) that harrassment existed, and then you presume that this alleged and unproven
1001:
Looking briefly this morning at the contributions of the parties named by Kim, I don't see any sign that they're continuing to harass. If they resume harassment I may block them because I regard the actions described as such an extreme breach of civility as to warrant some kind of preventive. If
872:
Jim, you did in fact apologise twice for things that could easily be shown as erroneous. However, you also were the first to immediately disturb Durova's request for calm. Apologising after the fact for one part of it, and doing nothing to stop your participation in the rest is not evidence that
2195:
While I don't think it is a breach of the
Foundation privacy policy, it is not the sort of consideration of others I'd expect for good editors to insist on publishing her personal information. From the limited places in which this information is available online and the way she wished to deny the
1605:
re the following: "Could it please be addressed that posting a link on this request to a page that repeats the WP:H violation is, I believe, a means of circumvention before a ruling can be made?". First, what link, second if evidence is to be presented, it needs to be presented unfettered by the
1199:
Guettarda, you're right. My blocking threat was ill thought-out and antagonistic. I overreacted in a situation where all parties should be working to lower the tension. I apologies to all parties for my extremely wounding and inappropriate words and blocking threats. You are both good guys, I
1092:
I would prefer if you did not issue menacing threats. I would prefer if you didn't issue threats to good editors for trying to act in the interest of article quality. I would prefer if you remembered that we are trying to write a quality encyclopaedia here, not to exercise power for the sake of
1873:
All efforts to get
Agapetos angel to cease edit warring and violating 3RR without revealing her personal connection to Jonathan Sarfati failed. Her response has been neither outright confirmation nor denial of whether she has a relationship to Sarfati but instead to continue the edit warring and
1781:
This raises a number of important and relevant questions. As far as I am concerned, privacy does not trump neutrality, as NPOV is policy while privacy is not. But I am not from the USA, where some people clearly view this very differently. It does look as if an editor is standing on privacy to
2780:
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally
2776:
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special
2210:
Brandt's site tried to expose anonymous editors simply because they edited the article about him, not because they had any specific personal relationship to the article itself; in this case, the identity of the editor in question is actually relevant to whether or not they should be editing the
2109:
Also, in the interest of those who, like me, were totally unable to read most of this request - I found this request to be almost totally incoherent. Only FeloniousMonk's (now deleted) comment told the whole story in any sort of ordered fashion. Kim's initial statement that people are spreading
1925:
after further thought and developments. This acceptance is to consider not only the narrow issue of privacy, but the behavior of all parties to this case. I'd like to ... expressly encourage all parties to make their case much more comprehensibly if/when the case is accepted, rather than the
1257:
I believe this illustrates yet another attempt to cause disruption rather than resolve, especially given that most of them have participated at least once in the alternate page. Given that official looking message boxes were added (and reverted back after the first removal) to three different
900:
As for the contention that I ignored Durova's request for calm and disrupted talk, I think that is a matter of opinion. I felt that Durova was missing the bigger point, and I see no law against sarcasm, something in which AA too has engaged. In fact, looking at other sources, it seems that a
1025:
Tony, such menacing threats violate civility and fail utterly to assume good faith. If you continue to issue them, I may block you because I regard the actions described as such an extreme breach of civility as to warrant some kind of preventive. If the arbitration committee feels unable to
2232:
As well as applying policy, we have to face up to being one of the few (only?) bodies that can actually take a firm stand and get things done in the midst of contraversy such as this. I think trying to cop-out with "but there's no policy about this" doesn't speak well to the Committee.
1722:
I have some sympathy with Felonious here, the chances of two people choosing the handle "agapetos_angel" are pretty remote, the source of the allegation is on the web, and if the inference is correct it is very clearly problematic for edits to be made to the article by that person.
1311:
when allowed to be discussed in a manner that removes all commentary on the contributor and relies solely on (the validity of the) content. Finally, there has been no indication that any editor on that alternate page found any of my suggestions to be hagiographic or violations of
1361:
Finally, another proof that I am not the disruption as purported is also supported by the fact that even after I removed myself from talk and from the WP:AN/I to participating in the alternate page for discussion with the informal mediator, the WP:H violations continued
1576:"targeted personal attacks" -- while at times the discussions among all parties may have become heated, I do not recall any personal attacks against AA (certainly not by me), and to my recollection, those items she has considered personal attacks were clearly not.
384:
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the
1710:
I don't see it as "contempt of arbcom", but it certainly shows strong disagreement with the position of those asking for the injunction. All in all, it's probably a good idea not to repeat the information here, at least until some definitive ruling can be made.
1303:
My intent, before this blew up into series of personal attacks against me, was (and would remain) to insist that the material in the articles in question meets policy, specifically WP:V. Stating, as a means of defence for the violations of WP:H, that I am the
909:
be added to this case as there appears to have been a falsification of a google document that was an invasion of a non-Wikipedian's privacy in order to cover up the AA identity issue. The impact that that had on inflaming the issue needs to be brought to the
1546:
claim is NOT factual, "certain key information elements can only have been obtained through private correspondence, specifically email address". Anyone Googling the user's alias can find the info on e-mail address. The same holds true for identity info.
2673:
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
1354:
involved in the ongoing disputes, continued Guettarda's claims. I removed the first one as I was upset by the situation, and in the middle of archiving, then fully addressed the second when he informed me that he was posting in the capacity of an
2307:
are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution. When disagreements arise, users are expected to adhere to the
2740:
placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.
1435:"Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether the information is actually correct) is almost always harassment." -
1528:, who used the following nebulous reasoning "deleting what seems to be a lot of private info disclosure until I read it. please do not undelete without first reading it yourself" in his edit summary. Initially, the RfC had been deleted by
826:
Evidence of arguing with an editor for weeks on an issue, then telling the informal moderator that it is easy to comply with the request: (How is that dispute resolution?) FM's recent comment was 'Sources will be provided. It's a simple
2245:
I'm one of the many editors who believes that we should not be constantly expanding the role and powers of the Arbitration Committee; in this case, my concern rests with the belief that we should try to stick to our mandate of policy
1318:, the hostile manner in which I was treated from the inception of the complaint led to further lack of resolve. Regardless of that observation, it remains a fact that the original accusation that I placed Guettarda name on a poll
1299:
says that 'You don't need to reveal your offline identity'. Furthermore, there is no official policy that requires I reveal/prove who I am or who I am not. Nor would it be appropriate for me to require the same of these reported
904:
As for the bigger point that is being missed, since AA screams "privacy violation" every time the evidence is presented, how is one to get a fair hearing without being permitted to present the evidence? Additionally, I move that
1358:, That this false accusation has now been posted in multiple places around wikipedia (necessitating repeated defence), rather than adherence to proper dispute procedure, leads to the conclusion that this is being used as calumny.
1595:": I'm not fully sure as to which part of the policy is refering as she has coverd them all previously, but if it is that which I believe it to be, there is a qualifying phrase, a caveat as it were. 01:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
951:
What remains is that Agapetos Angel feels harrassed by the gentlemen listed above, while at the same time, the right honourable gentlemen feel that Agapetos Angel has been misbehaving, and that they had little other choice.
1765:
2286:
401:
2735:
Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.
2663:
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the
2773:
request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
2630:
0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
2609:
rather than edit warring when involved with content disputes. The banning of Agapetos angel and her meat and sock puppets should not be interpreted as a license to make a hatchet job of the affected articles.
1052:
You are way out of line here, and rather than to see you and Guettarda get into a blocking war that will likely get you both de-sysoped, a simple apology or rewording of your statement seems to be in order.
1599:
violations continued in my absense. agapetos_angel 01:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC). Additionally, I do not recall seeing a comment by AA that she had removed herself from talk. 02:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
897:
Whether or not Guettarda is part of the case or not, and I am curious what the motives were for removing him, since a big part of the problem stemmed from the faux-straw poll, I feel that they are relevant.
259:
1335:
times in one day with increasingly hostile contributions which included accusations of lies, lying, dishonesty, etc., and changing the headers on my talk page to put quote marks around words such as
925:
Re point number 6 -- I'm not sure where AA is going with that; technically the informal mediation attempt was by Durova, whom I did not feel was an appropriate meiator due to his Wiki-ties with AA.
2693:
2516:
397:
390:
296:
128:
2586:
and associated articles. This list is not exclusive and the remedy applies to any user, registered or not, who engages in the same type of tendentious editing as has been done by Agapetos angel.
1424:
If the harassment is deemed a separate issue, then my statement above may be used for that purpose. However, I entreaty the Committee to hear the injunction request, particular to the issue of
1499:
I find Kim's actions (not informing the subjects of the RFAr until he was caught) to be underhanded and shows a remarkable lack of good faith. As for the rest of it, I'll be damned if I care.
1238:
I cannot provide supporting links to all the points in my statement because some of the support is located within the sections that had to be (re)moved because of the nature of the complaint.
973:
that purports to associate this user with a real person. I can't guarantee that somebody won't decide I was "censoring" Knowledge (XXG) and just roll it all back. We need an injunction. --
1398:
I am dropping (and ask others to do the same) User:Guettarda from the list. I think that the actions by this admin may have been more inappropriate action/reaction than intent to harass.
457:
disruptively without disclosing a close personal relationship with Sarfati. She, supported to some extent by Kim Bruning and Tony Sidaway, claim that their conduct amounts to harassment.
61:
386:
2078:
like that? I am not willing to make a blanket statement about this sort of thing.(linkspammers posting links to their own websites need to be identified for example) But I will say that
1315:
Proof is available that the accusation that I personally attacked Guettarda is erroneous. Despite claims of a gentle approach on my talk page, which included 'Your deceitful behaviour'
290:
2350:
3) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained tendentious editing may be banned from the affected articles. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.
1330:
disagreement) to make sure there was no further misunderstanding that it was not intended to be a poll, and an apology was issued. However, the revision continued to include my AGF
1308:
of the disruption conveys a false impression. Again, nearly all the changes to the main article in question that I had originally suggested have now (nearly) reached consensus
1049:
harassmnent will continue. Quite frankly, I am offended, and see your blatant threat as a personal attack. Shall I respond in kind by opening an RfC on your present behaviour?
961:
Technically this is a new claim, but since everyone has basically already somehow magically assumed that that's what was going to happen anyway (oh dear), we're all set anyway.
1381:
Could it please be addressed that posting a link on this request to a page that repeats the WP:H violation is, I believe, a means of circumvention before a ruling can be made?
254:
286:
82:
74:
813:
for details on the informal moderation. NB Jim did not include ‘and failed’ at the end of ‘Additional confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried’.
2499:
3) There has been significant tendentious editing to these articles by others who oppose the creationist point of view. Other edit warriors besides Agapetos angel include
2433:. Jonathan Sarfati is a creationist who was trained as a scientist. Agapetos angel and several anonymous editors are suspected to be either him or associated with him.
1782:
avoid answering allegations of editing articles in which they are personally involved: refusal to answer, in the British courts, allows certain inferences to be drawn.
1821:
228:
2536:
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
2046:
I see no breach of the Foundation's privacy policy here. The Foundation's privacy policy is only in respect to what information will be released or kept private
1039:
If you do, I will request your desysopping from the board for two things: a) getting into a wheel war, and b) for continuing to harass the editor in question. -
248:
93:
71:
1657:
Request to have this testimony immediately deleted, as it puts forth information I would like the injunction on. (is there such a thing as contempt of arbcom?)
1464:(Supported by an admin's official warning:) 'Using an editors real name or other personal information without their specific permission can result in a ban.' -
1002:
the arbitration committee feels unable to respond, perhaps the community will. If I do block I will (as I nearly invariably do) place a report of the block on
2793:
2682:
2637:
281:
219:
138:
66:
1221:, so the original issue really isn't an issue any longer. In fact, it seems that tensions have eased considerably, and others have joined the discussion.
2227:
2215:
2190:
2104:
2090:
2072:
2183:
may be other disclosures of private information in the above (and elsewhere) too, but I've not quite the time right now. So... yes, pending a proper case.
224:
1913:
234:
214:
97:
2686:
2327:
2) Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain a
948:
To prevent the request for injunction becoming more disruptive than the wheel war it was meant to prevent, I am dropping the request for injunction.
239:
152:
133:
1178:". Given how Tony defines "the community", again, this is a threat of unilateral actions. Yep, it's a threat, and it's full of menance. And no, "
355:
2808:
273:
164:
2827:
197:
123:
52:
17:
562:
485:
1459:
2223:
at the center of this issue is doing either, then a case should be brought on those merits alone, and not based on her alleged identity.
2119:
For the simple reason that I have asked only for a very specific, narrow, limited injunction on very specific, limited, narrow grounds.
578:
499:
422:
2385:
editing Knowledge (XXG) solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.
1828:, including 4 3RR violations, resulting in being blocked 3 times. She has also been editing heavily the article of Sarfati's employer
1452:'E-mail (optional): Enables others to contact you through your user or user_talk page without the need of revealing your identity.' -
2602:
1670:
Done. FM, don't deliberately go against a direct and repeated well-intentioned request, whether or not you believe it to be baseless.
189:
29:
894:
as I didn’t realize that that had the name in it, however as the other discloses no personal info (unless I missed it) I left it in.
1549:
Note: do not delete this statement under the guise of privacy violation as it is relevant to a "defense" regarding Kim's assertions
175:
118:
2200:
reposting the material objected to. (If this sort of thing isn't a big deal, why was such a fuss made over Daniel Brandt's site?)
1602:
For the comments re Guettarda, I shall let him answer these charges for himself, if he so chooses. 02:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
610:
527:
450:
110:
1839:
Public information, found on the web through google and available to anyone indicates Agapetos_angel is intimately related to
1554:
Having thus disposed of the major premise, I shall tackle the other issues in due time, but certainly no later than tonight.
698:
637:
160:
58:
594:
513:
436:
170:
88:
1200:
know (all ofour, including FeloniousMonk and Duncharris) and that was not the right approach and I should have known that.
958:
Due to my personal history with Feloniousmonk, it might be interesting to attract an external advocate who is not me :-)
2167:
I was under the impression that RfAr is NOT the place for discussion. (This will be my only comment in this section.) --
2140:
seen it to be acceptable to use the threat of revealing personal information as a way of "winning" the argument. This is
686:
WP:AN/I (now deleted because it failed to resolve any issues, but instead became another avenue for continued harassment)
683:(which appears to have been rejected due to improper filing: ‘Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate’ )
2068:
1935:
348:
2807:
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at
1026:
respond, perhaps the community will. If I do block I will (as I nearly invariably do) place a report of the block on
1443:
2697:
209:
2332:
2757:(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
1792:
1733:
1124:
1768:, and then whether or when those editing a page they're personally involved in have a right to that privacy. ...
313:
2728:
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).
2267:
2258:
2240:
2171:
2152:
2123:
2114:
2031:
2022:
2013:
2000:
1991:
1982:
1969:
1954:
1939:
1892:
1800:
1776:
1751:
1741:
1715:
1697:
1679:
1661:
1641:
1622:
1558:
1503:
1474:
1402:
1385:
1372:
1272:
1225:
1209:
1186:
1151:
1127:
1097:
1079:
1057:
1043:
1034:
1012:
991:
977:
933:
920:
913:
As for AA's final question, I don't know why it's here either. The proper step would have been an RfC at most.
882:
765:
556:
540:
479:
469:
1442:'Therefore if you are very concerned about privacy, you may wish to log in and publish under a pseudonym.' -
48:
2087:
1979:
572:
493:
416:
341:
1879:
If Agapetos angel does not respect the community enough to state whether or not she's an involved party at
1589:
1436:
1279:
1239:
2567:
2563:
2559:
2465:
2461:
2457:
2204:
1951:
1425:
1206:
1076:
1009:
974:
460:
2579:
2575:
2571:
2477:
2473:
2469:
1820:
The facts of the ongoing issue of Agapetos angel's behavior that led up to this are already described at
2732:
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.
2551:
2449:
2237:
2187:
2019:
1676:
906:
690:(NB, the timeline of these steps will be shuffled due to the ongoing nature of the overall harassment.)
2555:
2453:
1874:
personal attack disruption and to misrepresent our efforts get her to abide by policy as "harassment".
681:
1532:, who restored it after being contacted by Guettarda. In any case, Kim was even notified early on by
1346:
as well as having a statement at the top of his talk page about how trolling would be removed (cached
2264:
2149:
2051:
the Foundation. While I think a case could be made against this practise through the application of
1856:, she misrepresented herself repeatedly by implying that she did not have a personal relationship to
1773:
1218:
Tony, apology accepted. At this point in time, SlimVirgin has things pretty well under control here
1040:
988:
604:
521:
444:
1847:
This information reinforced additional information found on Knowledge (XXG) implying a connection.
1316:
2056:
1966:
1471:
1453:
1428:
of privacy on Knowledge (XXG), and its subsequent violation by the aforementioned administrators.
1399:
1382:
1369:
1269:
929:
the article, and I have done all I could to resolve some issues with sourcing that Slim had noted.
879:
552:
475:
2512:
2426:
2083:
2010:
1975:
1889:
1829:
1814:
1648:
1606:
assumption of distastefulness by one of the parties in the dispute. 02:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
677:
an email conversation with an admin (unfruitful, and unable to support here because of copyright)
588:
568:
507:
489:
466:
430:
412:
1633:
good faith that I later realized were incorrect? I think not. In fact, to borrow a line from
861:
he claimed it was a fact and posted it in various places all around Wiki). That actually goes
2201:
2055:
policies, I don't see such a case being made here, which is not to say that it can't be. Has
1948:
1853:
When her apparent involvement was brought to her attention in a neutral and non-revealing way
2328:
970:
660:
several redirections of discussion back to content rather than contributor and personalities
2583:
2481:
2422:
2234:
2184:
2120:
2064:
1931:
1910:
1880:
1857:
1840:
1825:
1796:
1737:
1673:
1658:
454:
315:
2366:
2309:
1296:
1292:
2721:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
2500:
1769:
1529:
810:
600:
517:
440:
2606:
2304:
1347:
1027:
1003:
1996:
Reject. Unclear exactly who the involved parties are, and what issues will be examined.
389:, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at
318:
2504:
2028:
1963:
1500:
1493:
1183:
1094:
1031:
537:
804:
Also Guettarda related (Again, is Jim62sch attempting to keep Guettarda in this RfA?)
693:
These people are spamming personal information across the dispute resolution pages.
2821:
2508:
2168:
2006:
1748:
1694:
1638:
1619:
1555:
1533:
1510:
1222:
1148:
1120:
1054:
930:
917:
762:
584:
503:
426:
1356:
1309:
1251:
1247:
1219:
830:
If it was indeed such 'a simple matter', why didn't FM do so when the objection was
2111:
2101:
1988:
1147:
here for politics or for testosterone-driven threats best left in the schoolyard.
878:
That defended, I would like to ask why RfAr is being used as a place to try cases?
672:
317:
37:
1637:, "what we have here is a failure to communicate." Nothing more, nothing less.
1447:
955:
In any case we now have much more time to dive into the diverse things going on.
2082:
I don't see that info on who she is is needed. It's what she does that matters.
2060:
1927:
1481:
1176:
If the arbitration committee feels unable to respond, perhaps the community will
530:) have violated wikipedia policies and guidelines to the extent of harassment.
2255:
2224:
2212:
1997:
1712:
1522:
1350:, because it has been removed since the accusation against me was made). FM,
916:
I reserve the right to respond to the rest of the questions time permitting.
1295:. This does not represent official policy, but the relevant statement under
396:
Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at
649:
2763:
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
1536:
that he was likely incorrect in filing this RfA for the reasons specified
1519:
987:
admins from revealing personal information. You two should know better! -
536:(see history of this page just prior to my adding this) and added here by
2725:
the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
2365:
4) Knowledge (XXG) is not to be used for advocacy or self-promotion. See
1783:
1724:
1116:
784:
Guettarda-related (Is Jim62sch attempting to keep Guettarda in this RfA?)
488:), supported to some extent by Kim Bruning and Tony Sidaway, allege that
1593:
1283:
1243:
901:
pattern of disruptive behaviour can be ascribed to AA in two other fora.
2430:
1833:
1205:
I still hope that you both will refrain from outing this individual. --
2678:
ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
2601:
2) Duncharris, Guettarda, Jim62sch, and FeloniousMonk are reminded of
653:
2696:. If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through
1234:
Statement by Agapetos angel (Amended 13:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC))
2401:
while enforcing this policy. Personal attacks are not acceptable.
2144:
unacceptable. What are we coming to? We can deal with POV-pushers
1526:
969:
What can I say? Please do this quick. I've deleted a section on
2312:
and discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting.
1525:
regarding the knee-jerk deletion of part or all of related pages
533:
1446:
directs contributors to 'the official version of this policy',
1288:
857:
in an attempt to track me down and match my user id to a name (
2794:
procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision
1242:
gives a specific, if incomplete, list of types of harassment
663:(no links; talk moved at present because of this recent issue)
319:
1764:
This raises the question of whether it's a breach of privacy
1460:
Knowledge (XXG):Why_create_an_account?#Reputation_and_privacy
1431:
The conclusive presumption of privacy is based, in part, on:
2018:
Accept, given how this has gone on, as a case to look into.
2005:
I'll accept an Agapetos angel case, but not the injunction.
1693:
have a different standard regarding acceptable behaviour.
2796:
adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
2640:
adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
2037:
2038:
Arbitrators' opinion on granting an injunction (1/2/0/3)
2254:. I don't think that really qualifies as a "cop-out".
1902:
1886:
1884:
1877:
1875:
1869:
1867:
1865:
1863:
1861:
1854:
1465:
1344:
1265:
1263:
1261:
1259:
1255:
892:
855:
828:
818:
816:
814:
805:
800:
798:
793:
791:
789:
787:
785:
780:
775:
755:
751:
747:
743:
739:
735:
731:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
631:
629:
627:
625:
463:
329:
244:
202:
78:
645:
Contacted the persons in question via their talk page
621:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
453:) and others say that Agapetos angel has been editing
1903:
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (7/2/0/0)
1618:
the original RfAr, thus a different path is needed.
2059:complained about the release of her personal info?
1822:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_comment/Agapetos_angel
1458:'You don't need to reveal your offline identity' -
1170:
Lar, his threat is menacing because he is saying, "
1030:for review and possible modification or reversal.
1006:for review and possible modification or reversal.
848:evidence of trying and failing to resolve dispute?
771:Response to the above list (in order of posting):
2638:procedure for the standard enforcement provision
1182:" is yet another threat to bypass the arbcomm.
1322:addressed, the presentation of the information
2263:I have seen the board create policy before. -
2096:with an obvious conflict of interest. Soundly
1326:edited (under admitted protest, because of an
779:Sarcasm is not evidence of dispute resolution
2290:(vote counts and comments are there as well)
1832:, and the article of a colleague of Sarfati,
349:
8:
2760:(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
1588:in re "Official policy that was breached is
867:harassment into the realm of 'damned scary'.
697:Additional confirmation that other steps in
2809:Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration enforcement log
2615:Passed 5 to 0 at 18:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
2591:Passed 6 to 0 at 18:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
2524:Passed 5 to 0 at 18:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
2489:Passed 6 to 0 at 18:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
2438:Passed 6 to 0 at 18:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
2406:Passed 6 to 0 at 18:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
2390:Passed 6 to 0 at 18:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
2374:Passed 6 to 0 at 18:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
2355:Passed 6 to 0 at 18:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
2340:Passed 6 to 0 at 18:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
2317:Passed 6 to 0 at 18:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
1073:Would you prefer to take this one to Jimbo?
648:Notice to FM in Talk (link not available);
2650:
774:Related to person not named in this RfAr:
393:. Evidence is more useful than comments.
356:
342:
25:
1974:Accept to look at everyone's behaviour.
1542:: Now, let me dispose of the following:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration
2698:Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee
2480:have engaged in tendentious editing of
1521:, and after I and others had contacted
1518:I had left Kim a note on his user page
28:
2777:functionary blocks of whatever nature.
2603:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view
1766:to identify editors from IP addresses
1413:Request for hearing by Agapetos angel
1278:Official policy that was breached is
400:and voting on proposed decisions at
7:
2700:(or, if email access is revoked, to
2136:? I've dealt with worse, and I have
1909:(opened new section, is that right?
129:Clarification and Amendment requests
2683:arbitration enforcement noticeboard
2692:submit a request for amendment at
1250:complete consensus on every point
854:For example, FM made a phone call
24:
2828:Knowledge (XXG) arbitration cases
2148:revealing who they really are. -
1926:confusing way this one appeared.
636:Confirmation that other steps in
2750:For a request to succeed, either
2704:
2425:and associated articles such as
2367:Knowledge (XXG) is not a soapbox
2361:Knowledge (XXG) is not a soapbox
1795:
1736:
944:Altered Statement by Kim Bruning
372:on 06:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
36:
2717:Modifications by administrators
2421:1) This dispute is centered on
1987:Reject, per my comments below.
2605:. They are instructed to seek
1444:Knowledge (XXG):Privacy_policy
654:Notice to Jim on his user talk
1:
2669:Appeals by sanctioned editors
2333:Knowledge (XXG):Autobiography
2268:21:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
2259:13:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
2241:20:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
2228:20:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
2216:13:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
2207:20:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC
2191:20:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
2172:13:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
2153:12:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
2124:21:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
2115:21:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
2105:19:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
2091:09:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
2073:05:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
2032:20:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
2023:17:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
2014:19:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
2001:02:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
1992:18:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
1983:18:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
1970:15:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
1955:16:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
1940:16:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
1914:11:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
1893:19:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
1801:22:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
1777:22:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
1752:22:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
1742:20:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
1716:20:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
1698:21:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
1680:20:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
1662:19:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
1642:00:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
1623:12:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
1559:21:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
1513:21:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
1504:18:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
1475:01:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
1403:13:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
1386:01:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
1373:01:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
1273:14:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
1226:00:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
1210:23:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
1187:04:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
1152:00:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
1128:19:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
1098:19:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
1080:18:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
1058:15:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
1044:21:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
1035:15:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
1013:14:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
992:12:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
978:04:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
934:21:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
921:10:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
883:01:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
766:00:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
668:informal RfC from User:Durova
650:Notice to FM on his user talk
541:15:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
470:17:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
380:on 18:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
2655:0) Appeals and modifications
1115:Please assume good faith. ++
260:Conflict of interest reports
2781:discussed at another venue.
2687:administrators’ noticeboard
2626:Enforcement of restrictions
2582:are banned from editing of
1180:take this one up with Jimbo
89:Search archived proceedings
30:Knowledge (XXG) Arbitration
2844:
2132:if they were a POV-pusher
1590:Knowledge (XXG):Harassment
1437:Knowledge (XXG):harassment
1280:Knowledge (XXG):Harassment
1240:Knowledge (XXG):Harassment
836:raised (or raised for the
705:(provide diffs and links)
134:Arbitrator motion requests
2705:
2646:Appeals and modifications
2484:and associated articles.
1448:Foundation Privacy Policy
1172:If they resume harassment
965:Statement by Tony Sidaway
2305:Edit wars or revert wars
1916:See new statement above)
1849:<Details deleted: -->
1845:<Details deleted: -->
1747:privately upon request.
1291:users are encouraged to
2792:In accordance with the
2771:
2636:In accordance with the
2597:Opposing editors warned
2285:All numbering based on
2080:in this particular case
674:(which went unanswered)
2802:Log of blocks and bans
2681:request review at the
2550:1) Agapetos angel and
2448:2) Agapetos angel and
2211:articles in question.
2061:Matthew Brown (Morven)
1928:Matthew Brown (Morven)
1426:conclusive presumption
1419:Specific to injunction
1297:reputation and privacy
983:Agreed. I also exhort
2329:neutral point of view
2250:, rather than policy
1898:Preliminary decisions
1883:when asked directly,
1613:Request to close RfAr
330:Track related changes
190:Arbitration Committee
2568:User:220.245.180.130
2564:User:220.245.180.134
2560:User:220.245.180.133
2466:User:220.245.180.130
2462:User:220.245.180.134
2458:User:220.245.180.133
2331:while doing so. See
1813:Edited Statement by
532:summary prepared by
459:summary prepared by
139:Enforcement requests
67:Guide to arbitration
2580:User:58.162.251.204
2576:User:58.162.255.242
2572:User:58.162.252.236
2478:User:58.162.251.204
2474:User:58.162.255.242
2470:User:58.162.252.236
2444:Tendentious editing
2057:User:Agapetos angel
1454:Special:Preferences
1093:exercising power.
2607:dispute resolution
2552:User:Dennis Fuller
2450:User:Dennis Fuller
2427:Answers in Genesis
2287:/Proposed decision
1830:Answers in Genesis
1289:'getting started',
907:User:Dennis Fuller
699:dispute resolution
638:dispute resolution
465:and added here by
402:/Proposed decision
161:Contentious topics
59:Arbitration policy
2787:
2786:
2685:("AE") or at the
2556:User:Phloxophilos
2538:
2454:User:Phloxophilos
2310:three-revert rule
2048:by the Foundation
1918:
1439:, official policy
1293:create an account
671:Wikiquette alert
543:
472:
366:
365:
333:
301:
171:General sanctions
119:All open requests
49:About arbitration
2835:
2711:
2709:
2708:
2707:
2651:
2584:Jonathan Sarfati
2534:
2495:Opposing parties
2482:Jonathan Sarfati
2423:Jonathan Sarfati
2417:Focus of dispute
2412:Findings of fact
2020:Charles Matthews
1907:
1881:Jonathan Sarfati
1858:Jonathan Sarfati
1841:Jonathan Sarfati
1826:Jonathan Sarfati
1799:
1787:
1740:
1728:
1540:Disputem maiorum
797:Privacy related
547:Involved parties
531:
458:
455:Jonathan Sarfati
358:
351:
344:
332:
327:
320:
299:
255:Clerk procedures
247:
205:
176:Editor sanctions
153:Active sanctions
111:Open proceedings
81:
40:
26:
2843:
2842:
2838:
2837:
2836:
2834:
2833:
2832:
2818:
2817:
2804:
2788:
2744:Important notes
2703:
2701:
2656:
2648:
2628:
2623:
2599:
2548:
2542:Agapetos angel
2532:
2497:
2446:
2419:
2414:
2398:
2382:
2363:
2348:
2325:
2301:
2296:
2282:
2265:Ta bu shi da yu
2150:Ta bu shi da yu
2040:
1905:
1900:
1818:
1794:
1785:
1735:
1726:
1652:
1630:
1615:
1592:, specifically
1564:Asserions by AA
1530:User:Physchim62
1515:
1497:
1485:
1415:
1282:, specifically
1236:
1041:Ta bu shi da yu
989:Ta bu shi da yu
967:
946:
811:User:SlimVirgin
703:
701:have been tried
680:(rejected) RfM
640:have been tried
549:
410:
381:
373:
362:
328:
322:
321:
316:
306:
305:
304:
293:
276:
266:
265:
264:
251:
243:
231:
206:
201:
192:
182:
181:
180:
155:
145:
144:
143:
113:
103:
100:
85:
77:
55:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2841:
2839:
2831:
2830:
2820:
2819:
2815:
2803:
2800:
2799:
2798:
2785:
2784:
2783:
2782:
2778:
2774:
2770:
2767:
2766:
2765:
2764:
2761:
2758:
2752:
2751:
2730:
2729:
2726:
2719:
2718:
2714:
2713:
2690:
2679:
2671:
2670:
2658:
2657:
2654:
2649:
2647:
2644:
2643:
2642:
2627:
2624:
2622:
2619:
2618:
2617:
2598:
2595:
2594:
2593:
2547:
2540:
2531:
2528:
2527:
2526:
2496:
2493:
2492:
2491:
2445:
2442:
2441:
2440:
2418:
2415:
2413:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2397:
2394:
2393:
2392:
2381:
2378:
2377:
2376:
2362:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2347:
2344:
2343:
2342:
2324:
2321:
2320:
2319:
2300:
2297:
2295:
2292:
2281:
2280:Final decision
2278:
2277:
2276:
2275:
2274:
2273:
2272:
2271:
2270:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2205:(spill yours?)
2193:
2179:
2178:
2177:
2176:
2175:
2174:
2160:
2159:
2158:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2134:extraordinaire
2126:
2093:
2088:Taste the Korn
2075:
2039:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2025:
2016:
2003:
1994:
1985:
1980:Taste the Korn
1972:
1957:
1952:(spill yours?)
1942:
1904:
1901:
1899:
1896:
1817:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1791:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1732:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1671:
1665:
1664:
1651:
1645:
1635:Cool Hand Luke
1629:
1626:
1614:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1603:
1600:
1596:
1586:
1583:
1580:
1577:
1574:
1567:
1514:
1507:
1496:
1490:
1484:
1478:
1472:agapetos_angel
1468:
1467:
1462:
1456:
1450:
1440:
1414:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1400:agapetos_angel
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1383:agapetos_angel
1376:
1375:
1370:agapetos_angel
1359:
1313:
1301:
1285:
1270:agapetos_angel
1235:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1213:
1212:
1202:
1201:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1050:
1046:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
995:
994:
966:
963:
945:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
926:
914:
911:
902:
898:
895:
886:
885:
880:agapetos_angel
875:
874:
869:
868:
850:
849:
842:th time)? Is
823:
822:
821:
820:
807:
802:
795:
782:
777:
760:
759:
758:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
733:
729:
725:
721:
717:
713:
702:
695:
688:
687:
684:
678:
675:
669:
666:
665:
664:
658:
657:
656:
642:
641:
623:
622:
618:
617:
614:
598:
582:
566:
553:Agapetos angel
548:
545:
534:Agapetos angel
476:Agapetos angel
409:
406:
376:
368:
364:
363:
361:
360:
353:
346:
338:
335:
334:
324:
323:
314:
312:
311:
308:
307:
303:
302:
294:
289:
284:
278:
277:
272:
271:
268:
267:
263:
262:
257:
252:
242:
237:
232:
227:
222:
217:
212:
207:
200:
194:
193:
188:
187:
184:
183:
179:
178:
173:
168:
157:
156:
151:
150:
147:
146:
142:
141:
136:
131:
126:
121:
115:
114:
109:
108:
105:
104:
102:
101:
96:
91:
86:
76:
69:
64:
56:
51:
45:
42:
41:
33:
32:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2840:
2829:
2826:
2825:
2823:
2816:
2813:
2812:
2810:
2801:
2797:
2795:
2790:
2789:
2779:
2775:
2769:
2768:
2762:
2759:
2756:
2755:
2754:
2753:
2749:
2748:
2747:
2745:
2741:
2737:
2733:
2727:
2724:
2723:
2722:
2716:
2715:
2710:wikimedia.org
2699:
2695:
2691:
2688:
2684:
2680:
2677:
2676:
2675:
2668:
2667:
2666:
2665:
2660:
2659:
2653:
2652:
2645:
2641:
2639:
2634:
2633:
2632:
2625:
2620:
2616:
2613:
2612:
2611:
2608:
2604:
2596:
2592:
2589:
2588:
2587:
2585:
2581:
2577:
2573:
2569:
2565:
2561:
2557:
2553:
2545:
2541:
2539:
2537:
2529:
2525:
2522:
2521:
2520:
2518:
2514:
2513:FeloniousMonk
2510:
2506:
2502:
2494:
2490:
2487:
2486:
2485:
2483:
2479:
2475:
2471:
2467:
2463:
2459:
2455:
2451:
2443:
2439:
2436:
2435:
2434:
2432:
2428:
2424:
2416:
2411:
2407:
2404:
2403:
2402:
2395:
2391:
2388:
2387:
2386:
2379:
2375:
2372:
2371:
2370:
2368:
2360:
2356:
2353:
2352:
2351:
2345:
2341:
2338:
2337:
2336:
2334:
2330:
2323:Autobiography
2322:
2318:
2315:
2314:
2313:
2311:
2306:
2298:
2293:
2291:
2289:
2288:
2279:
2269:
2266:
2262:
2261:
2260:
2257:
2253:
2249:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2239:
2236:
2231:
2230:
2229:
2226:
2221:
2217:
2214:
2209:
2208:
2206:
2203:
2199:
2194:
2192:
2189:
2186:
2181:
2180:
2173:
2170:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2162:
2161:
2154:
2151:
2147:
2143:
2139:
2135:
2131:
2127:
2125:
2122:
2118:
2117:
2116:
2113:
2108:
2107:
2106:
2103:
2099:
2094:
2092:
2089:
2085:
2084:Theresa Knott
2081:
2076:
2074:
2070:
2066:
2062:
2058:
2054:
2049:
2045:
2042:
2041:
2033:
2030:
2026:
2024:
2021:
2017:
2015:
2012:
2008:
2004:
2002:
1999:
1995:
1993:
1990:
1986:
1984:
1981:
1977:
1976:Theresa Knott
1973:
1971:
1968:
1965:
1961:
1958:
1956:
1953:
1950:
1946:
1943:
1941:
1937:
1933:
1929:
1924:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1917:
1915:
1912:
1897:
1895:
1894:
1891:
1890:FeloniousMonk
1887:
1885:
1882:
1878:
1876:
1871:
1870:
1868:
1866:
1864:
1862:
1859:
1855:
1851:
1850:
1846:
1842:
1837:
1835:
1831:
1827:
1823:
1816:
1815:FeloniousMonk
1812:
1802:
1798:
1793:
1789:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1775:
1771:
1767:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1753:
1750:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1739:
1734:
1730:
1721:
1717:
1714:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1699:
1696:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1681:
1678:
1675:
1672:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1663:
1660:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1650:
1649:FeloniousMonk
1647:Statement by
1646:
1644:
1643:
1640:
1636:
1628:Re harassment
1627:
1625:
1624:
1621:
1612:
1604:
1601:
1597:
1594:
1591:
1587:
1584:
1581:
1578:
1575:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1565:
1561:
1560:
1557:
1552:
1550:
1545:
1541:
1537:
1535:
1534:User:Hinotori
1531:
1527:
1524:
1520:
1512:
1509:Statement by
1508:
1506:
1505:
1502:
1495:
1492:Statement by
1491:
1489:
1483:
1480:Statement by
1479:
1477:
1476:
1473:
1466:
1463:
1461:
1457:
1455:
1451:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1438:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1429:
1427:
1422:
1420:
1412:
1404:
1401:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1387:
1384:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1374:
1371:
1367:
1366:
1365:in my absense
1360:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1342:
1338:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1314:
1310:
1307:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1284:
1281:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1271:
1266:
1264:
1262:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1241:
1233:
1227:
1224:
1220:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1211:
1208:
1204:
1203:
1198:
1197:
1188:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1153:
1150:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1129:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1099:
1096:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1081:
1078:
1074:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1059:
1056:
1051:
1047:
1045:
1042:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1033:
1029:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1014:
1011:
1007:
1005:
999:
998:
997:
996:
993:
990:
986:
982:
981:
980:
979:
976:
972:
964:
962:
959:
956:
953:
949:
943:
935:
932:
927:
924:
923:
922:
919:
915:
912:
908:
903:
899:
896:
893:
891:I've removed
890:
889:
888:
887:
884:
881:
877:
876:
871:
870:
866:
865:
860:
856:
852:
851:
847:
846:
841:
840:
835:
834:
829:
825:
824:
819:
817:
815:
812:
808:
806:
803:
801:
799:
796:
794:
792:
790:
788:
786:
783:
781:
778:
776:
773:
772:
770:
769:
768:
767:
764:
756:
754:
752:
750:
748:
746:
744:
742:
740:
738:
736:
734:
732:
730:
728:
726:
724:
722:
720:
718:
716:
714:
712:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
700:
696:
694:
691:
685:
682:
679:
676:
673:
670:
667:
662:
661:
659:
655:
651:
647:
646:
644:
643:
639:
635:
634:
633:
632:
630:
628:
626:
620:
619:
615:
612:
609:
606:
602:
599:
596:
593:
590:
586:
583:
580:
577:
574:
570:
569:FeloniousMonk
567:
564:
561:
558:
554:
551:
550:
546:
544:
542:
539:
535:
529:
526:
523:
519:
515:
512:
509:
505:
501:
498:
495:
491:
490:FeloniousMonk
487:
484:
481:
477:
473:
471:
468:
467:FeloniousMonk
464:
462:
456:
452:
449:
446:
442:
438:
435:
432:
428:
424:
421:
418:
414:
413:FeloniousMonk
407:
405:
403:
399:
394:
392:
388:
382:
379:
374:
371:
359:
354:
352:
347:
345:
340:
339:
337:
336:
331:
326:
325:
310:
309:
298:
295:
292:
288:
285:
283:
280:
279:
275:
270:
269:
261:
258:
256:
253:
250:
246:
241:
238:
236:
233:
230:
226:
223:
221:
218:
216:
213:
211:
208:
204:
199:
196:
195:
191:
186:
185:
177:
174:
172:
169:
166:
162:
159:
158:
154:
149:
148:
140:
137:
135:
132:
130:
127:
125:
124:Case requests
122:
120:
117:
116:
112:
107:
106:
99:
95:
92:
90:
87:
84:
80:
75:
73:
70:
68:
65:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
47:
46:
44:
43:
39:
35:
34:
31:
27:
19:
2814:
2806:
2805:
2791:
2743:
2742:
2738:
2734:
2731:
2720:
2672:
2662:
2661:
2635:
2629:
2614:
2600:
2590:
2549:
2543:
2535:
2533:
2523:
2517:see evidence
2498:
2488:
2447:
2437:
2420:
2405:
2399:
2389:
2383:
2373:
2364:
2354:
2349:
2339:
2326:
2316:
2302:
2299:Edit warring
2284:
2283:
2251:
2248:adjudication
2247:
2202:Mindspillage
2197:
2145:
2141:
2137:
2133:
2129:
2097:
2079:
2052:
2047:
2043:
1962:per Morven.
1959:
1949:Mindspillage
1944:
1922:
1908:
1906:
1872:
1852:
1848:
1844:
1838:
1819:
1653:
1634:
1631:
1616:
1563:
1562:
1553:
1548:
1543:
1539:
1538:
1516:
1498:
1486:
1469:
1430:
1423:
1418:
1416:
1364:
1363:
1351:
1340:
1336:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1305:
1237:
1207:Tony Sidaway
1179:
1175:
1171:
1077:Tony Sidaway
1072:
1010:Tony Sidaway
1000:
984:
975:Tony Sidaway
968:
960:
957:
954:
950:
947:
863:
862:
858:
844:
843:
838:
837:
832:
831:
761:
704:
692:
689:
624:
607:
591:
575:
559:
524:
510:
496:
482:
474:
461:Tony Sidaway
447:
433:
419:
411:
395:
383:
377:
375:
369:
367:
2811:, not here.
2689:("AN"); and
2621:Enforcement
2380:Meatpuppets
2121:Kim Bruning
1911:Kim Bruning
1659:Kim Bruning
1287:Also, when
378:Case Closed
370:Case Opened
94:Ban appeals
72:Noticeboard
2664:Committee.
2501:Duncharris
2346:Disruption
2294:Principles
2029:➥the Epopt
1947:as above.
1770:dave souza
1523:User:Zocky
1470:Thank you
1332:assessment
601:Duncharris
518:Duncharris
441:Duncharris
300:(pre-2016)
287:Statistics
220:Procedures
2702:arbcom-en
2505:Guettarda
1964:Mackensen
1788:you know?
1784:Just zis
1729:you know?
1725:Just zis
1501:Guettarda
1494:Guettarda
1258:articles,
1184:Guettarda
1095:Guettarda
1032:Guettarda
538:WAS 4.250
398:/Workshop
391:/Evidence
387:Talk page
225:Elections
2822:Category
2530:Remedies
2509:Jim62sch
2396:Civility
2252:creation
2235:James F.
2185:James F.
2169:Hinotori
2007:Dmcdevit
1749:Jim62sch
1695:Jim62sch
1674:James F.
1639:Jim62sch
1620:Jim62sch
1556:Jim62sch
1511:Jim62sch
1337:evidence
1223:Jim62sch
1149:Jim62sch
1055:Jim62sch
931:Jim62sch
918:Jim62sch
809:Contact
763:Jim62sch
611:contribs
595:contribs
585:Jim62sch
579:contribs
563:contribs
528:contribs
514:contribs
504:Jim62sch
500:contribs
486:contribs
451:contribs
437:contribs
427:Jim62sch
423:contribs
2431:Ken Ham
2198:without
2146:without
2142:totally
2128:??? so
2112:Raul654
2102:Raul654
2044:Comment
2027:Accept
1989:Raul654
1834:Ken Ham
1328:X/not X
971:WP:AN/I
827:matter'
516:), and
408:Summary
297:Reports
235:History
215:Members
210:Contact
198:Discuss
62:(CU/OS)
2694:"ARCA"
2546:banned
2544:et al.
2511:, and
2256:Jayjg
2238:(talk)
2225:Jayjg
2213:Jayjg
2188:(talk)
2098:reject
1998:Jayjg
1967:(talk)
1960:Accept
1945:Accept
1923:Accept
1713:Jayjg
1677:(talk)
1482:sannse
1355:admin.
1352:deeply
1300:admin.
864:beyond
616:others
240:Clerks
98:Report
2138:never
2053:other
1341:proof
1312:NPOV.
1306:cause
1028:WP:AN
1004:WP:AN
910:fore.
859:after
833:first
274:Audit
16:<
2578:and
2476:and
2429:and
2130:what
1836:.
1786:Guy,
1774:talk
1727:Guy,
1544:this
1348:here
1339:and
985:both
845:that
605:talk
589:talk
573:talk
557:talk
522:talk
508:talk
494:talk
480:talk
445:talk
431:talk
417:talk
291:Talk
282:Talk
249:Talk
229:Talk
83:Talk
53:Talk
2519:).
2303:1)
1324:was
1320:was
1117:Lar
502:),
439:),
425:),
404:.
165:Log
2824::
2746::
2712:).
2574:,
2570:,
2566:,
2562:,
2558:,
2554:,
2507:,
2503:,
2472:,
2468:,
2464:,
2460:,
2456:,
2452:,
2369:.
2335:.
2100:.
2086:|
2071:)
1978:|
1938:)
1860::
1843:.
1772:,
1551:.
1421:)
1368:.
1119::
1075:--
1008:--
652:;
2515:(
2069:C
2067::
2065:T
2063:(
2011:t
2009:·
1936:C
1934::
1932:T
1930:(
1790:/
1731:/
1566::
1417:(
1125:c
1123:/
1121:t
839:n
613:)
608:·
603:(
597:)
592:·
587:(
581:)
576:·
571:(
565:)
560:·
555:(
525:·
520:(
511:·
506:(
497:·
492:(
483:·
478:(
448:·
443:(
434:·
429:(
420:·
415:(
357:e
350:t
343:v
245:+
203:+
167:)
163:(
79:+
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
