Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole/Workshop

540:

arbitors may or may not be familiar with the technical issues of this case, but it really doesn't matter. They ARE familiar with Knowledge's consensus guidelines. They can evaluate the evidence page to determine whether there is consensus on this issue. In the prior case there were questions of whether development concerns might over-ride consensus, but now there is input (linked on the evidence page) from the lead developer directly stating that this is not the case here and normal consensus decision making should be followed. This case can thus be evaluated like any other - is there consensus, is it being followed, et cetera. --

1576:(not including myself) had discussed this issue with Netoholic over a span of nearly four months. Are you actually suggesting that instead of reverting vandalism, we should be required to point the vandals to "a demonstrated consensus" that their particular vandalism is "not allowed"? Why was the pertinent policy (the existence of which Netoholic acknowledged and intentionally disregarded) insufficient? 4029:"edit warring." Your attempt to twist these incidents into "content disputes" is patently absurd. (Again, it's analogous to declaring that the repeated removal of a penis photograph from an inappropriate article is "edit warring," and that because of this "content dispute," the admin should not be permitted to block the vandal.) 2. You conveniently neglect to mention that I actively 2049:

the extreme. In fact, that phrase was not used until Locke discovered it was a way to get me blocked after the ArbCom clarifications were given. My previous restrictions were basically a tool for this group. They never felt the need to actually work with me, because they could simply defeat my position by either getting me blocked, or citing my restrictions against my ideas. --

2951:. I can't speak for others, but I was merely enforcing a policy with which Netoholic deliberately refused to comply (excepting the brief periods in which he waited for the heat to die down before quietly restoring the images). As Netoholic had ignored or disregarded numerous polite requests, the only other options were to protect his userpage or block him from editing. — 3738:

page/template without Locke coming by. I've only provided evidence about those occasions where Locke followed me to a page in very short order - pages he'd never been involved in before. It is one thing to have a disagreement on an issue - it is malicious to take that disagreement to other pages that your opposition gets involved in. --

2397:. In any event, James F. indicated on IRC that he wouldn't put any of the stuff about my userpage to a vote (I consider Netoholic's insistance that it be undeleted harassment, but hey, I guess it's just fine if he harasses me, but if I do anything remotely similar to what he does to me, I get banned for a month). — 3037:

Netoholic and Locke Cole have revert warred with each other on various pages, but so far as I know (or the evidence states) David Levy has not. Reverting twice on Netoholic's user page seems like thin cause for calling it 'edit warring', and per my comments at 'finding of fact 2' above I'd argue that

2048:

Before really evaluating this think on this point... who are the ones shouting that they've been "disrupted"? Locke_Cole and David primarily.... except for the pro-meta-template clique, none of my interactions on Knowledge or Template have been noted as disruptive - in fact, they've been positive in

1873:

Ok, so now let's look at the templates. Locke Cole in his "Netoholic has wikistalked Locke Cole" listes several templates where he says I stalked him... He also has generously pointed out when I last edited these templates. I have many, many templates on my Watchlist, and when I see a bad edit come

1438:

policy being changed to indicate that knowing mis-use of copyrighted material should be considered vandalism and thus not subject to 3RR. Yes, revert warring is a bad thing... but Knowledge policy actually directs all users to do it in a handful of cases, including the removal of copyrighted material

977:

11) It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith. (Note that everyone is expected to assume good faith in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary.) Once an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring is appropriate, but constantly reverting is always

514:

Indeed, but to be clear, it's not beyond the ArbCom's competency/scope to evaluate recent statements by the lead MediaWiki developer, Brion VIBBER, is it? In other words: no, the ArbCom can't (well, shouldn't) make technical decisions all on their own, but if one of the developers has made statements

3419:

Respectfully, I don't think it's gotten that bad. As the evidence shows, our interaction outside of templates is small (in comparison to the other things you do outside of templates). I'm sorry that it seems to be bothering you though. I do agree though that things re: templates have gotten bad, but

3100:

Quite frankly, your ignorance plea is patently dishonest. You previously had acknowledged that your use of the images violated policy. You allowed the images to remain absent for ten days (thereby creating the appearance that you had decided to comply with the policy) before you quietly reinserted

2634:

For the most part I think it would be sufficient to ban him from editing in relation to 'conditional logic' in the Knowledge and Template namespaces. Almost all of his altercations with others relate to that issue. I do think it is neccessary to include the Knowledge namespace for that topic though.

2174:

and those clarifications are on the page I link to in the edit summary. Any responsible sysop should check the page first and read it over before imposing a block. I also dispute the idea that the blocks you received were in any way wrong. Your "quick unblocks" were usually because you hopped on IRC

1540:

and I intervened by enforcing the copyright policy in precisely the manner prescribed. How was it inappropriate to undo Netoholic's deliberate policy violations (tantamount to vandalism) more than once? Why was it necessary to seek the intervention of yet another administrator? Are you suggesting

1396:

be construed as revert warring. Netoholic refused to comply with repeated requests that he not display copyrighted images on his userpage (excepting the brief periods in which he waited for the heat to die down before quietly restoring them). Aside from protecting his userpage or blocking him from

549:

So here is what you would have to show to get that... first you'd have to prove there is consensus (remember that there are several technical points to evaluate), then you would have to show I acted against consensus after consensus had been established, then show that I did so in flagrant disregard

539:

The ArbCom members cannot all be expected to be experts on Rajput genealogy, depleted uranium, the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, and every other topic in the encyclopedia either... and yet they are called upon to make rulings in relation to such issues on a daily basis. This is no different. The individual

1466:

of whom tried to "suggest it" to him before the events in question took place. I think a case can be made that Locke, David, and Cleared as filed (who also reverted the userpage twice in that incident) shouldn't have to go searching for someone Netoholic 'respects'... the numerous previous attempts

765:

8.1) While Wikipedians are allowed a good deal of leeway in what they place on their userpage, userpages must conform to Knowledge policies. Where violations are found, it is good etiquette to work with the User to find resolution, rather than directly alter the page, especially against the user's

3812:

Choose whatever semantics you like. The difference between your interactions with Locke Cole and myself has largely been that I don't respond in kind when you follow me around undoing my work. Locke Cole more often does, and thus someone could theoretically call that 'harassment' of you, but if so

3588:

Given that this violation is now over a month old and Netoholic (eventually) allowed the images to be removed I don't think it should be included. It came into the evidence originally as a denunciation of Locke and David editing his user page, and the details of Netoholic's bad behaviour were then

1869:

You're kidding right? Ignore template reversions for a couple minutes (because I know that I, for one, have a shit-ton of templates on my watchlist) and look at "everything else". Are you saying the stalking was mutual? I mean, I've pointed out where Locke involved himself on several pages that

1780:

DL blocked me three times at the behest of LC. They tag-team revert warred on my user page and several other pages. They do work together and if I only need to show more evidence as to how I reached that conclusion, I intend to. I considered the idea that LC moved WP:ACT to my user space in good

1558:

is unacceptable, and it is that that this FoF refers to, not the removal of the images. Discussion is always better than unilateral edit warring. The administrators' noticeboard frequenty includes discussions of disputed matters. You could also have pointed Netoholic to a demonstrated consensus

1480:

In what "separate conflict" were you and I involved at the time? I was "on user page" because it repeatedly jumped to the top of my watchlist. (As I previously noted elsewhere, it contains the user/talk pages of everyone whose talk page I've posted to.) Upon analyzing the dispute, I found that

3785:

we take Locke Cole's actions to be 'harassment', which I don't think really applies, then there can be no question that Netoholic's were as well... and equal treatment should apply. However, that being said, it must be noted that Locke Cole's actions were compliant with policy and consensus while

3737:

on basically one single day. Compare that with my allegations which have lasted for about 4 months across several pages and unconnected discussions. I have been followed around by someone who's promised to continue to do exactly that. I honestly don't feel like I can make a comment or change a

1653:

It implies I knowlingly acted against policy. I admit in hindsight I totally see it, but at the time, I and the first 3 or 4 people that contacted me about it, were satisfied with the fair use rationale I provided. This is beside the point, because it was how and who decided that they needed to

603:

We need to capture the matching counter-point to this... that developers, when they choose to not make something policy, do not necessarily affirm the negative of that policy - they simply defer on the subject. Brion said basically "we've not made this a policy" and then voiced his opinion. The

373:

As I presented in evidence, you've categorically misrepresented your efforts at "mediation". And your "participation" in the mediation was less than helpful ("participation" being a charitable description considering you were barely involved beyond making the mediation request). IMO you've abused

2606:

While he may be improving, he continues to follow the same pattern of abuse. While I cannot point to a single incident of rudeness or bluntess in my case, my overall interaction with Netoholic has been extremely poor and I think the ban may be effective in reducing future negative interactions.

1544:

Of course, it's important to note that administrators possess no special authority (compared to non-administrators) to enforce this policy. Locke Cole, as an editor in good standing, was well within his rights to remove the images. I don't know whether his ongoing conflict with Netoholic was a

1502:

As has been noted, the concept of "edit warring" doesn't apply to the removal of deliberate policy violations. Regardless, given what had occurred up to that point (Netoholic's refusal to comply with numerous polite requests), what would have been a better solution? Aside from protecting his

1476:

Do you realize that you have just implied that all of those user's were dissatisfied? Half of them in fact never further followed-up after I provided fair use rationale. I'm sorry, but Locke and David were on my user page for the wrong reasons. Cleared as filed was equally disrepectful, edit

3314:) may not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, each other on any page in Knowledge. Should either do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week; after the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be one year. 2467:

in which you and I were engaged at the time of the blocks. Rolling back your insertion of code deemed harmful by our lead developer (edits tantamount to vandalism) is no more a "content dispute" than the removal of penis photographs from inappropriate articles. This was one of the

1448:

The doing it once is not being criticised. The way to settle an issue like this is to get someone whom Netoholic respects to suggest it to him, not to further inflame him. Netoholic seems to have believed that he was allowed those images under fair use law, if not fair use policy.

3487:

Especially considering our mutual interest in templates. And even if his band is extended on templates, I'd still like to hear what he has to say about them if he feels inclined to leave me a note. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean we should never be able to have a dialogue.

3047:

Having fair use images on a user page is not a "copyright violation" (in fact, I provided fair use rationale that I think many agree would satisfy copyright... the issue is that it is Knowledge policy not to use fair use on User pages.. it's not a direct legal requirement. --

3330:

This seems unnecessary, especially interacting with one another. I think it's inevitable that Netoholic will have good ideas for the Wiki, and vice versa, and we should be able to talk these things out (be it on eachothers talk pages or on talk pages on Knowledge).

3251:

It's a silly argument... by putting forth a complaint that I am being stalked, I implicitely am saying that Locke_Cole is acting in bad faith, but if I'm saying that, then I'm just failing to assume good faith... Damned if I report it and damned if I don't. --

3348:

To be absolutely clear: do I have problems with our interactions in the past? Yes, we've both failed to be civil on occasion or failed to assume good faith in the other. But I think there's room for improvement; this remedy would preclude such improvement from

360:

I still don't see what purpose this serves? I initiated Mediation Cabal, I tried talking to you on your talk page, and I pulled you aside privately on IRC a couple of times. I'm not one to give up hope, but I think I at least gave mediation a fair shake. --

3963:

1) David Levy is reprimanded for blocking Netoholic while the two were engaged in content disputes over templates. David Levy is reminded to seek assistance from uninvolved adminstrators to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest in the future.

864:

with the policy. Your claims now that no one discussed the matter respectfully with you and you were unaware it was against policy prior to Wgfinley are simply false. You restored the images five times after acknowledging that they violated the policy.

3114:(not including myself), and you refused to comply. Therefore, characterizing our repeated removal of the images as "edit warring" is analogous to applying that description to the repeated removal of penis photographs from an inappropriate article. 2061:

Translation: "No one believes that my actions were disruptive...except for everyone whose opinions I ignored (and whose edits I repeatedly reverted, in clear defiance of consensus) because they disagreed with me (and therefore were wrong)."

1781:

faith... but he did so within moments of it's creation before I'd linked it from any pages he commonly participates on. The only way he knew it existed was by viewing my contribs and he failed to first ask me if I would move it myself. --

3795:

I cannot follow the logic of that statement. You and I have also been in opposition, should you be banned as well? No, that determination is made on the individual set of evidence presented. As for the last part, you're simply making

3106:

But, as David is fond of saying, two wrongs do not make a right. They should not have went to the extreme of edit warring to police the policy - especially considering they have a history of conflicting with me on other topics.

2574:

is improving, albeit slowly - and I admit this incident was bad, and didn't help his improvement - and would suggest not banning him from the Knowledge namespace. Interaction there will be vital if he's to finish coming round.

2137:

8) On several occasions, Locke Cole, when reporting or noting (as in edit summaries) that Netoholic was under namespace restrictions, failed to also include mention of the clarifications that had been made by the Arbitrators.

1173:

Obviously, you're implying that you and I were engaged in a content dispute when I blocked you. Please provide evidence of such a dispute (keeping in mind that the reversion of vandalism or edits tantamount to vandalism does

3084:

I would never fault someone who removed the images from my user page. I fault them in the extreme when they remove them repeatedly against my wishes without even trying to talk to me like I'm a rational human being.

644:

Thus, most matters of common technical policy can be decided by normal consensus procedures. If required the devs are more likely to change the system to prevent the problem than create a policy for users to follow.

642:"Generally, you should not worry much about little things like templates and "server load" at a policy level. If they're expensive, we'll either fix it or restrict it at a technical level; that's our responsibility." 1525:, what response would have resulted? In other words, what could someone reading the message have done differently to address the problem (aside from protecting Netoholic's userpage or blocking him from editing)? 782:

Maybe a little verbose, but sets some fair expectations. While a couple users prior to Locke_Cole contacted me regarding the images, they didn't follow-up after I provided my fair-use rationale (which I and

2827:

are lifted. It is also recognized that it was the intent of the namespace bans to encourage participation in the mentorship arrangement - it was not intended to prevent Netoholic from working productively.

2536:) is banned from editing in the Knowledge and template namespaces for twelve months, and restricted to one revert per page per day. The twelve months commences at the conclusion of this arbitration case. 2478:). You deliberately defied two of your ArbCom restrictions by disruptively edit warring in the template namespace, and your intentional use of harmful code was a block-worthy offense in and of itself. — 1492:

Edit warring is never the right way. If you aren't going to affect something in a good way, as a moment's thought would have told David and LC would be the case, you shouldn't try to affect it at all.

3616: 35: 550:

for consensus, and then show that my action is worthy of sanction. Keep in mind that Brion does not set consensus... he only said that there is no technical mandate that would override consensus. --

34:

here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on

334: 241: 1439:

from pages on which it should not appear. There is no censure attached for 'revert warring' to remove vandalism and there shouldn't be any for 'revert warring' to remove copyright violations. --

3264:

It boils down to whether or not the committee believes that you were being stalked; if so, then your assumption of bad faith was not out of order. I do see your point, and empathise a little.

2625:

I hold the personal view that Net is improving, albeit negligibly. I think reaffirmation would improve all of our wikistress levels tremendously. It was nice for the few months it lasted. —

2154:

Clearly unfair to me. I was blocked several times simply due to this misinformation. I got unblocked quickly every time - though I had to jump thru hoops to point out the clarifications. --

1874:

throught, I get involved. Locke's edits are poor in my opinion, and so I get involved. This is not stalking. I am not going and specifically getting involved against him on other pages. --

1771:

Assuming that David and LC were acting in concert. Not considering the idea that LC might have been trying to be helpful when he moved ACT into your userspace. Will that do for starters?

893:, official policy on Knowledge, states, "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace." Knowledge user pages may therefore not include images for which fair use is claimed. 30:

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of

2694:) is banned from editing in the template namespace for twelve months, and restricted to one revert per page per day. The twelve months commences at the conclusion of this arbitration case. 3407:

Things have gotten bad, Locke... your actions against me outside of the template space have bothered me on a personal level. I only object to this because it's generally not workable. --

1583:

clear to me that reverting was not going to get anywhere. I actually believed that Netoholic might have the sense to realize that his flagrant policy violations would not be tolerated. —

4130:) violate his ban in Remedy 1, he may be blocked briefly for a period of up to one week. After five such blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. Blocks are to be noted at 1554:

It is one thing to remove something once, quite another to remove it again. You and Locke Cole continued to revert, even when it was clear that reverting was not going to get anywhere.

410:

4) Editors who are disruptive whether by edit warring or otherwise may be blocked. Persistent disruption with respect to a specific article or topic may lead to a banning from that area.

2787:

I firmly believe that, if these restrictions were not part of the equation, normal means of resolving disagreements could proceed. While they are active, they are constantly used to

3827: 3760: 2448: 31: 4025:

of the encyclopedia (the insertion of a hack that our lead developer has confirmed to be harmful). Yes, I reverted your deliberate violations of the fair use policy, but that is

2652:. Other editors and myself were able to arrive at a working convention to which only Netoholic was repeatedly objecting. Conditional logic is not the only source of problems. -- 4285:. Assuming that everyone accepts this new methodology as preferable to the different kludges used in the past I think this situation may effectively have been resolved. -- 3549:

have come up to the Arb by itself, and was solved long ago, from my end. Locke's and David's reasons for why, when, and how they got involved are a different matter. --

4005:

Your analogy is poor. Evidence is on the Evidence page, no here. I've given evidence where you've disagreed with me for months over several content disputes related to

2431:

Netoholic on three occasions between March 2-11, 2006. During this time and before, David Levy was involved with Netoholic in several content disputes over templates.

1512:

Performing the action once would have been acceptable. It was the repeated actions that were not. Going to ANI would have worked well, or using the mailing list.

2508:

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.

2089:

to be quite frustrating and sometimes disruptive and have noted so on several occasions which you have chosen to ignore. I have consolidated our interactions on my

3119:

They're repeating that same error (with your help here) by pushing for me to be punished for the fair use images so long after the fact and after I'd capitulated.

2824: 2768: 2760: 2515: 2094: 1946: 442:. I'm trying to stick to recent cases as a guideline for principles here (especially principles which were accepted). I'll add links if I do this in the future. — 4131: 21: 3813:

your actions would have to be called such as well. As to 'generalizations'... to be specific, Locke Cole was upholding copyright policy and consensus against

3694:

I think this would be more properly titled as "Locke Cole is banned for six months for disagreeing with Netoholic". Which is really what this comes down to. —

2039:

Well put. We can bend the rules for users when doing so would be more useful than enforcing them to the letter, but we still have to draw the line somewhere.

439: 4050:

for your work. 3. I didn't mean that you should post the evidence on this page. 4. Why did you move my response from the "Comment by parties" section? —

2823:

1.1) Recognizing that Netoholic's contributions are generally productive and positive in both the Template and Knowledge namespaces, the restrictions in

1458:

Heh. Do you realize that you have just implied that Netoholic does not respect Rd232, Ral315, SoothingR, Cleared as filed, Ilmari Karonen, Dbenbenn, and

3101:

them without an edit summary (in the hope that no one would notice). Your policy violations were deliberate, recidivistic and tantamount to vandalism.

2767:

1) Recognizing that Netoholic's contributions are generally productive and positive in both the Template and Knowledge namespaces, the restrictions in

2645: 2086: 787:) believed satisfied the policy. My evidence and Wgfinley's goes to show that respectful interaction solves problems faster than heavy-handedness. -- 167: 146:

is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The

795: 217: 2005:

7) Following his being given permission per Finding 6, Netoholic has caused disruption in his editing in the Knowledge and Template namespaces.

1434:

there was discussion over whether reverts of copyrighted material should be subject to 3RR given the 'remove copyvios' policy. This resulted in

3545:

The issue around the fair use images was to show that Locke and David involved themselves because of a secondary conflict. This item would

3682:

Includes stalking to non-template pages and becoming involved against me, and for the misrepresentation of my restrictions (see FoF 8). --

1252: 1240: 723:

8) While Wikipedians are allowed a good deal of leeway in what they place on their userpage, userpages must conform to Knowledge policies.

479: 3941: 3996:

at the time. Your argument is analogous to claiming that an admin who reverts vandalism should not be permitted to block the vandal. —

1759:" question. Either I assumed good faith (but still edit warred) or I failed to assume good faith (and edit warred). It's biased. -- 1690:

knowingly act against policy at least the five times which he restored the images after acknowledging that they violated the policy. --

302:

I don't see where this is a requirement. Certainly, ArbCom may refer Arb Requests to those processes, but that's not a requirement. --

1870:

weren't even templates. The timing is suspicious and the "counter-Netholic" tactic fairly repeatable on his part. How is it "mutual"?

150:

should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

17: 2161: 3127:

Instead, the Arbitrators need to see their actions on my user page as harmful and part of a more expansive series of harassment. --

1106: 2648:

was hardly pleasant. In fact I would think it would have continued to escalated if he wasn't blocked for his actions surrounding

2101:. For those who want the short version, my statement on March 3 on Netoholic's talk page sums up most of my feelings towards him 3938: 3871: 3703: 3659: 3497: 3429: 3399: 3362: 3340: 3311: 3222:

Not too much stronger. And if you consider a reprimand on this side for Net, then consider one on the other side for the others.

2912: 2898: 2406: 2393:

Kind of irrelevant at this point (I see my talk page was finally deleted), and I think this is covered by the principle above at

2325: 2196: 1907: 1832: 1369: 1355: 1296: 1088: 524: 451: 383: 346: 323: 253: 179: 4281:, has now been rendered moot by the introduction of a built-in MediaWiki method of performing the same tasks... as described at 2179:'d sysops until one would unblock you. I've since asked the sysops there to bring discussions about unblocking users (any user, 4127: 3526: 3297: 3184: 2884: 2691: 2533: 1960: 1818: 1718: 1630: 1341: 1963:) received permission from the Committee to violate the specifics of this decision provided that he did not cause disruption. 4273:

I think it is worth noting that the underlying cause of this dispute, disagreement over the relative merits and drawbacks of

2987:

The only "better solution" would have been for you to remove the images yourself, and you'd been politely asked to do so for

1910:) has harassed Netoholic by becoming involved against him on several pages, many of which were never edited by Locke before ( 935:

10) Knowledge users must assume good faith on the part of other editors until presented with clear evidence to the contrary.

2252:

while the dispute was unsettled and without actively participating in any dispute resolution process involving the article.

3378:

OMG the Everyking rules-laywering is enough to fail this Remedy. You vote on WP:TFD on even days and I on odd days? --

1105:

says nothing straightforward to that effect. What it does say is that contested user page deletions should be listed on

3465:

What happens if they happen to stumble onto each other without realizing it? It's a fairly small wiki world out there. —

279: 3156:

David Levy's edit warring is minor, and partially policy enforcement. Can a proposed remedy(?) be made without him? —

4289: 4163: 4054: 4016: 4000: 3987: 3841: 3821: 3807: 3790: 3770: 3754: 3745: 3728: 3706: 3689: 3635: 3609: 3597: 3583: 3565: 3556: 3500: 3474: 3454: 3432: 3414: 3402: 3385: 3365: 3343: 3271: 3259: 3244: 3230: 3216: 3160: 3143: 3134: 3079: 3055: 3042: 3032: 3012: 3003: 2955: 2942: 2851: 2798: 2750: 2732: 2723: 2665: 2639: 2629: 2620: 2599: 2579: 2565: 2482: 2458: 2409: 2388: 2328: 2275: 2220: 2199: 2117: 2066: 2056: 2043: 2034: 1992: 1881: 1864: 1788: 1775: 1766: 1750: 1694: 1677: 1661: 1587: 1563: 1549: 1516: 1507: 1497: 1485: 1471: 1453: 1443: 1417: 1401: 1317: 1299: 1278: 1182: 1136: 1116: 1091: 1007: 964: 922: 869: 852:

respond to your rationale... to reject it. Only Ilmari Karonen did not respond after you posted comments... but those

805: 752: 710: 662: 649: 631: 615: 557: 544: 527: 509: 454: 433: 386: 368: 349: 326: 309: 283: 256: 205: 182: 147: 1568:

Again, the repeated reversion of deliberate policy violations (such as vandalism, to which this was tantamount) does

502:

This is a re-phrase of a Finding from the "Netoholic 2" arb case. Seems more like a Principle, but can be moved. --

4274: 1358:) have engaged in revert warring on Netoholic's user page and on various pages throughout the template namespace. 1059:

13) Users have a right to have their user page deleted at their request should they wish to leave the project. See

204:

2) Knowledge users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users and to observe

4278: 3593:

they did so. He did the right thing in the end - a reprimand after the fact would be un-neccessarily punitive. --

2661: 2616: 2113: 2090: 1756: 1154: 821:

your fair use rationale your description of the other discussions is also false. So far as I can see you did not

483: 2213:

Mmm, I see where this is coming from, and I support the general feel of it, but the wording is not quite right.

1431: 335:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443/Proposed_decision#Participation_in_dispute_resolution_in_good_faith

3529:) is reprimanded for failing to follow Knowledge's fair use policy despite being informed of it several times. 1150: 3110:

Policy explicitly calls for the removal of violations. You had been politely asked to do so by no fewer than

3750:

If you're concerned about him reverting your edits, ask for him to be banned from reverting your edits. —

810:

I disagree with the way you present many of the 'facts' on this page, but the above is simply fiction. The

3139:

I have to hand it to you, Neto. Only you could twist by-the-book policy enforcement into "harassment." —

2596: 1528:

That page "is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators." I

3797: 3625:

Netoholic is reminded to follow Knowledge's fair use policy despite being informed of it several times.

2979:

administrator for the purpose of enforcing a policy that can be enforced by any editor in good standing?

1537: 1533: 604:

community could potentially still make that subject policy on their own. Brion never said directly that

581: 478:

5) It is beyond the (competence / scope) of the Arbitration Commitee to evaluate the considerations in

4009:

and edit warred on my user page - all prior to your choice to block me rather than post on WP:ANI. --

3934: 3930: 3865: 3861: 3699: 3695: 3663: 3653: 3649: 3493: 3489: 3470: 3425: 3421: 3395: 3391: 3358: 3354: 3336: 3332: 3305: 3301: 2906: 2892: 2888: 2654: 2609: 2402: 2398: 2321: 2317: 2192: 2188: 2106: 1901: 1897: 1826: 1822: 1363: 1349: 1345: 1292: 1288: 1084: 1080: 681:, revert warring is considered harmful. This stands regardless of whether a side is right or wrong. 577: 520: 516: 447: 443: 379: 375: 342: 338: 319: 315: 249: 245: 209: 175: 171: 814:

users who contacted you on this issue prior to Locke Cole are not "a couple". Further, while Ral315

4121: 4013: 3984: 3838: 3804: 3767: 3742: 3686: 3606: 3553: 3520: 3411: 3382: 3291: 3268: 3256: 3241: 3227: 3178: 3131: 3097:

I was wrong about thinking fair use images were OK even if I gave a rationale. I plead ignorance.

3052: 3000: 2939: 2878: 2848: 2795: 2729: 2685: 2576: 2527: 2455: 2272: 2217: 2158: 2053: 2040: 1954: 1878: 1812: 1785: 1763: 1712: 1658: 1624: 1392:, the removal of deliberate copyright policy violations (which are tantamount to vandalism) should 1335: 1275: 1113: 1102: 1060: 1021: 802: 791: 612: 554: 506: 430: 365: 306: 3075:

people to remove such things on sight. There shouldn't be censure involved in following policy. --

1721:) has consistently failed to assume good faith on the part of those with whom he is edit warring. 2746: 1634: 890: 837:. It is impossible to provide links to responses you did not make, but if my statement is untrue 678: 213: 143: 1020:

12) Dispute tags are important way for people to show that there are problems with the article.

515:

and those statements are provided as evidence, surely the ArbCom can back those statements up? —

3390:

Yeah, I'm not a big fan. And I don't think things have gotten so bad that this is necessary. —

2592: 1248: 584: 1287:, it is inappropriate to strike things (they'll be effectively "stricken" when voted upon). — 4286: 3818: 3787: 3594: 3076: 3039: 2935:

was not the problem... it was the intent of Locke and David and their presence that was. --

2636: 2384: 1691: 1477:

warring as well, but at least he and I weren't directly involved in a separate conflict. --

1468: 1440: 1389: 866: 646: 541: 1129: 314:

Actually this was quoted, verbatim, from an accepted principle in a recently closed case. —

4051: 3997: 3834:? Many of the times he followed me to pages had nothing to do with AUM or copyrights. -- 3562: 3466: 3140: 3009: 2952: 2902: 2788: 2479: 2425: 2063: 1584: 1546: 1504: 1482: 1398: 1359: 1179: 3122:

For the record, I'm pushing for no such punishment. I'm merely defending my own actions.

1532:

an administrator, and the problem already had come to my attention (and the attention of

4282: 2351: 4117: 4010: 3981: 3835: 3801: 3764: 3751: 3739: 3725: 3683: 3603: 3550: 3516: 3408: 3379: 3287: 3265: 3253: 3174: 3157: 3128: 3049: 2997: 2936: 2874: 2845: 2792: 2681: 2626: 2571: 2523: 2452: 2269: 2214: 2155: 2050: 1950: 1875: 1808: 1782: 1760: 1708: 1655: 1620: 1613: 1435: 1331: 1272: 1133: 1110: 799: 788: 609: 551: 503: 427: 362: 303: 3992:

Again, please cite evidence to support your contention that you and I were engaged in

3008:

I personally reverted twice, and I did so in my role as a conscientious Wikipedian. —

4160: 4042: 4033: 4006: 3814: 3580: 3451: 3223: 3213: 3029: 2742: 2720: 2649: 2562: 2031: 1989: 1861: 1772: 1747: 1674: 1560: 1522: 1513: 1494: 1450: 1414: 1314: 1255:

is not developer-mandated policy. The Arbitration Committee endorses this statement.

1004: 961: 919: 749: 707: 659: 628: 605: 3069: 2948: 1423: 221: 2996:

Instead, you reverted ad nauseum because you saw it as your role to police me. --

1153:

must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute (

2737:

This is confusing. Is the restriction to 1RR for all articles or just templates?

1686:. One person (Ral315, not 3 or 4) was satisfied with the rationale and Netoholic 1637:. This continued despite numerous warnings that he was contravening the policy. 572:

6) Policy, where it is directly related to technical matters, may be made by the

2380: 1579:

Incidentally, when I removed the images for the second (my final) time, it was

3733:

There isn't much precident, but Skyring was banned for one year for reverting

3632: 1633:) claimed fair use on images used on his userpage, thus directly contravening 573: 2093:

because they do not appear in your talk page after you "archived" them. The

2967:

should actually be enforced? Should we extend this courtesy to all vandals?

2947:

As has been pointed out, all removals of the images were in accordance with

3826:

It is not about simple "undoing my work" -- have you taken a fresh look at

3282:

Netoholic and Locke Cole will not interact with or comment about each other

1755:

What evidence is leading towards that? Also, this finding is worded as a "

1545:

motivating factor, but the actions themselves were entirely appropriate. —

1024:

states that such tags should not be removed unless the dispute is settled.

426:

This is many thoughts combined in one, and it doesn't work as written. --

1271:

Struck the last line. Redundant as this point will be later voted on. --

278:

3) Users are required to participate in the give and take of Knowledge's

168:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu#Edit_warring_considered_harmful

3064:

violation. I have no interest in whether or not it was also a copyright

1541:

that a different administrator should have removed the images each time?

3874:) is banned for two weeks for revert warring to remove dispute tags on 1109:. There is no need for discussion Locke's user page in this case. -- 242:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443/Proposed_decision#Civility

3088:

Numerous users had discussed the issue in great detail over a span of

1503:

userpage or blocking him from editing, what other options remained? —

3561:

Again, in what other conflict with you was I involved at the time? —

1430:

users to remove copyright violations on sight and in relation to the

4132:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole#Log of blocks and bans

4036:(and your efforts to enforce it) when it was considered policy. I 2170:

banned from the Template: and Knowledge: namespace. You were given

2350:

10.1) Locke Cole requested his user and talk pages be deleted per

1835:) have consistently engaged in stalking each other over the wiki. 2449:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole/Evidence#David Levy

4211:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

3875: 3831: 3038:

there should be no censure for removing copyright violations. --

2249: 1911: 286:, especially in the earlier steps of negotiation and mediation. 2984:

or yourself find someone to work with me on a better solution.

706:

Yes, it dupicates something above. I wrote a whole decision.

1683: 2297:

10) Locke Cole has requested that his user page be deleted (

1481:

you were deliberately violating policy, so I intervened. —

841:

can provide links proving that. In further contradiction,

3856:

Locke Cole banned for two weeks for removing dispute tags

3828:

Locke Cole further harasses Netoholic, poisoning the well

3761:

Locke Cole further harasses Netoholic, poisoning the well

2963:

Why? To determine the community's consensus on whether

1682:

Netoholic's comments above are untrue per my remarks at

1413:

Even if it is his userpage, it still isn't acceptable.

374:

dispute resolution, or entered into them in bad faith. —

4046: 4038: 3511:

Netoholic reprimanded for not following fair use policy

2474: 2428: 2298: 2246: 2243: 2240: 2237: 2234: 2102: 2098: 853: 846: 842: 834: 830: 826: 818: 637: 440:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein#Disruption

3169:

Netoholic reprimanded for failing to assume good faith

2097:

for the convention is especially relevant, as is this

1654:

police this ... and what they had to gain from it. --

3060:

Sorry for the ambiguity. I was speaking of copyright

2030:Fairly clear, IMO. He wasn't given carte blanche. 1860:Seems pretty mutual to me. It takes two to tango. 794:

05:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC) See a similar point on

486:, and other pages related to conditional templates. 3878:without properly ensuring the dispute was settled. 3721: 2187:

so others can explain why the block should stand. —

2085:I also disagree. I found your interactions on the 3781:Locke Cole and Netoholic have been in opposition. 3173:3) For consistently failing to assume good faith, 2293:Locke Cole has requested deletion of his user page 2133:Locke Cole misrepresented Netoholic's restrictions 654:This is coupled with the statement below that AUM 3759:It is not about simple reverting of edits... see 856:included your awareness that what you were doing 796:Knowledge:Arbitration policy/Precedents#Userspace 274:Participation in dispute resolution in good faith 2869:Netoholic, Locke Cole and David Levy reprimanded 3644:Locke Cole banned for six months for harassment 636:Generally agree, but would note that Brion has 438:May agree, but this was copied, verbatim, from 224:procedures instead of making personal attacks. 220:. If disputes arise, users are expected to use 4021:1. Yes, I've expressed disagreement with your 3092:. How much more did you need to be talked to? 1372:) also revert-warred on Netoholic's userpage. 4045:was enforced (citing it by name), and I even 2991:. How else were we supposed to "work with "? 2248:), Locke Cole, removed the dispute tags from 8: 2844:Ambi said something to this effect once. -- 1947:his previous Arbitration Committee decision 608:can never be policy/guideline/whatever. -- 3786:Netoholic's were in opposition to such. -- 1572:constitute "edit warring." No fewer than 2087:Knowledge:Naming conventions (television) 1397:editing, what other options remained? — 761:... good etiquette to work with the User 860:against policy - just that you did not 1703:Netoholic failing to assume good faith 218:Knowledge:Writers' rules of engagement 3830:and the section about his actions on 3631:which is kind of a strange sentence. 3602:Concur. Don't flog the bloody horse. 2975:Why? To seek the intervention of an 1746:This came up in Netoholic 2 as well. 1559:that he was not allowed the images. 7: 3980:I would be satisified with this. -- 2915:) are reprimanded for edit warring. 2166:It's not misinformation though: you 1283:I have unstruck the line, this is a 1253:Knowledge:Avoid using meta-templates 1241:Knowledge:Avoid using meta-templates 480:Knowledge:Avoid using meta-templates 1757:Have you stopped beating your wife? 1178:qualify as a "content dispute"). — 42:Motions and requests by the parties 4176:1) {text of proposed enforcement} 2680:1.1) For persistent edit warring, 978:a violation of required courtesy. 28: 18:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration 3908: 3817:while you were violating them. -- 3420:I still think this is overkill. — 2463:Again, please cite evidence of a 1107:Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion 3240:. This is a persistent problem. 2522:1) For persistent edit warring, 2472:why you were blocked (following 1536:, another administrator). Both 1204:1) {text of proposed principle} 3722:#Bans in Netoholic 2 reaffirmed 3662:) is banned for six months for 3579:Again, this could be stronger. 2644:My interaction with him at the 2561:Might as well go back to them. 2394: 2229:Locke Cole removed dispute tags 2001:Netoholic has caused disruption 1521:Had I reported the incident at 1467:should have been sufficient. -- 138:Edit warring considered harmful 3909:Locke Cole's user page deleted 2570:I hold the personal view that 85:Proposed temporary injunctions 1: 4076:1) {text of proposed remedy} 3617:On the Proposed Decision page 3212:Maybe it could be stronger. 3068:violation. The point is that 2591:namespace suffice for this? — 2346:Locke Cole has left Knowledge 280:dispute resolution procedures 2132: 825:any response to comments by 3236:Struck after re-evaluating 1432:Freestylefrappe arbitration 206:Knowledge:Assume good faith 4311: 4290:10:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 4275:Knowledge:Qif conditionals 4164:00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 4055:18:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 4017:17:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 4001:17:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 3988:17:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 3942:21:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 3842:15:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 3822:15:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 3808:14:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 3791:12:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 3771:06:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 3755:05:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 3746:05:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 3729:02:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 3707:21:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 3690:05:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 3636:01:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 3619:this was changed to state: 3610:03:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 3598:01:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 3584:00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 3566:17:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 3557:05:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 3455:00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 3415:08:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 3403:06:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 3386:05:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 3366:01:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 3344:01:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 3272:03:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 3260:05:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 3245:01:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 3231:01:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 3217:00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 3161:02:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 3144:20:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 3135:20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 3080:12:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 3056:05:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 3043:01:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 3033:00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 3013:21:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 3004:20:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 2956:17:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 2943:05:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 2852:05:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 2799:04:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 2751:23:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC) 2733:01:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 2724:00:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 2666:18:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 2640:12:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 2630:02:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 2621:18:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 2600:12:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC) 2580:00:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 2566:00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 2483:16:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 2459:16:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 2329:21:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 2276:06:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 2221:03:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 2162:05:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 2118:18:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 2067:17:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 2057:04:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 2044:01:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 2035:00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1993:00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1882:06:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1865:00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1789:20:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1776:16:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1767:04:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1751:00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1695:12:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1678:00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1662:05:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1588:20:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1564:19:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1550:19:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1517:17:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1508:17:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1498:17:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1486:17:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1472:01:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1454:01:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1444:01:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1418:00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1402:17:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1318:00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1300:21:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1279:20:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1183:16:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 1137:01:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 1117:16:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 1092:21:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 1008:00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 965:00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 923:00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 870:12:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 806:06:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 753:00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 711:00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 663:10:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 650:01:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 632:00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 616:20:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 576:, and specifically by the 558:05:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 545:14:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC) 528:10:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC) 510:06:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC) 455:07:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC) 434:06:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC) 387:21:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 369:20:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 350:07:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC) 327:07:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC) 310:06:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC) 257:07:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC) 183:07:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC) 4279:Knowledge:HiddenStructure 3501:03:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC) 3475:03:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC) 3433:03:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC) 2233:9) On several occasions ( 2200:03:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC) 1635:Knowledge:Fair use#Policy 1326:Revert warring by parties 1235:Proposed findings of fact 1155:Knowledge:Blocking policy 891:Knowledge:Fair use#Policy 484:Knowledge:HiddenStructure 4252:Comment by Arbitrators: 4220:Comment by Arbitrators: 4180:Comment by Arbitrators: 4138:Comment by Arbitrators: 4080:Comment by Arbitrators: 3968:Comment by Arbitrators: 3917:Comment by Arbitrators: 3882:Comment by Arbitrators: 3670:Comment by Arbitrators: 3589:added primarily to show 3533:Comment by Arbitrators: 3318:Comment by Arbitrators: 3191:Comment by Arbitrators: 2919:Comment by Arbitrators: 2832:Comment by Arbitrators: 2775:Comment by Arbitrators: 2698:Comment by Arbitrators: 2540:Comment by Arbitrators: 2435:Comment by Arbitrators: 2410:01:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC) 2389:16:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC) 2358:Comment by Arbitrators: 2304:Comment by Arbitrators: 2256:Comment by Arbitrators: 2142:Comment by Arbitrators: 2009:Comment by Arbitrators: 1967:Comment by Arbitrators: 1918:Comment by Arbitrators: 1839:Comment by Arbitrators: 1725:Comment by Arbitrators: 1641:Comment by Arbitrators: 1376:Comment by Arbitrators: 1259:Comment by Arbitrators: 1208:Comment by Arbitrators: 1161:Comment by Arbitrators: 1067:Comment by Arbitrators: 1028:Comment by Arbitrators: 982:Comment by Arbitrators: 939:Comment by Arbitrators: 897:Comment by Arbitrators: 770:Comment by Arbitrators: 727:Comment by Arbitrators: 685:Comment by Arbitrators: 591:Comment by Arbitrators: 568:Policy set by developers 490:Comment by Arbitrators: 474:Technical considerations 414:Comment by Arbitrators: 290:Comment by Arbitrators: 228:Comment by Arbitrators: 154:Comment by Arbitrators: 98:Comment by Arbitrators: 55:Comment by Arbitrators: 3720:Damn harsh compared to 2584:Wouldn't access to the 582:Chief Technical Officer 128:Proposed final decision 4047:awarded you a barnstar 3959:David Levy reprimanded 3798:faulty generalizations 2819:... is also recognized 1941:Netoholic given leeway 1684:proposed principle 8.1 2960:.... or file an RFC, 2099:comment in particular 1251:has stated that that 1003:From Coolcat et al. 673:Revert warring is bad 333:Copied verbatim from 240:Copied verbatim from 166:Copied verbatim from 4261:Comment by parties: 4229:Comment by parties: 4207:Analysis of evidence 4189:Comment by parties: 4147:Comment by parties: 4107:Proposed enforcement 4089:Comment by parties: 3977:Comment by parties: 3926:Comment by parties: 3913:8) Per his request. 3891:Comment by parties: 3679:Comment by parties: 3542:Comment by parties: 3327:Comment by parties: 3200:Comment by parties: 2928:Comment by parties: 2841:Comment by parties: 2784:Comment by parties: 2707:Comment by parties: 2646:TV naming convention 2549:Comment by parties: 2444:Comment by parties: 2367:Comment by parties: 2313:Comment by parties: 2268:Straightforward. -- 2265:Comment by parties: 2151:Comment by parties: 2018:Comment by parties: 1976:Comment by parties: 1927:Comment by parties: 1848:Comment by parties: 1734:Comment by parties: 1650:Comment by parties: 1385:Comment by parties: 1313:Seems clear to me. 1268:Comment by parties: 1217:Comment by parties: 1170:Comment by parties: 1130:meta:Right to vanish 1076:Comment by parties: 1037:Comment by parties: 991:Comment by parties: 948:Comment by parties: 906:Comment by parties: 779:Comment by parties: 736:Comment by parties: 694:Comment by parties: 600:Comment by parties: 578:Wikimedia Foundation 499:Comment by parties: 423:Comment by parties: 299:Comment by parties: 237:Comment by parties: 210:Knowledge:Wikiquette 163:Comment by parties: 107:Comment by parties: 64:Comment by parties: 4270:Comment by others: 4238:Comment by others: 4198:Comment by others: 4156:Comment by others: 4098:Comment by others: 3950:Comment by others: 3900:Comment by others: 3717:Comment by others: 3576:Comment by others: 3447:Comment by others: 3209:Comment by others: 3025:Comment by others: 2972:or post on WP:ANI, 2860:Comment by others: 2807:Comment by others: 2716:Comment by others: 2558:Comment by others: 2493:Comment by others: 2475:an explicit warning 2376:Comment by others: 2337:Comment by others: 2284:Comment by others: 2210:Comment by others: 2027:Comment by others: 1988:We were generous. 1985:Comment by others: 1892:Locke Cole stalking 1857:Comment by others: 1743:Comment by others: 1670:Comment by others: 1612:Fair use claims on 1410:Comment by others: 1310:Comment by others: 1226:Comment by others: 1191:Comment by others: 1145:Use of sysop powers 1125:Comment by others: 1103:Knowledge:User page 1061:Knowledge:User page 1046:Comment by others: 1022:Knowledge:Vandalism 1000:Comment by others: 957:Comment by others: 915:Comment by others: 798:(second bullet) -- 745:Comment by others: 703:Comment by others: 627:Nothing new here. 624:Comment by others: 536:Comment by others: 465:Comment by others: 397:Comment by others: 265:Comment by others: 191:Comment by others: 133:Proposed principles 116:Comment by others: 73:Comment by others: 4247:General discussion 4067:Comment by others: 3450:From Everyking 3. 3187:) is reprimanded. 3090:nearly four months 2424:11) Administrator 1936:Comment by others: 1574:six administrators 880:Comment by others: 679:Knowledge:Edit war 222:dispute resolution 214:Knowledge:Civility 36:/Proposed decision 4283:m:ParserFunctions 3226:works both ways. 3028:All are guilty. 2510: 2502:Proposed remedies 2352:m:Right to vanish 1422:I disagree here. 931:Assume good faith 766:apparent wishes. 148:three-revert rule 4302: 4159:Pretty regular. 4049: 3994:content disputes 2749: 2506: 2477: 1538:Cleared as filed 1534:Cleared as filed 1424:Copyright policy 847:Cleared as filed 4310: 4309: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4301: 4300: 4299: 4249: 4217: 4209: 4174: 4114: 4109: 4074: 4041:to ensure that 4037: 3961: 3911: 3858: 3646: 3626: 3513: 3284: 3171: 2871: 2821: 2789:poison the well 2765: 2741: 2678: 2656:Reflex Reaction 2611:Reflex Reaction 2520: 2504: 2473: 2465:content dispute 2422: 2348: 2316:Construction. — 2295: 2231: 2135: 2108:Reflex Reaction 2003: 1943: 1894: 1805: 1705: 1673:Simple enough. 1617: 1328: 1245: 1237: 1202: 1147: 1079:Construction. — 1057: 1018: 975: 933: 887: 763: 721: 675: 570: 476: 408: 276: 202: 140: 135: 130: 92: 87: 49: 44: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 4308: 4306: 4297: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4292: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4255: 4248: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4235: 4234: 4233: 4232: 4226: 4225: 4224: 4223: 4216: 4213: 4208: 4205: 4204: 4203: 4202: 4201: 4195: 4194: 4193: 4192: 4186: 4185: 4184: 4183: 4173: 4170: 4169: 4168: 4167: 4166: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4144: 4143: 4142: 4141: 4113: 4110: 4108: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4101: 4095: 4094: 4093: 4092: 4086: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4073: 4070: 4069: 4068: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4057: 3990: 3974: 3973: 3972: 3971: 3960: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3944: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3910: 3907: 3906: 3905: 3904: 3903: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3894: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3857: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3850: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3779: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3774: 3773: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3645: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3586: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3512: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3283: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3219: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3170: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3035: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2945: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2870: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2820: 2817: 2815: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2764: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2735: 2726: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2677: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2632: 2623: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2568: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2519: 2512: 2503: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2421: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2347: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2294: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2230: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2178: 2172:clarifications 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2134: 2131: 2129: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2037: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2002: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1942: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1893: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1871: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1804: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1704: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1680: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1616: 1614:User:Netoholic 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1577: 1542: 1526: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1420: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1327: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1244: 1238: 1236: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1201: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1151:Administrators 1146: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1056: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1017: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 997: 996: 995: 994: 988: 987: 986: 985: 974: 971: 970: 969: 968: 967: 960:Nothing new. 954: 953: 952: 951: 945: 944: 943: 942: 932: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 912: 911: 910: 909: 903: 902: 901: 900: 886: 883: 882: 881: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 776: 775: 774: 773: 762: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 748:Nothing new. 742: 741: 740: 739: 733: 732: 731: 730: 720: 717: 716: 715: 714: 713: 700: 699: 698: 697: 691: 690: 689: 688: 674: 671: 670: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 634: 621: 620: 619: 618: 597: 596: 595: 594: 569: 566: 565: 564: 563: 562: 561: 560: 533: 532: 531: 530: 512: 496: 495: 494: 493: 475: 472: 471: 470: 469: 468: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 457: 420: 419: 418: 417: 407: 404: 403: 402: 401: 400: 394: 393: 392: 391: 390: 389: 355: 354: 353: 352: 331: 330: 329: 296: 295: 294: 293: 275: 272: 271: 270: 269: 268: 262: 261: 260: 259: 234: 233: 232: 231: 201: 198: 197: 196: 195: 194: 188: 187: 186: 185: 160: 159: 158: 157: 139: 136: 134: 131: 129: 126: 124: 122: 121: 120: 119: 113: 112: 111: 110: 104: 103: 102: 101: 91: 88: 86: 83: 81: 79: 78: 77: 76: 70: 69: 68: 67: 61: 60: 59: 58: 48: 45: 43: 40: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4307: 4298: 4291: 4288: 4284: 4280: 4276: 4272: 4271: 4269: 4268: 4263: 4262: 4260: 4259: 4254: 4253: 4251: 4250: 4246: 4240: 4239: 4237: 4236: 4231: 4230: 4228: 4227: 4222: 4221: 4219: 4218: 4214: 4212: 4206: 4200: 4199: 4197: 4196: 4191: 4190: 4188: 4187: 4182: 4181: 4179: 4178: 4177: 4171: 4165: 4162: 4158: 4157: 4155: 4154: 4149: 4148: 4146: 4145: 4140: 4139: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4133: 4129: 4126: 4123: 4119: 4111: 4106: 4100: 4099: 4097: 4096: 4091: 4090: 4088: 4087: 4082: 4081: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4071: 4066: 4065: 4056: 4053: 4048: 4044: 4040: 4035: 4032: 4028: 4024: 4020: 4019: 4018: 4015: 4012: 4008: 4004: 4003: 4002: 3999: 3995: 3991: 3989: 3986: 3983: 3979: 3978: 3976: 3975: 3970: 3969: 3967: 3966: 3965: 3958: 3952: 3951: 3949: 3948: 3943: 3940: 3936: 3932: 3928: 3927: 3925: 3924: 3919: 3918: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3902: 3901: 3899: 3898: 3893: 3892: 3890: 3889: 3884: 3883: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3877: 3873: 3870: 3867: 3863: 3855: 3843: 3840: 3837: 3833: 3829: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3820: 3816: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3806: 3803: 3799: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3789: 3784: 3780: 3772: 3769: 3766: 3762: 3758: 3757: 3756: 3753: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3744: 3741: 3736: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3727: 3723: 3719: 3718: 3716: 3715: 3708: 3705: 3701: 3697: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3688: 3685: 3681: 3680: 3678: 3677: 3672: 3671: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3665: 3661: 3658: 3655: 3651: 3643: 3637: 3634: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3618: 3615: 3611: 3608: 3605: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3596: 3592: 3587: 3585: 3582: 3578: 3577: 3575: 3574: 3567: 3564: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3555: 3552: 3548: 3544: 3543: 3541: 3540: 3535: 3534: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3528: 3525: 3522: 3518: 3510: 3502: 3499: 3495: 3491: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3476: 3472: 3468: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3456: 3453: 3449: 3448: 3446: 3445: 3434: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3413: 3410: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3401: 3397: 3393: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3384: 3381: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3367: 3364: 3360: 3356: 3352: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3342: 3338: 3334: 3329: 3328: 3326: 3325: 3320: 3319: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3313: 3310: 3307: 3303: 3299: 3296: 3293: 3289: 3281: 3273: 3270: 3267: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3258: 3255: 3250: 3246: 3243: 3239: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3229: 3225: 3220: 3218: 3215: 3211: 3210: 3208: 3207: 3202: 3201: 3199: 3198: 3193: 3192: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3186: 3183: 3180: 3176: 3168: 3162: 3159: 3155: 3145: 3142: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3133: 3130: 3126: 3121: 3120: 3118: 3113: 3109: 3108: 3105: 3099: 3098: 3096: 3091: 3087: 3086: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3078: 3074: 3071: 3067: 3063: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3054: 3051: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3041: 3036: 3034: 3031: 3027: 3026: 3024: 3023: 3014: 3011: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3002: 2999: 2995: 2990: 2986: 2985: 2983: 2978: 2974: 2973: 2971: 2966: 2962: 2961: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2954: 2950: 2946: 2944: 2941: 2938: 2934: 2930: 2929: 2927: 2926: 2921: 2920: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2914: 2911: 2908: 2904: 2900: 2897: 2894: 2890: 2886: 2883: 2880: 2876: 2868: 2862: 2861: 2859: 2858: 2853: 2850: 2847: 2843: 2842: 2840: 2839: 2834: 2833: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2826: 2818: 2816: 2809: 2808: 2806: 2805: 2800: 2797: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2785: 2783: 2782: 2777: 2776: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771:are lifted. 2770: 2762: 2758: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2736: 2734: 2731: 2727: 2725: 2722: 2718: 2717: 2715: 2714: 2709: 2708: 2706: 2705: 2700: 2699: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2693: 2690: 2687: 2683: 2675: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2638: 2633: 2631: 2628: 2624: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2605: 2601: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2589: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2578: 2573: 2569: 2567: 2564: 2560: 2559: 2557: 2556: 2551: 2550: 2548: 2547: 2542: 2541: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2535: 2532: 2529: 2525: 2517: 2513: 2511: 2509: 2501: 2495: 2494: 2492: 2491: 2484: 2481: 2476: 2471: 2466: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2457: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2445: 2443: 2442: 2437: 2436: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2430: 2427: 2419: 2411: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2386: 2382: 2379:Alternative. 2378: 2377: 2375: 2374: 2369: 2368: 2366: 2365: 2360: 2359: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2353: 2345: 2339: 2338: 2336: 2335: 2330: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2314: 2312: 2311: 2306: 2305: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2299: 2292: 2286: 2285: 2283: 2282: 2277: 2274: 2271: 2267: 2266: 2264: 2263: 2258: 2257: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2251: 2247: 2244: 2241: 2238: 2235: 2228: 2222: 2219: 2216: 2212: 2211: 2209: 2208: 2201: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2176: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2160: 2157: 2153: 2152: 2150: 2149: 2144: 2143: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2130: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2103: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2068: 2065: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2055: 2052: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2042: 2038: 2036: 2033: 2029: 2028: 2026: 2025: 2020: 2019: 2017: 2016: 2011: 2010: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2000: 1994: 1991: 1987: 1986: 1984: 1983: 1978: 1977: 1975: 1974: 1969: 1968: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1962: 1959: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1945:6) Following 1940: 1935: 1934: 1929: 1928: 1926: 1925: 1920: 1919: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1913: 1909: 1906: 1903: 1899: 1891: 1883: 1880: 1877: 1872: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1863: 1859: 1858: 1856: 1855: 1850: 1849: 1847: 1846: 1841: 1840: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1834: 1831: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1817: 1814: 1810: 1802: 1790: 1787: 1784: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1774: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1765: 1762: 1758: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1749: 1745: 1744: 1742: 1741: 1736: 1735: 1733: 1732: 1727: 1726: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1720: 1717: 1714: 1710: 1702: 1696: 1693: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1679: 1676: 1672: 1671: 1669: 1668: 1663: 1660: 1657: 1652: 1651: 1649: 1648: 1643: 1642: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1636: 1632: 1629: 1626: 1622: 1615: 1611: 1589: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1562: 1557: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1548: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1524: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1515: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1506: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1496: 1491: 1487: 1484: 1479: 1478: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1470: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1452: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1442: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1419: 1416: 1412: 1411: 1409: 1408: 1403: 1400: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1386: 1384: 1383: 1378: 1377: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1371: 1368: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1354: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1340: 1337: 1333: 1325: 1319: 1316: 1312: 1311: 1309: 1308: 1301: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1277: 1274: 1270: 1269: 1267: 1266: 1261: 1260: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1254: 1250: 1242: 1239: 1234: 1228: 1227: 1225: 1224: 1219: 1218: 1216: 1215: 1210: 1209: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1199: 1193: 1192: 1190: 1189: 1184: 1181: 1177: 1172: 1171: 1169: 1168: 1163: 1162: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1156: 1152: 1144: 1138: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1126: 1124: 1123: 1118: 1115: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1093: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1077: 1075: 1074: 1069: 1068: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1062: 1054: 1048: 1047: 1045: 1044: 1039: 1038: 1036: 1035: 1030: 1029: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1023: 1015: 1009: 1006: 1002: 1001: 999: 998: 993: 992: 990: 989: 984: 983: 981: 980: 979: 972: 966: 963: 959: 958: 956: 955: 950: 949: 947: 946: 941: 940: 938: 937: 936: 930: 924: 921: 918:Nothing new. 917: 916: 914: 913: 908: 907: 905: 904: 899: 898: 896: 895: 894: 892: 884: 879: 878: 871: 868: 863: 859: 855: 851: 848: 844: 840: 836: 832: 828: 824: 820: 817: 813: 809: 808: 807: 804: 801: 797: 793: 790: 786: 781: 780: 778: 777: 772: 771: 769: 768: 767: 760: 754: 751: 747: 746: 744: 743: 738: 737: 735: 734: 729: 728: 726: 725: 724: 718: 712: 709: 705: 704: 702: 701: 696: 695: 693: 692: 687: 686: 684: 683: 682: 680: 672: 664: 661: 657: 653: 652: 651: 648: 643: 639: 635: 633: 630: 626: 625: 623: 622: 617: 614: 611: 607: 602: 601: 599: 598: 593: 592: 590: 589: 588: 586: 583: 579: 575: 567: 559: 556: 553: 548: 547: 546: 543: 538: 537: 535: 534: 529: 526: 522: 518: 513: 511: 508: 505: 501: 500: 498: 497: 492: 491: 489: 488: 487: 485: 481: 473: 467: 466: 464: 463: 456: 453: 449: 445: 441: 437: 436: 435: 432: 429: 425: 424: 422: 421: 416: 415: 413: 412: 411: 405: 399: 398: 396: 395: 388: 385: 381: 377: 372: 371: 370: 367: 364: 359: 358: 357: 356: 351: 348: 344: 340: 336: 332: 328: 325: 321: 317: 313: 312: 311: 308: 305: 301: 300: 298: 297: 292: 291: 289: 288: 287: 285: 281: 273: 267: 266: 264: 263: 258: 255: 251: 247: 243: 239: 238: 236: 235: 230: 229: 227: 226: 225: 223: 219: 215: 211: 207: 199: 193: 192: 190: 189: 184: 181: 177: 173: 169: 165: 164: 162: 161: 156: 155: 153: 152: 151: 149: 145: 137: 132: 127: 125: 118: 117: 115: 114: 109: 108: 106: 105: 100: 99: 97: 96: 95: 89: 84: 82: 75: 74: 72: 71: 66: 65: 63: 62: 57: 56: 54: 53: 52: 46: 41: 39: 37: 33: 23: 19: 4296: 4210: 4175: 4124: 4115: 4075: 4030: 4026: 4022: 3993: 3962: 3912: 3868: 3859: 3782: 3734: 3656: 3647: 3590: 3546: 3523: 3514: 3353:occurring. — 3350: 3308: 3294: 3285: 3237: 3221: 3181: 3172: 3111: 3089: 3072: 3065: 3061: 2988: 2976: 2964: 2933:edit warring 2932: 2909: 2895: 2881: 2872: 2822: 2814: 2766: 2738: 2688: 2679: 2655: 2653: 2610: 2608: 2587: 2585: 2530: 2521: 2507: 2505: 2469: 2464: 2423: 2349: 2296: 2232: 2184: 2181:not just you 2180: 2171: 2167: 2136: 2128: 2107: 2105: 2004: 1957: 1944: 1904: 1895: 1829: 1815: 1806: 1715: 1706: 1687: 1627: 1618: 1580: 1573: 1569: 1555: 1529: 1463: 1459: 1427: 1393: 1388:As noted by 1366: 1352: 1338: 1329: 1284: 1249:Brion Vibber 1246: 1203: 1175: 1148: 1058: 1019: 1016:Dispute tags 976: 934: 888: 861: 857: 849: 838: 822: 815: 811: 784: 764: 722: 676: 655: 641: 585:Brion VIBBER 571: 477: 409: 277: 203: 144:Edit warring 141: 123: 93: 80: 50: 29: 4287:CBDunkerson 4112:Enforcement 3929:Finished. — 3819:CBDunkerson 3788:CBDunkerson 3666:Netoholic. 3595:CBDunkerson 3238:Netoholic 2 3077:CBDunkerson 3040:CBDunkerson 2825:Netoholic 2 2769:Netoholic 2 2761:Netoholic 2 2637:CBDunkerson 2516:Netoholic 2 2395:#User pages 1692:CBDunkerson 1469:CBDunkerson 1441:CBDunkerson 1390:CBDunkerson 867:CBDunkerson 647:CBDunkerson 542:CBDunkerson 4116:1) Should 4052:David Levy 4039:took steps 3998:David Levy 3931:Locke Cole 3862:Locke Cole 3696:Locke Cole 3650:Locke Cole 3563:David Levy 3490:Locke Cole 3467:BorgHunter 3422:Locke Cole 3392:Locke Cole 3355:Locke Cole 3333:Locke Cole 3302:Locke Cole 3242:Rob Church 3228:Rob Church 3141:David Levy 3112:six admins 3010:David Levy 2953:David Levy 2903:David Levy 2889:Locke Cole 2730:Rob Church 2719:Per Rob. 2676:...altered 2586:Knowledge 2577:Rob Church 2518:reaffirmed 2480:David Levy 2426:David Levy 2420:David Levy 2399:Locke Cole 2318:Locke Cole 2189:Locke Cole 2064:David Levy 2041:Rob Church 1898:Locke Cole 1823:Locke Cole 1585:David Levy 1547:David Levy 1505:David Levy 1483:David Levy 1399:David Levy 1360:David Levy 1346:Locke Cole 1289:Locke Cole 1180:David Levy 1081:Locke Cole 1055:User pages 677:7) As per 574:developers 517:Locke Cole 444:Locke Cole 406:Disruption 376:Locke Cole 339:Locke Cole 316:Locke Cole 284:good faith 246:Locke Cole 172:Locke Cole 22:Locke Cole 4118:Netoholic 4031:supported 4023:vandalism 4011:Netoholic 3982:Netoholic 3836:Netoholic 3802:Netoholic 3765:Netoholic 3752:Omegatron 3740:Netoholic 3726:Omegatron 3684:Netoholic 3664:harassing 3551:Netoholic 3517:Netoholic 3409:Netoholic 3380:Netoholic 3288:Netoholic 3254:Netoholic 3175:Netoholic 3158:Omegatron 3129:Netoholic 3073:instructs 3050:Netoholic 2998:Netoholic 2937:Netoholic 2875:Netoholic 2846:Netoholic 2793:Netoholic 2682:Netoholic 2627:Omegatron 2524:Netoholic 2453:Netoholic 2270:Netoholic 2156:Netoholic 2095:talk page 2091:talk page 2051:Netoholic 1951:Netoholic 1876:Netoholic 1809:Netoholic 1783:Netoholic 1761:Netoholic 1709:Netoholic 1656:Netoholic 1621:Netoholic 1436:vandalism 1426:has long 1332:Netoholic 1273:Netoholic 1243:as policy 1134:Omegatron 1111:Netoholic 843:SoothingR 800:Netoholic 789:Netoholic 719:Userpages 658:policy. 610:Netoholic 552:Netoholic 504:Netoholic 428:Netoholic 363:Netoholic 304:Netoholic 32:/Evidence 4215:Template 4172:Template 4161:Sam Korn 4128:contribs 4072:Template 3872:contribs 3735:en masse 3660:contribs 3581:Sam Korn 3527:contribs 3452:Sam Korn 3312:contribs 3298:contribs 3214:Sam Korn 3185:contribs 3030:Sam Korn 2913:contribs 2899:contribs 2885:contribs 2759:Bans in 2721:Sam Korn 2692:contribs 2563:Sam Korn 2534:contribs 2514:Bans in 2032:Sam Korn 1990:Sam Korn 1961:contribs 1908:contribs 1862:Sam Korn 1833:contribs 1819:contribs 1803:Stalking 1773:Sam Korn 1748:Sam Korn 1719:contribs 1675:Sam Korn 1631:contribs 1561:Sam Korn 1514:Sam Korn 1495:Sam Korn 1451:Sam Korn 1428:directed 1415:Sam Korn 1370:contribs 1356:contribs 1342:contribs 1315:Sam Korn 1285:proposal 1200:Template 1005:Sam Korn 973:Stalking 962:Sam Korn 920:Sam Korn 885:Fair use 854:comments 831:Dbenbenn 750:Sam Korn 708:Sam Korn 660:Sam Korn 629:Sam Korn 200:Civility 90:Template 47:Template 20:‎ | 2470:reasons 2429:blocked 2185:on-Wiki 823:provide 4043:WP:AUM 4034:WP:AUM 4007:WP:AUM 3815:WP:AUM 3763:. -- 3607:Church 3300:) and 3269:Church 3224:WP:AGF 3062:policy 2989:months 2977:eighth 2965:policy 2901:) and 2763:lifted 2650:WP:AUM 2381:Stifle 2218:Church 1821:) and 1523:WP:ANI 1344:) and 835:myself 833:, and 819:accept 606:WP:AUM 216:, and 3800:. -- 3724:. — 3633:Tinus 3547:never 3070:WP:CV 2949:WP:CV 2791:. -- 2451:. -- 1896:5.1) 1462:? :] 862:agree 827:Rd232 812:seven 656:isn't 16:< 4277:and 4122:talk 3876:Leet 3866:talk 3832:Leet 3654:talk 3521:talk 3471:talk 3351:ever 3306:talk 3292:talk 3179:talk 2931:The 2907:talk 2893:talk 2879:talk 2747:talk 2739:... 2728:\o/ 2686:talk 2662:talk 2617:talk 2597:Talk 2593:Phil 2588:talk 2528:talk 2447:See 2385:talk 2250:Leet 2177:/msg 2175:and 2114:talk 1955:talk 1912:Leet 1902:talk 1827:talk 1813:talk 1713:talk 1625:talk 1556:That 1364:talk 1350:talk 1336:talk 1149:14) 1128:And 845:and 785:they 638:said 94:1) 51:1) 4027:not 3860:7) 3648:6) 3604:Rob 3591:why 3515:5) 3286:4) 3266:Rob 3066:law 2887:), 2873:2) 2664:)• 2619:)• 2572:Net 2354:. 2300:). 2215:Rob 2168:are 2116:)• 1914:). 1807:5) 1707:4) 1688:did 1619:3) 1581:not 1570:not 1464:All 1394:not 1330:2) 1247:1) 1176:not 1157:). 889:9) 858:was 850:did 839:you 816:did 580:'s 282:in 142:1) 4134:. 3937:• 3933:• 3783:IF 3702:• 3698:• 3496:• 3492:• 3473:) 3428:• 3424:• 3398:• 3394:• 3361:• 3357:• 3339:• 3335:• 2743:aa 2635:-- 2607:-- 2595:| 2405:• 2401:• 2387:) 2324:• 2320:• 2245:, 2242:, 2239:, 2236:, 2195:• 2191:• 2183:) 2104:-- 1949:, 1530:am 1460:ME 1295:• 1291:• 1132:— 1087:• 1083:• 1063:. 865:-- 829:, 645:-- 640:, 587:. 523:• 519:• 482:, 450:• 446:• 382:• 378:• 345:• 341:• 322:• 318:• 252:• 248:• 212:, 208:, 178:• 174:• 38:. 4125:· 4120:( 4014:@ 3985:@ 3939:c 3935:t 3869:· 3864:( 3839:@ 3805:@ 3768:@ 3743:@ 3704:c 3700:t 3687:@ 3657:· 3652:( 3554:@ 3524:· 3519:( 3498:c 3494:t 3488:— 3469:( 3430:c 3426:t 3412:@ 3400:c 3396:t 3383:@ 3363:c 3359:t 3341:c 3337:t 3331:— 3309:· 3304:( 3295:· 3290:( 3257:@ 3182:· 3177:( 3132:@ 3053:@ 3001:@ 2940:@ 2910:· 2905:( 2896:· 2891:( 2882:· 2877:( 2849:@ 2796:@ 2745:: 2689:· 2684:( 2660:( 2615:( 2531:· 2526:( 2456:@ 2407:c 2403:t 2383:( 2326:c 2322:t 2273:@ 2197:c 2193:t 2159:@ 2112:( 2062:— 2054:@ 1958:· 1953:( 1905:· 1900:( 1879:@ 1830:· 1825:( 1816:· 1811:( 1786:@ 1764:@ 1716:· 1711:( 1659:@ 1628:· 1623:( 1367:· 1362:( 1353:· 1348:( 1339:· 1334:( 1297:c 1293:t 1276:@ 1114:@ 1089:c 1085:t 803:@ 792:@ 613:@ 555:@ 525:c 521:t 507:@ 452:c 448:t 431:@ 384:c 380:t 366:@ 347:c 343:t 337:— 324:c 320:t 307:@ 254:c 250:t 244:— 180:c 176:t 170:—

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

Knowledge

:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole/Workshop - Knowledge

Index