1034:, who was out of line). I don't know what her motive has been, but it's pretty clear that she knows what she's doing and that she doesn't intend to stop until she gets her way. I just don't know why, or what she thinks she'll gain by it, but I do know that she has been a direct cause for the situation getting so out of hand. This has nothing to do with if WikiProjects can make an exception or not, because we all agreed that any guideline can have a reasonable exception. The fact is that WP:LOST didn't even have a reasonable exception, or even a discussion that resulted in a consensus, for such an exception. No one does. The issue of episode article titles itself is not the real dispute, but rather, Elonka and a few others flat out refusing to accept this. --
1229:, an administrator or bureaucrat "closes" the discussion by evaluating the arguments, considering which alternatives have more support and announces a decision, which may be "no consensus", an outcome which, depending on the context, usually has definite consequences. In other, less structured, situations, as in the case of how to structure the titles of television episodes, there is no formal closer. Nevertheless, considering the alternatives proposed, the extended discussion engaged in, expressions of preference, there is a result which should be respected. Absent formal closing, it is the responsibility of users to evaluate the process and draw appropriate conclusions.
524:), have declared that there was no consensus and that the dispute is still open. The reason most often given is that the poll was modified several times while in progress. While that is true, it was mostly modified from a one-question poll with three choices to a two-question poll, each with two choices, and the meaning of the most contentious issue remained unchanged (not to mention Elonka herself modified the poll:
1343:
1) It is the responsibility of the administrators and other responsible parties to close extended policy discussions they are involved in, such as this dispute. Closing consists of announcing the decision at the locations of the discussion and briefly explaining the basis for closing it in the way it
633:
Yaksha and
Wknight94 have made an excellent summary of the situation to date; I fully endorse their summaries. The only aspect of the debate which I feel needs more emphasis is Elonka's apparent misunderstanding of the nature of consensus. It is true that the inital poll was slightly flawed, due to
869:
much like to see some oversight here about administrator behavior, specifically as regards the definition of consensus, the appropriateness of a poll when large numbers of editors are involved, the procedures for controversial page moves, and the inappropriate nature of harassing other editors with
541:
where several of those contacted responded but not a single one said they wanted to modify their answer. Other reasons have since been given for doing another poll on the same issue but none have been found persuasive by the majority. Allegations of sockpuppetry, harrassment, and intimidation have
424:
So far, those saying
Wikiprojects (and other small groups of editors) should be allowed to decide to not follow Naming Conventions have provided no convincing reasons/arguments to support their case. Elonka has consistently failed to explain why any one TV series is special in any way and therefore
893:
I can't speak for every person in this debate, but I can honestly say I've considered both sides of this debate. Originally, when I was not as familiar with disambig naming conventions, I thought that Elonka's request was rather reasonable. A requested move was made to move the rest of the episode
910:
were two noticeable voices in the RM discussion saying that it was unnecessary. Eventually in the discussion I agreed, finding that there was no strong reason behind the exception in the first place. Since then I've even given it more thought and, after taking notice to article titles more often,
1201:
1.2) Rather than simply list known alternatives, debate for a short time, vote, and then accept or reject by some measure, a consensus decision-making process involves identifying and addressing concerns, generating new alternatives, combining elements of multiple alternatives and checking that
864:
In summary, there are some important issues here which would benefit from an ArbCom ruling. How "enforceable" is a guideline? To what degree can a WikiProject establish guidelines for its articles, especially if some of those guidelines are not in strict adherence to guidelines elsewhere on
705:
I am uncomfortable with the fact that though there are dozens of editors in this dispute, this case was brought by one person who chose to list a few of their allies, and me as a sole "troublemaker". Just because I've been a spokesperson, does not mean that I have been a lone
693:
The core issue of this debate, how to name articles about television episodes, is really quite unimportant in the greater scheme of
Knowledge. I really don't understand why the debate got to this point, and it saddens me that it has. Any resolution would be welcome.
42:
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
1344:
is being closed; further, to change any policy pages, guidelines or naming conventions to conform with the decision; and finally, to enforce the decision with respect to recalcitrant users who violate the decision, after reminding them and warning them.
839:
It is my strong feeling that when there are many editors involved, and rapid discussion, that a survey is the best way to ensure that all editors' opinions are being heard and given equal weight. But calls for a cleanly-run poll were belittled as
665:
consensus for explicitly including exceptions for particular television programs. Of course, consensus does not mean unanimity, but as long as we were short of unanimity, Elonka (and one or two others) insisted that the poll needed to be re-run.
956:) that had recently concluded about Lost episode articles. Being a supporter of WikiProjects, and a fan of Lost, I had been spending some time at WikiProject Lost helping to format the project page and get things started in a good direction.
459:– many other editors have joined in from time to time during this very long debate. The “involved parties” here are just the main players who’ve been involved the most. A full list of people who have participated in the main discussion at
451:
I would very much hope an arbitration case can finally put a lid to this by formally showing that consensus had already been reached for this dispute, that the moves where supported by consensus, and therefore this “dispute” is over.
921:. Having looked further into the matter, I found that there was no discussion involved for including the example, as I had originally assumed. There was no "consensus", nor was there a reasonable explanation along side the example
598:
invites anyone to join any
Wikiproject. That alone makes Wikiprojects powerless to take any sort of "control" in any situation. Her fetish for a class structure (e.g., characterizing herself and Josiah Rowe as "evident informal
902:, which at the time said to disambig only when necessary, but then said "For Star Trek episodes, always add the series name". I assumed there was a discussion behind that and there was a reasonable rationale for the exception.
1359:
2) Given the existence of some uncertainty regarding how to determine if there is consensus in a particular case, no remedy is proposed concerning those who violated the consensus in this matter for past violations of policy.
1022:
Despite the simplicity of the issue and the minor importance of it, Elonka, and sometimes a few others, successfully drag the discussion on. Elonka particularly has made several misleading statements in and about the debate.
759:
system, but many others chose to use a "consistent suffix" system. However, a group of editors in this dispute decided to declare those "consistent" articles as wrong, deleted the exception wording off the guideline page
1138:
447:
At this point, we’re still working on getting articles named correctly (so moved). However, Elonka continues to insist that the dispute is ongoing, that we have yet to reach any consensus, and that the moves must stop.
59:
973:. Although I'm generally supportive of the idea of WikiProjects, there's the potential for such projects to be counter productive with forked guidelines, guideline conflicts, and projects developing
129:
55:
48:
590:
indicating that her goal is to let
Wikiprojects or small groups of editors decide conventions which apparently would carry greater weight than the rest of the community. First, this is contrary to
44:
670:
658:
654:
650:
642:
538:
480:
348:
421:
Another aspect of this dispute is whether certain TV series should be allowed to be exempt from naming conventions, if editors on those articles agree to name articles differently.
1417:
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.
1182:
1.1) Effective decision making using consensus requires appropriate framing of questions, adequate discussion of alternative solutions, and closure when a decision is reached, see
819:. There was some attempt to agree on wording for a new poll (mostly between myself and Josiah Rowe), but when we tried to actually run it, it was repeatedly deleted off the page.
1244:
4) Sexual harassment, including but not limited to unwanted sexual advances or innuendo, disrupts the collegial, respectful environment
Knowledge seeks to create for editors.
711:. Participation by other editors has also been discouraged by an extremely chaotic and uncivil environment. I myself have been subjected to personal attacks, sexual harassment
338:
1291:, but is not respected by some users, possibly due to lack of an authoritative and generally respected procedure for closing the consensus decision making process, see
1333:
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.
953:
425:
deserves exemption from the general convention; and why the decision any one group of editors should trump a wikipedia-wide naming convention/guideline (that is,
949:
1120:
1111:
1098:
1085:
1076:
1067:
534:
everyone to contact people to find anyone who might feel they were misrepresented by the poll but no action was taken. Instead, I contacted all 25 people
1221:
1.3) After extended discussion, to be effective, the consensus decision making process must close. In many
Knowledge decision making processes, such as
1398:
1) Any user who purposely violates the consensus decision in this matter during the next 180 days may be briefly blocked. All blocks to be logged at
1292:
743:
673:
for an early example), but she persevered, periodically attempting to recruit other parties into the discussion or to spread the debate to new venues
249:
641:) — however, after the poll closed and Elonka began disputing the apparent consensus, every editor who participated in the poll was contacted and
491:). The result was 26 people choosing to support disambiguating only when necessary and seven choosing to oppose. The poll was well-publicized
1030:. She has flat out ignored reasonable discussion, and instead focuses on false accusations of incivility and harassment (with the exception of
201:
1402:. Administrators are expected to use discretion and judgment in enforcing this remedy rather than implementing it in a mechanical fashion.
797:
347:
resulted in a supermajority (80%) support for "disambiguate only when necessary". The discussion that followed supported this consensus. A
337:
This dispute is regarding whether articles for TV episodes which do not need to be disambiguated should have disambiguation. For example,
537:
who voted to support the first question of the first poll and asked them if they felt they were misrepresented. The results can be seen
542:
no supporting evidence. Feeling the dispute is over, page moves were ongoing to comply with the guideline but those are being met with
521:
297:
153:
683:
Our attempts at mediation failed, in part because of an edit war initiated by Elonka over how to describe the involvement of
Radiant!
70:
17:
479:
A clear-cut case of supermajority consensus has become a nasty all-out war with a very vocal minority. A poll which is now visible
243:
789:
There was an attempt to hold a poll on the matter on
October 30, but since there was no prior agreement on wording, it was a mess
1226:
362:
all support the existence of this consensus. Given this, I (and others) begun to move articles which were inappropriately named
1222:
195:
93:
785:
356:
345:
561:
986:
with Elonka saying that the episode titling was apart of the mediation case, and that it was added because of a consensus.
105:
483:
included a question of whether television episode articles should only be disambiguated when necessary (as stipulated by
1284:
1063:
877:
580:. A MedCab mediator was deemed biased in Elonka's favor - and yet even he offered a compromise contrary to her beliefs.
507:
344:
I believe we did reach consensus to follow the existing guideline of "disambiguate only when necessary". The straw poll
291:
147:
123:
111:
1004:. Before this request I had been the minority in the debate, but that quickly changed when others started to comment.
752:
99:
608:
is also very contrary to the wiki spirit of Knowledge, especially with no reason given to support such a moratorium.
1429:
1038:
880:
620:
1108:
945:
728:
117:
1203:
1183:
989:
I had been following that mediation discussion, and it's results, and noticed that there was no such discussion.
267:
747:
episode)". One side of the dispute believes that a suffix should never be used unless specifically required for
360:
358:
515:
408:. Most of the time, these accusations where baseless, and have not been helpful in resolving this dispute.
255:
219:
751:. The other side feels that WikiProjects can set reasonable guidelines of their own (See subcategories at
464:
411:
Elonka claims the moves are disruptive to editors on affected articles, where as evidence shows otherwise
1104:
726:
724:
511:
237:
207:
1013:
noticed our discussion, and apparently other similar discussions, and invited everyone to continue on
792:, with multiple editors rapidly changing the wording and structure of the poll while it was in process
742:
Getting away from the unethical tactics and to the actual dispute, the main issue is the guideline at
460:
315:
171:
690:. Elonka's tactics throughout this debate have given the appearance of stalling and Wikilawyering.
1316:
has engaged in a pattern of sexual harassment through a series of unwanted advances and innuendos.
1164:
634:
changes in its format while the poll was running (including, it should be noted, changes by Elonka
616:
396:. These actions could all be seen as filibustering. She’s also been accusing others of harassment
189:
87:
1095:
746:
specifically about when episode articles can and can't use a suffix such as "(<seriesname: -->
555:
303:
159:
730:. This behavior has been particularly appalling considering that one of the primary disputants
661:) showed a strong consensus in support of the principle "disambiguate only when necessary", and
763:, and launched a disruptive sweep through Knowledge, unilaterally moving hundreds of articles,
1426:
341:
has the disambiguation “(Buffy episode)”, even though this disambiguation is not required.
1073:
1059:
941:
874:
719:, and had several other articles that I'm involved with threatened or nominated for deletion
627:
501:
331:
285:
232:
141:
1014:
915:
899:
755:). As television episode articles have been added to Knowledge, most series followed the
575:
feel the discussion is already done and two have even performed relevant moves themselves
488:
69:
as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at
47:, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at
1287:
for the titles of episodes of television series; a consensus decision was reached, see
1035:
967:, the episode guidelines had not been updated to reflect that outcome. I made a change
911:
realized where it could become a problem. Again, nothing major, but I made note of it.
907:
887:
612:
595:
473:
184:
82:
898:, and I supported the "consistent" naming system. Before voicing my opinion I went to
1371:
1313:
1306:
1260:
1117:
1091:
1031:
999:
974:
964:
756:
748:
591:
551:
547:
602:) is very unhealthy for Knowledge and contrary to its fundamental community spirit.
938:
and I gave up, not thinking it was important enough to get into an argument over.
352:
567:. Other claims by her have been labelled as being out of context and inaccurate
1082:
1055:
1010:
871:
733:
is an administrator, Wknight94, who has been sprinkling warnings on my talkpage.
699:
497:
484:
432:
Claims of Wikiprojects who have ‘consensus’ to not follow the naming convention
426:
280:
136:
926:. I was reverted by Elonka, who I was definitely not at odds with at the time
903:
54:
Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at
1400:
Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions#Log_of_blocks_and_bans
1156:
1019:. The rest has been summarized very well by Yaksha, Wknight94, Josiah Rowe.
385:, making making accusations of sockpupptery dispute having no hard evidence
1423:
Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions#User:Izzy_Dot_banned
570:. Other than myself, Josiah Rowe and Radiant!, at least two other admins
1289:
Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions#Statement_by_Yaksha
1378:
3) Izzy Dot's editing privileges are suspended for a period of 14 days.
380:
She has been attempting to prevent/stop the moves by actively reverting
992:
Later on, this was confirmed by another party of the mediation case
406:
403:
400:
865:
Knowledge? When are RM procedures necessary? And lastly, I would
1421:
Izzy Dot blocked for 14 days on 05:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC) per
1160:
388:, threatening and requesting for people involved to be blocked
970:
and again tried to remove the Star Trek example from WP:NC-TV
71:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification
429:
says disambiguation should only be used when it’s needed).
998:. I eventually asked for outside comment on the matter via
645:
the intended meaning of their vote. More importantly, the
594:
which makes very clear that no one owns articles. Second,
1293:
Knowledge:Naming_conventions_(television)#Episode_articles
374:
to move the articles, and that the moves were disruptive
1048:
1283:
1) There has been an extended discussion regarding the
1028:
1026:
1024:
1017:
1005:
1002:
996:
993:
990:
987:
984:
978:
971:
968:
959:
957:
936:
934:
932:
930:
927:
924:
922:
919:
895:
860:
857:
854:
851:
848:
846:
843:
841:
834:
832:
830:
828:
826:
824:
822:
820:
817:
815:
814:, but of course those in the "majority" protested this.
812:
810:
808:
806:
804:
802:
800:
795:
793:
790:
783:
780:
778:
776:
774:
772:
770:
768:
766:
764:
761:
738:
736:
734:
731:
722:
720:
717:
715:
712:
709:
707:
688:
686:
684:
678:
676:
674:
639:
637:
635:
606:
600:
588:
586:
581:
578:
576:
573:
571:
568:
565:
550:. An attempt at starting another poll was thwarted by
543:
535:
532:
529:
527:
525:
494:
492:
438:
436:
433:
412:
397:
394:
389:
386:
383:
381:
375:
372:
369:
363:
321:
309:
273:
261:
225:
213:
177:
165:
1049:
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/2)
496:. Nonetheless, a few members of the minority, mostly
391:
1054:
Accept to consider user conduct during this dispute.
368:
Elonka, however, claimed that there was no consensus
669:
Each argument proposed by Elonka was shot down (see
948:. One of the things they did was made a guideline (
944:had gotten itself a WikiProject around that time,
467:(numbers are no. of edits made on that talk page).
339:Never Kill a Boy on the First Date (Buffy episode)
605:Her latest call for a 30-day moratorium on moves
393:and asking for Request Moves to be speedy closed
1339:Closing of a consensus decision making procedure
1116:Voting in this case. (now an active arbitrator)
980:Because of these concerns, I pressed the issue.
918:to not include the misleading Star Trek example
859:who should just, "Give the fuck up, you lost."
954:Knowledge:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes
1407:Passed 6 to 0 at 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
1383:Passed 7 to 0 at 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
1365:Passed 7 to 0 at 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
1349:Passed 6 to 0 at 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
1321:Passed 6 to 1 at 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
1300:Passed 7 to 0 at 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
1268:Passed 7 to 0 at 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
1249:Passed 7 to 0 at 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
1234:Passed 7 to 0 at 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
1211:Passed 7 to 0 at 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
1202:people understand a proposal or an argument,
1191:Passed 7 to 0 at 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
1172:Passed 7 to 0 at 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
1142:(vote counts and comments are there as well)
950:Knowledge:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines
782:, with hundreds more still on their "hitlist"
8:
649:which followed the poll (currently archived
1399:
799:. Some called for the poll to be restarted
66:
51:. Evidence is more useful than comments.
1422:
894:articles to the (Lost episode) suffix at
744:Knowledge:Naming conventions (television)
1288:
1204:Consensus_decision-making#Key_principles
1355:No penalties for violation of consensus
1279:Titles of episodes of television series
1197:Principles of consensus decision making
1159:. Consensus is an inherent part of the
929:. Every couple of days another revert
870:whom one is involved in a dispute. --
58:and voting on proposed decisions at
7:
1178:Effective consensus decision making
435:have so far all been proven false
349:detailed summary of the discussion
24:
18:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration
856:engaging in "borderline trolling"
1227:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
30:on 18:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
1223:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1155:1) Knowledge works by building
963:I noticed that since the RM at
38:on 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
1217:Closing of a consensus process
548:request for blocking at WP:ANI
1:
1099:11:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
1039:05:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
952:) based on a mediation case (
881:23:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
1430:05:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
1285:Knowledge:Naming conventions
1240:Sexual harassment prohibited
1186:for an extended discussion.
1086:14:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
1077:14:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
1068:11:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
621:14:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
1127:Temporary injunction (none)
1121:11:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
1112:08:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
753:Category:Star Trek episodes
585:Elonka has made statements
1449:
946:Knowledge:WikiProject Lost
845:, "immature delay tactics"
1184:Consensus decision-making
1151:Consensus decision making
995:and the mediator himself
914:I did attempt to change
1137:All numbering based on
67:#Log of blocks and bans
1413:Log of blocks and bans
1394:Violation of consensus
1056:Matthew Brown (Morven)
1044:Preliminary decisions
1261:No personal attacks
1255:No personal attacks
1165:Knowledge:Consensus
983:A debate resulted,
850:, and the "whining"
510:) and occasionally
402:, personal attacks
65:You may add to the
1139:/Proposed decision
444:Concluding remarks
351:, as well as four
60:/Proposed decision
1335:
896:Talk:Fire + Water
544:hints of blocking
531:). I encouraged
405:, and incivility
1440:
1331:
1274:Findings of fact
975:ownership issues
942:Lost (TV series)
853:of "sore losers"
487:and affirmed by
325:
298:deleted contribs
277:
250:deleted contribs
229:
202:deleted contribs
181:
154:deleted contribs
133:
77:Involved parties
1448:
1447:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1415:
1396:
1391:
1376:
1357:
1341:
1329:
1310:
1281:
1276:
1257:
1242:
1219:
1199:
1180:
1153:
1148:
1134:
1129:
1051:
1046:
891:
714:, wiki-stalking
703:
631:
477:
335:
283:
235:
187:
139:
85:
79:
39:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1446:
1444:
1435:
1433:
1432:
1414:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1395:
1392:
1390:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1375:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1356:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1340:
1337:
1328:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1309:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1280:
1277:
1275:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1256:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1241:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1218:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1198:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1179:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1152:
1149:
1147:
1144:
1133:
1132:Final decision
1130:
1128:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1114:
1101:
1088:
1079:
1070:
1050:
1047:
1045:
1042:
908:User:Wknight94
890:
884:
749:disambiguation
702:
696:
630:
624:
476:
470:
469:
468:
446:
420:
334:
328:
327:
326:
278:
230:
182:
134:
78:
75:
34:
26:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1445:
1436:
1431:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1412:
1408:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1401:
1393:
1388:
1384:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1373:
1372:User:Izzy Dot
1370:
1366:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1354:
1350:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1338:
1336:
1334:
1326:
1322:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1315:
1314:User:Izzy Dot
1308:
1307:User:Izzy Dot
1305:
1301:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1278:
1273:
1269:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1262:
1254:
1250:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1239:
1235:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1228:
1224:
1216:
1212:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1205:
1196:
1192:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1185:
1177:
1173:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1166:
1163:process. See
1162:
1158:
1150:
1145:
1143:
1141:
1140:
1131:
1126:
1122:
1119:
1115:
1113:
1110:
1106:
1105:The Uninvited
1102:
1100:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1087:
1084:
1080:
1078:
1075:
1071:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1052:
1043:
1041:
1040:
1037:
1033:
1032:User:Izzy Dot
1029:
1027:
1025:
1020:
1018:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1006:
1003:
1001:
997:
994:
991:
988:
985:
981:
979:
976:
972:
969:
966:
961:
960:
958:
955:
951:
947:
943:
939:
937:
935:
933:
931:
928:
925:
923:
920:
917:
912:
909:
905:
901:
897:
889:
886:Statement by
885:
883:
882:
879:
876:
873:
868:
862:
861:
858:
855:
852:
849:
847:
844:
842:
837:
835:
833:
831:
829:
827:
825:
823:
821:
818:
816:
813:
811:
809:
807:
805:
803:
801:
798:
796:
794:
791:
787:
786:
784:
781:
779:
777:
775:
773:
771:
769:
767:
765:
762:
758:
754:
750:
745:
740:
739:
737:
735:
732:
729:
727:
725:
723:
721:
718:
716:
713:
710:
708:
701:
698:Statement by
697:
695:
691:
689:
687:
685:
681:
679:
677:
675:
672:
667:
664:
660:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
638:
636:
629:
626:Statement by
625:
623:
622:
618:
614:
609:
607:
603:
601:
597:
593:
589:
587:
583:
582:
579:
577:
574:
572:
569:
566:
563:
560:
557:
553:
549:
545:
540:
536:
533:
530:
528:
526:
523:
520:
517:
513:
512:MatthewFenton
509:
506:
503:
499:
495:
493:
490:
486:
482:
475:
472:Statement by
471:
466:
463:can be found
462:
458:
455:
454:
453:
449:
445:
441:
439:
437:
434:
430:
428:
422:
419:
415:
413:
409:
407:
404:
401:
398:
395:
392:
390:
387:
384:
382:
378:
376:
373:
370:
366:
364:
361:
359:
357:
354:
350:
346:
342:
340:
333:
330:Statement by
329:
323:
320:
317:
314:
311:
308:
305:
302:
299:
296:
293:
290:
287:
282:
279:
275:
272:
269:
266:
263:
260:
257:
254:
251:
248:
245:
242:
239:
234:
231:
227:
224:
221:
218:
215:
212:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
186:
183:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
138:
135:
131:
128:
125:
122:
119:
116:
113:
110:
107:
104:
101:
98:
95:
92:
89:
84:
81:
80:
76:
74:
72:
68:
63:
61:
57:
52:
50:
46:
40:
37:
32:
29:
19:
1434:
1416:
1406:
1397:
1382:
1377:
1364:
1358:
1348:
1342:
1332:
1330:
1320:
1311:
1299:
1282:
1267:
1258:
1248:
1243:
1233:
1220:
1210:
1200:
1190:
1181:
1171:
1154:
1136:
1135:
1021:
1009:
982:
965:Fire + Water
962:
940:
913:
892:
866:
863:
838:
788:
741:
704:
692:
682:
668:
662:
646:
632:
610:
604:
584:
558:
518:
504:
478:
456:
450:
443:
442:
431:
423:
417:
416:
410:
379:
367:
353:Request Move
343:
336:
318:
312:
306:
300:
294:
288:
270:
264:
258:
252:
246:
240:
222:
216:
210:
204:
198:
192:
174:
168:
162:
156:
150:
144:
126:
120:
114:
108:
102:
96:
90:
64:
53:
41:
35:
33:
27:
25:
1389:Enforcement
1074:Fred Bauder
1011:User:Argash
628:Josiah Rowe
399:, stalking
233:Josiah Rowe
106:protections
36:Case Closed
28:Case Opened
1146:Principles
1081:Accept. -
904:User:Nohat
840:"stalling"
647:discussion
599:'leaders'"
418:Exceptions
355:proposals
316:block user
310:filter log
268:block user
262:filter log
220:block user
214:filter log
172:block user
166:filter log
118:page moves
1157:consensus
1036:Ned Scott
888:Ned Scott
643:confirmed
613:Wknight94
474:Wknight94
322:block log
274:block log
226:block log
185:Ned Scott
178:block log
112:deletions
83:Wknight94
56:/Workshop
49:/Evidence
45:Talk page
1327:Remedies
1118:FloNight
1103:Voting.
1092:Dmcdevit
1090:Accept.
1015:WP:TV-NC
916:WP:NC-TV
900:WP:NC-TV
562:contribs
552:Radiant!
522:contribs
508:contribs
489:WP:TV-NC
461:WT:TV-NC
292:contribs
244:contribs
196:contribs
148:contribs
94:contribs
1427:Srikeit
1072:Accept
596:WP:PROJ
1374:banned
1083:SimonP
1000:WP:RFC
757:WP:DAB
706:voice.
700:Elonka
592:WP:OWN
546:and a
498:Elonka
332:Yaksha
281:Elonka
137:Yaksha
124:rights
100:blocks
1107:Co.,
16:<
1425:. --
1161:wiki
1109:Inc.
906:and
867:very
836:.
671:here
659:here
657:and
655:here
651:here
617:talk
556:talk
539:here
516:talk
502:talk
485:WP:D
481:here
465:here
457:Note
427:WP:D
377:.
304:logs
286:talk
256:logs
238:talk
208:logs
190:talk
160:logs
142:talk
88:talk
1312:2)
1259:5)
1225:or
414:.
365:.
130:RfA
62:.
1295:.
1263:.
1206:.
1167:.
1066:)
1007:.
977:.
878:ka
875:on
872:El
680:.
663:no
653:,
619:)
564:)
440:.
371:,
73:.
1096:t
1094:·
1064:C
1062::
1060:T
1058:(
615:(
611:—
559:·
554:(
519:·
514:(
505:·
500:(
324:)
319:·
313:·
307:·
301:·
295:·
289:·
284:(
276:)
271:·
265:·
259:·
253:·
247:·
241:·
236:(
228:)
223:·
217:·
211:·
205:·
199:·
193:·
188:(
180:)
175:·
169:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
140:(
132:)
127:·
121:·
115:·
109:·
103:·
97:·
91:·
86:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.