2102:"I joined Knowledge do improve its quality. i recognized it would be a slow process. It does not surprise me that it is not faster, and I thus have no reason to get angry because I had misjudged he difficulty ... We have serious content problems, but they to a considerable extent are inseparable from the inherent problems of any project like ours that operates without editorial control: the need for truly competent referencing, for understandable writing, for balance in coverage between and among articles, for avoiding promotionalism of people's individual viewpoints, and, more especially, the need to update every article in Knowledge in a regular and reliable manner .... What I think is truly harmful is anything that discourages ....
911:
topic(s), POV intent and stubbornness as for advocacy will be automatically and inevitably much stronger. Even if only from the time consuming point, a paid editor will take great advantage over a real volunteer who can only spend his limited spare/amateur time to contribute for this unique encyclopedia. You have your stance and your statements here. I have my questions with discoveries here. Your behaviors are keeping going. Readers and
Wikipedians will tell or make their judgments from all of these. For the time being I will drop off this issue. The metaphor you gave is not proper, and it touches some sensitive topic which I will not touch. --
1676:
world. That's why we got community sanctions on climate change: this is a widely disputed matter in
English-speaking countries. So is abortion, so we got a community-based 1RR on that. And a telling sign is that the one geopolitical dispute I'm aware of that ever got community sanctions is the "British Isles" one; a dispute that concerns Anglophone nations. Stuff like this, Eastern European stuff and the like tends to simply fly under community radar: not enough people know about it, so they can't see the need, and if we try to present information, we get tl;dr'd. So we're kind of hosed as it comes to community-based discretionary sanctions.
472:
respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
1800:
same behaviour. We went to extraordinary lengths last time to allow Tenmei to continue editing. Tenmei was effectively banned for quite a while as we couldnt find a mentor, and neither could Tenmei. Eventually mentors were found, but the problems have occurred again. The arbitrators appreciate that Tenmei means well, and does well when they are not involved in tense discussions. Should Tenmei be banned again at the close of this case, we would again look seriously at any amendment which will allow Tenmei to edit in only productive ways.
1753:
real-world disputes. I definitely agree with John
Vandeburg, who wrote that "I think this particular dispute wont benefit from Tenmei participating, ever." But Tenmei also does some very excellent work, finding sources no one else does, and significantly expanding our articles on historical Asian subjects. But Tenmei has shown, by the fact that this is a problem addressed by the Committee several years ago that was never improved, that xe has some fundamental communication problems in disputes. So, while simply topic banning him makes
871:
despite the fact that Jimbo Wales disagrees. This is exactly like how a heterosexual can support gay rights; just because I support the right of others to get paid for editing
Knowledge does not mean that I myself am a paid editor. 3) I do not believe that I have ever in any circumstance used original research in articles; if I did, it was unintentional. However, after arbitration is finished, if in the future you believe I am using original research, I will be more than willing to discuss the issue at
1830:
mentoring situation broke down. Would the effort and time spent trying to keep Tenmei on the straight and narrow be worth his disruption? (I'm not saying that he intentionally tries to be disruptive, but he is). It's weighing the good (his edits on some areas outside of the various areas he's been in trouble with in the past) versus the bad (the disruption and the arbitration cases, etcetera). To me, the scale unfortunately is a bit unbalanced, and that is reflected in the way I voted.
1619:, and got no where. The problem is that without seeing a mass of evidence at once like ArbCom can, or with Climate Changes seeing the issue raised at ANI, 3RRNB, AN, etc. every few days/weeks, it's very hard for the community to see how pressing a problem ongoing disruption is. Climate Change can catch the community's eye and general understanding simply because it is so broad, but a topic like Senkaku Islands, which covers 3 main articles and just a handful more beyond that (like
1014:"Original research" has a specific, somewhat technical meaning as the term is used in Knowledge policies and guidelines. It does not mean merely a statement that another editor disagrees with, nor a statement that (allegedly) is inaccurately sourced. Qwyrxian may or may not be right about what is the best name to use for the islands (though his position does seem to have a certain amount of support for it), but again, I don't see evidence of a
1853:. I think a site ban for Tenmei is too harsh and a warning for STSC is too lenient. Are there other ways to stop Tenmei's disruptiveness? Is it impossible to apply more detailed bans to him? For instance, no use of graphs, limit one post on talk pages to a maximum of 200 or 250 words, no successive talk page posts before other users' post except fix or tweak, etc. Talking about AGF, I find better faith in Tenmei than in Bobthefish2 and STSC.
717:). In this dispute, there were only a few parties involved in the process, and most of them prevented consensus using different methods. ArbCom isnt going to decide who was right and wrong on the content. The proposed decision will remove the most problematic contributions from the topic, and the proposed discretionary sanctions will mean this topic will be subject to the organised complaint management system of
138:
1695:
of a case or as a temporary measure to see if that will help to avoid a full case. I'd rather try a process that brings in the observations of several impartial reviewers but doesn't consume the energies of a full case; however, Heimstern and
Qwyrxian have a point about the indifference of the community in many of these situations, so perhaps that would not be the best devolution.
1623:), that involves less than a dozen editors, simply won't appear like a big enough problem for the community to see how DR is no longer working. On the other hand, I certainly agree that investing individual admins with the power to declare sanctions is giving away a major ability, perhaps one that the community is unwilling to cede. If I may, allow me to offer a few alternatives:
1491:
under discretionary sanctions, this temporary injunction shall terminate automatically, but any sanctions already imposed will remain in effect for a period not exceeding 6 months from the final decision, unless otherwise directed in the final decision. Nothing in this temporary injunction shall be treated as constituting a final judgment on any aspect of the case.
562:. I felt there are compelling evidence about his recent conduct and the way he slander other parties in this ArbCom case. Since the ArbCom does not even intend to "advise" or "remind" him of his actions, I suppose the take home message is that he did nothing wrong even after all the personal attacks he threw and the permanent ban proposals he made?
1041:. Qwyrxian opposed a version based on his assertion "'Senkaku Islands' is the real English name for the islands" to particularly opposed a sentence in that version "..., known as the Senkaku Islands (尖閣諸島) in Japanese, ..." which is supported by several RSs (we can easily find more RSs for it). The description for his such behavior can be found in
697:", it is clearly stated "Use of the site for other purposes, such as ..., ..., publishing or promoting original research, and ..., is prohibited." But I am surprised that user Qwyrxian's (and user Oda Mari's) using or promoting original research resulting in preventing consensus in edit of the related page was not mentioned at all. Why? --
826:: Is he a paid (editor) for the topic in question (that is now under Arbitration process) that made him using all means including belligerently pushing his own opinion, a pure original research, in talk discussions impeding the consensus on an RSs supported NPOV content? He was making a BRD as BREA (as said by arbitrator SirFozzie in
1459:
If you're not going to devolve it to admins, then come up with a faster track for making them directly from AC (for example, a motion voted on at the same time as the case acceptance, instead of at the proposed decision a month later). Or alternatively, if the issue is that you're not willing to devolve to
1644:
Allow an arbcom subcommittee the ability to declare sanctions without requiring the whole committee to rule on the matter. The primary problem with this is that it is unlikely that the wider community will be aware that they can ask for such sanctions via a streamlined process; I'm not sure how we'd
1640:
Allow MEDCOM members the ability to "breach neutrality" enough to, if mediation is not proving effective, ask for sanctions at AN. MEDCOM would not need to actually discuss the mediation, only to give a clear statement that the mediation has failed and that sanctions are a necessary step to preserve
1593:
I don't think anyone is suggesting that "regular" admins are unable to manage the workload at AE; in fact, I think they're doing quite well. There's a lot of ambivalence in the community and likely Arbcom itself about the appropriateness of arbs voting on the decision, then enforcing the decision and
1525:
Both seem like good ideas to me. Allowing the discretionary sanctions to be applied more quickly in cases like these is definitely a step in the right direction. I consistently find it frustrating how long arbitration cases last, but I always try to assume the best, i.e., that the committee is really
870:
I will simply state three things: 1) I am not a paid editor, nor have I ever been one in the past, nor do I have any particular intent to become one in the future. 2) That does not change the fact that I fully support paid editors being able to freely edit
Knowledge so long as they declare their COI,
2173:
to be used to refer to the disputed region." That already limits its application significantly. I cant foresee a dispute over the name of the island Taiwan that isnt sparked by intense political or military action. I am sure that the majority of arbitrators are not wanting a dispute over the name
1651:
Just put all the entire topic under discretionary sanctions, now. I doubt that this would go over well with the community, though, since it would likely be seen as ArbCom overstepping its bounds and imposing sanctions in places where there is currently no evidence of bad behavior (that is, they may
1477:
Hmmm. Part of me is ready to type "that sounds like a policy change, that should come from the community, not from us." The
Committee will certainly be accused of policy-making if we devolve the authority to impose discretionary sanctions on any article in the entire encyclopedia on a small group of
1458:
we going to be ready? If the answer is "never" or "an indefinite time period in the future", that is, bluntly, not good enough. I'm sick to death of us having to wait through month-long cases whenever this sort of thing flares up when it's mind-numbingly obvious that they're needed, as in this case.
1281:
I fully understand the arbitrators' criticism on my part and I'm not trying to deny it. My point is the comments (diff-12) were withdrawn completely on my own accord 6 minutes later as shown in diff-13. I'm disappointed that the drafting arbitrators still decided to present these deleted comments in
1224:
It is very unfair that some of my comments which were completely deleted by myself were used as part of the evidence, namely diff-12 and diff-13. I had withdrawn these comments and it should be the end of the matter. Further more, as one of the arbitrators John
Vandenberg said, "The arbitration case
712:
Hi, the policies for talk page are not as strict in regards to original research and POV, as consensus comes from people providing their opinions on the talk page. WP:OR is violated when a person adds original research into content pages, however a person can be sanctioned for belligerently pushing
653:
The discussions that followed Magog not blocking Tenmei we're full of thinly veiled jabs which kept escalating until, and including during, this arbcom case. I personally don't like the use of the word "troll" on
Knowledge, however I looked at when it was used and I can appreciate why they believed
1799:
Hi
Collect, I appreciate that the RFC/U was canvassed, however there were opinions from uninvolved people and they are the main ones I considered. More importantly, in the previous RFAR Tenmei was found to be one of the primary causes of the dispute resolution breakdown, and they have repeated the
1694:
There are some very good points and potentially workable ideas in this section. I'll think about it for a couple of hours and see if I can come up with something that we might be able to put forward in this decision. However, I do like the idea of applying discretionary sanctions by motion in lieu
1675:
I very much agree with Qwyrxian's points about the difficulty of getting the community to back sanctions in these areas. To be more specific about it: I think it is very hard to get the community to understand the need for them in controversial matters that are not widely disputed in the Anglophone
1905:
I rather think that a 3 year old experience is not something which should be held as an eternal issue ... rather the issue is whether Knowledge is better served by an absolute ban for an extended period, or by specific bright-line restrictions allowing an editor to conribute productively at a time
1829:
Speaking only for myself (but I think at least some of the Committee agrees with me), the previous situation with Tenmei was one of the more effort-intensive remedies we've ever passed (six mentors, etcetera). Despite this, problems, some of them significant, have re-occurred. The question is: The
1761:
under discretionary sanctions? In other words, limit him to either 1RR or 0RR, and further allow any uninvolved editor to block if his talk page editing becomes tendentious? That is, let him keep contributing to the encyclopedia in uncontroversial ways, while not allowing him to generate pain for
1732:
canvassed, I think the rush to ban entirely an editor who could become a productive contributor is Draconian - and I generally oppose Draconian solution. I would humbly suggest the one year topic ban on Senkaku is possibly reasonable, and would appear to address the actual concerns raised in this
1711:
As a party (and in addition to my Clerk duties elsewhere), I hold the view that "Any dispute related to an ongoing real world dispute (or even controversy) will have these kinds of editorial conflict popping up" from time to time - it is to be expected. Regarding NYB's point: Didn't ArbCom used to
1203:
Several of the arbitrators haven't cast their votes on the remedies yet, even though they've voted on the principles and findings. It's best not to read any particular meaning into that, other than that they are still considering the proposals and the evidence. I can attest from my experience that
1199:
Under a recent motion, we decided to have a comments section in our discussion of each proposal, along with the support, oppose, and abstain section. When an arbitrator posts a comment but doesn't vote at the same time, it means that he or she wants to await responses to the comment before voting.
580:
In analyzing the evidence provided on the evidence page, I found the allegations against Magog the Ogre and Qwyrxian pretty unconvincing. As far as I can see, the main argument against Magog is that he once unfairly blocked one party and not another, which if correct, would indeed be misuse of the
2083:
Tenmei is obviously willing to work with us and we're willing to work with him on this issue. Tenmei has complied with every little nit-picky thing you've come up with, and yet you still keep throwing out more that he must do. There's a limit to how many hoops you should make someone jump through
1660:
I'm sure there must be more options. I'm just hoping that there is some way that we can provide the community and admins tools to avoid having to spend a year or more with bad behavior, bad editing, etc., winding through all of the DR channels, when sanctions could help weed out the worst apples
1073:(whether de facto or de jure)" be used instead. This has the advantage of clearly including states like Taiwan - it draws the line broadly, but is also pretty clear as to what is included and what isn't while avoiding phrasings like "UN recognized states + Taiwan," which would be problematic. --
934:
you demonstrated you did OR absolutely in an intentional way and you will keep insisting on that, which has cancelled my "preferring" as stated above. The original research issue about you is not a complicated one. If you are really innocent and want to clarify this, besides what I pointed 4 "the
910:
at a wrong time. I prefer that you did an OR really unintentionally and you will correct such mistake from now on. As for the paid editor issue, I fully agree with Jimbo Walse. I understand that is his ideal for this unique 💕. "No lunch for free", particularly when payer to pay for some specific
471:
Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to
1920:
I agree that a three year old experience shouldn't justify a block. The point I was trying to make is that Tenmei has continued the same conduct since then despite several interventions and mentoring, so the probability of editing restrictions and the like being effective doesn't seem very high.
1542:
I'm perhaps one of the few arbitrators who thought that the community-based discretionary sanctions applied to the Climate Change area was actually a very good concept. The weakness with that particular example was the expanse of the topic area, because it crossed so many major flashpoints (BLP,
1490:
until this case is resolved. Should the final decision in this case place under discretionary sanctions, the sanctions imposed under this remedy shall be treated as if they were imposed as part of the discretionary sanctions authorized by the final decision. Should the final decision not place
1296:
I agree that the fact you removed this comment 6 minutes after you make it is a point in your favor (and certainly the edit removing the comment isn't being considered an additional incident of a problem). That being said, I wasn't the main drafter in this case, but I think it's fair to say this
600:. I thought this is pretty ironic, since this ArbCom case is mostly about incivility and admins are generally expected to adhere to higher standards of user conduct. Or maybe I am simply suffering from insanity and that all that I thought to be inappropriate is, in fact, perfectly appropriate. --
1844:
Tenmei may be disruptive, but as far as I know, he is not incivil. His philosophical lengthy posts on the talk pages could be easily skipped, they made the point of the issue on respective threads blurred and complicated though. They make editors fed up, but not hurt. However, incivility hurts.
1752:
I've been torn for several days on whether to write something here...because I, like Collect and Beeblebrox (see xyr new additions to the evidence page), have some misgivings about a full site ban for Tennmei. Tenmei can be extraordinarily disruptive, especially regarding issues with underlying
1574:
I know you all are busy, but why don't the arbitrators take turns participating on the ArbCom Enforcement page? If not enough "regular" admins are participating there, then someone needs to step in and help out. The arbitrators are, presumably, already knowledgeable on much of the background
804:
Thank you John Vandenberg for your reply and explanation, though what I hoped was more than this. I thought user's motivation should have not dug out, or such digging had at least not been encouraged. Now it seems I was not correct. If digging out user's motivation is allowed in an Arbitration
1610:
While obviously any decision about how to handle this is up to the Committee, I just want to say that as both a person involved in this dispute, and as an admin asked to look into other unrelated disputes and handle them, I believe that granting some efficient way to set up sanctions without
1554:
I would also be concerned that leaving the decision to a single administrator as an Arbcom enforcement action, particularly given the level of effort required to overturn a poor decision, is not an optimal situation. Not only that, but the administrator who takes on such a role may well find
1891:(not to mention the related ANI posts). While I acknowledge that Tenmei has made many useful contributions, he or she also frequently gets caught up in disputes over nationalistic-type issues related to Japan and makes the situation much worse and this is a consistent pattern of behaviour.
732:
I think, for what it's worth, that a couple of additional editors, who had engaged in some edit-warring and page-move warring, probably should have been topic banned. The discretionary sanctions, however, should hopefully deal with it if any of them repeat the behavior. I hope that the
1594:
potentially clarifying or amending the same decision, and I can respect that. I figure I already put in about 20 hours a week in dispute resolution and problem-solving as it is, so while I will often read WP:AE, I don't usually feel an urge to step in and take over any of the requests.
596:
where he'd use all sorts of libels and personal attacks on others even though his critics were obviously justified in their scrutiny of his decisions. He then proceeded to propose a block on a rule-abiding party whose only fault appeared to be having a role in criticizing his decisions
943:. This Arbitration case has not yet been closed. You can clarify this for yourself immediately right now before all of the Arbitrators of ArbCom here. Your intentional OR will hurt the future collaborative editing on this disputed topic, as your such OR was and will be belligerently
783:
At this point I agree with Qwyrxian. The term "praised/blamed" in that chart for brief illustration sometimes cannot precisely describe the actual meaning of some parties opinions. E.g. "agreed on certain party's some comments" does have some difference from "praised certain party".
1778:
I agree about "simple English", having written an article there myself. I recall a person writing "forgive this long letter, for I did not have time to write a shorter one." Getting the facts into simple words, which are not easily misunderstood, is not all that "simple." Cheers.
1385:, etc. in this locus of sanctionable disputes. Personally, I have no opinion either way, but I think that an admin should be able to instantly and unambiguously tell whether or not PRC/ROC issues fall under this grouping and can be placed under discretionary sanctions if needed.
1341:
Apart from the disputed islands such as Spratly Islands, I would like to see the discretionary sanctions also covering the non-disputed locations like "South China Sea". The name "South China Sea" has been frequently the subject of vandalism in various articles on Southeast Asia.
1463:
administrators, require a consensus of three, five, whatever number you're comfortable with. Leaving things as they are would mean we still have to wait through these interminable cases for a simple set of discretionary sanctions, and that's a disservice to our community.
617:
I'm completely nonplussed about the concerns over the admins who tried to help, and they were attacked repeatedly by each sides whenever a decision didnt go their way. When you wear out multiple admins who started as neutral admins, the problem isn't the admins.
2174:
of Taiwan to be handled by this remedy. We could exclude Taiwan explicitly, however I am also happy to not write in an exception for Taiwan; if there is ever a naming dispute over the island Taiwan, I am confident that editors will find these comments here.
1251:
If you were referring to diff-12 and diff-13, these comments were already deleted by myself. Things had been said in the heat of the moment during the arbitration and I had withdrawn them. I feel that there's some unfairness in using it in the deliberation.
1088:
I am partial to excluding disputes only involving Taiwan and another state. I think the Taiwan relations are special, and would warrant a new arbitration case to address them. In 8A I have used "UN recognised"; is there a better way to define this?
1425:
Wow, reading comprehension FTW. You're right. Whatever definition you (all) put together, all that matters to me is that it's clear for admins seeking to impose it. It would end up defeating the purpose if every time an admin wanted to declare
1762:
editors on even slightly contentious subjects? Finally, one small note: I strongly reject the idea of Tenmei editing Simple Knowledge--his style is hard enough for highly skilled native speakers to follow, much less Simple English speakers.
2150:
I don't believe the legal status of the Republic of China on Taiwan is what we have in mind in the remedy, even though it may technically fall within its language. (Of course, this is not to say that editors are free to misbehave in editing
830:). Qwyrxian is a very experienced and senior wikipedian who should know not using "stonewalling" including his own original research to impede consensus, but he was still using it. Please see his comments left in Jmbo Wales' talk page
1551:
or similar topics where there is really only one focal point. However, I don't think the decision to apply such community-based discretionary sanctions should come from Arbcom in the absence of expressed interest from the community.
1481:
But then again, I can also think that in some cases, we could adopt a motion imposing discretionary sanctions when we take a case and it seems likely that we will be imposing them at the end of the case anyway. Something like:
1369:, it looks like only the "main" Pacific is included. So, perhaps it might be helpful to say "any set of pages relating to a territorial dispute of islands in the west Pacific, including all of its marginal seas (see list at
581:
tools, but a single misuse doesn't justify desysopping, perhaps not even a mention. Most of the other evidence seems to come down to "he wasn't nice to me/someone on my side" or "he disagreed with my content position".
71:
669:
parties to "slander" each other on the ArbCom pages. Bad behaviour on arbitration pages is par for the course, and we ignore the vast majority of it. The arbitration case is a space to openly explain the problems
983:. If this is no evidence of original research, we can write on WP article "The real English name for the islands is the Diaoyu Islands". While, I respect what you commented based on what you perceived. Thanks. --
1240:"open" does not mean without any restraint at all. Would you write those things if you signed your edit with your real name? Would you write those things if your father or grandmother was reading your edits?
1543:
WP:FRINGE, science vs. politics, and many different Arbcom cases); the guiding principle behind it was, I think, quite sound. I could see something like that working very well with discrete topic areas such as
1266:
I think that if we were talking about only a couple of diffs, the whole topic wouldn't be part of the proposed decision. It's the repetition of the type of comments we are talking about that was the problem.
65:
54:
854:
With what could he do such lobbying? If he is really getting paid and that is working, the Knowledge at least at the paid topics or sections will become some payer's encyclopedia, but no longer be The 💕.
947:
for discussions and edits. If this problem cannot be solved properly now, I am afraid that the outcome of this Arbitration, after great efforts by so many Arbitrators, may still not be that optimistic.
1737:
been involved in any of this other than to address the clear CANVASS violations at the RFC/U. (I could not even point out Senkaku on a map, I fear) Newyorkbrad is sound on his reasoning. Cheers.
893:
Regarding accused of original research by someone, if I were you, the simplest, the most straightforward, the most efficient, and the clearest way to clarify this for myself would be to immediately
1935:
I agree with Nick. Knowledge cannot afford to continue the waste of its resources just to accommodate an individual who likes to show off his/her art of obscured writing (in whatever languages).
359:
60:
49:
1921:
Tenmei's continued participation also needs to be weighed against the likelihood that he or she will deter other editors through escalating disputes (including before a bright line is reached).
1373:)"; you may even want to list some of the more likely marginal seas explicitly. Also, I think that one thing you want to be absolutely sure of is if to decide whether or not you are including
396:
228:
2133:
Taiwan is an island in East Asia and it is disputed as China claims it. Do we want to include the whole of Taiwan with the other island groups? Maybe we do. But it should be clarified. --
1616:
1612:
1611:
requiring a full ArbCom case would be extremely helpful. Of course, right now, the community has the option to do that already. Unfortunately, in this case we tried that--if you look to
1648:
Create some sort of noticeboard that could handle this issue. This sounds terrible to me, because we certainly don't need more noticeboards, but I thought I should offer it as an option.
1148:. It is not easy to talk with a user like him, as, not only incivil, but he does not understand what WP is. Or he seems to be hostile to me. I don't think just a warning is good enough.
721:, where uninvolved admins review problems carefully. It is our hope that with these remedies, and better administrative oversight, the level of discourse on the talk page will improve.
43:
29:
1757:
life easier, I don't want to just push him off onto some other group of editors in a different dispute. Are there some more complex solutions we could try? For instance, could we put
1655:
Create a site-wide referendum (a la the Pending Changes or unsourced BLP problems) to see if there is support now for broad-based sanctions, or perhaps some certain subsection of them.
634:? The whole ordeal with him was civil until he decided to accuse other people of trolling. These two threads constitute the bulk of the recent interactions with him outside of ArbCom
593:
Whether or not desysop is an appropriate measure is another question, but his general attitude towards his critics is something I consider to be problematic. An example would be this
161:
939:
way for you to go: You just need simply to present the most directly related Reliable Source(s) supporting your assertion that was accused of Original Research. We do not need to go
965:
I perceive no evidence of "original research" by Qwyrxian. I also see absolutely no basis for bringing the interesting but irrelevant issue of paid editing into this discussion.
654:
they were being trolled; you come across as deliberately trying to provoke, which is incivil. The blocks were not a significant contributor to the problems with these articles.
390:
2048:
In principle Collect is correct, but given that the ultimate audience on these pages is the arbitrators and we are aware of the situation, I wouldn't worry overmuch about this.
1045:
and its "by sticking to an unsupportable allegation or viewpoint", or "promoting original research" as stated in "Proposed principles 3.1.1", if I have construed correctly. --
1411:
definition, which has the black outline. In this context, it would appear that according to the CIA factbook definition, the marginal seas of the Pacific Ocean are included.
38:
1845:
Bobthefish2 didn't change after WQA in Feburuary. Both Bobthefish2 and STSC are still incivil at this arbitration case and STSC's recent inappropriate posts can be found at
1888:
1815:
directly connected with the Senkaku ado be sufficient then? I would suggest that it is a better solution thatn that posited by the Queen of Hearts, to be sure. Cheers.
354:
1225:
is a space to openly explain the problems prior to arbitration, and an arbitration decision should refer to actions made prior to the arbitration case being accepted."
1311:
It's not my intention to overturn the outcome of the finding. I just want to ensure the procedure was conducted in a fair and correct manner to all parties concerned.
386:
182:
174:
1526:
doing its best to keep things moving. Still, if it has to be this slow, ideas like the ones proposed by NYB could speed up the discretionary sanctions element of it.
1382:
2185:
I think either a specific exclusion or inclusion should be done. The proper name of Taiwan has been a hot button topic for just about as long as I have been alive.
1104:, but that probably isn't going to be an issue with regard to this kind of dispute. Alternatively, "UN member and observer states" would include the Holy See, the
1887:
In my experience with Tenmei (which is now three years old) he or she was were highly uncivil and their talk page posts were almost impossible to understand - see
1085:
Thank you for recommending how we should word this. If arbitrators do wish to include disputes only involving Taiwan and another state, I'll propose your wording.
846:
there implied he may support not banning paid editors. In his talk page, when talking he might shoot himself in his foot in this RfAr case, or another metaphor
769:
That chart merely identifies who praised/blamed who during Arbitration itself; it provides no explanation for who actually caused problems with the articles.
328:
897:
provide him/them the most related Reliable Source(s) supporting my point/statement/argument, like what I did when I was challenged by your follower Oda Mari
348:
193:
171:
381:
319:
238:
166:
1505:
are authorized for . Should this measure fail to resolve the issues raised in the request for arbitration, a new request may be filed after XX days.
455:
324:
25:
1408:
981:"'Senkaku Islands' is the real English name for the islands" and "No" for question "Is the 'Senkaku Islands' the Japanese name for these Islands?"
334:
314:
197:
2194:
2180:
2164:
2142:
2119:
2057:
2043:
2024:
2008:
1984:
1944:
1930:
1915:
1900:
1864:
1839:
1824:
1806:
1788:
1771:
1746:
1717:
1704:
1683:
1670:
1603:
1584:
1564:
1533:
1520:
1471:
1439:
1420:
1394:
1351:
1320:
1306:
1291:
1276:
1261:
1246:
1234:
1213:
1192:
1178:
1159:
1122:
1095:
1079:
1054:
1027:
1006:
992:
974:
957:
920:
884:
864:
814:
793:
778:
764:
746:
727:
706:
680:
660:
648:
624:
609:
588:
574:
1652:
see this and the Liancourt instance as one of bad behavior on individual's part, while failing to recongize the systemic aspect of the dispute)
339:
252:
233:
714:
373:
264:
297:
1637:
Allow some specific number of admins to collectively declare the sanctions (maybe, 3?), and then have the issue reviewable afterward by AN
694:
1365:, but I can see how it might be confusing not to include them explicitly. For example, a quick look at the map PhilKnight linked to in
223:
152:
21:
1634:
the consensus (i.e., the community needs to actively argue that the sanctions are unnecessary, otherwise the admins declaration stands)
1712:
put in temporary injunctions while looking at certain things? I don't think temporary injunctions have been used in a long while... -
1996:
1972:
1645:
publicize that. This is akin to NewYorkBrad's option allowing the Committee to declare sanctions without actually hearing a case.
289:
129:
823:
598:
560:
558:
1204:
the remedies are often the hardest aspect of the case to decide, because they have such a direct effect on specific editors.
275:
218:
752:
210:
822:
Whether it is too late or not, now may I input some of my thought on user Qwyrxian's motivation of what I accused him in
1042:
448:
260:
158:
674:
to arbitration, and an arbitration decision should refer to actions made prior to the arbitration case being accepted.
565:
Since he has taken up the role of the supervising administrators, it's troubling that his misconduct is overlooked. --
270:
188:
309:
17:
107:
413:
1065:
As mentioned, the definition of "sovereign nations" can be ambiguous - especially where concerning states like
93:
1454:
To the arbs who aren't "ready" to devolve discretionary sanctions to administrators: Timetable, please. When
1038:
441:
1626:
Allow individual admins the right to declare the sanctions in this topic area, but require a review at AN
997:
If we apply the 3.1.9 Principle then "Diaoyu/Diaoyutai Islands" is also the English name for the islands.
1297:
finding would have been pretty much the same even if the diffs we're talking about here hadn't happened.
2160:
2138:
2053:
2004:
1980:
1516:
1404:
1366:
1302:
1272:
1209:
1200:
Thus, in this instance, I haven't voted on this proposal yet, but I expect to do so tonight or tomorrow.
1023:
970:
644:
605:
570:
148:
118:
2176:
2017:
That was a pretty canvassy notification, in that it was not neutral and targeted a specific project.
1802:
1620:
1416:
1242:
1091:
723:
676:
656:
620:
102:
2021:
1835:
1680:
1530:
1468:
585:
88:
1859:
1846:
1767:
1666:
1613:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive712#Senkaku Islands - admin COI intervention
1435:
1390:
1378:
1154:
1145:
880:
774:
755:
appears to do a fairly good job at identifying the individuals who have caused the most trouble.
713:
their own opinion in talk discussions when it disrupts the consensus process. (sometimes called
1407:
page is that it's intended to show the differences between the CIA definition in blue, and the
2039:
1911:
1820:
1784:
1742:
1430:
to be under these sanctions, they had to come back to AE just to establish that its covered.
1282:
the deliberation, and without pointing out that the comments have been deleted by the editor.
1169:
There're 6 support votes. What's the vote of Newyorkbrad on this proposal? Oppose or abstain?
2190:
2169:
This remedy is only for situations where there are protracted editorial disputes involving "
2156:
2134:
2115:
2049:
2000:
1976:
1926:
1896:
1700:
1599:
1560:
1512:
1497:
And if we decided to authorize discretionary sanctions in lieu of the case, something like:
1298:
1268:
1205:
1118:
1075:
1019:
966:
640:
601:
566:
415:
113:
1580:
1548:
1544:
1412:
1358:
1050:
988:
953:
916:
860:
810:
789:
760:
742:
734:
702:
2030:
Agree that CANVASS applies and suggest you substantially reword that notification to be
831:
418:
2018:
1940:
1831:
1677:
1527:
1465:
1347:
1316:
1287:
1257:
1230:
1188:
1174:
1070:
1002:
940:
907:
872:
582:
1854:
1763:
1713:
1662:
1555:
him/herself "stuck" with that dispute and without any backup to maintain vigilance.
1431:
1386:
1149:
876:
770:
852:"my fear of boomerangs isn't going to stop me from lobbing a whole bunch of sticks."
805:
process, I would have also dug out some user's motivation for impeding consensus. --
2035:
1907:
1816:
1780:
1738:
1502:
1487:
1370:
1362:
1105:
1015:
944:
718:
1112:, but would exclude Taiwan and states in similar situations, as well as excluding
1100:"UN member states" would exclude one generally-accepted "sovereign nation" in the
137:
1037:
for naming/title issue. It was about an edit of the leading section of that page
557:
Hmm... the matter with the Magog the Ogre has not been raised by the arbitrators
2186:
2111:
1922:
1892:
1696:
1595:
1556:
2155:
or any other articles, just that it is not covered by this particular remedy.)
1576:
1046:
984:
949:
912:
856:
847:
806:
785:
756:
738:
698:
1936:
1343:
1312:
1283:
1253:
1226:
1184:
1170:
1113:
998:
417:
1906:
when Knowledge has seen a significant decrease in active editors. Cheers.
906:
be like what Bob was misled by you. He naively and inappropriately went to
2084:
when they are going above and beyond to show they are willing to improve.
1427:
1101:
1811:
Would not a simple topic ban on Senkaku, and a 1RR restriction on areas
2110:
The discouragement of this case is plain enough, but not much else. --
2152:
2092:
After jumping through so many hoops, what else was I expected to do?
1374:
1066:
1617:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive712#Sanctions
2095:
Stepping back, I also adopt DGG's words as if they were my own:
1033:
One thing needing to be clarified is that discussion/dispute was
1109:
828:
this proposed decision page under header "Edit wars are harmful"
695:
Proposed final decision/Proposed principles/Purpose of Knowledge
1501:
The request for arbitration is declined at this time. However,
419:
2076:
Stepping back, I adopt Nihonjoe's assessment as axiomatic:
1361:
is, per our article, a part of the Pacific Ocean, as is the
1486:
Temporary injunction: Articles relating to are subject to
1337:
Discretionary sanctions for naming of geographical regions
1661:
long before they have a chance to be overly disruptive.
1357:
I was actually just about to suggest something similar.
1043:
Knowledge:Disruptive editing#Signs of disruptive editing
2101:
2082:
1850:
1142:
1139:
1136:
980:
932:
900:
898:
851:
843:
839:
835:
827:
637:
635:
594:
429:
344:
302:
178:
1575:
surrounding the topics under discretionary sanctions.
1450:
Not ready to devolve discretionary sanctions to admins
850:, he expressed he would try to lobby all arbitrators:
2086:-- 日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:15, 7 April 2010
1116:and states/organizations in similar situations. --
1889:Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer/Archive 1
449:
8:
2127:Clarification regarding the island of Taiwan
1630:where the default/no consensus option is to
1511:These are rough ideas ... comments welcome.
1183:I suppose all the others are abstain votes.
1383:Republic of China – United States relations
1403:Hi Qwyrxian, my reading of the map on the
456:
442:
125:
1409:International Hydrographic Organization
931:Qwyrxian, from your recent input there
834:. His comments (and edit summaries) on
128:
935:most" above, here I add one more: the
7:
229:Clarification and Amendment requests
1995:: This debate has been notified to
1971:: This debate has been notified to
1405:Borders of the oceans#Pacific Ocean
1367:Borders of the oceans#Pacific Ocean
1165:3.3.4.1 Tenmei banned for one year
36:
1733:action. Please note that I have
873:the original research noticeboard
553:Issues relating to administrators
1997:Knowledge talk:WikiProject China
1973:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Japan
1503:standard discretionary sanctions
1488:standard discretionary sanctions
489:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
136:
693:In the respectful Arbitrators "
476:Arbitrators active on this case
2058:13:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
2044:11:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
2025:11:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
2009:11:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
1985:10:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
1931:11:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
1916:11:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
1901:10:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
1865:09:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
1840:02:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
1825:01:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
1807:00:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
1789:23:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
1772:22:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
1747:15:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
1705:18:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
1684:14:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
1671:06:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
1615:, specifically the subsection
1604:18:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
1585:05:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
1565:04:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
1534:04:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
1521:03:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
1472:02:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
1440:23:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
1421:14:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
1395:04:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
1352:03:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
1321:04:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
1307:02:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
1292:02:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
1277:22:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
1262:19:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
1247:19:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
1235:19:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
1214:22:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
1193:21:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
1179:18:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
1160:16:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
1146:User talk:Oda Mari#Provocation
1123:08:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
1096:19:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
1080:15:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
975:18:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
958:18:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
921:23:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
885:12:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
865:04:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
815:05:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
794:04:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
779:01:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
765:00:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
747:23:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
737:article can be unlocked soon.
728:11:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
707:23:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
681:23:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
661:23:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
649:16:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
625:14:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
610:03:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
589:02:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
575:00:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
1:
832:"Still banning paid editors?"
1478:administrators, for example.
1061:Remedy 8 - Sovereign nations
360:Conflict of interest reports
2195:22:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
2181:22:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
2165:14:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
2143:13:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
2120:02:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
2104:-- DGG 04:42, 9 March 2010
1945:05:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
1718:08:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
1055:19:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
1028:15:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
1007:12:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
993:20:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
895:(now not meaning right now)
840:14:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
836:13:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
665:Also, to be very blunt, we
189:Search archived proceedings
2214:
234:Arbitrator motion requests
18:Knowledge talk:Arbitration
1069:. I would suggest that "
1039:Senkaku Islands dispute
719:Arbitration enforcement
689:Original Research issue
469:Behaviour on this page:
844:00:43, 31 August (UTC)
430:Track related changes
290:Arbitration Committee
130:Knowledge Arbitration
2032:scrupulously neutral
1621:Japan-Korea disputes
239:Enforcement requests
167:Guide to arbitration
99:Drafting arbitrators
1131:Remedy 3.3.7 - STSC
1641:article stability.
1379:Republic of Taiwan
261:Contentious topics
159:Arbitration policy
2201:
2146:
2130:
2123:
2107:
2097:
2089:
2078:
2073:
2065:
2027:
2014:
2011:
1987:
1863:
1728:As the RFC/U was
1158:
548:Elen of the Roads
466:
465:
433:
401:
271:General sanctions
219:All open requests
149:About arbitration
122:
111:
97:
80:
72:Proposed decision
69:
58:
47:
2205:
2179:
2147:
2131:
2124:
2108:
2098:
2090:
2079:
2074:
2067:
2019:Heimstern Läufer
2016:
2013:
1991:
1989:
1967:
1857:
1805:
1678:Heimstern Läufer
1528:Heimstern Läufer
1466:Heimstern Läufer
1245:
1152:
1094:
726:
679:
659:
630:How was he even
623:
583:Heimstern Läufer
458:
451:
444:
432:
427:
420:
399:
355:Clerk procedures
347:
305:
276:Editor sanctions
253:Active sanctions
211:Open proceedings
181:
140:
126:
116:
105:
91:
74:
63:
52:
41:
2213:
2212:
2208:
2207:
2206:
2204:
2203:
2202:
2177:John Vandenberg
2175:
2129:
2072:
1803:John Vandenberg
1801:
1726:
1549:Senkaku Islands
1545:Liancourt Rocks
1452:
1359:South China Sea
1339:
1243:John Vandenberg
1241:
1222:
1167:
1133:
1092:John Vandenberg
1090:
1063:
735:Senkaku Islands
724:John Vandenberg
722:
691:
677:John Vandenberg
675:
657:John Vandenberg
655:
621:John Vandenberg
619:
555:
498:John Vandenberg
478:
462:
428:
422:
421:
416:
406:
405:
404:
393:
376:
366:
365:
364:
351:
343:
331:
306:
301:
292:
282:
281:
280:
255:
245:
244:
243:
213:
203:
200:
185:
177:
155:
124:
103:John Vandenberg
34:
33:
32:
30:Senkaku Islands
12:
11:
5:
2211:
2209:
2200:
2199:
2198:
2197:
2167:
2128:
2125:
2106:
2105:
2088:
2087:
2071:
2070:Discouragement
2068:
2066:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2061:
2060:
2028:
1988:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1725:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1708:
1707:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1653:
1649:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1635:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1588:
1587:
1569:
1568:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1479:
1451:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1398:
1397:
1338:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1221:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1201:
1181:
1166:
1163:
1132:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1086:
1062:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
963:
962:
961:
960:
926:
925:
924:
923:
888:
887:
820:
819:
818:
817:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
690:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
663:
615:
614:
613:
612:
554:
551:
550:
549:
546:
537:
536:
533:
530:
529:Cool Hand Luke
521:
520:
517:
514:
511:
508:
505:
502:
501:Kirill Lokshin
499:
496:
493:
490:
487:
477:
474:
464:
463:
461:
460:
453:
446:
438:
435:
434:
424:
423:
414:
412:
411:
408:
407:
403:
402:
394:
389:
384:
378:
377:
372:
371:
368:
367:
363:
362:
357:
352:
342:
337:
332:
327:
322:
317:
312:
307:
300:
294:
293:
288:
287:
284:
283:
279:
278:
273:
268:
257:
256:
251:
250:
247:
246:
242:
241:
236:
231:
226:
221:
215:
214:
209:
208:
205:
204:
202:
201:
196:
191:
186:
176:
169:
164:
156:
151:
145:
142:
141:
133:
132:
89:AlexandrDmitri
39:Main case page
37:
35:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2210:
2196:
2192:
2188:
2184:
2183:
2182:
2178:
2172:
2168:
2166:
2162:
2158:
2154:
2149:
2148:
2145:
2144:
2140:
2136:
2126:
2122:
2121:
2117:
2113:
2103:
2100:
2099:
2096:
2093:
2085:
2081:
2080:
2077:
2069:
2059:
2055:
2051:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2041:
2037:
2033:
2029:
2026:
2023:
2020:
2015:
2012:
2010:
2006:
2002:
1998:
1994:
1990:
1986:
1982:
1978:
1974:
1970:
1966:
1965:
1946:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1933:
1932:
1928:
1924:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1913:
1909:
1904:
1903:
1902:
1898:
1894:
1890:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1866:
1861:
1856:
1852:
1848:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1837:
1833:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1804:
1798:
1797:
1790:
1786:
1782:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1769:
1765:
1760:
1756:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1736:
1731:
1723:
1719:
1715:
1710:
1709:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1693:
1692:
1685:
1682:
1679:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1659:
1654:
1650:
1647:
1643:
1639:
1636:
1633:
1629:
1625:
1624:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1609:
1605:
1601:
1597:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1567:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1550:
1546:
1541:
1540:
1535:
1532:
1529:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1506:
1504:
1499:
1498:
1496:
1492:
1489:
1484:
1483:
1480:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1470:
1467:
1462:
1457:
1449:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1336:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1244:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1202:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1164:
1162:
1161:
1156:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1140:
1137:
1130:
1124:
1121:
1120:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1093:
1087:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1078:
1077:
1072:
1068:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
995:
994:
990:
986:
982:
979:
978:
977:
976:
972:
968:
959:
955:
951:
946:
942:
938:
933:
930:
929:
928:
927:
922:
918:
914:
909:
905:
901:
899:
896:
892:
891:
890:
889:
886:
882:
878:
874:
869:
868:
867:
866:
862:
858:
853:
849:
845:
841:
837:
833:
829:
825:
816:
812:
808:
803:
795:
791:
787:
782:
781:
780:
776:
772:
768:
767:
766:
762:
758:
754:
750:
749:
748:
744:
740:
736:
731:
730:
729:
725:
720:
716:
711:
710:
709:
708:
704:
700:
696:
688:
682:
678:
673:
668:
664:
662:
658:
652:
651:
650:
646:
642:
638:
636:
633:
629:
628:
627:
626:
622:
611:
607:
603:
599:
595:
592:
591:
590:
587:
584:
579:
578:
577:
576:
572:
568:
563:
561:
559:
552:
547:
544:
543:
542:
541:
534:
531:
528:
527:
526:
525:
518:
515:
512:
509:
506:
504:Mailer diablo
503:
500:
497:
494:
491:
488:
485:
484:
483:
482:
475:
473:
470:
459:
454:
452:
447:
445:
440:
439:
437:
436:
431:
426:
425:
410:
409:
398:
395:
392:
388:
385:
383:
380:
379:
375:
370:
369:
361:
358:
356:
353:
350:
346:
341:
338:
336:
333:
330:
326:
323:
321:
318:
316:
313:
311:
308:
304:
299:
296:
295:
291:
286:
285:
277:
274:
272:
269:
266:
262:
259:
258:
254:
249:
248:
240:
237:
235:
232:
230:
227:
225:
224:Case requests
222:
220:
217:
216:
212:
207:
206:
199:
195:
192:
190:
187:
184:
180:
175:
173:
170:
168:
165:
163:
160:
157:
154:
150:
147:
146:
144:
143:
139:
135:
134:
131:
127:
123:
120:
115:
109:
104:
100:
95:
90:
86:
82:
78:
73:
67:
62:
56:
51:
45:
40:
31:
27:
23:
19:
2171:proper names
2170:
2132:
2109:
2094:
2091:
2075:
2031:
1992:
1968:
1812:
1758:
1754:
1734:
1729:
1727:
1631:
1627:
1553:
1500:
1485:
1460:
1455:
1453:
1371:Marginal sea
1363:Sea of Japan
1340:
1223:
1182:
1168:
1134:
1117:
1106:Cook Islands
1074:
1064:
1034:
1013:
964:
936:
903:
894:
821:
715:stonewalling
692:
671:
666:
631:
616:
564:
556:
539:
538:
523:
522:
516:Roger Davies
480:
479:
468:
467:
98:
84:
83:
81:
76:
2157:Newyorkbrad
2135:Eraserhead1
2050:Newyorkbrad
2001:Phoenix7777
1977:Phoenix7777
1513:Newyorkbrad
1299:Newyorkbrad
1269:Newyorkbrad
1206:Newyorkbrad
1119:Philosopher
1076:Philosopher
1020:Newyorkbrad
1018:violation.
967:Newyorkbrad
824:my evidence
641:Bobthefish2
602:Bobthefish2
567:Bobthefish2
507:Newyorkbrad
492:David Fuchs
194:Ban appeals
172:Noticeboard
114:Newyorkbrad
2034:. Cheers.
1461:individual
1413:PhilKnight
1220:3.2.9 STSC
945:disruptive
902:. I won't
848:boomerangs
753:this chart
751:Actually,
532:Iridescent
510:PhilKnight
400:(pre-2016)
387:Statistics
320:Procedures
85:Case clerk
1832:SirFozzie
1628:afterward
1114:Palestine
842:, and on
524:Inactive:
519:SirFozzie
325:Elections
1855:Oda Mari
1764:Qwyrxian
1724:Concerns
1714:Penwhale
1663:Qwyrxian
1432:Qwyrxian
1428:Island X
1387:Qwyrxian
1150:Oda Mari
1102:Holy See
877:Qwyrxian
771:Qwyrxian
632:attacked
495:Jclemens
486:Casliber
61:Workshop
50:Evidence
28: |
24: |
22:Requests
20: |
2036:Collect
1908:Collect
1817:Collect
1781:Collect
1739:Collect
1730:heavily
941:WP:NORN
937:easiest
908:WP:NORN
540:Recused
481:Active:
397:Reports
335:History
315:Members
310:Contact
298:Discuss
162:(CU/OS)
2187:Risker
2153:Taiwan
2112:Tenmei
2022:(talk)
1923:Nick-D
1893:Nick-D
1759:Tenmei
1697:Risker
1681:(talk)
1632:accept
1596:Risker
1557:Risker
1531:(talk)
1469:(talk)
1375:Taiwan
1144:, and
1108:, and
1067:Taiwan
667:expect
586:(talk)
513:Risker
340:Clerks
198:Report
112:&
2141:: -->
1577:Cla68
1071:state
1047:Lvhis
1016:WP:OR
985:Lvhis
950:Lvhis
913:Lvhis
857:Lvhis
807:Lvhis
786:Lvhis
757:Cla68
739:Cla68
699:Lvhis
672:prior
545:Coren
374:Audit
16:<
2191:talk
2161:talk
2139:talk
2137:<
2116:talk
2054:talk
2040:talk
2005:talk
1993:Note
1981:talk
1969:Note
1941:talk
1937:STSC
1927:talk
1912:talk
1897:talk
1860:talk
1851:here
1849:and
1847:here
1836:talk
1821:talk
1785:talk
1768:talk
1743:talk
1701:talk
1667:talk
1600:talk
1581:talk
1561:talk
1517:talk
1436:talk
1417:talk
1391:talk
1348:talk
1344:STSC
1317:talk
1313:STSC
1303:talk
1288:talk
1284:STSC
1273:talk
1258:talk
1254:STSC
1231:talk
1227:STSC
1210:talk
1189:talk
1185:STSC
1175:talk
1171:STSC
1155:talk
1135:See
1110:Niue
1051:talk
1024:talk
1003:talk
999:STSC
989:talk
971:talk
954:talk
917:talk
881:talk
875:.
861:talk
811:talk
790:talk
775:talk
761:talk
743:talk
703:talk
645:talk
639:. --
606:talk
571:talk
535:Xeno
391:Talk
382:Talk
349:Talk
329:Talk
183:Talk
153:Talk
119:Talk
108:Talk
94:Talk
77:Talk
66:Talk
55:Talk
44:Talk
26:Case
1999:――
1975:――
1813:not
1735:not
1716:|
1547:or
1456:are
1035:not
265:Log
2193:)
2163:)
2118:)
2056:)
2042:)
2007:)
1983:)
1943:)
1929:)
1914:)
1899:)
1838:)
1823:)
1787:)
1770:)
1755:my
1745:)
1703:)
1669:)
1602:)
1583:)
1563:)
1519:)
1438:)
1419:)
1393:)
1381:,
1377:,
1350:)
1319:)
1305:)
1290:)
1275:)
1260:)
1233:)
1212:)
1191:)
1177:)
1141:,
1138:,
1053:)
1026:)
1005:)
991:)
973:)
956:)
948:--
919:)
904:do
883:)
863:)
855:--
838:,
813:)
792:)
784:--
777:)
763:)
745:)
705:)
647:)
608:)
573:)
101::
87::
70:—
59:—
48:—
2189:(
2159:(
2114:(
2052:(
2038:(
2003:(
1979:(
1939:(
1925:(
1910:(
1895:(
1862:)
1858:(
1834:(
1819:(
1783:(
1766:(
1741:(
1699:(
1665:(
1598:(
1579:(
1559:(
1515:(
1434:(
1415:(
1389:(
1346:(
1315:(
1301:(
1286:(
1271:(
1256:(
1229:(
1208:(
1187:(
1173:(
1157:)
1153:(
1049:(
1022:(
1001:(
987:(
969:(
952:(
915:(
879:(
859:(
809:(
788:(
773:(
759:(
741:(
701:(
643:(
604:(
569:(
457:e
450:t
443:v
345:+
303:+
267:)
263:(
179:+
121:)
117:(
110:)
106:(
96:)
92:(
79:)
75:(
68:)
64:(
57:)
53:(
46:)
42:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
