1405:. Similar searches can be done to find those articles with 30 or more archives (around 50 have 30 or more; for 20 or more it is over 100, for 10 or more is over 500). This presumes that talk page archives are of the form "Archive XX" - there are some of the form "ArchiveXX", but none for 30 or more archives - and that thematic talk page archiving (by topic rather than date) is not in place, as it is for some articles. Of course, the number of talk page archives is also a function of whether archiving is done manually or by bot, how large each archive page is, and when the article was created (older articles have had more time to accumulate talk page archives). It would be trivial to automate tracking pages with large number of talk page archives, and it might be worth the community keeping more of an eye on such articles, as talk page archive bloat is definitely one of the symptoms that can indicate an ongoing and unresolved problem. The key is finding someone willing to look at the quality of the talk page discussions if problems do exist.
1020:". In fact, if I interpret Warshy aright, Tom and Nishidani's plan is Far more Evil than that. They want an extremely biassed version of the article to become featured, so that they can parade it around and achieve glory and praise ("political and clear status gain"). They will achieve this because "the article they created, this biased hack-of-a-job of a brainchild, has achieved FA status". They will apparently "stop at nothing" to achieve this! They aim to "crush and to obliterate out of existence any opposition". Note that this imagery of plucky resistance to a ruthless war machine follows from Moonraker2's astounding claim that a request to edit in accordance with Knowledge (XXG) policy and guidelines sounds "just like what the professional classes (and, indeed, all other classes) were asked to do in Stalinist Russia, and it ended in the Great Purge."
1192:
and what its intended function is. There are absolutely no grounds to infer that anything beyond the plain meaning of the words is intended. Your apparent habit of phrasing such accusations as sarcasm and rhetorical questions rather than stating them outright also comes across as rather manipulative and dishonest. If you have an accusation to make, make it; to make an unfounded accusation through implication and rhetoric is still an unfounded accusation (and unfounded accusation are considered personal attacks as well as disruptive behavior). I would encourage you to think hard on whether that is the perception you had intended to impart, and to strike out those parts of your comments above that, on reflection, do not accurately communicate your meaning. --
885:@Cavalry: Yes, IMO you do need the word "miserable" in there; it's well chosen. It expresses the state of mind of the unfortunate editors who work, with little enough thanks, to defend Knowledge (XXG) against persistent misuse and disruption. (Hello, MONGO, are you there?) A lot of misery has been in play while those 21 archives were produced, and it's surely not necessary to remove all words with any hint of feeling in them from the FoF's. If you'll all pardon my saying so, there's enough starch and lawyerspeak in the arbcom decisions anyway.
1222:(same link as yours) I explain the actual reason I used a green font, in answer to a question from AGK about it. I'm not going to discuss further with you, MoreThings. I don't see any point, and I get depressed enough from typing this one reply. I'll just record that I believe you sincere in ascribing all that stuff to me. Sincere but mistaken. Thank you, Xover, I appreciate your intervention.
611:... has engaged in a persistent pattern of disruptive behavior, including advocacy rather than neutral editing, misuse and extreme monopolization of talkpages to the point of rendering them useless, repeated false and unsupported allegations against fellow editors, failure to improve her behavior after having been repeatedly counseled in the past, and continued disruptive behavior ...
358:
up" with what the issues the arbitrators see. This case is not only relatively straight-forward, I think in general, it's the sense of the drafting arbitrators and the community that things "match-up". Things have gotten relatively messy, discussion wise, over the last week, and we're taking into account the thoughts of parties above (and elsewhere) that it's about time to wrap things up.
547:... has engaged in a persistent pattern of disruptive behavior, including advocacy rather than neutral editing, misuse and extreme monopolization of talkpages to the point of rendering them useless, repeated false and unsupported allegations against fellow editors, failure to improve her behavior after having been repeatedly counseled in the past, and continued disruptive behavior ...
1293:
FWIW (as the number of talk page archives was mentioned in this case), the articles on
Knowledge (XXG) with over 50 talk page archives appear to be the following (17 at time of writing, in descending order, with number of talk page archives in brackets - someone could add the article date of creation
815:
to the letter. We've all seen community sanctions enacted in under 48 hours; I'm more concerned about longer discussions with few participants (several of whom are likely to be involved) than shorter discussions where there is a large number of participants who agree that the sanction is required. On
501:
As the local card-carrying expert on Bad
Grammar, I hereby opine that "repeated false allegations" is syntactically ambiguous, allowing both a reading where "repeated" is an adjective modifying "allegations" and one where "repeated" is a finite verb and "allegations" its object, but that the first of
1128:
on the arbitration page. It is exactly the kind of friendly, collegiate behaviour we want to encourage here. It's exactly the sort of admin behaviour we rely on arbcom to ignore. But do you think it might be indicative of the personal animosity that led to this case in the first place? Do you think
975:
It's kind of unusual, at least among the cases I've followed, to see no proposals from individual arbs adorn a
Proposed Decision page. While I hesitate to suggest that the rest of the committee are all cowering in fear of the primary drafter Brad (that would be unusual), I'm wondering if nobody sees
915:
Bishonen is right as always...best never to argue with anyone whose alter-ego/best-pal is from the
Cretaceous...unwise. Excessive article talkpage archives...more often than not, they allow one to review (if they wish to relive the horror) of what hasn't been accomplished rather than what has....how
561:
making each of the participles the past tense after the shared auxiliary 'has'. Academics who are expert in analysing Brad's handwriting have commented that he often wrote a ligature to represent '-ed' in such a way that it resembled '-ure', so I can see how it was easy for you to make that mistake.
1420:
Thank you for making this interesting list. I think most of the highest-number talk page archives are predictable, if not sensible. The only ones at the top I find especially surprising are circumcision and R&I. Farther down, anarchism and
Jehovah's Witnesses mildly surprise meâalthough I would
1191:
More, to me you come off here as first outright asserting, and then merely implying, wrongdoing on
Bishonen's part. The comments from Bish that you give diff-links to address this very question: the plain meaning of the words more than adequately explain why the word âgreenâ appears in that context
993:
I am aware that most workshop suggestions go nowhere, and also that Brad, as he said somewhere (where.. ?), was leaving out some users from the
Proposed Decision by way of giving them a "last chance". I don't know if that referred to the users I have in mind. But, whoever they were (Nishidani? Me?
357:
It depends on the case. While I speak only for myself (and not for the other arbs) Usually, when things are brought to the workshop level, it's not only to gauge the community's reaction to what could be a complicated decision, it's to get valuable input on whether the issue the parties see "match
782:
Yes, I agree that it's too easy. We are likely to reverse (or freshly reconsider) alleged community bans that had almost no input, or where the participants were canvassed, or where the discussion was closed too quickly. It seems that what's NYB meant to capture, but this kind of shortcoming is a
1602:
Thanks from me also. I'm actually pretty satisfied with the current wordingâwhich is not to say that it couldn't be improved, or that we shouldn't strive for a version that will make people more comfortable. You might want to draw this discussion to Kirill's attention, as I believe it was he who
555:
has engaged in a persistent pattern of disruptive behavior, including advocacy rather than neutral editing, misuse and extreme monopolization of talkpages to the point of rendering them useless, repeated false and unsupported allegations against fellow editors, failure to improve her behavior
1236:
I'm saying,that I believe in that diff "Green dye" = "Green die". I can't say it any clearer than that. I'm saying that the reason I made my very first post to
Bishonen's talk page was that it seemed to me that she had taken a personal dislike to Nina Green. Everything that I've seen since has
900:
You're right in a way, it is miserable: but if I was to put my feelings into these votes, I'd get an incivility block no doubt! It's a thin line between appropriate and inappropriate language, and I don't want good faith editors to be censured because they were once involved in an 'officially
469:
No, it's correct the way it is. The listed behaviours are examples of what she "has engaged in", and aren't required to use parallel grammatical construction. "NinaGreen ... has engaged in a persistent pattern of disruptive behavior, including (list of behaviours)."
1441:
The reason why proposed principle 3 causes difficulties (in my humble opinion) is that principle 2 is actually a consequence of principle 3, not the other way around. I also suspect that although the sentiment is clear, the vocabulary employed is not quite the
1540:
This is good stuff. I'm not sure how many arbitrators will see it, though, at the tail-end of a case like this. Hopefully one of the arbs will comment here and propose new wording or ordering of these principles in another case based on what you've said here.
75:
69:
58:
246:
816:
the other hand, I'm also concerned that AN and ANI have become echo chambers to some extent, with the same small number of users and administrators consistently participating in these discussions, and little input from the larger community.
910:
64:
53:
946:
486:
I'm not sure about this. I thought I wrote it as a series of noun phrases: "advocacy, ... monopolization, ... allegations, ... failure, ... behavior." I will, however, defer to any consensus that may emerge on this important matter.
800:
That's a good point, many sanctioned editors feel the sanction was unfair to them and I can see how, absent context, it could appear like we're encouraging people to appeal on that basis (which rarely ever gets someone anywhere).
47:
29:
1559:
I tend to agree with these changes; "unseemly" always seemed unseemly for precisely that reason. I've found your proposals very helpful throughout this case, RexxS. Will try to remember this the next times these issues come up.
987:. Shell and Luke commented favorably on it as a "useful corollary" (to RexSS' proposal, also ignored in the Proposed Decision), while MoreThings commented so grossly, in typical "helper" attack mode, that Shell removed his post.
1154:
Dude, seriously?!? You infer conduct unbecoming (and so forth) from use of text in a certain color? I mean, there are a bunch of complaints you could make about Bishâand I might even concur if you complained green text was
750:
Then at least you can rely on a collective consensus about what the usual standards are (adequate discussion time, clear consensus to sanction, etc.). It's not a perfect recipe, but might be a starting point to improve on.
591:
He is listing noun phrases, not verb phrases. The phrase "has ... including advocacy rather than neutral editing" is nonsensical, and the "including" can only refer back to the "persistent pattern of disruptive behavior".
1294:
to give more context, or even calculate the amount of text in these archives, and also indicate the article assessment level, and also whether lots of discussion necessarily equates to lots of editing of the article):
42:
854:
I had a little giggle at David Fuchs' declaration that "Restating a principle can't hurt". Isn't that Nina's motto, too.. ? Which suggests to me that if the restating is taken far enough, it can hurt like a bastard.
810:
I'm not entirely persuaded; we review almost every request that comes to us one way or the other, and have often decided not to overturn community-based sanctions even if they don't meet the fairly ill-defined
502:
these readings is by far the more plausible from the context, making NYB's version grammatically coherent. You don't really want me to start explaining the analysis of why the nominal interpretation wins out.
994:
Helpers? Tom?), it seems a bit paradoxical to be giving people last chances without telling them they were ever in hot water (such as through an admonition). Can't be much of a learning experience for them.
984:(just a few examples) and this workshop proposal: "It is disruptive for established Wikipedians to countermand good advice to new editors, or otherwise encourage them to continue flouting community norms."
960:
1508:'adversarial' as it's not solely disruptive editing that is toxic, more broadly it is the attitude of editors who see a disagreement as a contest, rather than an opportunity to seek common ground;
976:
any importance in the problem of the established users who built a Great Wall of China around Nina's talkpage, blowing off any counselling that could have been useful to her. (I name these users
1135:
Ey up! It looks to me like there is something on the decision page about behaviour during arbcom cases, after all. Perhaps it's my monitor, or perhaps it's not green ink at allâperhaps it's
1206:
Oh. Nina is called "Green"! At last the penny dropped and I got what MoreThings was talking about. You think I was making a stupid pun about Nina's name in a recent evidence section not
1604:
766:
I think its implied that Arbcom is the one that will decide its unfair. Any party can cry unfair all they want, but if it wasn't then their review gets rejected like any other case.
452:
Just a minor grammatical correction: "NinaGreen ... has engaged in ... repeated false ... failure to improve ..." â that should be "failed" as part of a list of past participles. --
830:
If we give no deference to community sanctions, shouldn't we be radical and say we give no deference? I tend to give deference proportional to the rigorousness of the procedure.
980:, the section "Nina's helpers".) Is Nina supposed to be the single guilty party, and to have achieved her confident disruption all by herself, without encouragement? See
676:
1588:
Please feel free to use and adapt any or all of it at any time, Risker; and thank you for your kind words, CHL. I'm only too pleased if I've been of some assistance. --
920:...with little to no net improvement in article quality...how can there be when so much time is wasted dealing with SPA's and fringe/preposterous theory POV pushers....
1132:
Anyhoo, now that we've had Green dye, anyone who makes a wisecrack about admins arranging for editors to be taken out back and shot should be taken out back and shot.
1616:
1597:
1583:
1569:
1550:
1534:
1430:
1414:
1280:
1266:
1246:
1230:
1201:
1186:
1177:
I'm sure you're right, X. And I'm sure
Bishonen always refers to green text as "Green dye!" Or perhaps it's an exclamation she tags on to the end of posts at random.
1172:
1148:
1106:
1091:
1078:
1060:
1047:
1029:
1002:
928:
893:
874:
863:
839:
825:
805:
795:
775:
760:
714:
671:
657:
643:
620:
603:
583:
539:
523:
509:
496:
479:
461:
441:
415:
390:
367:
352:
338:
324:
310:
294:
1450:
The purpose of
Knowledge (XXG) is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors.
783:
different thing than unfairness. Sure, ArbCom decides what "unfairness" means, but we should also let appellees know what we're actually looking for in appeals.
1521:'Confrontational' as I believe most folks can agree on what constitutes confrontational conduct a lot more readily than they will agree on what unseemly means.
942:
906:
25:
1011:
It's a bit late in the date to be debating evidence, but I think Bishonen misinterprets Warshy when she says Warshy "Implies it's a goal in itself to
742:
As Luke says, it's probably too easy for any party to cry "unfair", and then there's no objective criterion to measure by. How about something like:
1038:
I did like that proposal. I can put it up quickly to see what happens, but there may be tomatoes lobbed for potentially stalling the closure vote.
938:
902:
1607:, though I might have missed one), and I have adapted it in some of my own drafts while fine-tuning it to particulars of the individual cases.
21:
767:
663:
917:
432:
I'm done. I thought I was doing too well, and I was right - I have reached the end of my tether; I am taking these pages off my watchlist.
514:
Thanks. For the record, though, I didn't actually write the sentence in question; the decision was drafted for me by Christopher Marlowe.
536:
506:
343:
Why? Are there not enough (or too many) parties to comment on the proposals before they formally come here...or is it something else?
528:
Tsk tsk. Poor Poet-Arb, that would be thought our chief. Now we understand why no eye-witness has come forward who has ever actually
1271:
I find as a fact that the allegation by MoreThings is meritless. It should not be repeated, and discussion of it need not continue.
1485:
1480:
a constructive and collaborative outlook. Editors are expected to be reasonably courteous to one another, even during disputes.
1129:
it might qualify as just just plain nasty? As crowing? Provocative? As, heaven forfend, an attack? Nope, I'm sure you're right.
1574:
There are some good ideas in this, RexxS. Would you mind if I take advantage of this and do some work with our "boilerplate"?
990:
Brad, Sir Fozzie, do you see the countermanding of good advice as having any importance for how NinaGreen's editing developed?
1458:
901:
miserable discussion'. People can make up their own minds about that sort of thing without us having to resort to adjectives.
812:
533:
503:
1493:
1517:
remove 'in a dignified fashion' â a laudable objective, but impossible to quantify give the breadth of cultural norms here;
1257:
I have rarely seen such a far-fetched accusation of bad faith. Be mindful of the new discretionary sanctions, MoreThings.
1603:
developed much of the phraseology; he's been using it since the fall of 2007 (the first time I can quickly locate was in
870:
Restating a principle once is hopefully a reminder, restating it until people run away in frustration - yep, that hurts.
17:
1304:
934:
634:
You know, I bet they aren't having nearly as much fun on the talkpage of that other case that I'm not drafting. :P
1376:
1370:
1120:
And I suppose going out of your way to get an editor called Nina Green banned and then dancing on her grave with
771:
667:
1466:
1565:
1426:
1262:
1043:
951:
I did a brief search to find articles with lots of talk page archives. I'll post the results in a new section.
835:
791:
437:
746:"... such as a finding that (1) some aspect of the community discussion fell short of usual standards, ..."Â ?
1382:
1352:
1454:
1612:
1276:
1102:
1074:
1025:
639:
519:
492:
411:
386:
348:
320:
121:
1489:
1546:
1410:
1394:
1242:
1182:
1144:
956:
1561:
1422:
1340:
1334:
1258:
1039:
831:
787:
694:
616:
599:
475:
433:
363:
334:
306:
286:
Oh template template template template template template template. Get on with it already. Please.
132:
1227:
1088:
1057:
999:
890:
860:
648:
Yes, I'd heard it was an open secret that all of Kiril's work was actually written with Bacon. --
291:
1388:
1364:
1316:
1310:
1124:
is entirely within community norms. It is no way disruptive or provocative, nor is writing in
921:
871:
802:
571:
406:
Thank you for your answers (which have also answered the next questions I was going to ask).
1608:
1579:
1504:
re-order since expectations of behaviour are predicated upon the description of the process;
1328:
1272:
1098:
1097:
Cower, no. Agree with me more, sometimes. (That's not a reference to this case, of course.)
1070:
1021:
821:
635:
515:
488:
407:
382:
344:
316:
116:
1214:. Is that it? Believe me, that was just bad luck. I like to think my jokes are generally a
1160:
1593:
1542:
1530:
1406:
1238:
1197:
1178:
1168:
1140:
952:
756:
653:
579:
556:
after having been repeatedly counseled in the past, and continued disruptive behavior ...
457:
567:
1358:
1346:
680:
612:
595:
566:
makes the exact point that I do. As my contention is the only one to be backed up by a
471:
359:
330:
302:
254:
127:
1066:
My colleagues cowering in fear of me has not been an issue since, approximately, ever.
1457:
through the use of polite discussionâinvolving the wider community, if necessaryâand
1322:
1223:
1084:
1053:
995:
886:
856:
287:
96:
267:
107:
1575:
817:
263:
552:
making each of the past participles purely adjectival. Whereas I parsed it as:
1589:
1526:
1298:
1218:
funnier than a "dye"/"die" pun.. ! (Not a boastful claim; most people's are.)
1193:
1164:
925:
752:
649:
575:
453:
245:
786:
I think your proposed alternative is sufficiently unlawyerly; will ask Brad.
631:
Your should really be and , but other than that you make some valid points.
1446:
at times. I'd suggest you might consider some minor amendments like these:
1159:âbut to make conspiratorial veiled gloating of it is just⌠Well, it's not
1510:(usually disruptive editing is covered specifically in a later principle)
91:
570:, I expect that you'll be willing to relegate your reading to that of a
102:
1083:
Hehe. From your wistful tone, I bet you'd like it if they did cower.
1476:
their interactions with other users, and to approach even difficult
594:
To read it your way would require semi-colons instead of commas.
1421:
have expected high numbers of archives in all these subjects.
1403:
intitle:archive intitle:50 limited to namespace 1 (talk pages)
329:
At this point, it looks to be going straight to the PD page.
301:
No need to send the 'Zilla, we are on time, and on target :)
233:
and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.
315:
Will the proposed decision be posted at the workshop first?
1605:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia
1402:
1219:
1125:
1121:
1018:
1016:
988:
985:
981:
977:
230:
1052:
Go for it. Tomatoes are wonderful for the complexion!
1469:
is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.
381:The proposed decision will be posted this evening.
1401:I found these by running the following search:
1069:I've supported both of the proposed additions.
1514:remove repetition of 'courteously/courteous';
1472:Knowledge (XXG) users are expected to behave
8:
544:Ah I see now! You parsed the fragment as:
1465:editing. Sustained editorial conflict or
1289:Articles with lots of talk page archives
1015:SAQ from becoming a featured article:
850:PP 10 â Revealing personal information
738:PP 11 - Review of community sanctions
7:
608:And for the record I parsed it as:
1453:Knowledge (XXG) works by building
562:But as you know, Wilson Knight in
36:
244:
239:
157:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Arbitration
144:Arbitrators active on this case
30:Shakespeare authorship question
971:Unusual Proposed Decision page
266:. Bishzilla still waiting for
1:
1617:13:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
1598:12:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
1584:05:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
1570:05:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
1551:02:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
1535:03:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
1431:03:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
1415:03:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
1281:22:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
1267:21:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
1247:21:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
1237:confirmed me in that belief.
1231:21:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
1202:20:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
1187:20:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
1173:20:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
1149:19:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
1107:22:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
1092:19:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
1079:18:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
1061:16:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
1048:16:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
1030:15:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
1003:15:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
961:03:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
947:20:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
929:19:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
911:14:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
894:21:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
875:04:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
864:20:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
840:16:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
826:07:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
806:05:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
796:20:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
776:18:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
761:00:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
715:23:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
672:22:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
658:17:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
644:16:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
621:18:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
604:18:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
584:16:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
540:16:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
524:15:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
510:15:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
497:15:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
480:15:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
462:14:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
442:21:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
416:15:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
391:15:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
368:02:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
353:02:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
339:02:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
325:01:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
311:00:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
295:00:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
881:PFF 2âPersistent disruption
1639:
1305:Talk:Race and intelligence
935:Talk:Race and intelligence
933:Someone pointed out to me
677:Push button, receive Bacon
1500:By means of explanation:
1377:Talk:September 11 attacks
1494:assumptions of bad faith
1474:reasonably and calmly in
1371:Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses
532:you writing a decision.
262:. No, that was only the
229:To update this listing,
1383:Talk:Terri Schiavo case
1353:Talk:Intelligent design
1461:, rather than through
1210:, as it happens, but
574:theory per policy. --
1395:Talk:Catholic Church
978:on the evidence page
922:MISERABLE sums it up
113:Drafting arbitrators
1507:'disruptive' -: -->
1341:Talk:Global warming
1335:Talk:George W. Bush
258:. Godot arrived on
1492:, and unwarranted
1459:dispute resolution
448:PFoF 3 - NinaGreen
231:edit this template
1520:'Unseemly' -: -->
1484:conduct, such as
1389:Talk:Adolf Hitler
1365:Talk:Christianity
1317:Talk:Circumcision
1311:Talk:Barack Obama
699:
282:Waiting for Godot
274:
273:
235:
169:Elen of the Roads
141:
140:
136:
125:
111:
100:
84:
76:Proposed decision
73:
62:
51:
1630:
1496:, is prohibited.
1486:personal attacks
1329:Talk:Sarah Palin
1158:
711:
697:
691:
690:
662:Mmmmmm... Bacon
260:10 February 2011
255:Waited for Godot
248:
240:
227:
130:
119:
105:
94:
78:
67:
56:
45:
38:
37:
1638:
1637:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1482:Confrontational
1478:situations with
1439:
1291:
1163:at any rate. --
1156:
973:
883:
852:
813:usual standards
768:198.161.174.222
740:
710:
709:
708:
700:
695:
687:
682:
681:
664:198.161.174.222
568:reliable source
450:
284:
275:
178:John Vandenberg
146:
34:
33:
32:
12:
11:
5:
1636:
1634:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1572:
1554:
1553:
1523:
1522:
1518:
1515:
1512:
1505:
1498:
1497:
1470:
1451:
1438:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1399:
1398:
1392:
1386:
1380:
1374:
1368:
1362:
1359:Talk:Evolution
1356:
1350:
1347:Talk:Anarchism
1344:
1338:
1332:
1326:
1320:
1314:
1308:
1302:
1290:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1234:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1067:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
972:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
913:
882:
879:
878:
877:
851:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
808:
784:
779:
778:
748:
747:
739:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
706:
704:
702:
696:
685:
632:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
559:
558:
557:
550:
549:
548:
484:
483:
482:
449:
446:
445:
444:
434:LessHeard vanU
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
283:
280:
278:
277:
272:
271:
250:
238:
237:
236:
223:
221:
220:
211:
210:
201:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
181:Kirill Lokshin
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
160:Cool Hand Luke
158:
155:
145:
142:
139:
138:
43:Main case page
35:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1635:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1571:
1568:
1567:
1563:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1519:
1516:
1513:
1511:
1506:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1445:
1436:
1432:
1429:
1428:
1424:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1396:
1393:
1390:
1387:
1384:
1381:
1378:
1375:
1372:
1369:
1366:
1363:
1360:
1357:
1354:
1351:
1348:
1345:
1342:
1339:
1336:
1333:
1330:
1327:
1324:
1323:Talk:Gaza War
1321:
1318:
1315:
1312:
1309:
1306:
1303:
1300:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1288:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1265:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1235:
1232:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1212:about Smatprt
1209:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1133:
1130:
1127:
1123:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1095:
1093:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1065:
1064:
1062:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1046:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1036:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1017:
1014:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1004:
1001:
997:
991:
989:
986:
983:
979:
970:
962:
958:
954:
950:
949:
948:
944:
940:
936:
932:
931:
930:
927:
923:
919:
914:
912:
908:
904:
899:
898:
897:
895:
892:
888:
880:
876:
873:
869:
868:
867:
865:
862:
858:
849:
841:
838:
837:
833:
829:
828:
827:
823:
819:
814:
809:
807:
804:
799:
798:
797:
794:
793:
789:
785:
781:
780:
777:
773:
769:
765:
764:
763:
762:
758:
754:
745:
744:
743:
737:
716:
713:
712:
692:
689:
688:
678:
675:
674:
673:
669:
665:
661:
660:
659:
655:
651:
647:
646:
645:
641:
637:
633:
630:
622:
618:
614:
610:
609:
607:
606:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
565:
564:Wheel of Fire
560:
554:
553:
551:
546:
545:
543:
542:
541:
538:
535:
531:
527:
526:
525:
521:
517:
513:
512:
511:
508:
505:
500:
499:
498:
494:
490:
485:
481:
477:
473:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
459:
455:
447:
443:
439:
435:
431:
430:
417:
413:
409:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
388:
384:
369:
365:
361:
356:
355:
354:
350:
346:
342:
341:
340:
336:
332:
328:
327:
326:
322:
318:
314:
313:
312:
308:
304:
300:
299:
298:
296:
293:
289:
281:
279:
269:
265:
261:
257:
256:
251:
249:
247:
242:
241:
234:
232:
226:
225:
224:
218:
217:
216:
215:
208:
207:
206:
205:
198:
195:
192:
189:
186:
184:Mailer diablo
183:
180:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
152:
151:
150:
143:
137:
134:
129:
123:
118:
114:
109:
104:
98:
93:
89:
85:
82:
77:
71:
66:
60:
55:
49:
44:
40:
39:
31:
27:
23:
19:
1564:
1524:
1509:
1499:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1467:edit-warring
1462:
1443:
1440:
1425:
1400:
1292:
1261:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1136:
1134:
1131:
1119:
1042:
1012:
992:
974:
884:
853:
834:
790:
749:
741:
693:
684:
683:
590:
563:
529:
451:
380:
285:
276:
259:
253:
243:
228:
222:
213:
212:
209:Roger Davies
203:
202:
193:Shell Kinney
148:
147:
112:
87:
86:
80:
41:
1609:Newyorkbrad
1463:adversarial
1273:Newyorkbrad
1139:admin ink.
1099:Newyorkbrad
1071:Newyorkbrad
982:my evidence
939:The Cavalry
937:with - 87!
918:54 of them!
903:The Cavalry
636:Newyorkbrad
516:Newyorkbrad
489:Newyorkbrad
408:Ncmvocalist
383:Newyorkbrad
345:Ncmvocalist
317:Ncmvocalist
187:Newyorkbrad
166:David Fuchs
117:Newyorkbrad
88:Case clerks
1543:Carcharoth
1525:Cheers. --
1490:incivility
1407:Carcharoth
1299:Talk:Jesus
1239:MoreThings
1208:about Nina
1179:MoreThings
1141:MoreThings
1126:green font
1122:Green die!
953:Carcharoth
943:Message me
907:Message me
268:Co-Founder
252:Bishzilla
219:PhilKnight
172:Iridescent
1562:Cool Hand
1455:consensus
1444:mot juste
1423:Cool Hand
1259:Cool Hand
1157:illegible
1137:invisible
1040:Cool Hand
832:Cool Hand
788:Cool Hand
686:bishzilla
613:Tom Reedy
596:Tom Reedy
534:Fut.Perf.
504:Fut.Perf.
472:Tom Reedy
360:SirFozzie
331:SirFozzie
303:SirFozzie
204:Inactive:
196:SirFozzie
128:SirFozzie
1224:Bishonen
1085:Bishonen
1054:Bishonen
996:Bishonen
887:Bishonen
857:Bishonen
288:Bishonen
175:Jclemens
154:Casliber
65:Workshop
54:Evidence
28: |
24: |
22:Requests
20: |
1013:prevent
264:Godking
214:Recused
149:Active:
1576:Risker
1216:little
1161:WP:AGF
1022:Paul B
916:about
818:Risker
572:FRINGE
190:Risker
126:&
101:&
1590:RexxS
1527:RexxS
1301:(114)
1194:Xover
1165:Xover
926:MONGO
872:Shell
803:Shell
753:RexxS
650:RexxS
576:RexxS
454:RexxS
163:Coren
16:<
1613:talk
1594:talk
1580:talk
1566:Luke
1547:talk
1531:talk
1437:PP 3
1427:Luke
1411:talk
1397:(50)
1391:(51)
1385:(52)
1379:(54)
1373:(54)
1367:(56)
1361:(56)
1355:(61)
1349:(61)
1343:(63)
1337:(63)
1331:(64)
1325:(66)
1319:(67)
1313:(71)
1307:(87)
1277:talk
1263:Luke
1243:talk
1228:talk
1220:Here
1198:talk
1183:talk
1169:talk
1145:talk
1103:talk
1089:talk
1075:talk
1058:talk
1044:Luke
1026:talk
1000:talk
957:talk
891:talk
861:talk
836:Luke
822:talk
792:Luke
772:talk
757:talk
668:talk
654:talk
640:talk
617:talk
600:talk
580:talk
530:seen
520:talk
493:talk
476:talk
458:talk
438:talk
412:talk
387:talk
364:talk
349:talk
335:talk
321:talk
307:talk
292:talk
199:Xeno
133:Talk
122:Talk
108:Talk
97:Talk
81:Talk
70:Talk
59:Talk
48:Talk
26:Case
924:.--
92:AGK
1615:)
1596:)
1582:)
1549:)
1533:)
1488:,
1413:)
1279:)
1245:)
1226:|
1200:)
1185:)
1171:)
1147:)
1105:)
1094:.
1087:|
1077:)
1063:.
1056:|
1028:)
1005:.
998:|
959:)
945:)
909:)
896:.
889:|
866:.
859:|
824:)
774:)
759:)
751:--
705:R!
701:OA
679:.
670:)
656:)
642:)
619:)
602:)
582:)
522:)
495:)
478:)
460:)
440:)
414:)
389:)
366:)
351:)
337:)
323:)
309:)
297:.
290:|
270:.
115::
103:X!
90::
74:â
63:â
52:â
1611:(
1592:(
1578:(
1545:(
1529:(
1409:(
1275:(
1241:(
1233:.
1196:(
1181:(
1167:(
1143:(
1101:(
1073:(
1024:(
955:(
941:(
905:(
820:(
770:(
755:(
717:.
707:!
703:R
698:R
666:(
652:(
638:(
615:(
598:(
578:(
537:âź
518:(
507:âź
491:(
474:(
456:(
436:(
410:(
385:(
362:(
347:(
333:(
319:(
305:(
135:)
131:(
124:)
120:(
110:)
106:(
99:)
95:(
83:)
79:(
72:)
68:(
61:)
57:(
50:)
46:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
