text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Njyoder/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Evidence presented by User:AlexR
Mostly copied from the RfA page -- AlexR 20:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Gender and Talk:Gender

 * 15. May 2005, 16:49 Njyoder removed large parts of the content from Gender: . Edit comment was: "removed sentences that don't make sense, removed dictionary explanations of etymology (this is not a dictionary), removed POV, made it a stub - [from last edit] gender=sex as per general consensus"
 * 20:31, 15 May 2005 Given these rather questionable reasons, the fact that there was no explanation on the talk page, and his previous behaviour, I merely reverted that as "vandalism" . * 14:41, 17 May 2005 " Marking them as vandalism when they're not is a violation of Wikipedia policy."
 * 16:19, 17 May 2005 "I just noticed that AlexR, without even consulting the talk page, tried reverting the same thing he did before." (Well, he hadn't used it, either; see below.)
 * Article went RfC on 21:15, 17 May 2005
 * 18:41, 18 May 2005 Claims that User:Arbor already explained his edits sufficiently on the talk page ; only, how can anybody know whether Arbor and Njyoder did indeed agree there? There was not even a brief "Yes, that was why I did it" or similar. Also:
 * "He [AlexR]] took it to RfC without even bothering to make the slightest attempt to explain why he wrongfully reverted my edits as vandalism (a violation of wikipedia policy)." and the rather odd:
 * "Another POV etymological statemet: "Gender is also evolving in this usage from noun to adjective: it is increasingly being seen as an attribute (like color) rather than as a distinct entity in itself." is completely unsubstantiated. I've never heard anyone say "that color is male/female." A color being preferred by a gender doesn't make it a gender in itself. This usage is non-existant."

 * 22:14, 19 May 2005 Reply to User:Axon: "Are you kidding me? ...  If you can't even acknowledge that, then you're ridiculously biased. ... All you're doing is reinforcing the fact that you don't want to cooperate and follow wikipedia guidelines in settling a dispute. Additionally, I don't have a history of "controversial edits." That's completely disingenuous to say. ...  Please keep on making yourself look bad."
 * 22:27, 19 May 2005 Reply to me:
 * "You're deliberately ignoring what people have already reached a general consensus on, please stop lying to make a point." and
 * "One might oppose a certain analysis of gender, but I've never heard of anyone actually opposing the concept except those from exremist left-wing branches of feminism, the types oh zealously believe that we should use gender neutral terms like "zie" and "zir." Your assertion is not only wrong, it's the opposite of the way it is." (compare gender-neutral pronoun) and
 * "Instead, in bad faith, you iniated an RfC against me as a hissy fit. The general consensus is AGAINST you, accept it and stop inserting your POV everywhere."

 * 05:54, 24 May 2005
 * "This is why I think he should just be banned from gender and sexuality articles, he refueses to conceded even the most blatantly obvious cases of POV."
 * "I've tried this with him in the past, whenever I call him on absurd factual errors, he cries and whines and refuses to provide sources. He's probably the single biggest POV pusher in gender related articles." (compare )

Attempts by Njyoder to actually answer the questions brought up cannot be found.

Bisexuality
My initial RfC on 28. April 2005 changed by Njyoder on 29. April. Given that his initial removal of the Kinsey statistics followed a debate with me and others on #wikipedia, I was under the misapprehension that this was a somewhat personal matter, hence the wording of my initial RfC.

At any rate, same pattern - deleted what he didn't like, became highly insulting when the deletion was reverted, and was nowhere willing to compromise. I kept out of the debate somewhat, since I still did not want to fuel it by what is maybe a personal conflict. (Although since he treats everybody who disagrees with him the same way, maybe this is less personal than I fear.)

For the complete debate, see Talk:Bisexuality and Talk:Bisexuality.

Third gender
On Talk:Third gender, 19 May 2005 (UTC), he also claimed that it had a "POV-bias", "anti-western-culture bias" and that the article was "non-notable", although so far he has refrained from editing the article itself. The comment includes this rather ... surprising ... statement:
 * "Also, a quick google test shows that "third gender" only gets 19.2k hits, it's an uncommon term. This should be redirected to an merged with the Gender article, it is not worthy of its own article."

(Talk page conists only of four edits, hence no use in providing diffs)

Update 04.06.2005
Since the 25th of May the page rested for a few days, then the debate continued in the usual tone between Njyoder and Axon; on 3rd of June Njyoder added a "merge" tag to the article, despite being the only one who thinks it should be merged. (All emphasis and formating retained from original.)
 * 17:29, 31 May 2005 does some rather odd interpretation of the Google count :
 * "Remove all references to books, and you get 7.1k hits, almost one THIRD of the original search results ("hey read this book d00dz" and book websites). Remove transgender and gay and you have 4.3k. Remove references to hindu, native american and indians, you only have 973 left. So if you take out the third gender sub-cultures which practically no one has heard of (don't even DARE to assert that more than a few people know about the Hijras), _attempt_ take out the LGBT sites and take out self-promoting book websites and people giving book recommendations for books most haven't heard of (the biggest one had a total of 2 reviews in Amazon, shock!), it's practically nil."
 * If you had bothered to look at the links google provides, it's almost exclusively academic websites in LGBT type studies, LGBT publications and random LGBT type websites. How is that NOT a good indicator that it's rare?

 * 19:18, 31 May 2005 (To Axon) :
 * " Why don't you actually attempt to refute what I've said instead of just lying and said I haven't presented evidence? ... This is getting quite insane, I think I will start an RfA on you, since either you have extremely bad memory, extremely bad reading comprehension or you are lying. ... I never referred to a simple majority, this is another lie. I said 99%. There is no way you can misinterpret 99% to mean just a simple majority. This is definitely grounds for an RfA since you're just making stuff up out of thin air that a I never said."
 * I never said it is not worthy of discussion, I specifically said to MERGE it, when implies that you will DISCUSS it. I'm not even sure how to classify this now, I've repeated multiple times that I want a merge (from the BEGINNING) and even bolded it before this, how can you keep repeating this nonsense? Again, all the more reason to file an RfA against you, this is quite obviously a deliberate misinterpretation of everything I've said. Just so you can't cop-out of this, I'll repeat the word merge many times: MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE, NOT DELETE. Thus, I am now using an argument from popularity.

 * 04:34, 3 Jun 2005 (to Axon):
 * "I have used no personal attacks here. Do not confuse pointing out your disingenuous behavior with being a personal attack, if it were, then you could never call someone a liar even when it's obvious that they are. ... And yet again you're demonstrating how disingenuous you truly are. The google test involves interpreting the results of said test, not just relying entirely on a raw hit count."
 * " The only word I've been repeating is "merge," but me repeating a word is not an appeal to popularity."

 * 19:35, 3 Jun 2005
 * " Incidentally, I hope you guys realize that the RfA is just going to die off, since there is no real evidence against me, you had to resort to lies on it and no one except a grand total of 3 people thinks action shuold be taken."

 * 19:31, 3 Jun 2005 Njyoder (Added merge tag)

Other pages showing Njyoder's less than mature behaviour:

 * Talk:Vole - completely unrelated topic, same style, see for example . Also calling 10k of hits "not notable in the slightest"
 * Talk:Circumcision; for example from Talk:Circumcision/Archive 5, :
 * "I suggest that he simply be banned from modifying this article (and all other circumcision related articles) as he's demonstrated nothing but his inability to remain neutral and civilized."
 * "...proceeds to incorrectly call anti-circumcision people a "minority" fringe group despite the majority of the world not practicing ritual circumcision."

Comments regarding his statement from 10:03, 28 May 2005
Regarding the alleged "tag-team": This "tag-team" does not exist - I only became aware of User:Axon during the debate on talk:bisexuality at all. (I have a terrible memory for names, though, so we may have met before.) I dunno, two articles in about two weeks hardly do make a "tag-team", do they? Besides, it seems we are thrown together here simply because both of us, independantly, disagreed with Njyoder on his handling of those two articles. So I am asking Njyoder for more evidence on this "tag-teaming". -- AlexR 16:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the "see talk page": Taken directly from the histories of gender and talk:gender, edits by others omnitted for brevity. All times shown are MEST, UTC +2 AlexR 16:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Article: 16:33, 15 May 2005 Njyoder
 * Article: 16:49, 15 May 2005 Njyoder (removed sentences that don't make sense, removed dictionary explanations of etymology (this is not a dictionary), removed POV, made it a stub - [from last edit] gender=sex as per general consensus)
 * Article: 20:31, 15 May 2005 AlexR (Revert from vandalism)
 * Article: 14:45, 17 May 2005 Njyoder (rv to my previous version (plus included minor edit) which is not at all vandalism -- see talk page )
 * Talk: 14:41, 17 May 2005 Njyoder (Do not revert non-vandalism as vandalism)
 * Talk: 15:30, 17 May 2005 Arbor (→Do not revert non-vandalism as vandalism) That is the edit in which Arbor tries to explain Njyoder's edits [AR]
 * Article: 15:56, 17 May 2005 AlexR (Revert widespread removal of content)
 * Article: 16:15, 17 May 2005 Njyoder (rv - what part of "see talk page" don't you understand? - stop pushing your POV everywhere through misleading edits and refusing to be civil unless you want to be reported for wikipedia policy violati)

Evidence presented by Bishonen
Refactored and summarized from the RFAr page, some diffs added.

1–8 May, 2005
Njyoder trolled my request for adminship, 1 May to 8 May 2005, mostly on the talk page. I don't know why I was singled out in this way, as I'd had no previous contact with him. The only basis for animosity from Njyoder towards me that I know of is that I made fun of him on #wikipedia (briefly and IMO mildly) during an IRC session (though that was actually after Njyoder had begun his crusade against me, so the connection is still obscure). Njyoder has insisted, that the #wikipedia logs for early May "incriminate" me, and states it again in his evidence section on this page. I know that #wikipedia isn't supposed to be posted on wikipedia, but if Njyoder's claims are going to create a suggestion in anybody's mind that I abused him on IRC, I would really appreciate it if the arbitrators would take a look at these logs (I'm sure they have access to the full logs). My nicks were bishonen, bish, and bishfreak, as far as I can remember, maybe bishzilla also. (An unbiased observer who did go take a look, User:El C, characterized my responses as "mildly amusing and not particularly harsh". Njyoder himself, by contrast, was kicked and then banned from the channel for his behavior during this session.) I supply a few diffs below, but arbitrators can get the flavor of Njyoder's "debating" style more simply by taking a look at the RFA talk page, which is dominated by him. There you also get a context of civil editors making reasoned appeals to him.

Njyoder loses interest in my unworthiness to be an admin once my RFA vote closes, so the matter wouldn't be worth bringing to the ArbCom's attention for its own sake. I'm submitting the incident to illustrate, from outside article and talk pages, the point AlexR is making about general incivility: this is how Njyoder treats fellow humans, and how he interacts on policy issues. (Now that I've seen Njyoder's response to Snowspinner's offer of mediation, I reckon that's the entire RFAr right there: the ArbCom could get a picture of Njyoder's whole Wikipedia approach by just reading that message.)

 * 1 May, posts potty-mouth RFA vote: Njyoder votes Strong 'Oppose to my RFA, giving as the reason: "She raped me with a series of rolled up Wikipedia print-outs :-(". . Many users on #wikipedia IRC ask him to remove the sentence about rape and he refuses repeatedly. (The sentence is no longer visible on the page, having been removed, not by Njyoder, as being too offensive.)
 * 3 May, posts #wikipedia logs, flames me: Njyoder creates the talk page for my RFA and pastes in extracts from the #wikipedia log claimed to "further incriminate her ... decides to go offline in a private medium with kim to spew vitriol so that she doesn't further incriminate herself." [I often talk privately with Kim Bruning on IRC—Njyoder wasn't on that occasion, or ever, a subject between us.] "Objective administrators don't constantly seek validation and work to absolutely ensure that everyone is on their side, nor do they go into private conversations to talk about a dissenter behind their back." ,
 * 3 May, flames Sannse: Sannse, who had been the op in channel during some sessions with Njyoder mildly reminds him not to post extracts from the log: "You probably missed my comment earlier on channel - posting logs from #wikipedia is against the channel policy", and gets a violent response: "Sannse, I suggest you take your POV, and dishonest pro-censorship behavior elsewhere... I suggest you read the Wikiquette, Wikilove and NPOV articles so you can better understand the wikipedia policies that you are violating...if you continue this ridiculous childish retaliatory behavior on both IRC and Wikipedia, I'll get a comitte to come in and review you to have your admin status revoked."
 * 5 May, classic trolling against Geogre: Geogre posts a long, polite, reasoned argument to Njyoder, who responds "Either you're just plain ignorant about how #wikipedia works or you're just lying through your teeth here..
 * 6 May, accuses User:Giano of bombarding the talk page with personal attacks: "PLease read Wikilove Giano, you are violating the rules of Wikipedia by bombarding this page with your personal attacks." Sic.
 * 7 May, accuses me of auto-ass-kissing: "Why the heck should she 'get credit' simply for her ability to garner votes? ... Somehow, I don't think kissing your ass to the top is a valid qualifier for being an admin." [I assume he meant to talk about kissing other people's asses; anyway, if there's any more of this coarseness (compare 1 May) I wouldn't mind an ass joke injunction.]
 * 8 May, final flame: "She's so obviously trying to portray herself as a saint here... Frankly, her behavior is very dishonest, if it's not a flat out lie...being certain to periodically inject faux-modest statements....
 * Bishonen | talk 16:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

See also User:Njyoder/bishonen

This RfA shouldn't exist
I find it a bit silly that aribtration was jumped to so quickly. Basically, there was an RFC on one article that is still being worked on by several people (gender). There are parties other than myself, AlexR and Axon working on it, so I don't see why that would even be necessary to mention.

Yes, I was given a request for mediation when I initially edited the gender article (IIRC). I denied the request because I simply don't see the point of it. The mediation was for some alleged personal dispute, which has been completely fabricated by AlexR. Furthermore, there are other methods listed on Wikipedia that must be tried before RfA and after medication, none of those were attempted. This RfA came out of the blue and without warning.

The only edit I've made that has actually stuck in any of those articles was the single edit I made in gender, that's it. So in other words, he launched a request for arbitration over a single article which is still being worked on. This was done a short while after I refused mediation, there have been no real attempts to resolve the dispute.  Short of me just agreeing with their POVed edits, they will take it to the highest authority.

What is the purpose of this RfA, what is its alleged basis?
I'm not even sure why it exists, so I would like an official statement of what the basis for it is. Is it because of so-called "personal attacks" (see below)? Most of what I've done is just use the talk pages. I made one edit in one article that was reverted and a major edit in one other article. In terms of the articles I was talking on, we're talking about 3 total articles, two small ones and one medium-large one. How is that a valid basis to start an RfA?

Why the RfA should be against AlexR and Axon
As you will find out below, they have engaged in some very dishonest behavior against me. That includes some flat out lies, extremely misleading statements and out-of-context quotes, and AlexR's attempt to revert my edit as vandalism when it clearly wasn't. THAT IS A BLATANT VIOLATION OF WIKIPEDIA POLICY.

When I get around to it (which will be a while since I don't have all the time in the world), I will collect evidence where in the talk pages they deliberately ignore and twist things I say in order to push POV. That includes AlexR and Axon's defence of using "to dismay" and "used incorrectly" in the article gender to describe the usage of gender as sex. If they can't even acknowledge that saying "to dismay" is POV, how can the expect to be NPOV?

Define "personal attack"
This is very serious and was never addressed. I read the No personal attacks article and it seems clear that "personal attack" is meant to refer to insults such "you're an idiot" or "you're such a nazi." On the talk page people made it clear they still think calling people a "troll" should be allowed, in fact an admin is calling me a troll on this very page. There is a clear distinction between critcizing someone's behavior and insulting them as a person.

If I call someone disingenuous, obtuse, POV pushing, acting in bad faith or anything else like that, I'm quite obviously describing their behavior. If calling someone a POV pusher, disingenuous or other things like that is a personal attack, then most Wikipedians, everyone who is involved in this included, has engaged in personal attacks and continues to do so.

Sadly, the ridiculously biased User:David Gerard has not recused himself from this case, even though he holds an absurd double standard when it comes to personal attacks (see below).

Accusations of POV
I've been accused of POV pusing, yet no evidence of this has been presented.

David Gerard
stupidly obnoxious behaviour --David Gerard

Due to User:David Gerard's very unprofessional personal attack* on me and the fact that only half of the arbitrator hearing this case voted on the injunction, I decided to check on him. It turns out he may well know me from another internet medium (LiveJournal), which would explain his personal attack.

Just briefly looking at his LJ I can easily recognize people on his friends list I've talked to and communities I've talked in for which I'm well known and not well liked. If it turns out he does know me through that medium, I suggest he immediatly have his admin and arbitrator status removed for "forgetting" to mention such a critical detail, when it's clear he should have recused himself.

I also have to wonder if the 2 other arbitrators who voted against "personal attacks" actually read the evidence or just briefly skimmed it and trusted the other arbitrator. For the sake of an unbiased hearing, I suggest that we actually define personal attack, lest I file an RfA against David Gerard for his own "personal attack." After all, shouldn't arbitrators be held up to the same standards they hold others up to?

 * Please note that I am using David Gerard's own defintion of "personal attack" which means criticizing someone's behavior in a harsh manner. All the evidence presented against me could only be misconstrued as a "personal attack" in this sense, since all of the "personal attacks" are critical of the person's behavior.  Thus it only follows that, out of spite, he launched his personal attack against me.

--Nathan J. Yoder 10:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd just like to say that I have no damn clue who you are on LiveJournal and have no recollection of you from there - David Gerard 14:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Your hostile attitude, in addition to your personal attack on me, are unwarranted. I suggest you read WikiLove, No personal attacks and Wikiquette before continuing posting on Wikipedia.  If you do not follow the Wikipedia policies and guidelines I've linked to you here, I will arrange for mediation and then a Request for Arbitration if that doesn't pan out.  -Nathan J. Yoder 15:10, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

AlexR
Interesting, I just found this personal insult on his page against me. I guess AlexR considers personal attacks ok when he uses them, but not when others use them. He doesn't realize that it's long since been agreed upon that gender=sex is a valid usage by general consensus AND that using terms like "to dismay" and "incorrectly used" to describe the usage of gender to mean sex is POV.
 * As for the "general consensus" I have allegedly lost ... maybe on another page, or in another reality, but most certainly not here. Talk:Gender

About "threats"
I threatened to take action beyond an RfC and this is somehow used as evidence against me. Since when it is against Wikipedia policy to say you'll take something to a higher authority? Consider that THEY took it to a higher authority against me, that's an aburd and hypocritical thing to use as evidence.

Bishonen is not a party of this RfA
Another thing that is bothersome is that somehow Bishonen became a party in this. I stopped talking to her for weeks, so the only conceivable reason that she became a part of this was out of a personal vendetta. My only involvement with her was on her RFC, where I voted against her. Considering that I've never so much as bothered with her since, it's a absurd that she's even included.

Bishonen has since admitted that she is not actually a party of this dispute. Why should she continue to be allowed to present any evidence at all? If you want to read the evidence, see all the IRC quotes I pasted from her with her blatantly unprofessional behavior. First she and others say that IRC shouldn't be used as evidence, saying that anything said on IRC is not to be taken seriously and they never denied she engaged in personal insults. Now she's doing damage control to save face, even though the IRC logs make it very clear she was not interested in anything other than shrugging off her extremely immature behavior.

Am I being blamed for not having all the time in the world?
In any case, I'm only replying to this because I've been busy lately and just want to make this statement. This request for arbitration was actually made after I had stopped editing for a while. Unlike AlexR and Axon, I don't have all the time in the world to do stuff like this.

AlexR and Axon are well known for tag-teaming gender and sexuality related articles and they frequently engage in wikibullying to shut out others' views. If you look at any gender/sexuality article, you'll notice they're some of the biggest POV defenders there, trying to keep an obvious extreme left-wing bias in the articles.

And since this article is based on my behavior in just 3 articles, I don't see why I can't accuse them of tag teaming in just 3 articles (it's actually been more than that which they've edited together). It is a ridiculous double standard.

AlexR

 * I just noticed that AlexR, without even consulting the talk page, tried reverting the same thing he did before." (Well, he hadn't used it, either.)
 * See above about the talk page.

 * Claims that User:Arbor already explained his edits sufficiently on the talk page ( [28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender&oldid=13835017)); only, how can anybody know whether Arbor and Njyoder did indeed agree there?
 * I don't even see how this is valid complaint. Given that I told him to see the talk page, isn't it IMPLIED that I agree with the statements already made?  The fact of the matter is SOMEONE gave an explanation.  It dosn't matter that it's not me personally.  He refused to reply to that explanation until after I reverted and point him back to it again.  Refusing to reply to an explanation on the talk page just because I didn't write it is silly and childish.

 * The rest of them are just me pointing out his POV, which hardly warrant arbitration. Basically, general consensus had already been reached, with the help of the consensus of all the major dictionaries, that the use of the word gender to mean sex was a valid usage.
 * AlexR was defending someone's POV statements in the aritcle that said that gender is used incorrectly as sex and that "to dismay" it's a popular usage (which is kind of a contradiction anyway). AlexR refuses to acknowledge that that was a POV statement and refuses to acknowledge the general consensus reached on gender=sex.  That reeks of POV pushing.

Totally irrelevent evidence, lies and distortions

 * I suggest that he simply be banned from modifying this article (and all other circumcision related articles) as he's demonstrated nothing but his inability to remain neutral and civilized.
 * Ok, this one is priceless. He dug back months into archives from circumcision to find this and worst of all, he found something that I was totally right aobut.  The person I was referring to ended up being banned from all sex/sexuality related articles for one year.  The guy I was referring to was known as "friend of robert," "Robert the bruce" and through other usernames.  PRactically everyone agreed that he should be banned, including the admins who banned him.  If it's a crime to be right, then lock me up.

 *  I was under the misapprehension that this was a somewhat personal matter, hence the wording of my initial RfC.
 * THis is some fine backpedalling on his part. He started an RfC using a VERY POV statement suggesting this was some kind of personal battle.  I actually went back to the RfC and de-POVed it.  The fact that he thought it was a personal war to begin with suggests that he was acting in bad faith.

 * "Also, a quick google test shows that "third gender" only gets 19.2k hits, it's an uncommon term. This should be redirected to an merged with the Gender article, it is not worthy of its own article."
 * That's nice that he quoted that, but I don't see how it's relevent in the slightest. It is my opinion that the article should be merged and redirected, what's wrong with that?

 * calling 10k of hits "not notable in the slightest"
 * Ok, so I don't think 10k hits are notable.... So what? There's no official metric of what makes something notable, so he's just arguing over an opinion.

 * Attempts by Njyoder to actually answer the questions brought up cannot be found.
 * I have no idea what he's saying here. What questions haven't I answered?  I address everything that is said when it's asked.  Unless he's referring to the absolutely most recent set of NEW questions asked, this is baseless.  I haven't edited the gender article in a few days because, well, I'm busy and don't have all the time in the world to reply to the numerous stuff that's in there.

 * the fact that there was no explanation on the talk page
 * This is flatly wrong, there WAS an explanation on a talk page, it was just provided by another user and not me. Someone else (arbor) had provided a good explanation, so I didn't see reason to provide one of my own.  Instead of reply to arbor's explanation on the talk page, AlexR just reverted it again.  Again, this is an act of bad faith.

 * Marking them as vandalism when they're not is a violation of Wikipedia policy.
 * He quotes me saying that, I don't see what's wrong with me saying that. He reverted an edit I made as vandalism, when it clearly wasn't.  How does that even count as evidence agains me?

 * information he dislikes is deleted, and restoring it a "violation of policy" or POV or whatever, in any case, not allowed.
 * I was referring to him reverting an edit I made as 'vandalism.' I made an edit on the gender page which clearly did not fall under any definition of vandalism (he was the ONLY one there who thought it was--everyone else realized it was not) and he reverted it.  Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't deliberately reverting an edit as vandalism when it's not against policy?  At the very least that would qualify as bad faith.

New "evidence" from third gender and merging and Axon's lies
Yet again AlexR engages in disingenuous behavior. He said on 3rd of June Njyoder added a "merge" tag to the article, despite being the only one who thinks it should be merged. This is _grossly_ misleading. AlexR and Axon were the only other people editing the talk page and the only ones who actually gave their opinion aside from. Later, after he wrote that, only one other person has edited the page to show support. '''Isn't it grossly misleading to suggest that I'm wrong because a total of two people, the ones who are a part of this very RfA, disagreed? Furthermore, isn't it hypocritical for him to point this out when he doesn't accept general consensus himself? He deliberately ignored extremely POV statements in gender AND ignored that consensus had been reached AGAINST him for gender being synonymous with sex.'''

His quotes I find very amusing. He quotes a disagreement, which is just that, a disagreement. Disagreements, especially ones over the interpretation of google results, are NOT valid evidence for an RfA. There is absolutely nothing in the guidelines nor wikipedia policy against interpreting a google test a given way.

Further, thereis nothing in what he quotes which constitutes a personal attack, unless you consider calling someone who is a liar, a liar. Are we not allowed to called liars, liars? I guess we can't call trolls, trolls either, since that would be a personal attack. Axon had repeatedly engaged in highly dubious arguing tactics, including suggesting that I didn't think the topic should be discussed. Obviously, if it were merged, it would be discussed, just on a different page. He repeated that I didn't want it discussed over and over again despite me repeating that I want it merged. Really, what kind of _honest_ person keeps suggesting that someone doesn't want something discussed when they've explicitly said the opposite many times?

Bishonen
Look at this one from Bishonen, which is literally a joke:

She even hypocritically used evidence of something I did on IRC against me, while simultaneously condemning me from using evidence from IRC (which is not against policy in the first place). Bishonen is only complaining because I found incriminating quotes from IRC that made her look bad.

She is not a party to this dispute anyway, see the other section on her for an explanation why.

Axon

 * See the "about threats section"
 * I should add to that section, that not only is this hypocritical, but accusing someone of POV pushing is not a personal attack.

 * My response to Haiduc
 * This haiduc character was arguing along a very absurd line of reasoning, that it seemed only he and one other person agreed with. I even asked on #wikipedia about this and they agreed that his assertion was wildly inaccurate.  He was asserting that Kinsey's statistics were accurate on the basis that U.S. society was MORE open to homosexuality 50+ years ago than it is now.  My response to him is totally warranted.

 * About see talk page, and AlexR being a vandal.

Absurd evidence which includes a flat out lie and gross distortion of the term "personal attack"

 * In reference to his "see talk" point
 * 1. The talk page included an explanation from someone else, so it is misleading to suggest that I'm in the wrong simply because I personally didn't write the explanation.
 * 2. I never accused AlexR of being a vandal, this is a flat out lie. I said he was violating Wikipedia policy be reverting something as vandalism when it's clearly not.
 * 3. Calling someone disingenuous is not a personal attack, it's describing their behavior. If someone lies am I not allowed to call them out on a lie without it being against policy?  That's absurd.
 * 4. It's obvious from his flat out lie and his misleading statement about the "see talk" thing that he IS disingenuous. This also goes with him acting in bad faith, which is obviously not a personal attack.

 * In refernce to the rest
 * The rest is just him pointing out me accusing him of being a POV pusher and being disingenuous. As explained above, that is not a personal attack.  If it were, then most Wikipedians would be banned from Wikipedia.  What are you supposed to say, "this person is engaging in behavior which in my assessment appears to be less than honest and exists to try to put POV statements in the article"?

Completely retracted a blatantly false accusation
He had previously accused me of accusing AlexR of being a vandal, since I have then stated that this was completely and utterly false, he retracted this flat out lie. In fact, the situation was quite the opposite. AlexR reverted an edit as vandalism, when not a single person, even Axon, has stated that they consider it vandalism. It quite obviously is NOT vandalism and it is quite clearly an act of bad faith and a violation of Wikipedia policy to do such a revert under the guise of 'vandalism.'

No longer accusing me of personal attacks
Axon just made a rather shady edit to this page that changed the meaning of what he was accusing me of. He changes accusations of personal attacks (since calling someone a liar is not a personal attack) to accusations of being uncivility. So if I am not making personal attacks, then what purpose does this RfA exist for? Are people who are too "offensive" supposed to receive RfAs simply because some people complained and filed a RfA under false pretenses?

'''Is there a punishment for filing an RfA under false pretenses? Given the retraction of the personal attacks accustion, I would think this would qualify.'''

I would just like to note here that I am actually still accusing Nathan of making personal attacks and that I did not file a RfA "under false pretenses" - I actually have some evidence to back up my assertions and it would certainly be strange of me to attempt to deliberately make false accusations when I have made it so very easy to check the veracity of my statements. Axon 09:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Additions (Needs to be refactored)
It seems Bishonen is playing a game she played before online, the "lets deliberately misunderstand people and play dumb to get out myself out of it" game. I was referring to the fact that Bishonen took a comment of mine about her kissing the ass of other (shocker--that requires arbitration!) and responding to it with a joke of her own about not being able to kiss her own ass (not sure why she'd do that since clearly I wasn't referring to her doing that). Yes, since she is so insistent on making jokes here, I'm sure she's taking it seriously. AGain I ask, why is she even listed on this in the first place? Aren't arbitrations supposed to be about settling disputes? Considering I stopped talking to her the instant her nomination was over, I don't see what the dispute is exactly.

AlexR wants evidence of tag teaming? Every single gender/sexuality related article I've edited the main page or talk page of, they've been there. That's bisexualty, Third gender and Gender. From looking at their list it seems they also have Homosexuality and LGBT_notice_board in common as well (the later was used as a recruitmet point). If you actually look at the talk pages of bisexuality and gender, you'll notice that all AlexR and Axon do is basically repeat eachother's statements, somewhat rephrased to express I agreement. If I or someone else doesn't reply to them both, no matter how redundant and annoying, then it's seen as being non-cooperative. And even then they still repeat themselves after I've clarified myself, there is no winning with them. Either you agree with their stubborn, unchanging and irrational view points, or something is wrong with you.

Bisexuality

 * May 1 2005 In one particularly ill-tempered post, Nyoder makes an unprovoked personal attack against me and threatens me with measures "beyond just an RfC" simply because I disagree with him on a talk page, even though I have not edited the actual article. He accuses me of using "ridiculous illogic" and tells me to "take my POV elsewhere", in enlarged letters (which he later reverts). He threatens me to "comply" within a week or I'll be reported to unspecified "higher authorities". He also falsy accuses me of deleting factual information from an article, despite the fact I hadn't edited the article for weeks Another editor remarks on Nyoder's unprovoked hostility.

 * May 2 2005 Nathan makes another seemingly unprovoked personal attack against User:Haiduc in response to moderate remarks, telling him to "take the patent nonsense" elsewhere, asking him what "weird parallel universe" he lives in and that he will no longer consider the "absurd notion" Haiduc has, in good faith, presented for discussion. Nathan tells Haidic that he will "ignore him" if he brings up the topic again.

Gender

 * 18 May 2005 I note that Nyoder has marked his reversions with "see talk" but has not actually properly explained his changes on the talk page. Nyoder takes offence to this and becomes offensive and incivil, making statements in bad faith - and what I interpret as personal attacks - by claiming I am being "disingenuous", i.e lying. Finally he ironically accuses me of acting in "bad faith".

 * 19 May 2005 Nyoder makes another uncivil remarks and bad faith accusations which border on personal attacks by accusing me of being "hopelessly biased" and lying (being "disingenuous").

 * 24 May 2005 More incivility and bad faith attacks against me claiming I am screaming "OMG POV" and that I am "biased" and hysterical.

 * Multiple attempts to (politely) request Nyoder tone down his hostility and personal attacks by myself and others are always ignored.

Personal Attacks
It has come to my attention that the "no personal attacks" rule may not cover accusations of lying, threats and other such hostile activity. Not being an expert on Wikipedia policy I'm now uncertain if the above are personal attacks, but they are certainly evidence of a campaign of incivility and bad faith that makes my job as editor impossible. As such, to be fair to Nathan, I have ammended some of the incidents above to reflect this and ask the ArbCom to decide whether the above are personal attacks or just incivility and bad faith.


text:
Talk:Leaf warbler

Untitled
reverted changes - redundant links and incorrect order of species jimfbleak 17:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

"Horny"??
From time to time, several IP addresses have been insisting on having this article say that leaf-warblers are "horny". One of these editors said in an edit summary that this is a commonly used term in ornithology and refers to the beak, but the change has been repeatedly reverted by users and bots who (I assume) think it is sexually related vandalism. Is there any acceptable alternative term (possibly "horn-beaked" or "horn-billed") that is accepted in the scientific community, would be clear to the average reader, and would avoid the mistaken assumption of vandalism? Or is this the one and only correct term, and we need to figure out some way to get people to understand and accept this fact? Or is this whole "horny bird" thing in fact really vandalism (and the claimed explanation is bogus)? Rich wales (talk · contribs) 14:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Per the discussion archived here, the consensus seems to be that the claimed explanations for "horny" leaf-warblers are bogus and the repeated attempts to insert this term can legitimately be discounted as vandalism. If anyone disagrees, please hash it out here (or at WT:WikiProject Birds) before trying to make this change again.  —  Rich wales 21:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Leaf warbler


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Njyoder/Proposed decision

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.
 * Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
 * Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
 * Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, 1 Arbitrator is recused and 2 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
 * For all items:

Motions and requests by the parties
Place those on the discussion page.

Proposed temporary injunctions
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Personal attack injunction
1) Enacted. If Njyoder makes an edit that any administrator considers to be a personal attack, he may be blocked for up to 24 hours.

 * Support:
 * David Gerard 20:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC) Short leash time.
 * Fred Bauder 22:31, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 02:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 15:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 21:26, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:25, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to collect and organize established knowledge in a usable form.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Role of Wikipedia editors
2) The role of a Wikipedia editor is to find knowledge in published references, including alternative versions, and include them in appropriate Wikipedia articles

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Governance
3) In addition to gathering information and editing articles Wikipedia editors participate in governance of Wikipedia selecting editors to serve as administrators who discharge routine duties involving editing and participation in Wikipedia

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

The pursuit of truth
4) The establishment of truth is not one of the purposes of Wikipedia which merely attributes the knowledge it contains to published sources.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Proper use of talk pages
5) Talk pages on Wikipedia are intended for advancement of the purposes of Wikipedia, not for extended discussions which attempt to arrive at certain knowledge or which attempt to definitively establish the credibility of standard references. Nor are they the place for extended dialog regarding activities of Wikipedia users, editors, or administrators outside the context of Wikipedia.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:
 * I agree with most of this, but there are certian statements in here that make me nervous. Talk pages *are* for scrutinizing references, although we can assume certain ones are credible, which I presume are the 'standard' ones this refers to. Also, talk pages *are* used to discuss certain users activities, such as POV pushing, although 'extended' in this case is subjective. →Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur with Raul. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * Ambi 14:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

Editing of controversial articles
6) Wholesale changes to controversial articles are unproductive as the only likely response is reversion. It is much more desirable to make small changes and couple them with discussion on the talk page of the article.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Only with respect to controversial articles. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

 * Oppose:
 * It's OK to be bold, but be prepared to be reverted and if someone does, don't revert them back. →Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * Abstain:

Original research
7) Material which originates with a Wikipedia editor, however well crafted, may be removed from an article.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If you don't want someone editing your golden prose, you're in the wrong place. →Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Cite your sources
8) Material which has no source associated with it may be removed from a Wikipedia article pending production of a source.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Disruption
9) It is unacceptable to disrupt either the editing or the governance of Wikipedia by making provocative edits or by persisting either through editing the article or by continued discussion on talk pages in ways which substantially diverge with the purposes of Wikipedia

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

IRC channel #Wikipeda
10) Extensive posting in a public forum of IRC logs from #Wikipedia and other IRC channels is improper,IRC channels. Punishment is rumored to be Crushing by elephant.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:17, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:
 * True, but this is not a joke. Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Wha.. mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Interrogative? ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

Relationship of IRC to Wikipedia for purposes of dispute resolution
10.1) Wikipedia users' activities on IRC channels are not considered relevant in the resolution of disputes between Wikipedia users.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:22, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * For the most part, although snippets (not whole logs) are occasionally considered as evidence. However, it's not the arbitration committee's job to settle IRC disputes. →Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Wikipedia policies
11) Wikipedia editors and administrators are expected to follow present Wikipedia policies.  These policies are used as the basis of dispute resolution.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:30, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Change in policy
11.1) It is acceptable to comment on Wikipedia policies and to advocate change in policies. It is not acceptable to repeatedly insist that editors or administrator ignore or overturn established Wikipedia policies on the grounds that they are obviously wrong or irrational. Most Wikipedia policies are a work in progress and can be improved though a process of discussion and consensus. They are nevertheless, for the moment, the policies in place.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:30, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:
 * Needs to be more clearly worded. Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Subtle matter
12) As a compendium of all human knowledge, Wikipedia contains subject matter which is the provence of various subcultures (as applied to the instant case, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered (LGBT) communities.)

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Competency
12.1) Editing specialized subject matter requires familiarity with those areas and the specialized language and information resources which concern them. The assertion that something "makes no sense" or is limited to a subculture (in the instant case " 99% of those hits are from LGBT websites") is not grounds for a subject's exclusion from Wikipedia. The solution is rather to study the matter until is familiar to you before you engage in extensive or aggressive editing or to edit in other areas

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Disruptive edits with respect to Bishonen's RfA
1) On May 1, 2005 User:Njyoder added a humorous vote and comment to Requests for adminship/Bishonen . This was followed up with additional humorous "Oppose" votes, which related to User:Bishonen/European toilet paper holder, a spoof article. A large number of support votes followed, but meantime Njyoder got crossways with Bishonen on the IRC channel #Wikidedia and followed up with a confirmation of his oppose vote and a denunciation of the role played by IRC participants in supporting a popular IRC participant, describing it as a "circle jerk." This was accompanied by extensive posting of IRC logs on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Bishonen (This posting includes the following statement, "Comments bishonen made in response to my comments on her RFA which further incriminate her -- she seeks validation with the IRC herd),, , see also

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:09, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 01:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * (although I don't agree with the characterisation of the vote as humourous) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Posting of IRC logs
1.1) User:Njyoder posted IRC logs on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Bishonen (This posting includes the following statement, "Comments bishonen made in response to my comments on her RFA which further incriminate her -- she seeks validation with the IRC herd), ,

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:09, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 01:19, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Edits to Gender
2) On May 15, 2005 User:Njyoder made an extensive edit to Gender with the following comment, "removed sentences that don't make sense, removed dictionary explanations of etymology (this is not a dictionary), removed POV, made it a stub - [from last edit] gender=sex as per general consensus." This edit removed most material in the article, reducing it to a stub. An extended discussion followed on the talk page, Talk:Gender and a Request for Comment regarding the article was filed  which complained, "Large parts of the article keep getting removed, among other "''removed dictionary explanations of etymology (this is not a dictionary)."

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:49, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

History of the article Gender
2.1) Gender was from its creation in 2002 a disambiguation article and continued to be an disambiguation page until its reorganization on October 22, 2004 . Gradually more information was added which addressed the subject matter ; this edit was reverted  on the grounds, "gender != sex;" substituting  which introduced etymological material into the article. The theme that gender is not sex was followed up with this edit  '"gender" is not a biological term." More on the meaning and usage of the term. At this point the article was converted into a disambiguation page by MyRedDice in this and subsequent edits. Content continues to creep in however as in this edit by Jaimenote. But MyRedDice is on the job and reverts maintaining that substantive content should be in the article gender role. But Jaimenote is not done and again attempts to add substantive content. This time Slrubenstein copyedits. A change is made to gender identity rather than gender role as the preferred place for substantive content, then both are linked. A new editor again asserts the identity of "gender" and "sex". Dysprosia reasserts, "gender != sex". On July 27, 2004 substantial substantive content is added by an anonymous editor with the comment, "Added considerable detail and shifted emphasis." This time the article was not reverted to a disambiguation page but reorganized on October 22, 2004 by Sannse who created Gender (disambiguation) and made the "primary meaning" the subject of the article. A clarification. From the reorganization of the article until Njyoder's first edits most substantive edits which added content were by Hyacinth, , and. On May 15, 2005 Njyoder made his first edit, removing the sentence, "Gender is often, and incorrectly, used as a synonym for sex, referring to the physical or essential characteristics commonly used to differentiate male from female." without comment. His next edit removed most substantive content. This edit was reverted a few hours later by AlexR with the comment "Revert from vandalism." An edit war ensued, and  with the article being currently in the form preferred by Njyoder.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 19:57, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:
 * We don't need a blow-by-blow breakdown of the history of the article. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * Per Grunt. Ambi 14:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

 * Abstain:
 * Not sure what the purpose of this is... mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

References cited for information in the article gender
2.2) No references were cited for any information added or removed from the article Gender.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:03, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Fallout of the dispute
2.3) Following User:Njyoder entry into the article extensive discussion began on Talk:Gender with User:Arbor supporting Njyoder and taking the lead in reorganizing the article, see User:Arbor/gender while User:AlexR continues to advance a version based on the pre-Njyoder version at User:AlexR/gender.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:25, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Subtlety
2.4) Adequate treatment of gender as the subject of a Wikipedia article as opposed to a simple enumeration of sexual characteristics requires sensitive treatment of a number of subtle considerations, see Preface, Gender.com

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:19, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:
 * This is worded as to be ruling on content, any move of which I will vehemently oppose. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

 * Abstain:
 * I don't think this finding is necessarily a bad one, but I do see Grunt's point. Ambi 14:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Njyoder's editing style
2.5) Njyoder seems to lack insight into the complexities involved in crafting an adequate article regarding gender; his editing style could be fairly characterized as ham-handed and.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:19, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:
 * ham-handed-ness is not a crime ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

 * Abstain:
 * I don't like the way this is worded. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Regarding third gender
3) With respect to third gender Njyoder has not edited the article but has added a proposal that the article be merged with gender, see Talk:Third gender. His basic argument is that although there are about 20K google hits for "third gender" 99% of those hits are from LGBT websites and the term is not used or comprehensible among the general population.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Njyoder's style and intensity of argument
3.1) Nyjoder's discussion on Talk:Third gender regarding merger of the article is intense and marked by repetitive plowing of the same ground over and over. The basic theme is that as a subcultural concept the subject does not deserve its own article.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Dispute regarding Kinsey on Bisexuality
4) Njyoder was involved in a dispute with respect to the article bisexuality regarding the accuracy of reports published by Alfred C. Kinsey, see  and . Yjyoder's removal of Kinsey report material remarking "removed dubious kinsey statistics -- see talk page." An edit war followed, ,  Njyoder then inserted a NPOV notice , with the comment. "NPOV notice -- this is NPOV as a matter of FACT -- do not childishly revert." He then removed the NPOV notice and replaced it with.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:17, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Basis of dispute
4.1) Njyoder's edit removing the material derived from Kinsey's work was based on his assertion that it was "junk science" Talk:Bisexuality and cites a number of alleged defects with Kinsey's methodology. Later he makes the statement, "Are you seriously suggesting that it doesn't matter if Wikipedia articles contain accurate information? His information HAS NOT been verified, his methods WERE NOT sound. The information is inaccurate and junk science. If you want unscientific information in a wiki article, take it to a different wiki." . Extensive attempts by other editors to explain that the talk page was not an appropriate venue for extended discussion of the "truth" of a particular reference were ineffective.

Support:
 * Fred Bauder 18:01, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Njyoder banned from gender and sex related articles
1) User:Njyoder is banned for one year from editing articles related to gender or sexuality.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 18:23, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Njyoder placed on personal attack parole
2) User:Njyoder is placed under a one-year personal attack parole, and specifically warned against ruleslawyering in this area. Should any administrator consider one of his edits a personal attack, he may be blocked for up to 24 hours.

 * Support:
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 01:43, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

=Discussion by Arbitrators=

Motion to close
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. Everything that will pass has passed. Let's end this one.
 * Ambi 28 June 2005 17:26 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 17:39 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 17:58 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 29 June 2005 15:17 (UTC)


text:
Talk:MillionPlus

Mainstream?
It would be interesting to see an explanation of the term "Mainstream" and some criticism (in the sense of evaluation, comment, etc) of it. In my opinion the University of Oxford, as the UK's oldest university, and Oxbridge, for around 800 years the only universities in England, defines what is "mainstream" in British (or certainly English) higher education. Likewise the four original Scottish universities, followed by the University of Durham, which seems to be modelled on Oxbridge. Modern was an accurate description of these universities. They are not mainstream, even if they do represent perhaps the majority of British students and staff. It's rather like that silly debate about whether Oxford, Cambridge, (and Dublin) ought to be allowed to continue to award their MAs. Since Oxford, followed by Cambridge, invented the British university degree system they ought to go on doing whatever they like. I do accept that the MA in its present state dates only from 1807 and that London has been seen as having reverted to the earlier practice, but it did that after 1807. These things evolve. The point is that the new universities (i.e. the ones founded in the 19th/20th centuries) seem to think that Oxford, Cambridge, (and to an extent Dublin and the four original Scottish universities) are something other than the mainstream. Rather, they are the model on which all subsequent universities ought to have been founded. Oxford and Cambridge are without any doubt the best universities in the UK. The others could benefit from imitating them - it might improve their standards. Wouldn't Thames Valley like to be at the top of the THES world university league table, rubbing shoulders with Harvard, Yale, Oxford, and Cambridge?--Oxonian2006 11:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Hmmm. As universities have expanded, they have taken in more of the mainstream population at large. technical terms: 'New Universities' are now considered to be the post-1992 universities, the new universities you are talking about are now called redbricks, surely? Oxford and Cambridge are not mainstream because they have an elite standard, therefore most people tend not to go to Oxbridge, indeed, it may be that more people go to post-1992 universities than pre-1992 ones, therefore the mainstream is referring to the majority. Post 1992 unis are more 'mainstream' because they have done good work in helping those from a non university mainstream background pursue some higher study. Getting back to the article though, I'm not sure how your dislike of the term mainstream affects the article. The CMU have used the ter in their name, end of story. Magic Pickle 15:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No content
This article fails to explain in any way what the organisation is about or what their aims are. I'm therefore tagging it as a stub since at the moment it's little more than a list. --kingboyk 12:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC) Could always improve the article rather than bashing it 137.222.229.74 (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

any chance of a web link to the organisation's web site? Magic Pickle 19:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not relevant reference
I have removed this.--Duncan (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Charles K. Kao, fibre-optics pioneer Lighting the way to a revolution

Broken links in Rebranding bit
I'm confused about it as well, so came here. None the wiser. The three links (actually one is a dupe) to rebranding have been grassed over on their sites, so are now non-functional, i.e. Broken. Here's something from the grauniad that's fairly contemporary with the CMU to Million+ rebrand.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/mortarboard/2007/nov/14/amillionwaystoexpressyour

--Matt Whyndham (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Main page header
Is it possible to change the main page header from 'Million+' to 'MillionPlus' (as has been done elsewhere in the entry), to reflect the re-branding that took place in 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.148.126.233 (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Million+. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101231035737/http://www.goodschoolsguide.co.uk/education-advice-and-help/university-options/university-challenge.html?Itemid=132 to http://www.goodschoolsguide.co.uk/education-advice-and-help/university-options/university-challenge.html?Itemid=132
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101231035737/http://www.goodschoolsguide.co.uk/education-advice-and-help/university-options/university-challenge.html?Itemid=132 to http://www.goodschoolsguide.co.uk/education-advice-and-help/university-options/university-challenge.html?Itemid=132

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:MillionPlus


text:
Mako Komuro

Mako Komuro (小室 眞子), formerly Princess Mako of Akishino (眞子内親王), is a Japanese art historian and former member of the Japanese imperial family. She is the eldest child of Crown Prince Fumihito and Crown Princess Kiko, niece of Emperor Naruhito, and granddaughter of Emperor Emeritus Akihito and Empress Emerita Michiko. After marrying outside the imperial family in October 2021, she gave up her title as required by the Imperial Household Law.

Early life and education

Mako Komuro was born Princess Mako of Akishino on 23 October 1991 to Fumihito, Prince Akishino, and Kiko, Princess Akishino, at Imperial Household Agency Hospital in Tokyo Imperial Palace, Chiyoda, Tokyo. She has a younger sister, Princess Kako, and a younger brother, Prince Hisahito. Mako was educated at the Gakushūin School in her Primary, Girls' Junior and Senior High School years. She studied English at University College, Dublin (UCD), in July–August 2010. She had an informal talk with the President of Ireland, Mary McAleese, and she visited Northern Ireland.

The Princess graduated from the International Christian University in Mitaka, Tokyo, on 26 March 2014 with a bachelor's degree in Art and Cultural Heritage. She obtained Japanese national certification in curation as well as a driver's license while she was an undergraduate student. She later studied art history at the University of Edinburgh for nine months, from September 2012 to May 2013. On 17 September 2014, she left for the United Kingdom where she studied at the University of Leicester for a year, receiving an MA degree in Art Museum and Gallery Studies on 21 January 2016. In September 2016, she enrolled in the doctoral course of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, International Christian University.

Public life
Mako has been considered by some to be an internet idol since 2004, when images of her in sailor fuku appeared on television. An image repository was set up, and a video featuring fanart of Komuro was uploaded onto the popular video-sharing website Nico Nico Douga, attracting over 340,000 views and 86,000 comments. The Imperial Household Agency, responding to a request for comment, stated that they were not sure how they should handle this phenomenon, since they saw no signs of slander or insults against the Imperial Family.

In 2011, Princess Mako came of age and was conferred Grand Cordon of the Order of the Precious Crown on 23 October. Since then, she began attending official events as an adult member of the Imperial Family. She gave her patronage to a number of organizations, including the Japan Tennis Association and the Japan Kōgei Association.

In October 2021, she formally lost her title upon marriage as required by Imperial Household Law.

Official visits

 * December 2015 – El Salvador and Honduras
 * September 2016 – Paraguay
 * June 2017 – Bhutan
 * August 2017 – Hungary
 * July 2018 – Brazil
 * July 2019 – Peru and Bolivia

Personal interests
In August 2006, Mako visited Vienna, Austria for two weeks on a school-sponsored homestay program. She stayed in the home of an Austrian citizen who was a colleague of Tatsuhiko Kawashima, her maternal grandfather. Because Mako is interested in art and architecture, she visited the museums, St. Stephen's Cathedral and Schönbrunn Palace.

In July 2011, she worked as a volunteer in the affected areas of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami without revealing her identity.

She became a project researcher at The University Museum, The University of Tokyo on 1 April 2016.

In April 2022, it was reported that she was working as an unpaid volunteer at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, assisting curators within the museum's Asian art collection.

Marriage
In May 2017, it was announced that the Princess was expected to marry Kei Komuro. The two, both students at International Christian University (ICU), had met at a study abroad event in Tokyo. Komuro proposed to the Princess in December 2013.

The wedding was originally expected to take place in November 2018, but it was postponed after media reports of Komuro's mother in dispute with her former fiancé over ¥4 million ($36,000). Some of the money had been used to pay Komuro's tuition fees, and the dispute resulted in the public's disapproval of the match. Komuro stated that his mother believed the money was a gift and added that he wished to pay it back. Princess Mako blamed the postponement on the couple's immaturity at that time.

On 26 October 2021, Princess Mako officially married Komuro following the submission of their marriage document at the local ward office. Like her paternal aunt, Sayako, Princess Nori, and other princesses who married commoners in recent decades, she formally lost her title and became a commoner upon marriage as required by Imperial Household Law. In light of criticism of her marriage, she refused the Japanese government's taxpayer funded payment of ¥140 million (US$1.3 million) given to royal women upon leaving the Imperial Family. She is the first female member of the imperial family to forgo an official wedding ceremony and a gift of money from the government.

By law, royals who give up their titles are not allowed to live inside the imperial quarters with their families. For this reason, Mako moved to her own residence in the Shibuya district in Tokyo while awaiting her passport issuance and US Visa. Komuro paid his mother's ex an undisclosed sum of money to resolve the debt with his mother in November 2021. The couple departed for New York that same month.

Kei Komuro began studying at Fordham University School of Law in August 2018 and graduated with a Juris Doctor in May 2021. He later joined Lowenstein Sandler, a law firm in New York as a law clerk. He passed New York's bar exam in October 2022 and began working as a lawyer in 2023.

Health
Weeks before her planned wedding, the Imperial Household Agency announced on behalf of Princess Mako that she had recently been diagnosed with complex post-traumatic stress disorder (C-PTSD) by the head of the quality assurance room of the NTT Tokyo Medical Center. The diagnosis determined that the C-PTSD originated during her primary high school years and continued due to strong criticism from imperial family members and the media.

Titles and styles
Mako was styled as Her Imperial Highness Princess Mako until her marriage on 26 October 2021, after which she became known as Mrs. Kei Komuro.

National honours

 * 🇯🇵 Japan: JPN Hokan-sho 1Class BAR.svg Grand Cordon of the Order of the Precious Crown (23 October 2011)

Foreign honours

 * 🇧🇷 Brazil: BRA Ordem de Rio Branco Gra-Cruz BAR.svg Grand Cross of the Order of Rio Branco (12 October 2021)
 * 🇵🇾 Paraguay: National Order of Merit (Paraguay) - ribbon bar.png Grand Cross of the National Order of Merit (5 October 2021)

title: Mako Komuro


text:
List of parliamentary constituencies in South Yorkshire

The ceremonial county of South Yorkshire is divided into 14 parliamentary constituencies – 7 borough constituencies and 7 county constituencies.

Sheffield Hallam was the only non-Labour South Yorkshire seat for many years, and was held by Nick Clegg for 12 years, until Labour gained the seat in 2017. For a 22-year period spanning 1997–2019, the Conservatives had no seats in South Yorkshire, until the 2019 election, when they gained three. In the 1980s, the region's socialist activity (particularly in local government) led to it being referred to as the "People's Republic of South Yorkshire", it being dominated by Labour, a party with a strong socialist tradition. However, it was not until 2017 that every seat in South Yorkshire was won by Labour, a feat which was not repeated at the subsequent 2019 election. At the 2024 general election Labour regained all South Yorkshire constituencies.

2010 boundary changes
Under the Fifth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies, the Boundary Commission for England decided to reduce the number of seats in South Yorkshire from 15 to 14, leading to significant changes. Barnsley East and Mexborough, Barnsley West and Penistone, Sheffield, Brightside, and Sheffield, Hillsborough were abolished and replaced by Barnsley East, Penistone and Stocksbridge, and Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough. Sheffield, Attercliffe was renamed Sheffield South East, and Wentworth was renamed Wentworth and Dearne.

Proposed boundary changes
See 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies for further details.

Following the abandonment of the Sixth Periodic Review (the 2018 review), the Boundary Commission for England formally launched the 2023 Review on 5 January 2021. Initial proposals were published on 8 June 2021 and, following two periods of public consultation, revised proposals were published on 8 November 2022. The final proposals were published on 28 June 2023.

The commission has proposed that South Yorkshire be combined with Humberside as a sub-region of the Yorkshire and the Humber Region, resulting in the creation of a new cross-county boundary constituency named Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, largely replacing Don Valley. Barnsley Central and Barnsley East would be realigned to form Barnsley North and Barnsley South. Changes to Wentworth and Dearne would result in it being renamed Rawmarsh and Conisbrough.

The following constituencies are proposed:

Containing electoral wards from Barnsley Containing electoral wards from Doncaster Containing electoral wards from Rotherham Containing electoral wards from Sheffield
 * Barnsley North
 * Barnsley South
 * Penistone and Stocksbridge (part)
 * Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (part also in North Lincolnshire)
 * Doncaster North
 * Doncaster Central
 * Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (part)
 * Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (part)
 * Rother Valley
 * Rotherham
 * Penistone and Stocksbridge (part)
 * Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough
 * Sheffield Central
 * Sheffield Hallam
 * Sheffield Heeley
 * Sheffield South East

Results history
Primary data source: House of Commons research briefing - General election results from 1918 to 2019

2019
The number of votes cast for each political party who fielded candidates in constituencies comprising South Yorkshire in the 2019 general election were as follows:

Percentage votes
11983 & 1987 - SDP-Liberal Alliance

* Included in Other

Seats
11983 & 1987 - SDP-Liberal Alliance

Historical representation by party
A cell marked → (with a different colour background to the preceding cell) indicates that the previous MP continued to sit under a new party name.

2010 to present
1also includes some areas of Humberside