User talk:FloNight/archive 6

3587:

appointing a specific user in an uncivil (short outburst) manner. Dmcdevit and a couple of others countered this without drama, the matter was over in a few lines as best that log shows. More importantly, not one other person on the channel endorsed or supported that negative statement -- the channel in general on inspection, functioned exactly as was best. It did not analyze (and thereby perpetuate or fuel) the drama, it did not support it. It decided it was unworthy of discussion. It let one or two users do the talking why it was wrong, and the rest either ignored it as a brief outburst quickly dropped, or commented that drama wasn't wanted and to let it go. Moreschi himself dropped it there minutes later, and is not in the habit of making such outbursts there. It was not raised again that way, nor has Moreschi commented on it in any way or spoken uncivilly there on any other matter since. Given that 100% is not attainable in any medium, it is fair to say that this was in fact handled well, that every single channel users with one exception acted appropriately in the channel when it happened, and that one user got the hint and quickly dropped it.

2366:

mainspace edits are legendary, and his contributions on the meta side have significantly improved content and behaviour with respect to "The Troubles," addressing paedophilia-related activity on this site, abusive blocking and transparency here on Knowledge. His meta positions have been supported by the wide community despite his sometimes excessive zeal; many who "opposed" Giano's election to Arbcom commented that he had the right ideas but his approach wasn't suited to being an Arbcom member. It is difficult to know whether the changes in Knowledge culture could have been made without Giano's rhetoric and focus on issues. Let's compare the defense of !! and the granting of rollback to non-administrators: Both involved walking very fine lines and pushed the community hard into a new direction, with high-flying rhetoric and violation of WP conventions. Giano got warned for being rude and violating unwritten rules (which remain unwritten, as the community cannot come to a consensus on what those rules are); Ryan Postlethwaite was invited to join a special Arbcom subcommittee.

1542:(parts copied from my response on Duk's talk page) I agree. I initially asked FloNight to unprotect straightaway and consider using blocks (or strong warnings) instead. I'm still very unhappy about the length of the protection - 6 days is far too long - I would have had no objection to a single day of protection. I was kind of hoping that lots of people would sign up there and FloNight would unprotect. I am also still unhappy that she put a condition in an edit summary, but then didn't actually go and tell the people concerned. It was more a protect and walk away action, and I felt I was clearing up afterwards. At least I managed to get the pp-dispute tag to point unprotection requests to FloNight's talk page. What I am hoping is that an uninvolved party will want to comment on the proposed decision and will turn up asking why the hell the talk page is protected - thus demonstrating that FloNight's protection is (unintentionally) suppressing legitimate input from the community on the matter. In essence, my case is 1569:

develop. Upon retracting my wording, most of the participants in the thread also retracted theirs, and I figured, hey, the thread is in the history for anyone who wants to cite it as evidence, but it does no good for the case and I'll remove it. This met with objection, so I decided to just rescind my own comments. This, apparently, is also unacceptable. Who knew that a medium based on the ability to wholly and swiftly rewrite text would develop such a fetish for edifice and monument. In any case, I am hard pressed to agree to any shift in my conduct - I certainly do not promise to magically avoid misunderstanding and miscommunication, and beyond that I am unable to identify any action I took that was not in pursuit of reasoned, careful discussion of evidence and of the actual problems instead of the gotcha-style hit squad that the page has largely become.

5602:

acting in ways that is abusive on several levels. We all were giving them a fair shake, and unfortunately we all got burned in the process. Let's not let the most divisive among us, pull the rest of us down, okay. Think about what I have written for a few days, okay. I have some other stuff I need to attend to on site. This includes starting some articles for images that my husband and I took over the past 6 weeks. Please do not think that I'm trying to prematurely brush away your concerns. In this particular instance, I think that it is best for you to try and absorb the idea that strong abuse happened before we talk more. Let's touch base again in a few days, okay?

3149:

because the IRCers themselves like to discuss things among themselves. Have any of the IRC critics ever been given access to the channel? The explanation we always receive why the channel needs to be supersikret is that the discussions include BLP issues. So, the logic goes that all IRC critics are indecent people who would publicized the BLP info they find on IRC. I remember how Badlydrawnjeff was asking for access. There can never be a doubt that he is a very decent person. But to this day, the only non-admins on the channel are its supporters or those stripped of adminship by arbcom. The loyalty to IRC is a good indicator of BLP understanding, I gather. --

1296:

think that counts as edit warring (I wonder where the following lie on the scale: reverting, blanking whole sections and pages, adding archive tags, adding collapsible tags), and if it does, Bishonen's removal of them should count. If it really mattered (and I don't think it does) I think Phil's heavy-handed removal of the thread, and Lawrence and van Helsing restoring it, are what really started it all. I'll admit that Geogre's contribution (slapping Phil with a careless undo) was far less helpful than Bishonen's (a firm request that the thread remain visible), and Giano's contribution (an appeal for calm) was yet a third response and the best of the lot.

3599:

frustratingly, cannot be verified in the way that on-wiki discussion can. Then again, off-wiki chat such as email, irc, and other forums, has never been scrutinizable that way, and technically, often cannot be. The wiki-norm is more that all adverse matters and problematic behaviors, are to be "left at the door", and repeating breachers of norms may be warned or sanctioned. Whether that's right or not is a matter of user philosophy. I have stated my reasons why it works in the recent RFC, and note that people will talk - it's better to have a place where 50 or so admins observe and keep a good standard (which it has had in general

2395:

to happen when several editors raise the level of discourse to the point that most thoughtful people give up and walk away. Giano has a history of doing this. My goal is to re-focus his enthusiasm toward supporting our dispute resolution processes to achieve his goals. I opposed remedies that would stop his participation in Knowledge policy making as I do value his opinion. As a high profile editor he needs to lead by example. Please encourage Giano to return as I feel that Knowledge will be a better place with him here. Thanks for your thoughts.

413:

think about cleaning your own house and take down your blog focusing on User:Avidor and remove the advertisement of your off-wiki harassment of him from your User page? That would show you really are concerned about "heckling people" off Knowledge. Believe it not, you are the only one who is doing very little to improve this project aside from regurgitating the same arguments over and over, taking on anyone who disagrees with you, when your own behavior is far less than exemplary. --David Shankbone 16:04, 16 October 2007 (UT

3676:, along with instructions for generating a list that is accurate up to today. Most of those on it can be tied back to their Wiki accounts, allowing you or anyone with an interest to do the work of adding up admins or non-admins, who is interested by the question. There is no guarantee FloNight is, and whilst she has a say in handling of conduct issues there (like all users) she is not in any sense a "manager" nor responsible for the user list management. As for changes, please see the rough summary 3812:. The IRC case highlighted a few problems with the channel, one of the more serious concerns was plotting going on in there. I can tell you that the channel ops are working proactively to stop anything that could even be slightly seen as talking behind other users backs. I for one have talked to a number of users when there has been a mild concern and it has done the trick so far. The users of the channel are now aware that if they say anything they shouldn't, they'll be quickly asked to leave. 589:. I was left alone here on Spam patrol, while everyone went away for Ney Year. Anon users where social engineering the article and I thought back to protect WikiPedia community and authority. Why do we need a petition when we are a consensus community! I just wanted to induce fear into the Spammers so they would stay away! I was protecting the Fort, while everyone went partying, and for that instead of talking with me and asking me why I started the petition, he labels me a Troll. 2421:"our dispute resolution processes" fail miserably when dealing with these issues. Every single change with the #admins problem, the problem that the community started to deal with since the infamous Carnildo affair was achieved only when Giano demonstrated the corruption in the most dramatic way. When others tried different methods, nothing was happening. I know the Arbcom and Jimbo like it quiet and peaceful. But real problems being dealt with is more important than everything 5679: 3760:

handling of certain on-channel incidents to reduce over-reaction... the ruling out of certain other actions to reduce abuse... clear delineation on core standards expected... who and how to appeal chanel op abuse or have a problem reviewed if there is a concern... etc. These are all newly agreed, and have strong support. What will be best is to find that they help in the exceptional cases they were designed for, for the rest of the year.

4467: 2648: 1687: 1512:

contribution to this is that I have ceased discussing the case on the talk pages, and have limited myself to one or two comments on the workshop supporting the proposal for a civility parole. I don't want to ask FloNight to unprotect the page, however. Some very false and damaging things have been said on that page, and I would rather that those who have made them would withdraw them publicly. They know who they are. --

1552:

disruption" can have a chilling effect on debate. Again, I have no problem with the arbitration committee coming to a complete decision in private and then posting it to allow discussion on the complete decision, but if you are posting the decision bit-by-bit and groping towards a solution, at least let the community help with that process and don't let the actions of a minority lead to talk pages being protected.

4164: 3752:(unindent) See above, it's answered. FloNight doesn't know a specific count, nor do I. Old decisions on channel access have more or less been "grandfathered" in; the issue of non-admin access is shelved by common agreement by and large, at the moment. The user list is available, and linked above, and you have access to it as does anybody who wishes, to check the issues that you feel matter. 4460: 2641: 1680: 89:

pro-FG vandalism actions before. See also the numerous times anti-FG and '3rd-party' users had their talk pages vandalized. So how do we prevent abuse of this, especially when banning IP addresses does little good to an organization that exploits the weaknesses of Knowledge? (If you cannot answer this one, that is understandable, but if you have an answer that would be of great use)

4453: 2634: 1673: 2512:. That'll teach me not to do things I'm not familiar with after midnight when I'm tired, but the concern about university networks seemed both reasonable and urgent. If Lara had noted that checkuser had confirmed sockpuppetry on the user notification I'd probably have taken this no further, but there does seem to be a need for clarification of the alleged wrongdoing. Thanks, . .. 908: 1636:. There is a fundamental problem with the entire weight of the proposed decision that no one has addressed yet. I posted it there as the talk page is locked. If Gerard is not to be sanctioned for edit warring because no one knew in public he literally did own that WEA page, then no-one here can be sanctioned for that, as they didn't know in public that he owned it either. 4377:, an article in your recent contributions. It's a nice article. However I got puzzled by how it could have a NPS webpage yet not have a NRHP REFNUM. I suspect there is something general that I do not understand and I have posted a question about it in the Talk page of NRHP, referring to this article. Hope you don't mind. Please feel free to chime in there, at 1286:

but the regrettable business that started with Phil's unfortunate choice of words was winding down; then the editing warring began. I'm concerned with edits starting at 20:22. Editors who edit warred appear to include Phil, Lawrence Cohen, Geogre, Avruch and Van Helsing. You are right that Giano and Bishonen were not involved in reverting the comments.

5018:

He was the cause of the IRC case, but I was sanctioned, the page edit warred over is now deleted, and the Arbcom is left looking stupid. I think I have yet to call anyone a "bastard bitch from hell" on this site, any site, or real life come to that. Funny old world isn't it, especially when those copncerned with IRC, such as the Arbcom, are in control.

548:. I do not know if I went at it the right way by bringing the matter to arbitration committee, but we should not be calling other editors Trolls, or any other labels, and I do not want to say them here or any other places! So as you can see my grievances are not about the revert of the edit, but about the admin derogative abuse of a junior editor. 77:

again an inconsistent application of Knowledge rules that anti-FGers must be banned yet pro-FGers have, at the very most, only been given a year's parole (except McConn). I also note with amusement that despite User:HappyInGeneral having declared a POV war previously on the FG discussion page, he can be found not to merit even a revert parole.

5549:'s Talk page and immediately above, you do not refer to it all, simply to his contributions and the check-user. As I read it, rather than dealing with his appeal from the original block and the evidence upon which it was based, you have actually disregarded all that and instead come up with another, separate, reason for blocking him. 5639:. Because abuse is a strong word. If its just procedural or they broke rules they may not have been fully aware of, why not say so? In addition, you might explain to us all how and why they were 'targetted' if their article contributions were satisfactory. Was someone stalking them? Is that not a form of abuse in itself? Given that 3176:

pointed out to some, what seems to him, inconsistencies in your post. If his opinion is something you are also "interested to hear", why not straighten out those inconsistencies in your post and respond to Loki? Instead of your response, there was one more post from Tony who is great at explaining what everyone else said. --

3672:

occasion if/when we might, we'd probably say so, but that hasn't happened yet that I know of. Flo is there as an admin with higher level channel access, which she may or may not use on any given occasion, and the same is true for other users by and large. The complete list of users correct as of a week or so ago is

4871:), which indeed could be interpretated as "related to ancient history". I have however been "encouraged" by the commity to keep contributing such images, as well as material for Talk page discussions and suggestions, and User Subpages are an essential means of achieving this. Could you kindly reconsider? Regards; 4250:). It's clear that the discussion heated up (on both sides) but it turns out I was right to dispute their misrepresentation of historical facts. I challenge judgements which are based on such false evidence and manipulation. Another recent case of Elonka obviously misrepresenting sources has been exposed here 441:

the puppetmaster page does NOT belong to him / her, and has tagged it for deletion. As this page is source reference for evidence, its deletion prior to the acceptance, check and / or resolution of the sockpuppetry inquiry would, in my humble opinion, seem to negate the whole SOCKS issue. What should be done?

5525:

When these sort of allegations are raised against a long-standing contributor, which are so obviously out of character, I would consider it reasonable to raise the issue with him first rather than reach instinctively for the 'ban-hamma'. In this case, 'confirmed by check-user' actually means that the

5131:

I'm afraid the token "arranged sanction" of "waiting for a whatever" which he was kind enough to agree to was just another sop to the community , as was the Arb's charade of a vote to look onto IRC to disguise the fact that the case was accpepted with no grounds in the hope of getting rid of me. Well

4004:

Now was that so painful? had I wanted to draw teeth I would have studied to be a dentist. Now I am also in possession of many logs which don't quite bear out your earlier statemnts concerning reform, but for now I'm going to bed. Hopefully we can continue this fascinating conversation in the morning,

3768:

affect, supersede, or change on-wiki matters. Actions by admins and non-admins on-wiki are still down to individual admins decisions and accountability. What has been done is to clarify and in a way, codify, that there is a clear understanding in the channel too, of major areas of usage and approach,

3759:

As examples of changes that you might consider important: this is the first time it has been explicitly stated that IRC is there specifically to support the wiki (anti-divergence measure, learning from Ezperanaza)... that some decisions cannot just be made on whim but must have multiple review... the

3559:

As for my "faith" in general, please do not put words in my mouth. I have no faith that the problem of secretive wrongdoing can be tackled by secretive means. This is the only thing that I've said. Nothing about "faith in the process" in general. I have a great faith that the problem can be addressed

2254:

This is a strongly worded remedy that has the potential to be brought up at future arbitration cases. Would you be happy if in a future case, say in a year's time, the arbitration committee said that you (a named party to this case) had failed to heed the warning and that consequently they are taking

1285:

On one hand the proposed decision talk page is a courtesy of Arbcom; they could announce final decisions without allowing any comment, although that would provoke great howls of consternation as well. Of course the entire episode is eminently unhelpful to Arbcom in trying to evaluate their decision,

1170:

page messages for all concerned, asking them to sign a section here on Flonight's talk page agreeing to abide by the conditional she laid forth in her edit summary. Once that is done, maybe Flonight will feel able to lift the page protection and replace it with one of those "talk page calm" messages?

440:

FloNight - I'm extremely sorry that the first message of the NewYear on your user talk has to be something of this nature, however I need to ask a seasoned admin a few procedural questions regarding a suspected sockpuppetry case that I have opened. In short form, the suspected puppet is claiming that

418:

I'm sorry, but why do you keep bringing up Avidor? That conflict has nothing to do with this case, and your continued insistence on bringing it up in every discussion is getting tiresome. And, FWIW, if you are trying to run me off the project like you did to THF, you will find that will not work with

173:

These are all in the evidence however they were not interduced into the proposed decision. (like many other facts which are in the evidence) Don't you think this is highly relevent to this case ? How can I make sure the evidence is considered? I will accept any verdict as long as the process is fair.

5552:

I am also disturbed by references to your notes and other correspondence with Admins; there is clearly no way that any editor can formulate a response when the evidence against him is kept secret, his responses are not listened to, and there's a whole discussion, which he's not privy to, going on in

4965:

Nothing rhetorical at all, it seems the Arbs etc want the IRC question deliberatly left ambiguous and vague, while on other sites, such as WR, IRC Admins, such as Ryan, can jump in with both feet and ban at whim. I don't think you can have this both ways. You don't think "bastard bitch from hell" is

4950:

The Arbitration Committee does make ruling about harassment and stalking of editors by our editors. If blatant harassment occurs in #admins, I expect that the chan ops would take swift action to remove the user and send ArbCom the logs. Less obvious harassment can be brought to the attention of chan

4770:

He's responded at my talk, saying that his interaction with me the other night (when I tried to get him to see that calling a respected contributor's edits "Nedspam" was unconstructive) "surreal." I'll leave it for you to respond to. I have nothing further to say to Tony, as he's continuing to "play

3453:

the existing system? Why can't this plague be dealt in an honest and transparent way and by the community who this concerns directly. How many more times the IRCers would be telling us that everything is finally "all right". How many more editors like Giano, Bishonen and Ghirla are to be expunged? --

3380:

And Mackensen was online during that discussion. Did it help? We had already two level-30 channelops aware of the situation and one of the two actually made it happen. Within 3 days or so, more channelops became aware and still nothing. When Mackenses found out, he just asked around a little but was

3265:

And did past real or paper attempts to clean up the channel taken under the same cover of secrecy ever bring anything? Remember the over a year ago post by Fred to ANI that "arbcom finds unacceptable" bla-bla-bla thus appointing channel guards? And what? One of the "guards" was no one else but David

3105:

under the control of ArbCom, not asked them to maybe think about somehow thinking about maybe getting involved. Also, there are people who do not use it because they're ignorant (a reason for exclusion), people who don't use it because they do not agree with it in principle (a reason for inclusion,

2526:

Thanks for your advice on my user page, there has indeed been great care taken over this issue and the result looks incontrovertible. It's just unfortunate that it was so difficult to get information on the blocks, and as more points were raised my confidence in cu was shaken – glad to be reassured.

2378:

that nobody questions or reads. And if someone does question the block, then we're back to the drama that nobody needs - not the community, not Arbcom, and not Giano either. From that perspective, with such a huge "kick me" sign pinned to his back, who can blame Giano for walking away? Hundreds of

1618:

Because it's probably the right thing to do, I have unprotected the page. I have every confidence that the parties can behave themselves. If not, I am prepared to levy page bans enforced with blocks, as described in the warning I put at the top of the workshop when the case opened. For a while it

1568:

I do not feel that I can fairly be asked to weigh in on this, given the degree to which I seem to be damned if I do, damned if I don't. In attempting to make a point about the needless hyperbole being employed on the page I used phrasing that caused reasonable offense, and caused a useless thread to

1190:

Flonight, I've just finished reading the threads at the talk page. It turns out that I agree with Giano that it is best not to add anything further, but this begs the question: If I had wished to say something, while the thoughts were fresh in my mind after reading that page, where could I have done

563:

An arbitration case is likely premature. Rejecting a case does not mean that there is not an issue at all. It means that other ways of dealing with it are likely better for now. Giving him calm feedback on his talk page or by email might work. An conduct RFC if that does not work is usually the next

377:

I'm a bit confused. Ms McGuire was recorded on audio and video offering sex for money and how that is not relevant to the main article is beyond me, let alone the talk page. Perhaps you would like to explain it to me? I would be grateful. I think you're mising the point of Knowledge entirely in this

88:

5. How exactly do we deal with unregistered users who vandalize Knowledge + Wiki user pages? Note that there have been a series of anti-FG vandalism actions recently, which is curiously well-timed as they hardly existed before this ArbCom case, as well as the fact that there have only been numerous

5589:

Per the request of the David Lauder account and other users, iirc including yourself; several arbitrators reviewed David Lauder's ban. We took our time reviewing the evidence trying to see if the David Lauder account could be allowed to return. The discussion was already wrapping up when the latest

5306:

Subsequently, I have returned to both Admins involved in this block with requests for further information concerning the Check-user evidence - what a lawyer would call the forensic evidence - which seems to me to be both (a) the only evidence against this editor; and, (b) rather scanty at that. You

5017:

I'm pleased to hear it. So why was I sanctioned and Master Sidaway (or whatever he is currently calling himself) merely asked to enter voluntarily into some sort of strange bizarre agreement to be sort of sanctioned, but not quite? I'm sure you can see why so many have lost all faith in the Arbcom.

4846:

Here's my problem. I am very new to wikipedia and do not know how to edit the colorful sections that list the populations. How do you do that? Or, better yet (since youre an administrator, maybe you could help me (:) i'll give you the links to prove the real population counts if you can edit it for

3502:

Yes, I was, and I did in fact get a log, which confirms that Moreschi came in channel, said stupid things despite attempts by others to restrain him, then left again. I don't find giving civility warnings useful, so I lent my support to reforming channel access and overall standings. This, however,

3452:

And if, I am speaking hypothetically now, you and FT2 take this particular incident close to heart, pursue it to the end and expunge Moreschi from #admins and Dmcdevit from both #admins and Arbcom-L, where he should not be in the first place, how do we know that next time this would be addressed by

3269:

Not surprisingly the attempt of correction taken within the same secrecy framework did not change much and the rampant IRC abuse went on for another year with the discussions occasionally arising onwiki. This culminated in the latest IRC case and so much bru-ha-ha and just when the case was closing

2394:

The choice was his to engage in highly provocative behavior that is well outside of policy and in my opinion has impeded the Community from writing a reasonable IRC guideline. Knowledge is based on the idea that decisions will be made through calm collaborative discussion. It is impossible for that

2369:

Just about anyone can make the list of administrators who would be watching every word written by Giano, ready to whack him with a block, whether deserved or not. One snippy comment in a FAR. One snotty response on his talk page. Another Eurocentric allusion that goes over the average American's

1324:

Protect and blank the talk page of a proposed Arbcom decision? That's the only fix you can come up with? With all the due respect and I mean that......you know, I've sat here for like 10 minutes not knowing what to say about that...I just give up...I really wanted to finish that discussion but it's

1250:

and sort out a complete decision and then post it (including votes in a set period of time) - then allow a bit of discussion on the talk page, allow arbitrators to change their minds as needed (eg. late evidence submitted or cogent talk page arguments), then close the case? Singling out four people

1169:

And a further point. Flonight might have considered leaving talk page messages for those who, if they agreed to restrain themselves, could lead to her feeling able to lift the protection. But Flonight has not left such messages. In lieu of that, I will attempt to move things forward by leaving talk

638:

Sound like a good idea and I agree with you, but I am a Spam patrolman and will continue to do my work as a Spam patrolamn. He is also a Spam patrolman! I hope next time there is a situation that we face each other in the field eliminating Spam and protecting WikiPedia, he will show me courtesy and

611:

Perhaps, the best solution is to walk away from the situation for now since you have made your feelings known. The Project is large and there are many other areas that can occupy your time in a way that is more fun. Editing here is suppose to be a leisure activity that bring pleasure so dwelling on

412:

Perhaps the implication is that you need to move on and worry about yourself, instead of hyping this case in your head fixating on it, doing nothing on Knowledge but focus on this case, that in the end you have said all along has nothing to do with you. You've made your arguments. Why don't you now

166:

Other than being warned by ArbCom in his previous arbcom case (about misuse of admin tools) Zero has also been specifically warned by 2 admins not to take action against me. Once by Slim Virgin and once by Fred himself who suggested to him not to use ban as first measure against me and if he thinks

76:

2. Moreover, if users like Asdfg (pro-FG) are given a second chance and commended for turning over a new leaf and now appears to conform to Wiki rules, why shouldn't Tomananda be given that chance, and Samuel (who had 3, not 7 blocks btw, if overturned blocks are not to be counted)? I find it once

72:

1. I notice that Samuel has been deemed incapable of promoting a viewpoint outside his activism and has an obvious conflict of interest in that sense, but don't Falun Gong practitioners also have a similar COI? Many of the pro-FGers did not even want to see a Criticism section. Now, they are only

68:

Note about this query in this section: This is more of a question seeking clarification from arbitrators / similar ranked persons on Wiki about Wiki rules rather than a complaint. I wanted to keep the query to the ArbCom decision talk page but if I can't get an answer there, please give me a reply

5387:

Today I reviewed my own notes, my independently done checkuser from April 2008, private comments of other arbitrators (both recent and going back several months), on site comments by various accounts and other checkusers, and email correspondence from various accounts. It is my conclusion that the

4298:

I encourage you to take our ruling to heart and reconsider your approach to editing. As mentioned on the case talk page, the Committee thoroughly evaluated your contributions against our core content policies and felt that there were problems. Our independent review of your content additions shows

3887:

Well, I was aware that we made it perfectly clear what was acceptable and what wasn't in the channel and if users don't abide by that then of course we'll remove them. With regards to your non admin question, I think that there are currently two users who have access to the channel that are former

3755:

Changes have also been described too (also linked above). Please see the above links. Whilst there is a learning curve on it, the intentions and critieria are good ones and what Ive seen, have broad support and the possibility to help in the few cases where a problem might not have been handled as

3619:

Following assurances made by yourself at the close of the famed IRC case, could you now please confirm to me, how many non-admins and ex-admins still have access to the Admins channel. Please reply as soon as possible. To the nearest ten will do. Also could you explain precisely what changes have

3592:

You may have concerns in future on a matter to do with that channel (which is not outside the bounds of possibility). I accept that there are differences whether it should exist or not, be public or not, is appropriately representative or not. But in terms of actual conduct there, a fair number of

3463:

I should not be regarded as an active chanop; I have little enough time to devote to this project as it is without having to referee these disputes. It's a task even more worthless and thankless than sitting on Arbcom. As an aside, Giano appears feisty and vigilant enough for an "expunged" editor.

3278:

And, btw, another channelop (Mackenesen) whose duty is supposedly to investigate the incident upon learning about it was at the channel during the discussion. So, he learned of the incident and did nothing but more talk. Again, no investigation, no sanctions and no attempt to contact me. So, it is

3115:

as it is, so of course they are going to dismiss everything else. If there is a great problem with it, seek those who know the problems, not the ones who say, "Everything is fine: ignore those whiners." This is assuming that ArbCom is interested in reason, logic, fairness, and getting this thing

2411:

You could have done more for him to be here, Flo. I am sorry you did not. I am not singling you out claiming this is all your fault. This is the collective fault of ArbCom (so, partially of you) + other members of supersikret Arbcom-L plus the smaller but more prominent part of #admins which has a

1523:

This proposal is a typical example of Carcharoth's good nature and common sense; however, the context corrupts the words. Flo's page protection was fine since people were getting unruly, but the conditions on unprotecting are too narrow and, in fact, just an extension of the muzzling placed on the

1411:

at Flonight's talk page indicating that they will abide by this request. Hopefully this will help move the situation forward, and enable the talk page to be unprotected (with any necessary warnings added) so that any editor (including those uninvolved in this) can comment on the proposed decision.

1209:

The alternative would be to ban Giano, Geogre, Bishonen and Phil from editing the case pages, on penalty of blocking, per the warning I originally posted on the workshop page, and then unprotecting the page. I'm not sure I will have sufficient attention to Knowledge tomorrow to be able to monitor

5601:

account abused the good will of other editors by using this account and other accounts against policy. For user's such as yourself, I feel really bad that this has happened. Try to take on board the idea that this account's public persona is one persona, and that the person behind the account is

5562:

Is it possible, please, for some brief explanation of why the vandal account seems to have caused such offense to be given? Again, from what I can see, two of these edits seem par for the course: I have seen much worse, and can provide the diffs to demonstrate, being posted by other editors under

5482:

shows abusive use of the account. My initial review in April 2008 showed connections to other accounts that made abusive sock/meatpuppetery the most likely relationship between this account and others. Recent activity confirms the relations. To my knowledge, every checkuser or arbitrator that has

5000:

related to their channels, including one about reporting criminal activity. These issues are handled on a case by case basis by administrators, chan ops, and the Arbitration Committee. If misconduct occurs in the #admis channel then it should be dealt with as stated in the guidelines. I find that

3403:

And last but not least, I am by far more concerned by the conversation itself being held behind my back by the sneaky folk than by the word "bastard" which does not worry me on its own, as I have seen worse and I know too well about the manners, faith and intellectual honesty in those quarters. I

3148:

Tony, again, it's great to know what "you think" from your posts on each and every page the contentious issues are raised. Now, in response to Flo and, especially, Utgard's post. Utgard's opinion that "we" should include the IRC critics has been voiced many times before and rebuffed as many times

1511:

I didn't receive Carcharoth's message on my talk page (presumably he overlooked me because I had not contributed to the particular thread). However I was warned twice by Newyorkbrad concerning other edits on that page and that's enough to tell me that I must have said something inappropriate. My

1017:

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here

403:

I know what it means. I wanted to know what you were implying. If you are implying that I have some agenda here, you are quite mistaken. I came to this case as a completely uninvolved third party, and I continue to pursue it because the evidence does not support any of the proposed findings (yes,

4842:

article says that Asian Egypt (sinai desert) has 80 million people. Well, the entire country of egypt has 80 million people. The AFRICAN part has about 80 million the asian sinai has only about 1 million people. Plus, the population counts are all from 2002 when there are 2007 population counts

3586:

One user, Moreschi, was angry, and exasperated at the choice he did not agree with, of who was appointed to the working group. In that context he stated in the channel a month ago on February 7, his upset at the appointments, expressed his concerns, and gave his apprehensions about the impact of

3531:

This is just an additional demonstration that the system based on the assumption of good ombudsmanship of chanops themselves does not work and cannot work. And past years demonstrated that any attempts of reform failed to bring a meaningful change when the reforms were undertaken within the same

3088:

Jimbo asked ArbCom to become more involved in sorting out the issues related to #admins. ArbCom does not have control of the channel since we do not own it, others do. Some members of the community that do not use the channel have stated that they want to have a have a chance to help draw up the

2290:

I'm in favor of the committee reaching consensus on who, precisely, this is addressed to, and a form of words that identifies them (this would of course include me because without my initial act of gross incivility this case would not have arisen). The words might be exclusive ("All parties" -:

1295:

I can't make much sense of the mini-edit war between Geogre and Avruch. Geogre removed a comment by Phil, saying "don't edit war", and Avruch restored it (quite reasonably in my opinion, I think Geogre's edit was a mistake). Avruch's only other contribution was to add collapsable markers - don't

34:

Hi, I am one of the editors involved in the Sathya Sai arbitration. I have added new evidence and updated the workshop. I should have responded earlier but I was very busy with some personal issues. I request you to look at the new evidence and give me a fair trial. Thanks. ] 26th February 2007

1116:

Flonight, I think protecting the talk page is going too far - maybe for a day, but not for 6 days or until the case closes. There are people who will want to make relevant and helpful comments, and will be able to restrain themselves. Protecting the talk page merely disenfranchises them. If any

84:

4. I note from Fred Bauder that NPOV does not require excision of POV language. I accept that, but hope that he would expand on this point further, preferably by giving examples in this FG case. Moreover, if that edit I made was objectionable then does that mean Fire_Star's one (the version I

3671:

FloNight doesn't go there "as an arb" (which implies "in a formal role as an arbcom member", eg to take a formal arb role in the channel, as opposed to "an admin, who also happens to be an arbitrator, visiting the channel"). Nor do I, nor do any of the arbcom users who are active on IRC. On an

3175:

Then why not let the "IRC Discussion Workgroup" function out in the open so that "all interested members of the Community", whose opinion you are "interested in hearing", can watch and, perhaps, contribute? Are you also interested in Utgard's opinion expressed above? Anyway, he provided it and

2125:

I agree on this (early on in the case I suggested a civility parole and my opinion hasn't changed). Having findings but no parole in this particular case would make it rather more difficult for me. I suspect that this remedy, passed visibly, would also make an end to this affair more likely.

1351:

My priority is to minimize disruption and somehow bring this case into harbor without the involved parties tearing each other apart. I am not especially interested in guaranteeing that uninvolved parties have had their say. I'm sorry but there it is. I have a responsibility to the community to

3763:

Finally, note this is an internal channel guide. It is an agreement between irc users of mutual expectations on the channel. As such it is not an on-wiki matter, nor a matter for users who don't use IRC. As the saying goes, what happens off wiki is not consensus for what happens on-wiki. That

3306:

Since reading Irpen's post here, I contacted FT2 about the new guidelines and Dmcdevit about Moreschi's conduct in channel. I suggest that you contact both of them with your concerns. Both are interested in cleaning up the channel and working toward that effort. I'll continue to push for more

3231:

A working group was my idea but evidently did not draw support from other Arbitration Committee members. Yesterday, I received an email reporting that user conduct guidelines for #wikipedia-en-admins were updated. I did not participate in the decision and have not read the guidelines yet. I'm

3756:

well before. Of course nothing's perfect, so it goes without saying there will be issues, but broadly I've reviewed a number of the last 9 months' incidents and found quite often the reported incidents were frequently misreported in respect of accuracy, completeness, or neutral description.

2365:

I too wish that Giano would stay and continue to participate in Knowledge. From the perspective of the encyclopedia, he is an incredibly valuable contributor; from the personal perspective, I have learned a great deal about editing and greatly value the encouragement he has given me. Giano's

3274:

kicked right in. I have not heard either from Moreschi or from Dmcdevit, neither an explanation nor an apology after my request. Neither I've heard of their being sanctioned. And who would sanction them? Dmc is a chanellop himself! The only reaction to my request was that my post itself was

95:

1. Instead of revert parole-ing numerous users, how about simply revert parole-ing entire Wiki entries, namely the FG-related ones here? This would be the best way of preventing edit wars ESPECIALLY by unregistered users (or users exploiting this Wiki weakness), as has been supported by my

1551:

I also agree with you that this looks a lot like the #admins case repeating itself, with avenues for objection being heavy-handedly closed off in the name of "avoiding disruption". Sometimes there is a fine line between vigorous debate and disruption, but erring on the side of "suppressing

3598:

I will add - although not asked - I have also checked out other statements at other times of recent incidents, and in most of them, the representation on-wiki does not conform to the actual channel dialog as it took place. I accept that this information is not public and therefore perhaps

1225:

Well, it raises the question; there's no begging here. I would love to trust the community, self-selecting though it is, to keep discussion civil. I don't think any reasonable person could believe that's possible with that group of people. I was about to protect and blank the page myself.

3635:

I'll be happy to relay your question to FT2 in case he does not see it here. As noted above on my talk page, FT2 is best person to contact for information about the #admins channel since he is/was actively involved with modifying the channel guidelines and access to the channel.

3484:

an active channelop at the time as when the incident was discussed at #admins you said so yourself offering "a cookie to whomever sends a full unredacted log covering the incident in question" and adding "to be clear, I'm asking as an op". You post above does not add up to this.

3603:

to the wiki for quite some time) and scrutiny, than fragmented "behind the scenes" chat between smaller cliques. At present, any admin at all of any viewpoint can join that channel, which since the action taken in 2006, has consistently proven quite successful as a technique.

4205:. I have no idea why this case and only this case has set up a special enforcement page out of site of the usual mechanism; it appears to be largely a walled garden where the same participants yell at each other some more. (see below) I'm thinking it should be merged into 80:

3. Arbitrator Fred Bauder also mentioned that the real flamers have not been sanctioned (e.g. User:Omido) so far so should this ArbCom decision be expanded to include these users? Or are arbitrators bound to only consider the users involved and mentioned in the ArbCom case?

1899:. This is all a horrendous waste on WP's resources and people dealing with this guy. Neutral Good has NOTHING to do with that situation. He has no relationship with Eschoir, Commuter, and doesn't care about Free Republic he claims. Yet here he rides to SC's defense. Please. 1435: 5593:

The routine method for dealing with vandal socks is quickly and quietly undoing the on site damage done by the vandal sock account and then ignoring them. Admin and checkusers handle these situations every day. I definitely think that is the best approach to use in this

3396:

Same with checkuser: If checkuser logs are only available to checkusers themselves, it is impossible for regular editors to know whether they have been the victims of an illicit enquiry, and therefore there is no public liason function for the ombudsman to perform.

1387: 3722:

Let me simpify this for you Flo - beyond Tony Sidaway (or "waiting for a girlfriend" or whatever he is currently calling himself) have any other non admins been removed? Have, indeed, any changes at all been implemented? How difficult a question is this for you?

1427:

I think the page should stay protected, for the same reasons it was protected originally. If you have some urgent new insight, there are other ways to make yourself heard. The talk page had become a locus for continuing the dispute, and that is not its purpose.

5526:

check-user links between the accounts is no better than 'likely', and is based (a) on geographical proximity and (b) on temporal lack of proximity; ie. the known and the vandal's accounts were not editing simultaneously. (I just pause here to point out that in

3448:

Next, how are we supposed to believe that something changes this time as the "change" was discussed only by the channel's regulars? Mackensen, on the channel the next day, asked whether anyone can provide him a log. No one was willing to. Did he ask me? No.

1055:

Personally, I think protection was a good idea (even though as admins more than a few of the involved parties can still edit it). The conversations taking place were serving no appreciable purpose, and it was inflaming the dispute on which the case revolves.

55:

As I am new to the wiki culture - as you can tell... I noticed that the John Machemehl article has now passed its 5 days of debate. Do one of us need to close it? Does it need to be an administrator? Sorry to bother you with this. Thanks and take care.

5151:

to ST47 not misuse his tools during a dispute (as he clearly, without debate, did during the Betacommand kerfuffle) has opened my eyes to the way things are. The lack of willingness todeal with IRC/Tony/the mess that goes with it is just a further example.

3392:

ombudsmans since affected users usually don't know about being abused. So, Mackensen had to act vigilantly upon it after finding something out even purely by accident through being at the channel when Ryan posted the diff. Otherwise, it is all meanigless.

3363:

Flo, you seem to not understand what took place in the incident in question if you suggest contacting no one else but Dmc in order to address it. Dmc was complicit in the affair and now you suggest that he is the proper person to decide upon the actions?

110:

Hello, I see that you've voted in behalf of a revert parole for Yueyuen. Unfortunately, you have not indicated any finding of fact (such as edit warring), which might prevent the case from closing. This issue was specifically pointed out by Paul August in

3358: 5377:

Alison, is correct. During User:David Lauder's ban review, I first noticed the Counter-revolutionary account. Per my notes at least one other arbitrator also noticed the Counter-revolutionary account during their own independent review of David Lauder's

2323:

think they were helping to calm the situation down? Part of the reason editors develop problematic conduct issues over several years is that they are not told early on what is and is not acceptable. Would you agree that a message needs to be sent that

4866:

Hi FloNight. You seem to be arguing on Arbcom for my User Subpages to be included in my restrictions from editing Ancient History or Medieval History articles. Please note that I manage vast quantities of images from museums around the world (such as

1040:

Please unprotect the Arbcom decision talk page, I'm still conducting a conversation about the proposed ruling. If you have an issue with specific editors, please work it out with them but don't close off discussion of an ongoing case totally, thanks.

2744: 1528:, the Arbcom is accepting David as Wikipeia's chief censor and propagandist, apparently based on secret evidence that none of us may see. The arbcom contains more than a few neutered halfwits. For the first few years, the IRC leadership was happy to 5356:, Major, as that I've been busy and have been away the best part of the weekend. Furthermore, Counter-rev and an arbitrator have been having ongoing discussions via email which I'm not going to go into right now. It's very much an ongoing matter - 4378: 4951:

ops and ArbCom informed later as well. Chan ops need to learn the details to know if harassing outing is happening. On site discussion is expected to back up all on site actions, such as blocks for harassment or legal threats. I hope that helps.

4847:

me. It's up to you. Well, thanks. Could you maybe respond on my user page instead of your own, if that's okay. Well, thanks. If you don't want any part of this assignment, just say so. I'll ask someone more interested in that particular subject.

3279:

same usual. Abuse continues, some members of establishment take part in it and others in the establishment mildly disapprove and say "A" but never saying "B". And now with this new "update" things would change for better all of a sudden. Sigh.

3371:

the very next minute (literally) Ryan posted the diff to #admins which started a discussion. You think the discussion was about the abhorrent behavior of Moreschi and Dmc? Not very much. Mostly it was about the "leaks". ("<Ryanpostlethwait:

3648:

What is so difficult about the question? You go there, you are an Arb, don't the Arbs discuss these things? Please don't be evasive. You were one of those so keen to accept the IRC case, now please be equally keen on some of the reslolutions.

3421:

I asked FT2 to follow up with you about your concerns. He has access to the logs and played a large role in establishing the new guidelines for the channel. I'll follow up with both of you to see if your concerns are addressed. Take care,

2729: 639:

talk to me why I did what. I have no problem listening to him because he is my senior, and I will respect my seniors, but spend a fe minutes to talk! Thank you for your help and intevantion on my behalf to resolve the stale mate amiably.

4254:. All my contributions are properly referenced from published sources, and if sometimes we can have differences in interpretation, nobody has been able to identify a single case of fabrication of sources or whatever (as demonstrated in 1532:

and watch the community struggle with #admins place. Now we've degenerated to the point where community discussion on this topic, when it asks hard questions or points out problems or tries to debate on a common form, is not tolerated.

4088:

I'd like to know if arbitration committee is paying any attention at all to the evidence I presented. I'd prefer a rational explanation over senseless silence. I have had my fair share from arbcom inactivity. I am quite tired of it.

3520:

Well, unfortunately your summary of the incident is a pity one. I have also seen the log and saying that Dmc's role was "restraining" one is a big stretch. He was no less (IMO more) insulting even if he did not use such rude words.

1491:

Sure, except that I don't want to edit the page at all; I object to unwriting (Snowspinner) and trying to cover things up. Seems to me that that warranted a warning. Meh. Protection is out, esp. when it's just one user breaking the

519:

You're quite welcome, it's a concern that I had, and needed to be reckoned out either way. Like I've stated before, if it turns out false, then all the better! If it turns out true though, then something definitely needs to be done.

2198:

However, on mu userpage, I've declared that I have a friend who edits from this IP address (albeit not very often!) - and since you're a Checkuser, you can indeed verify that! However, as is said, Checkuser isn't magic pixie dust.

2734: 1352:

minimize or eliminate disruption. I have a responsibility to the parties to review their evidence and actions, and to weigh matters as impartially as I can. That talk page helps me do neither, and was greatly inflaming matters.

3384:

I found this out by pure accident. I have no certainty that it does not go on. And Mackensen and other ops being made aware of the incident had a duty to act without my further urging anyone. There has been enough time by now.

3275:

immediately discussed (within minutes after I posted it and, yes, at the very same channel). Interestingly, the main subject of that discussion whose participants know who they are was the "leak" rather than the abuse itslef.

2739: 596:

ST47 as an admin is really a bad role model for new editors who work hard to contribute to the WikiPedia project. I have no idea how I should talk to him, if he keeps calling me a Troll and breathing fire down my neck. Thank

592:

Please check my edit history as a new editor, yes I make mistake but I am nv\ever insulant or desripectful to my seniors, and always enter into a discussion not to turn the revert back but to learn how to do things the right

5146:

This I'm beginning to understand: there is a distinct unwillingness to get the "hands dirty" on the current version of the arbcom. The complete unwillingness of two of our most active arbs (Brad & Flo) to support even a

5201: 4558: 1769: 4299:

that you need to use more caution when interpreting the texts compared to the sources cited. Your comments about users are not helpful and I ask you to use less inflammatory language when discussing their contributions.

4037:

I have no idea what is precisely being discussed, but if it involves putting together a group (work/discussion/coffee tasting/whatever) regarding #Admins then I would like to confirm that I am still keen to participate.

1619:

looked like that warning was premature, then things started to go down hill. It's not too late to pull out of the death spiral that so many tendentious Arbcom cases seem to get in to when they've been open a long time.

4734:

from Tony Sidaway (now calling himself Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The). He calls a respected contributor's edits "Nedspam" in an edit summary, and then "plays dumb" as to why that could have been offensive.

4240: 3542:

Indeed, and the repeated statements by yourself (and others) that you had no faith in the process or those involved was indeed a great help in trying to grapple with the situation. I wish you luck in dealing with it.

5590:

incident happened. An indefinite block of the Counter-revolutionary account would have been a likely outcome of the discussion. After the latest incident, an indefinite block on the account is absolutely appropriate.

1946:

joint caution two years ago, in which at Aaron Brenneman's suggestion I agreed that my name could be added despite the absence of a formal finding of fact. Our debate on the workshop had become a little overheated.

4522: 1743: 851:

Hello Jim. I brought this to the attention of Newyorkbrad and he changed it. From your comments, it seems to be satisfactory. Glad that the case has closed and hope everyone involved can move on. Happy editing. :-)

4553: 5207: 4196: 2703: 4548: 2749: 5075:

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here guys, but can I suggest that pushing one arbitrator is not going help you gain your desired outcome. If there's concerns that a remedy isn't effective, take it back to

4280: 2754: 3208:

Hi FloNight, I note that the community has not heard much more about the IRC Discussion Workgroup that you proposed. If the individuals selected for that workgroup are not yet finalized, I'd like to suggest

4062: 4837:

the population counts are inacurate. For example, it says that European Russia is 142 million people. European russia is actually 100 million, asian russia (siberia) is approx 42 million in population. The

484:

Well, I went ahead and removed the template, under guidance from the template its self. All I need to know now is just how long it will be before this gets picked up for review, so we can put this issue to

5585:

is properly blocked. Considered separately, the contributions and the checkuser evidence shows highly likely abusive use of the account. Considered in totality with other evidence, the finding of abuse is

3110:

use it and left out of disgust (a reason to demand their presence, as they will be the ones who know what's wrong). The idea that only the present users should have input is backwards. The present users

2312: 2293:"All parties, especially User:A, User:B..."), whichever satisfies the committee best, but I do think a more specific remedy have more teeth, by making it plain exactly who the committee has its eyes on. -- 4532: 4527: 4517: 3532:

secrecy framework where the wrongdoing lies. Reform proposed and discussed secretly behind the closed doors by selected few who has been on the channel all this time does not and won't look credible. --

2713: 2708: 2698: 1753: 1748: 1738: 5287:

I know that you follow the participants in 'the Troubles' from a distance, including myself, but I should be grateful if I could please draw your attention to this case. Arising out of a discussion on

4228: 2509: 3159:

Irpen, I'm interested in hearing your perspective on the topic. I'm interested in hearing form all interested members of the Community. If that did not come through in my previous post, I apologize.

4512: 4244: 2693: 1733: 4574: 4202: 2770: 1785: 4829:

Thanks for unblocking my user name (at least i think it was you) anyway, you have been so helpful that i wanted to ask you about something. If you have time (and im sure ur busy) would you go to

5264:

I am grateful for your lengthy reply to my post. Would you be willing to discuss all 10 Proposed principles I submitted? I think it can really help us if the ArbCom rules on them, pro or con. —

4261:). I am asking you to think twice before believing the accusations of such editors. Elonka is well known for throwing endless accusation at someone and spinning the truth in order to get support 73:

willing to see one that is heavily truncated and has been responded to by their Leader or Master. Isn't this an inconsistent application of the Conflict of Interest rule? (If not, pls explain)

5522:

I'm sorry to come back, yet again, on this issue. I can recognise that I'm flogging a dead horse but despite that I think that it is important to set out what ought to be some basic principles.

4941:

In all honesty, that post looks more like a comment or rhetorical question than a request for clarification, but I will answer about issues related to harassment that might occur in the channel.

4604: 2785: 1805: 4634: 4629: 4624: 4619: 4614: 4609: 4599: 4594: 4589: 4584: 4579: 4255: 4005:

and then poor Flo, who was anxious to defend the now deleted IRC page can be restored to good voice and join us, because I've one or two more question sfor her, if you will allow her to speak.

2795: 2790: 2780: 2775: 1815: 1810: 1800: 1795: 1790: 1501: 504:

Yes, removing it was correct. As for putting the issue to bed...good luck :-) I'll email you more thoughts about this later today. By the way, thanks for you help dealing with this. Take care,

112: 3400:

Whoever is entasked with enforcing the rules over something where the logs are closed, has to do so pro-actively. Otherwise, it is a meaningless function since the logs are considered private

1820: 1583: 3575: 3536: 3457: 3415: 1516: 170:

There are few more admins who gave Zero such answer (Jayjg explained to him that my request for mediation is not an excuse to ban me) and Tom Harrison asked him to stop making PA against me.

1574:

In any case, I have found that the sun shines a little brighter and that the birds sing a little louder since the page is protected, and thus have no reason or desire to see it unprotected.

4868: 1915:

There are no previous findings or remedies in arbitration cases involving me related to incivility or personal attacks. This is the first time the matter has been raised at arbitration. --

1475: 1191:

so? Here? I am sure that people will want to comment on the proposed remedies as they develop, and I would hope that you would trust the community to be able to keep such discussion civil.

5322:

intend to petition regarding his own unblock, but did not use the {{unblock|Your reason}} template (which, I suppose, would have brought in a neutral Admin to review the whole situation).

4708: 3563:

Note how many past attempts to deal with the complicity through open means have bean thwarted and guess why we are still there. As usually, of course, someone is now saying (again) that

96:

relatively limited number of edits on the main Wiki FG-related entries (compare the edits I made + content I wrote on the pages' talk pages, compared to the actual entries themselves).

4651: 4210: 2812: 1837: 1488: 582:

I see RFC, honestly I do not even have intentions to do that, all I wanted to do is talk to the admin, but he just kept calling me a Troll, Troll. And to me the alias is very insulting.

2072:

We are discussing that right now. :) We have a draft of the case written on our private arbcom wiki that I'm going to review and see if it is ready to move on site. So hopefully soon.

1421: 141:

It would be helpful to me if you would explain why you voted to decline, so that I will have an idea about how I am still falling short of expectations and what I can do to get there.

5211: 5192: 3560:

if "grappled" in an open and transparent way. Note that this latest claim is made that the "consensus" that will "fix" #admins has been achieved through a "discussion" at ...#admins.

1896: 5559:

a democracy, but on the other hand it is surely desirable that these banning decisions are seen to be demonstrably fair; unfortunately, in a way that the present case clearly isn't.

1537: 4085: 1988: 4217: 2602:

Hello FloNight. We were wondering if the Committee will be continuing to review our case? There has been no activity since the case was moved to voting a few weeks ago. Thanks. --

63: 4353:

Simpler things (like a checkuser and subsequent indefinite block) and two arbitration cases among other things have been unsuccessful in resolving this problem. Hence the case.

2285: 612:

the un-fun aspects can cause burn out. You or someone can re-visit the situation later if it is an ongoing problem. That is my best advise. Happy editng and Happy New Year. :-)

5581:, you asked me to look into the situation and I did. I spent over an hour reviewing my notes and looking at more recent on and off site activity. I came to the conclusion that 378:

instance (i.e. fluffiness and censorship) and I'm looking for other opinions from administrators on this matter as I don't think you are clear on this one for whatever reason.

5392:

account has been used abusively based on both checkuser evidence and editing patterns. Based on my independent review of the situation, I full support the indefinite block of

194:

Thanks. That is all I am asking: to review the evidence. I have already addimted my wrong doing. This is the key evidence that I think is ignored (key word is "ask for it") :

2195:

I very much agree this was the right thing to do accepting this case. If I did something like he was alleged to have done, I'd probably be de-sysopped and/or blocked/banned.

5449:

account (ultimate paragraph, penultimate sentence), that is a reference back to the User:Renamed user 20 vandal rather than anything else? If not, in what other way has the

4350:

I know you have ignored me on IRC. You probably will ignore this. I will take it as such unless you respond to this. I am very tired of some arbitrators non-responsiveness.

3556:

Indeed I did not have much expectation that you would handle the incident properly. You said above what actions you took and what conclusions you made. And wasn't I right?

1456: 1437: 1396: 1389: 5501:

I'm having a bit of trouble squaring a circle. CR gets blocked on a body of circumstantial evidence including simply knowing other users who have since been blocked, yet

2347:

IMO, it was unhelpful. In the heat of the moment, often users are not aware that their individual edits taken in larger context are making the situation worse not better.

826:

should save us all from potential misuse of the remedies/enforcement action. I could explain the complete reasoning, but it would sound as if it were wikilawyering. :)

2319:

that continued reversion was not productive. So my question is why did AzaToth, David Gerard, Betacommand, Irpen (joining Geogre and Giano) and Ryulong join in? Did they

1408: 3030:

No matter how much I am interested in your opinions on any and all matters, I asked Flo and please let her reply herself what she meant referring to "we". Thank you. --

1959: 1407:. Flonight has not left any further messages as yet, so I am posting this message to all those who edited the page in this period, and asking them to consider signing 2297: 1596:. Removing comments made by others is not acceptable. Factoring out your comments might have been, but you should have left something indicating the changed context. 5732: 5661: 779:

be construed as harassing, threatening, or bullying."(emphasis added) and "1) Should Jim62sch make any comment of a harassing, threatening, or bullying nature,..."?

1529: 955: 3843:

Seeing as Flo has clearly lost all mental and muscular capacity for communication will one of you please answer - how many ex or non-admins remain in the channel?

2371: 1405:"I protected the page from all editing until the case is closed or edits all agree to make all productive comments about the proposed ruling and not other editors" 1128: 1877: 151:

Sure, glad to give you my thoughts. I feel that it is in the best interest of all involved (you and the community) for the situation to remain unchanged for now.

4374: 4115:

where you did arbitration. I have sent them messages about "Let's do Wikilove" in the hope that they could calm down and cooperate with Italian wikiusers (like

914: 100: 2541: 2311:. Could I ask you what you think about the role played by the other parties that joined the edit war? Specifically the people involved in the edit war laid out 2250:

I think I agree with Carcharoth's comment, addressed to a person who, while technically a party to the case (he's on the list of those involved), is blameless:

3966: 3524:

But never mind, Mackensen, there was no hope on my end that the secret procedures can be successful in tackling the secret wrongdoing. And I did not hope that

3381:

not too persistent and did not attempt to contact me or anyone else. If he chose to not act on it or inform me, I have to say that the system remains broken.

1090:

Well, your comments are still there and available to be read by the arbs. Cost/benefit on protecting the page weighs in favor of the benefits, unfortunately.

1050: 1035: 3704:

Forget the "best," Please just answer my question, as Flo seems to have lost the power of speech. How many non-admins remain, and what changes have happened?

1964: 1256: 1252: 1102: 5514: 4239:. Both were making a false claim, intentionally of not, and have been using this claim to motivate a multiplicity of editors to make depositions against me ( 2989: 2156: 1973: 747: 4032: 269:

Flo, I think there's some background here, if it's the real Susan Polgar. I'll e-mail you. In the meantime, I suggest that her concerns be taken seriously.

5229: 5153: 5126: 5110: 5052: 4996:

that serious misconduct by editors and admins that occurs off site but is directly related to Knowledge can result in on site sanctions. Freenode also has

4798: 4772: 4736: 4647: 2808: 2559: 1833: 1140: 3794:

FGS! has Flo. or any of the Arbs, implemented or overseen any of the changes advocated as a sop to the community at the end of the IRC case - yes or no?

2938: 2934: 2868: 2374:- a poignant and humorous final gift to our community - that would incite some admins to block him. And no AN or ANI discussion, just another report to 2226: 2120: 1460: 775:

Hi Flo, may I note tha ther is a substantive differnce between "1) Jim62sch is instructed to refrain from making any comments to another user that could

57: 2052:

We were wondering why the Committee has been mostly silent about this case? Also, when do you believe that this case will be moved to voting? Thanks. --

806:

I will don't see a major difference, but for the avoidance of doubt, as the drafter of the decision I will modify the enforcement wording as suggested.

5440:) the vandal account made three (one subsequently 'oversighted') edits on June 28; QED, how do your discussions in April have anything to do with this? 5132:

I'm still here and the Arbs look even more ridiculous and clueless than before. They have brought this on themselves, and I have no sympathy for them.

4643: 2804: 1829: 1111: 1060: 276: 260: 5239: 5104: 4933: 4814: 4014: 3997: 3934: 3928: 3836: 3438:

First, suppose that I did not know about this incident and did not ask anything from anyone. Would anything have happened at all? See above about the

1642: 4848: 2887: 640: 598: 549: 419:

me. I have infinite patience in dealing with editors who choose to attack the editor rather than debate the issue. ATren 16:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

5051:

I too wonder about that. Especially since that voluntary arrangement for Anticipation the New Arrival of a Lover's Tony is not even being enforced.

4159: 4047: 2308: 2035: 557: 285: 5650:

it falls to arbcom to have the decency to explain just what has happened which makes absolute throttling bans on DL and C-R so utterly essential.

4108: 3912: 3138: 2992:

and has opted to consult the community concerning the manner in which it is to do so. I presume that FloNight refers to her fellow arbitrators. --

1605: 1525: 1373: 1359: 1334: 5736: 5665: 5572: 5466: 5334: 4720: 4236: 4074: 2211: 1925:

I thought you had something related to incivility in the past. My mistake for not looking at the specifics of your prior involvment in the cases.

1657: 1628: 5609: 5490: 5347: 5169: 5141: 5068: 4788: 4765: 3307:

oversight of the chan ops and a review of channel discussion to make sure that the channel is being used to enhance administrators on site work.

3134:

is, I think, intended to be inclusive. I think you've misread it if you think it's intended to exclude any interested or disinterested party. --

2951:

It is not my decision to make...first we need to decide how the guideline will be established...a work group is one option but there are others.

2185: 2151: 535: 3346: 3314: 3195: 3089:

guidelines for the channel. Of course, the people that use the channel also have an opinions. I guess all of these people are part of the "we".

2905: 2572: 2535: 2245: 2145: 1951: 1934: 1200: 1179: 1091: 1077: 529: 494: 465: 346: 5701: 5644: 5372: 3942: 3125: 1268: 1233: 815: 5238:

Since you blocked this user previously, I wanted to let you know that the user is back, and doing the same thing. I've just posted details at

4339: 3445:

Next, by accident the channelop already knew that something happened from my post at the Moreschi's talk. Still nothing for the whole month.

2923: 2354: 2100: 2081: 1905: 1305: 1290: 1214: 1164: 1150: 943: 648: 621: 606: 573: 4702: 4416: 4190: 4052: 3779:(ec) Giano, the user list of the channel has been made non-private and may be accessed from any IRC client. A reasonably up to date list is 3301: 3203: 3059: 3034: 2996: 2482: 2473: 2464: 2455: 2446: 2190: 155: 5046: 5027: 5008: 4975: 4958: 4432: 3852: 3803: 3732: 3658: 3643: 3328: 3255: 3153: 3077: 2945: 1865: 1447: 1429: 861: 845: 801: 479: 131: 5505:

is simply on "parole" despite years of abusive and unacceptable behaviour? This does not strike me as natural justice or indeed equitable.

4402: 3973:(ex WMF employee) and wiki_blue (ex WMF employee). I think that's it, but I can't be 100% sure after just a quick look at the access list. 3368: 3271: 1030: 894: 765: 735: 5713: 5403: 3550: 3510: 3489: 3471: 3239: 2402: 879: 5527: 4670: 4496: 4148: 4112: 3429: 3180: 3166: 3096: 2975: 2958: 2831: 2677: 2429: 1856: 1717: 1561: 330: 2221:...I don't think you really intended to write "I have always...discouraged administrators from going out and searching for instances of 2042: 1919: 1613: 1006: 5279: 4326: 4306: 3888:

admins who were desysopped. There are a couple of others that hold other positions of trust with the foundation such as board members.

3787: 3713: 3697: 3225: 716: 310: 200: 189: 3286: 2025: 1633: 5706:

Yes, self-evident to those of us that are familiar with the user. Was good to confirm for others reading my talk page and not aware.

4923: 4390: 4379:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#The Hunt-Morgan House: perhaps a Contributing Propery, how handle it?

4248: 3581:

Just a quick clarifier on the above. Following the above being passed to me, I looked back in the channel logs. This is what I found.

1012: 3608: 5412:

Thank you for your response. At the risk of being obtuse, please could I just ask a couple of questions to get to the nub of this:

4891: 3875:. Do we need to go to a specific detail? We can if this is denied. And this non-truth makes debunking the rest simply redundant. -- 3571:

n months ago? Remember Arbcom's pronouncement one month ago? Right! Exactly when Moreschi and Dmc had that beautiful discussion. --

2341: 867: 167:

there is a problem with my editing Fred told Zero to ask for help. (at that time Fred did not accpted Zero's claim about my edits)

2232: 1891: 4695: 2856: 450: 2527:

For what it's worth I've suggested some procedural improvements at AN/I, these may already be normal practice. Thanks again, ..

185:

Zeq, I will review the evidence. I have not voted on the FoF and Remedies because I was not sure that the wordings are correct.

5251: 3808:

Giano, we've set up channel guidlines that all people who use the channel must now abide by. If you want to look, please do so

3780: 3673: 1663: 4916: 3055:

No problem, but I notice that you had posed a couple of easily answered questions and appeared to be impatient for answers. --

2332:

an edit war is never acceptable, and that people really should check the page history to see if there is an ongoing edit war?

1524:

community with regards to #admins IRC. To repeat what I said on the talk page, the proposed decision is a joke. Through their

263: 5437: 5312: 4098: 2136:

That is my thinking also. Glad to see that we are in agreement that it would bring more benefit than harm in this situation.

513: 325: 4752: 4057:

Editors are getting impatient and there is a great deal of confusion regarding the injunction. Could you please respond to

1943: 1886: 692: 5303:. You will see that I have commented at the end of that latter discussion, and those comments broadly set out my position. 4731: 2583:

Well, you told me to remind you by the middle of this week if I hadn't got any word on my appeal review, so I'm reminding.

2388: 2019: 400:

carry the torch per The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

367: 315: 4669:

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? –

3292:

I'm very sad that flo's attempt at open discourse has been ignored and that the irc mess not be handled appropriately. --

2830:

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? –

1855:

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? –

5728: 5657: 5300: 5160: 5117: 5059: 4805: 4779: 4743: 4396:

Hi, and thanks for your kind comments. I will respond there about the information that I've learned about this property.

4368: 3503:

came at the same time I grew busy in real life, and I found I had little energy for the task, which I've left to others.

3013:

Tony, you have this annoying habit of putting words in other people's mouthes demonstrated avidly just one section above.

2592: 293: 105: 4177: 2130: 1995: 4856: 4312: 3191:

I had also hoped and expected the consultation would be held in the open. Has anybody suggested that it should not? --

2616: 2275: 885:

Commented there. Glad to see you voicing your opinion about copyright issues there so we can all get on the same page.

247:

Could you please take a look at the edit history for that talk page? The logical person to deal with this is probably

5483:

reviewed this account has now reached the same conclusion. Given that conclusion, an indefinite block is appropriate.

5308: 4251: 3214: 2520: 1623: 1117:

particular editors are being disruptive, warn and then block them. Do you really want people to be reduced to putting

979: 725: 5274: 4440: 3867:"The users of the channel are now aware that if they say anything they shouldn't, they'll be quickly asked to leave." 3862:

That above is just so outrageous that I cannot reply in few words. But for now a quick remark on the last sentence:

3629: 2621: 2066: 2030: 1910: 564:

step, okay. An arbitration case is the last resort only if the Community can not settle it with out our involvement.

235: 178: 5109:

There's no point, obviously, Ryan. Nothing's going to be done about New Lover's Anticipation of the Tony's Arrival.

711: 407:

It is incorrect and irresponsible for you to imply that I have alterior motives. ATren 13:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

5222: 4476: 4259: 2657: 2612: 2096: 2062: 1696: 928: 4317:

Is that a slight typo in your edit over at RFARB? I didn't know our policies were living and had biographies? :-)

3879: 145: 5227: 5034:

I am truly wondering if the Arbcom are aware of the contempt in which they are currently held by so many editors

3620:

been implemented following the case and your declared intention to change the way the channel operated. Thanks.

3409:

It is fixed by modifying the guidelines "through a discussion". And what discussion? The discussion at... #admins

3773: 3388:

This whole thing of ombundsmanship by "good" ops of such things as checkuser log and #admins can only work with

5510: 4880: 2302: 841: 791: 5416:

Are you saying that the anonymous vandal who created and used the User:Renamed user 20 account was definitely

5424: 5292: 3677: 2896:

I am also interested in participating, although I have no tools (only my words and thoughts) to bring along.

2000: 875:

regarding Wikisource and the public domain. If you have any comments, they could be helpful. All the best, –

5427:) that two Admins felt that the evidence was not strong enough to support a block, but that a third one did? 3945:

that are former admins who can't just ask for their bit back and with regards to other non admins, there's;

2460:

Okay. Wild accusations of corruption seem to be quite common these days. Please think before you type. --

342:

that make it clear he has an agenda to attack me. I wonder if you could comment. I appreciate your support.

5648: 2370:

head. "Obscene trolling: knows German" may well be the standard. Heck, there are several statements in his

43:

Thank you very much, I need all the help I can get, I am a slow learner. Take good care in the meantime.

676: 4691: 4292: 4273: 2852: 2442:

Irpen, do I have it correct? Are you accusing the bureaucrats of corruption over the Carnildo affair? --

2216: 5318:

Under the circumstances, please can you have a look at this case. It appears that Counter-revolutionary

4993: 2451:

This is a side question, Tony, but your suggested answer is a big oversimplification on what I think. --

5628: 5598: 5582: 5542: 5479: 5475: 5450: 5446: 5417: 5393: 5389: 5296: 5281: 2360: 1058:

I had thought to take it tp RPPP, but I figured they'd turn it down out of deference to the Committee.

435: 273: 227: 4758:

Left civility reminder. Let myself or another administrator know if the problem re-occurs. Take care,

2510:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:RDOlivaw, User:Unprovoked and User:DrEightyEight‎

2171: 391: 5506: 3614: 660: 303: 5635:. If the contributions are OK, why not outline how and/or who they have actually abused, as said in 4985: 4131:

and others) but nothing has changed. May be you can help to calm down this Balkan nationalism (that

4989: 4043: 3680:

which may help as a basic starting point (but is more a note than a formal resolution of any kind).

2883: 2292:"User:A, User:B, User:C,..., and User:Z are strongly cautioned") or inclusive ("All parties" -: --> 2167: 2013: 1369: 1330: 1155:

And that condition should be made visible on the page itself, not hidden away in the edit summary.

1073: 1046: 1019: 240: 126: 5433: 5432:

What is the relevance of the other discussions that you have had about this? So far as I can see (

3593:

independent users can usually review what went on and see if the action was seriously out of line.

5568: 5462: 5330: 5156: 5113: 5081: 5055: 4893: 4801: 4775: 4739: 4231:. It has just been made clear that a large part of the accusations made against me were based on 3974: 3889: 3813: 1579: 1121: 354: 161: 1593: 672: 4843:

available (such as if you click the actual country link itself, it gives a higher population.)

3342: 3297: 3192: 3135: 3056: 2993: 2919: 2556: 2479: 2461: 2443: 2294: 2271: 2229: 2127: 2039: 1948: 1916: 1513: 525: 490: 446: 2118:

I do not see the downside to making this official as opposed to relying on his good intentions

1463:, and hereby ask FloNight to please unprotect the page to allow civil discussion to continue. 5191: 5035: 3121: 2863: 2578: 1982: 1861: 949: 811: 270: 252: 1131:? Is there even an accepted place to put 'edit protected' requests for protected talk page? 5724: 5653: 4852: 4725: 4716: 4322: 4153: 4070: 2609: 2532: 2517: 2337: 2263: 2207: 2141: 2093: 2077: 2059: 1930: 1653: 1601: 1557: 1471: 1417: 1301: 1264: 1196: 1175: 1160: 1136: 939: 926: 890: 857: 829: 704: 698: 688: 667: 644: 617: 602: 569: 553: 509: 475: 461: 299: 5685:

by checkuser but somewhat self-evident, the third-party self-references notwithstanding -

4262: 1880:

It is fucking harassing me at this point and doing nothing but sockpuppet and harass now.

8: 5256: 4659: 4412: 4173: 4144: 4058: 4039: 3547: 3507: 3468: 2879: 2820: 2588: 2478:

I've read your clarification. You didn't intend any accusations of corruption. Fine. --

2007: 1900: 1881: 1872: 1845: 1637: 1496: 1365: 1356: 1326: 1230: 1069: 1042: 122: 4966:

harassment? - Just look at the trouble i had to go to before that one was acknowledged.

4797:

He's now baiting me at my talk. I'll leave it up awhile, for your perusal, then delete.

4771:

dumb" as to why people responded to to his edit summary, and I have no use for sophism.

85:

reverted to) was also objectionable, or is it my edit in itself that was objectionable?

5710: 5606: 5578: 5564: 5487: 5458: 5400: 5344: 5326: 5137: 5042: 5023: 5005: 4971: 4955: 4929: 4824: 4762: 4655: 4429: 4400: 4336: 4303: 4214: 4187: 4010: 3924: 3848: 3799: 3784: 3728: 3709: 3654: 3640: 3625: 3426: 3407:

And now the claim that everything is "fixed" is being made again. And how is it fixed?

3324: 3311: 3251: 3236: 3232:

catching up on reading my email today. I'll update you with further thoughts soon-ish.

3163: 3093: 2955: 2816: 2597: 2569: 2399: 2351: 2242: 1992: 1970: 1841: 1620: 1575: 1287: 1211: 1147: 837: 798: 404:

I've examined it all, something the aribitrators should get in the habit of doing...).

17: 4890:

Flo, you clearly have your head screwed on - excellent comments and much appreciated.

3374: 50: 5673: 5624: 5270: 4885: 4861: 4422: 4386: 4361: 4235:

about a name "Viam agnoscere veritatis" being used for a multiplicity of Papal bulls

4091: 3338: 3293: 2915: 2503: 2267: 2180: 2108: 1251:

would seem a bit harsh when arbitrators were also editing the page during this time.

1026: 797:

It would be good from an enforcement perspective to have the language be consistent.

521: 486: 442: 256: 4997: 5640: 5502: 4128: 3938: 3319:

Oh please don't trouble yourselves, no one beleived a word of it anyway - did you?

3221: 3213:

and former admin, who may be able to provide insights from a different perspective.

3117: 2901: 2384: 2047: 1989:

Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC/Workshop#Proposed_final_decision_by_Thatcher

1484: 1255:

may seem helpful to some, and terse and unhelpful to others. Giano was in fact the

999: 972: 917:

and have made some suggestions, which, you can feel free to give some feedback on.

807: 761: 241: 905:

Hi there! You had a good Christmas and New Year?? hope things were well and good!

5247: 5077: 4712: 4318: 4120: 4066: 2604: 2528: 2513: 2333: 2203: 2152: 2088: 2054: 1597: 1553: 1467: 1413: 1297: 1260: 1192: 1171: 1156: 1132: 921: 385: 343: 327: 4281:

Knowledge talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision

221: 4441: 4408: 4169: 4140: 3544: 3504: 3465: 3442:

if its function is given to the regulars of the channel with the sikret logs.

3210: 2622: 2584: 2163: 1589: 1353: 1227: 900: 364: 339: 321: 307: 251:

but it looks from his talk page like he's on wikibreak. See also the notes at

248: 142: 136: 113:

Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong/Proposed_decision#Motion_to_close

4209:

and enforcement reports handled via the normal routine mechanism. Comments to

3216:

I look forward to hearing more about the workgroup in the near future. Best,

215: 209: 5707: 5643:

has been blocked over 20 times for fairly serious WP 'crimes' and given that

5603: 5555: 5484: 5457:

Sorry to come back to you, and thank you very much for your prompt response.

5397: 5341: 5133: 5038: 5019: 5002: 4967: 4952: 4925: 4876: 4759: 4426: 4397: 4333: 4300: 4288: 4269: 4184: 4006: 3920: 3844: 3795: 3724: 3705: 3650: 3637: 3621: 3423: 3359:

Dmcdevit, Moreschi and secretly reached solution through "good ombudsmanship"

3320: 3308: 3247: 3233: 3160: 3090: 2952: 2566: 2396: 2348: 2239: 2137: 2073: 1966: 1926: 1649: 1534: 1400: 935: 886: 853: 833: 780: 684: 613: 565: 505: 471: 457: 360: 282: 186: 152: 2914:

I am also interested, though I have less tools to work with than Risker. --

873: 5266: 4382: 4356:

The harassment have been ongoing since before you registered your account.

4247:

and the numerous "Viam agnoscere depositions of the Workshop page such as

4229:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision

4206: 3567:

the situation is finally under control. Remember the Fred's announcement -t

3101:

Every bit of that seems wrong to me. I thought Jimbo simply said that IRC

2875: 2874:;~) Tell me where it is, and I will be there. I'll be the one carrying the 2375: 2175: 2038:

looks like an unintended duplication of the page content, or something. --

1022: 876: 770: 212: 44: 3106:

if a goal is to make it more acceptable to the community), and people who

1210:

and follow through, though. I'll see what has transpired by (my) morning.

5686: 5546: 5357: 5288: 4687: 4222: 4203:

Knowledge talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests

4201:

Input requested from arbitrators and arbitration enforcement regulars on

4197:

Knowledge talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests

4132: 4116: 4104: 3217: 2897: 2848: 2670: 2380: 1480: 1106: 988: 961: 757: 224: 97: 3404:

also know what they think of myself and it does not bother me too much.

1648:

I'll bring your comments to the attention of the rest of the Committee.

1068:

My conversation was perfectly civil and had an important point to make.

683:

Thanks for the suggestion, looks like something that would interest me.

29: 5243: 4680: 4373:

Hi FloNight -- Welcome to WP:NRHP from a fellow member. :) I browsed

3876: 3572: 3533: 3486: 3454: 3412: 3283: 3177: 3150: 3074: 3031: 2972: 2942: 2841: 2470: 2452: 2426: 1709: 708: 541: 738:, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is 5538:

simply means that the original dubious results have been replicated.

5420:? If that conclusion is based on the Check-user evidence, why is it ( 5001:

comment to be very unkind and understand why you took great offense.

2315:? By the time you get to AzaToth's revert, it should have been clear 586: 545: 218: 3809: 3375:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Moreschi#Your_conduct_at_.23admins

703:

I added another comment at RFAR regarding Basboll which can be read

540:

Thank you for your suggestion. I was following the request of admin

372: 69:

either here on your talk page, or preferably, my talk page, thanks!

5215: 5037:. They obviousy don't care very much - after all, why should they? 4872: 4489: 4284: 4265: 4124: 3770: 3694: 3605: 3282:"Was anyone supposed to have believed otherwise?" indeed, Giano. -- 1461:

productive comments about the proposed ruling and not other editors

232: 197: 175: 5615:

Why don't you stop messing about and tell us all exactly what the

4711:

and am notifying you as an arbitrator who was active on the case.

4466: 4237:

Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis#Untangling (arbitrary section break)

4211:

Knowledge talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement

2647: 2508:

My apologies for not notifying you when raising the discussion at

2469:

Tony, please read what I write and don't put words in my mouth. --

1686: 746:

You are receiving this message because your username is listed on

396:

What is that supposed to mean? ATren 12:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

195: 5545:

has posted as an 'appeal' on his Talk page. In your response, on

5530:, entirely the opposite view was taken; editing at the same time 5721:

Instead of being arrogant why not answer the questions as put?

2745:

USRD relative WW comes close to surpassing Knowledge relative WW

4834: 4675: 2836: 1459:, the undersigned (both involved and uninvolved) agree to make 1403:

protected the page and added the following in an edit summary:

544:

as a WkiPedia Spam patrolman and noticed social engineering on

4227:

Hi FloNight. I am asking you to reconsider your judgements at

4103:

In many articles about Dalmatia the group of fanatic Croats (

1457:

Knowledge talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision

1438:

Knowledge talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision

1397:

Knowledge talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision

1390:

Knowledge talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision

739: 5325:

As always, thank you for your time and help in this matter.

750:. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name! 665:

If you haven't already, I suggest you try to catch the film

585:

He did not even bother to check why I started the petion on

5315:, and you will also note that they have both been ignored. 4839: 4830: 4707:

I have requested clarification in the IRC arbitration case

4492: 4459: 3970: 3962: 3958: 3954: 3950: 3946: 3373:

honestly guys, who keeps passing logs out of this channel?

2990:

has said that it has been requested to take on extra duties

2673: 2640: 1713: 1679: 5553:

the background. I am prepared to accept that Knowledge is

4452: 3270:

and some were trying to claim that IRC learned the lesson

2633: 1878:

Can someone please do something with this thing's posting?

1672: 281:

I will take a look at the email and see what can be done.

5541:

I'm not at all sure that you have actually reviewed what

5200:

Flo, I would just like to draw your attention to my post

5080:- arguing on Flos' talk page isn't going to help anyone. 4111:, etc..) is back with the usual Balkan fanatism, like in 3367:

And the next day Mackensen knew about it too. As soon as

2543: 907: 64:

Wiki Rules applied inconsistently? Seeking clarification

4183:

Thanks for pointing it out. It certainly was a mistake.

1129:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision

5313:

User talk:WJBscribe#Your block of Counter-revolutionary

3246:

Sorry? Was anyone supposed to have believed otherwise?

915:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia

181:(PS I will have to accept it even if it is not fair:-) 3528:

would do anything either from seeing you in the past.

3073:

Flo, any chance to hear the answer to the question? --

38: 4730:

Was told you were the one that should have a look at

2730:

Interstate 355 becomes USRD's newest Featured Article

302:

and would like to solicit your position statement on

5672:

For the record, the above comment was posted by the

4922:

But sadly nothing changes, when one wants an answer

4425:

and deleted the re-direct. Sorry for the confusion.

4079: 5309:

User talk:Alison#The block on Counter-revolutionary

3083:

My thoughts only...I'm only one person...not we. :)

298:Hello, I'm about to file a Request for Comments on 5631:'s serious and many contributions to the project? 5536:corroborated by a number of independent checkusers 3130:Could we start with what FloNight actually said? 1987:I know its late, but I offer some new thoughts at 1960:Message for you on the Proposed Decisions talkpage 1446:Notification of this section was made as follows: 1146:There is a conditional in the protection summary. 4381:, if you like, too. And welcome again. cheers, 3933:This may not be the complete list, but going off 456:I'll look, Give me a bit of time to sort it out. 320:Thank you for your comments. I opened an item on 4345: 3132:I guess all of these people are part of the "we" 913:I've just been participating in the workshop at 3337:my expectations were met, but not exceeded. -- 2933:Flo, sorry for persistence, but can you answer 872:Greetings. There is a discussion ongoing on at 4233:a false claim being made by Elonka and Aramgar 1395:On 17 January, following a series of edits to 1036:Please unprotect the Arbcom decision talk page 3764:en-admins has an internal agreement does not 2286:Wording of the "All parties cautioned" remedy 2166:, I simply post here on behalf of blocked IP 1545:"but other people use that talk page as well" 26:(no time stamp so not archived by werdnabot) 5210:currently under consideration at the case's 2735:Commons refuses to delete superseded shields 5597:It is disappointing that person behind the 5478:plus overall checkuser evidence related to 5271:(speech has the power to bind the absolute) 4447: 4113:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia 2628: 1667: 115:. Could you do something about it? Thanks. 5293:User talk:Alison#Charades and a bal masqué 3435:Thanks Flo but there is much more to it. 5534:evidence of 'sock-puppetry'.) Similarly, 2740:Michigan project breaks the 4.000 barrier 1897:here going after this "archenemy" Eschoir 724: 470:I have not forgotten. Looking at it now. 4457: 4252:Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction 2638: 1677: 5647:has been blocked a staggering 45 times 5301:User talk:Counter-revolutionary#Blocked 4464: 2645: 1684: 536:Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration#ST47 14: 5208:Betacommand and editors urged proposal 4450: 3116:approved. That may not be the case. 2631: 1670: 4703:Request for clarification in IRC case 4256:User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed 4053:Episodes and characters 2 Arbitration 2191:Jeffrey O. Gustafson arbitration case 1629:Please bring to Committee's attention 4938:Sorry, in a meeting so short answer. 4559:Three editors get triple crown award 4161: 2869:re Proposed IRC Discussion Workgroup 2412:problem with the concept of decency. 1770:B-class audit shows stunning results 324:and would appreciate your comments. 231:sorry for taking more of your time. 5445:When you refer to the abuse by the 4869:User:PHG/Metropolitan Museum of Art 4065:as soon as possible. Many thanks, 4033:re your comment at Giano's talkpage 3369:I asked Moreschi to explain oneself 338:HIP has made some more comments at 23: 1634:I posted this on the main IRC page 736:Science Collaboration of the Month 717:Science Collaboration of the Month 671:which features it in a chorus. -- 24: 5748: 1013:Centralized TV Episode Discussion 359:I have left a message for you at 5677: 4465: 4458: 4451: 4162: 2646: 2639: 2632: 2005:Should it be uninvolved admins? 1685: 1678: 1671: 1105:, I make the requested promise. 906: 868:Wikisource and the public domain 5434:User talk:Alison#Nick Corsellis 5299:was subsequently blocked here: 4407:What happened to the article?-- 3440:impossibility of real oversight 2162:I have no motivation to file a 1594:Knowledge:TALK#Editing comments 726: 5474:The entire editing history of 5453:account been 'used abusively'? 4283:for a update of these issues. 3204:IRC Discussion Workgroup redux 2542:That's a funny looking "house 1664:U.S. Roads Newsletter, Issue 1 13: 1: 5619:levels of abuse amount to in 4472: 4449: 4099:Help to calm down nationalism 4075:10:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 3226:04:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 3196:03:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 3181:23:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 3167:19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 3154:18:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 3139:18:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 3126:17:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 3097:16:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 3078:23:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC) 3060:21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 3035:20:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 2997:19:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 2976:00:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 2959:00:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 2946:23:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC) 2924:04:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 2857:03:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 2653: 2630: 2617:04:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 2593:02:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 2573:21:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 2560:21:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 2555:I like your dress, though. -- 2536:22:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 2521:09:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 2483:02:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 2474:02:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 2465:02:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 2456:01:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 2447:01:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 2430:00:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 2425:as if nothing is going on. -- 1892:More evidence they're all BFP 1692: 1669: 1588:Phil, you may want to review 1246:Or just take the whole thing 822:I thank you both very much. 5352:Not so much as they've been 4554:A-class review sets new rule 4369:NRHP; The Hunt-Morgan House 4158:I think you missed a "not". 3953:(steward and OTRS contact), 3769:and what some of those are. 2906:17:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC) 2888:15:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC) 2403:14:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC) 2389:14:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC) 2355:14:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 2342:14:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 2298:16:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2246:15:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2233:15:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2212:20:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC) 2186:02:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC) 2146:23:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC) 2131:22:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC) 2101:01:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC) 2082:00:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC) 2067:00:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC) 2043:21:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC) 2026:20:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC) 1996:18:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 1974:15:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 1952:15:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 1935:14:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 1920:14:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 1906:14:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 1887:14:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 1866:20:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 1658:15:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1643:14:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1624:02:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 1606:16:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1584:16:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1562:16:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1538:15:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1517:15:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1502:14:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1489:11:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1476:05:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1455:Following the protection of 1430:14:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1422:05:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1374:06:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1360:06:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1335:06:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1306:06:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1291:06:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1269:06:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1234:05:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1215:05:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1201:05:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1180:05:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1165:05:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1151:05:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1141:04:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1112:01:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1092:22:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 1078:21:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 1061:21:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 1051:21:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 1031:23:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC) 1007:13:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC) 980:13:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC) 944:11:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC) 929:11:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC) 895:11:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC) 862:11:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC) 734:As a regular contributor to 316:Unblock of Heatedissuepuppet 7: 4365:17:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 2202:Anyway... how's things?? -- 880:17:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 846:22:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 816:22:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 802:22:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 792:21:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 766:20:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 712:18:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 693:19:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 649:17:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC) 622:16:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC) 607:16:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC) 574:15:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC) 558:15:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC) 530:20:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 514:20:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 495:19:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 480:19:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 466:15:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC) 451:08:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC) 294:RfC on Big Sister (brothel) 106:Falun Gong arbitration case 10: 5753: 5629:User:Counter-revolutionary 5623:. Is there a problem with 5599:User:Counter-revolutionary 5583:User:Counter-revolutionary 5307:can see my requests here: 5206:, which are regarding the 4857:07:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 4815:03:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC) 4789:02:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC) 4766:21:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 4753:15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 4721:16:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC) 4696:21:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 4568:State and national updates 4549:Scope debate causes issues 4478:The U.S. Roads WikiProject 4433:16:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 4417:16:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 4403:12:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 4391:00:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 4340:15:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 4327:14:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 4313:Biography of living policy 4307:16:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC) 4293:16:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC) 4274:16:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC) 4218:14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC) 4095:03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 4048:09:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 4015:23:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 3998:23:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 3929:23:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 3913:23:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 3880:23:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 3853:23:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 3837:22:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 3804:22:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 3788:21:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 3774:21:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 3733:20:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 3714:20:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 3698:19:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 3659:19:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 3644:19:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 3630:19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 2988:The Arbitration Committee 2764:State and national updates 2750:The newest neologism issue 2659:The U.S. Roads WikiProject 1779:State and national updates 1698:The U.S. Roads WikiProject 5737:20:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC) 5275:17:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC) 5252:11:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC) 5223:20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 5170:01:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC) 5142:23:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 5127:22:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 5105:22:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 5069:22:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 5047:22:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 5028:20:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 5009:19:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 4976:07:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 4959:22:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 4934:22:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 4917:17:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 4881:17:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 4642: 4487: 4473: 4191:18:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 4178:20:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 4149:02:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 3609:16:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 3576:04:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 3551:03:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 3537:23:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 3511:22:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 3490:22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 3472:22:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 3458:22:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 3430:21:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 3416:19:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 3347:04:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 3329:19:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 3315:19:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 3302:18:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 3287:21:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 3256:17:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 3240:16:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 2941:is a little ambiguous. -- 2803: 2668: 2654: 2031:Did you intend this edit? 1911:IRC case proposed finding 1828: 1707: 1693: 304:Talk:Big Sister (brothel) 92:Now just one suggestion: 5714:21:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC) 5702:20:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC) 5666:20:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC) 5610:15:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC) 5573:13:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC) 5515:13:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC) 5491:16:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC) 5467:15:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC) 5404:13:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC) 5373:12:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC) 5348:11:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC) 5335:08:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC) 2255:"an unsympathetic view"? 1939:Oops, my mistake. There 954:See question on closing 368:05:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 347:09:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 331:03:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 311:01:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 286:00:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC) 277:06:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC) 264:03:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC) 236:07:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC) 201:06:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC) 190:00:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC) 179:20:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC) 156:00:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC) 146:07:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC) 2307:I noticed your comment 727:File:Chemistry-stub.png 132:21:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 101:19:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 5214:. Thanks and regards, 4086:overly frustrated user 4063:Proposed decision page 3411:. Ironic, isn't it? -- 2379:others already have. 2303:Edit warring at WP:WEA 2170:. Please see the post 51:John Machemehl Article 5543:Counter-revolutionary 5480:Counter-revolutionary 5476:Counter-revolutionary 5451:Counter-revolutionary 5447:Counter-revolutionary 5418:Counter-revolutionary 5394:Counter-revolutionary 5390:Counter-revolutionary 5297:Counter-revolutionary 5282:Counter-revolutionary 4375:The Hunt-Morgan House 4258:, embedded responses 2001:Civility restrictions 1526:actions and inactions 253:User_talk:SusanPolgar 5507:Traditional unionist 5438:the contribution log 4497:About the Newsletter 4488:Volume 2, Issue 3 • 4444:Newsletter - Issue 3 2678:About the Newsletter 2669:Volume 2, Issue 2 • 2625:Newsletter - Issue 2 1718:About the Newsletter 1708:Volume 2, Issue 1 • 1436:Agreement regarding 1325:gone out of me now. 748:our list of regulars 707:Please reconsider.-- 668:Trois Couleurs: Bleu 392:"Carrying the torch" 300:Big Sister (brothel) 2217:Amusing as it is... 2157:User:68.224.117.152 5528:this separate case 5230:User:70.114.38.167 3919:How many and who? 2361:Why would he stay? 2174:. Best regards! -- 1448:16 people notified 934:I'll take a look. 436:Procedural Inquiry 18:User talk:FloNight 5739: 5727:comment added by 5668: 5656:comment added by 5625:User:David Lauder 5571: 5563:their own names. 5465: 5333: 5273: 5212:proposed decision 5167: 5158: 5124: 5115: 5066: 5057: 4812: 4803: 4786: 4777: 4750: 4741: 4698: 4665: 4664: 4423:Hunt-Morgan House 4364: 4094: 4073: 4061:proposals on the 3965:(commons sysop), 3957:(commons sysop), 2859: 2826: 2825: 2755:January 26 Meetup 2279: 2266:comment added by 1868: 1851: 1850: 1450: 848: 832:comment added by 755: 754: 751: 661:1 Corinthians 13. 388:8 Jun 2007 (UTC) 257:User_talk:Linnell 5744: 5722: 5699: 5696: 5694: 5681: 5680: 5651: 5641:User:Vintagekits 5567: 5503:User:Vintagekits 5461: 5370: 5367: 5365: 5329: 5265: 5220: 5161: 5157: 5118: 5114: 5101: 5099: 5097: 5095: 5093: 5060: 5056: 4913: 4911: 4909: 4907: 4905: 4806: 4802: 4780: 4776: 4744: 4740: 4683: 4678: 4668: 4533:Coming and going 4528:From the editors 4518:Deletion debates 4479: 4469: 4462: 4455: 4448: 4360: 4167: 4166: 4165: 4129:user:Mariokempes 4090: 4069: 3994: 3992: 3990: 3988: 3986: 3909: 3907: 3905: 3903: 3901: 3833: 3831: 3829: 3827: 3825: 2844: 2839: 2829: 2714:Coming and going 2709:From the editors 2699:Deletion debates 2660: 2650: 2643: 2636: 2629: 2261: 2238:;-) I fixed it. 2225:between users". 2183: 2178: 2024: 2022: 2016: 2010: 1903: 1884: 1854: 1754:Coming and going 1749:From the editors 1739:Deletion debates 1699: 1689: 1682: 1675: 1668: 1640: 1499: 1445: 1259:here, Thatcher. 1126: 1120: 1109: 1005: 1002: 996: 985:Kirill answered. 978: 975: 969: 910: 827: 789: 786: 783: 745: 730: 728: 721: 720: 242:Talk:Paul Truong 208:few more links: 129: 120: 5752: 5751: 5747: 5746: 5745: 5743: 5742: 5741: 5692: 5690: 5687: 5678: 5425:this discussion 5363: 5361: 5358: 5285: 5259: 5242:. Best wishes, 5233: 5216: 5198: 5166: 5123: 5091: 5089: 5087: 5085: 5083: 5065: 4903: 4901: 4899: 4897: 4895: 4888: 4864: 4827: 4811: 4785: 4749: 4728: 4705: 4681: 4676: 4569: 4543: 4523:Featured member 4507: 4483: 4477: 4446: 4371: 4348: 4315: 4225: 4199: 4163: 4156: 4121:user:Pannonicus 4101: 4082: 4055: 4035: 3984: 3982: 3980: 3978: 3976: 3899: 3897: 3895: 3893: 3891: 3823: 3821: 3819: 3817: 3815: 3617: 3480:Mackensen, you 3361: 3206: 2971:" means who? -- 2871: 2866: 2842: 2837: 2765: 2724: 2704:Featured member 2688: 2664: 2658: 2627: 2600: 2581: 2548: 2506: 2363: 2305: 2288: 2219: 2193: 2181: 2176: 2160: 2153:User:Ionas68224 2111: 2050: 2033: 2020: 2014: 2008: 2006: 2003: 1985: 1962: 1913: 1901: 1894: 1882: 1875: 1780: 1764: 1744:Featured member 1728: 1703: 1697: 1666: 1638: 1631: 1616: 1592:. Specifically 1497: 1441: 1393: 1124: 1118: 1107: 1059: 1038: 1015: 1000: 989: 986: 973: 962: 959: 952: 903: 870: 787: 784: 781: 773: 764: 719: 701: 663: 538: 438: 394: 381:Please advise. 375: 357: 355:message for you 318: 296: 245: 164: 162:May I point out 139: 127: 116: 108: 66: 53: 47:March 27, 2007 41: 32: 30:Is it too late? 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5750: 5719: 5718: 5717: 5716: 5613: 5612: 5595: 5591: 5587: 5520: 5519: 5518: 5517: 5496: 5495: 5494: 5493: 5455: 5454: 5442: 5441: 5429: 5428: 5411: 5409: 5408: 5407: 5406: 5382: 5381: 5380: 5379: 5350: 5291:'s Talk page, 5284: 5278: 5258: 5255: 5232: 5226: 5197: 5190: 5189: 5188: 5187: 5186: 5185: 5184: 5183: 5182: 5181: 5180: 5179: 5178: 5177: 5176: 5175: 5174: 5173: 5172: 5162: 5119: 5072: 5071: 5061: 5015: 5014: 5013: 5012: 5011: 4979: 4978: 4945: 4944: 4943: 4942: 4939: 4887: 4884: 4863: 4860: 4826: 4823: 4822: 4821: 4820: 4819: 4818: 4817: 4807: 4792: 4791: 4781: 4745: 4727: 4724: 4704: 4701: 4700: 4699: 4671:It's all here. 4663: 4662: 4640: 4639: 4638: 4637: 4632: 4627: 4622: 4617: 4612: 4607: 4602: 4597: 4592: 4587: 4582: 4577: 4571: 4570: 4567: 4563: 4562: 4561: 4556: 4551: 4545: 4544: 4541: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4530: 4525: 4520: 4515: 4509: 4508: 4505: 4500: 4499: 4485: 4484: 4474: 4471: 4470: 4463: 4456: 4445: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4436: 4435: 4419: 4370: 4367: 4347: 4344: 4343: 4342: 4314: 4311: 4310: 4309: 4278: 4224: 4221: 4198: 4195: 4194: 4193: 4155: 4152: 4109:user:Zenanarth 4100: 4097: 4081: 4078: 4054: 4051: 4040:LessHeard vanU 4034: 4031: 4030: 4029: 4028: 4027: 4026: 4025: 4024: 4023: 4022: 4021: 4020: 4019: 4018: 4017: 3969:(wikt admin), 3870: 3869: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3841: 3840: 3839: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3743: 3742: 3741: 3740: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3616: 3613: 3612: 3611: 3601:at least equal 3595: 3594: 3589: 3588: 3583: 3582: 3554: 3553: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3475: 3474: 3433: 3432: 3360: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3332: 3331: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3211:another editor 3205: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3170: 3169: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3085: 3084: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2962: 2961: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2909: 2908: 2891: 2890: 2880:LessHeard vanU 2870: 2867: 2865: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2832:It's all here. 2824: 2823: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2793: 2788: 2783: 2778: 2773: 2767: 2766: 2763: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2752: 2747: 2742: 2737: 2732: 2726: 2725: 2722: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2711: 2706: 2701: 2696: 2690: 2689: 2686: 2681: 2680: 2666: 2665: 2655: 2652: 2651: 2644: 2637: 2626: 2620: 2599: 2596: 2580: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2553: 2552: 2547: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2505: 2502: 2500: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2406: 2405: 2362: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2304: 2301: 2287: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2218: 2215: 2192: 2189: 2168:68.224.117.152 2159: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2123: 2122: 2110: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2049: 2046: 2032: 2029: 2002: 1999: 1984: 1981: 1979: 1961: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1912: 1909: 1902:Lawrence Cohen 1893: 1890: 1883:Lawrence Cohen 1874: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1857:It's all here. 1849: 1848: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1818: 1813: 1808: 1803: 1798: 1793: 1788: 1782: 1781: 1778: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1766: 1765: 1762: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1751: 1746: 1741: 1736: 1730: 1729: 1726: 1721: 1720: 1705: 1704: 1694: 1691: 1690: 1683: 1676: 1665: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1639:Lawrence Cohen 1630: 1627: 1615: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1571: 1570: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1520: 1519: 1507: 1505: 1504: 1498:Lawrence Cohen 1493: 1478: 1453: 1452: 1440: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1392: 1388:Protection of 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1204: 1203: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1122:edit protected 1103:this edit note 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1057: 1037: 1034: 1014: 1011: 1010: 1009: 951: 948: 947: 946: 902: 899: 898: 897: 869: 866: 865: 864: 849: 820: 819: 818: 788:sch 782:Jim 772: 769: 760: 753: 752: 744: 731: 718: 715: 700: 697: 696: 695: 662: 659: 658: 657: 656: 655: 654: 653: 652: 651: 629: 628: 627: 626: 625: 624: 594: 590: 583: 577: 576: 537: 534: 533: 532: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 437: 434: 433: 432: 431: 430: 429: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 423: 422: 421: 420: 393: 390: 374: 371: 356: 353: 352: 351: 350: 349: 317: 314: 295: 292: 291: 290: 289: 288: 249:User:Sjakkalle 244: 239: 206: 205: 204: 203: 163: 160: 159: 158: 138: 135: 123:Olaf Stephanos 107: 104: 65: 62: 52: 49: 40: 37: 31: 28: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5749: 5740: 5738: 5734: 5730: 5729:81.152.60.113 5726: 5715: 5712: 5709: 5705: 5704: 5703: 5700: 5698: 5684: 5675: 5671: 5670: 5669: 5667: 5663: 5659: 5658:81.152.60.113 5655: 5649: 5646: 5642: 5638: 5634: 5630: 5626: 5622: 5618: 5611: 5608: 5605: 5600: 5596: 5592: 5588: 5584: 5580: 5579:Major Bonkers 5577: 5576: 5575: 5574: 5570: 5566: 5565:Major Bonkers 5560: 5558: 5557: 5550: 5548: 5544: 5539: 5537: 5533: 5529: 5523: 5516: 5512: 5508: 5504: 5500: 5499: 5498: 5497: 5492: 5489: 5486: 5481: 5477: 5473: 5472: 5471: 5470: 5469: 5468: 5464: 5460: 5459:Major Bonkers 5452: 5448: 5444: 5443: 5439: 5435: 5431: 5430: 5426: 5423: 5419: 5415: 5414: 5413: 5405: 5402: 5399: 5395: 5391: 5386: 5385: 5384: 5383: 5376: 5375: 5374: 5371: 5369: 5355: 5351: 5349: 5346: 5343: 5339: 5338: 5337: 5336: 5332: 5328: 5327:Major Bonkers 5323: 5321: 5316: 5314: 5310: 5304: 5302: 5298: 5294: 5290: 5283: 5280:The block of 5277: 5276: 5272: 5268: 5262: 5254: 5253: 5249: 5245: 5241: 5236: 5235:Hi FloNight, 5231: 5225: 5224: 5221: 5219: 5213: 5209: 5205: 5204: 5196: 5195: 5194:Betacommand 2 5171: 5168: 5165: 5159: 5155: 5150: 5145: 5144: 5143: 5139: 5135: 5130: 5129: 5128: 5125: 5122: 5116: 5112: 5108: 5107: 5106: 5103: 5102: 5079: 5074: 5073: 5070: 5067: 5064: 5058: 5054: 5050: 5049: 5048: 5044: 5040: 5036: 5033: 5032: 5031: 5030: 5029: 5025: 5021: 5016: 5010: 5007: 5004: 4999: 4995: 4991: 4987: 4983: 4982: 4981: 4980: 4977: 4973: 4969: 4964: 4963: 4962: 4961: 4960: 4957: 4954: 4949: 4948: 4947: 4946: 4940: 4937: 4936: 4935: 4931: 4927: 4924: 4921: 4920: 4919: 4918: 4915: 4914: 4892: 4883: 4882: 4878: 4874: 4870: 4859: 4858: 4854: 4850: 4844: 4841: 4836: 4832: 4816: 4813: 4810: 4804: 4800: 4796: 4795: 4794: 4793: 4790: 4787: 4784: 4778: 4774: 4769: 4768: 4767: 4764: 4761: 4757: 4756: 4755: 4754: 4751: 4748: 4742: 4738: 4733: 4723: 4722: 4718: 4714: 4710: 4697: 4693: 4689: 4685: 4684: 4679: 4672: 4667: 4666: 4661: 4657: 4653: 4649: 4645: 4641: 4636: 4633: 4631: 4628: 4626: 4623: 4621: 4618: 4616: 4613: 4611: 4608: 4606: 4603: 4601: 4598: 4596: 4593: 4591: 4588: 4586: 4583: 4581: 4578: 4576: 4573: 4572: 4566: 4565: 4564: 4560: 4557: 4555: 4552: 4550: 4547: 4546: 4540: 4539: 4538: 4534: 4531: 4529: 4526: 4524: 4521: 4519: 4516: 4514: 4511: 4510: 4504: 4503: 4502: 4501: 4498: 4494: 4491: 4486: 4482: 4480: 4468: 4461: 4454: 4443: 4434: 4431: 4428: 4424: 4420: 4418: 4414: 4410: 4406: 4405: 4404: 4401: 4399: 4398:User:FloNight 4395: 4394: 4393: 4392: 4388: 4384: 4380: 4376: 4366: 4363: 4357: 4354: 4351: 4341: 4338: 4335: 4331: 4330: 4329: 4328: 4324: 4320: 4308: 4305: 4302: 4297: 4296: 4295: 4294: 4290: 4286: 4282: 4276: 4275: 4271: 4267: 4263: 4260: 4257: 4253: 4249: 4246: 4242: 4238: 4234: 4230: 4220: 4219: 4216: 4212: 4208: 4204: 4192: 4189: 4186: 4182: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4175: 4171: 4160: 4151: 4150: 4146: 4142: 4138: 4134: 4130: 4126: 4122: 4118: 4114: 4110: 4106: 4096: 4093: 4087: 4077: 4076: 4072: 4068: 4064: 4060: 4050: 4049: 4045: 4041: 4016: 4012: 4008: 4003: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3999: 3996: 3995: 3972: 3968: 3967:someWiktAdmin 3964: 3960: 3956: 3952: 3949:(developer), 3948: 3944: 3940: 3936: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3926: 3922: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3911: 3910: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3878: 3874: 3868: 3865: 3864: 3863: 3854: 3850: 3846: 3842: 3838: 3835: 3834: 3811: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3801: 3797: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3789: 3786: 3782: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3772: 3767: 3761: 3757: 3753: 3734: 3730: 3726: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3711: 3707: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3700: 3699: 3696: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3679: 3675: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3660: 3656: 3652: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3642: 3639: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3627: 3623: 3610: 3607: 3602: 3597: 3596: 3591: 3590: 3585: 3584: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3574: 3570: 3566: 3561: 3557: 3552: 3549: 3546: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3535: 3529: 3527: 3522: 3512: 3509: 3506: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3491: 3488: 3483: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3473: 3470: 3467: 3462: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3456: 3450: 3446: 3443: 3441: 3436: 3431: 3428: 3425: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3414: 3410: 3405: 3401: 3398: 3394: 3391: 3386: 3382: 3378: 3376: 3370: 3365: 3348: 3344: 3340: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3330: 3326: 3322: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3313: 3310: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3299: 3295: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3285: 3280: 3276: 3273: 3267: 3257: 3253: 3249: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3238: 3235: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3215: 3212: 3197: 3194: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3182: 3179: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3168: 3165: 3162: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3152: 3140: 3137: 3133: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3123: 3119: 3114: 3109: 3104: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3095: 3092: 3087: 3086: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3076: 3061: 3058: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3036: 3033: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 2998: 2995: 2991: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2977: 2974: 2970: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2960: 2957: 2954: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2944: 2940: 2936: 2935:this question 2925: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2872: 2864:IRC Workgroup 2858: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2845: 2840: 2833: 2828: 2827: 2822: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2806: 2802: 2797: 2794: 2792: 2789: 2787: 2784: 2782: 2779: 2777: 2774: 2772: 2769: 2768: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2756: 2753: 2751: 2748: 2746: 2743: 2741: 2738: 2736: 2733: 2731: 2728: 2727: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2715: 2712: 2710: 2707: 2705: 2702: 2700: 2697: 2695: 2692: 2691: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2679: 2675: 2672: 2667: 2663: 2661: 2649: 2642: 2635: 2624: 2619: 2618: 2614: 2611: 2607: 2606: 2595: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2579:Appeal review 2574: 2571: 2568: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2558: 2550: 2549: 2545: 2537: 2534: 2530: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2501: 2484: 2481: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2472: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2463: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2454: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2445: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2431: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2404: 2401: 2398: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2386: 2382: 2377: 2373: 2367: 2356: 2353: 2350: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2300: 2299: 2296: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2251: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2244: 2241: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2231: 2227: 2224: 2214: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2200: 2196: 2188: 2187: 2184: 2179: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2158: 2154: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2129: 2121: 2119: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2102: 2098: 2095: 2091: 2090: 2086:Thank you. -- 2085: 2084: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2064: 2061: 2057: 2056: 2045: 2044: 2041: 2037: 2028: 2027: 2023: 2017: 2011: 1998: 1997: 1994: 1990: 1983:New proposals 1980: 1977: 1975: 1972: 1968: 1965: 1953: 1950: 1945: 1942: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1918: 1908: 1907: 1904: 1898: 1889: 1888: 1885: 1879: 1867: 1864: 1863: 1858: 1853: 1852: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1822: 1819: 1817: 1814: 1812: 1809: 1807: 1804: 1802: 1799: 1797: 1794: 1792: 1789: 1787: 1784: 1783: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1771: 1768: 1767: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1755: 1752: 1750: 1747: 1745: 1742: 1740: 1737: 1735: 1732: 1731: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1706: 1702: 1700: 1688: 1681: 1674: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1641: 1635: 1626: 1625: 1622: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1576:Phil Sandifer 1573: 1572: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1550: 1547: 1546: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1536: 1531: 1527: 1522: 1521: 1518: 1515: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1503: 1500: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1479: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1462: 1458: 1451: 1449: 1443: 1442: 1439: 1431: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1401:User:FloNight 1398: 1391: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1358: 1355: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1289: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1257:voice of calm 1254: 1249: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1235: 1232: 1229: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1216: 1213: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1189: 1188: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1149: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1123: 1114: 1113: 1110: 1104: 1093: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1053: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1033: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1008: 1003: 997: 995: 993: 984: 983: 982: 981: 976: 970: 968: 966: 957: 950:Z-SG question 945: 941: 937: 933: 932: 931: 930: 927: 925: 924: 918: 916: 911: 909: 896: 892: 888: 884: 883: 882: 881: 878: 874: 863: 859: 855: 850: 847: 843: 839: 835: 831: 825: 821: 817: 813: 809: 805: 804: 803: 800: 796: 795: 794: 793: 790: 778: 768: 767: 763: 759: 749: 743: 741: 737: 732: 729: 723: 722: 714: 713: 710: 706: 694: 690: 686: 682: 681: 680: 678: 674: 670: 669: 650: 646: 642: 637: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 630: 623: 619: 615: 610: 609: 608: 604: 600: 595: 591: 588: 584: 581: 580: 579: 578: 575: 571: 567: 562: 561: 560: 559: 555: 551: 547: 543: 531: 527: 523: 518: 517: 516: 515: 511: 507: 496: 492: 488: 483: 482: 481: 477: 473: 469: 468: 467: 463: 459: 455: 454: 453: 452: 448: 444: 417: 416: 415: 414: 411: 410: 409: 408: 406: 405: 402: 401: 399: 398: 397: 389: 387: 382: 379: 373:Holly McGuire 370: 369: 366: 362: 361:user talk:JzG 348: 345: 341: 337: 336: 335: 334: 333: 332: 329: 326: 323: 313: 312: 309: 305: 301: 287: 284: 280: 279: 278: 275: 272: 268: 267: 266: 265: 262: 258: 254: 250: 243: 238: 237: 234: 229: 228: 225: 222: 219: 216: 213: 210: 202: 199: 196: 193: 192: 191: 188: 184: 183: 182: 180: 177: 171: 168: 157: 154: 150: 149: 148: 147: 144: 134: 133: 130: 125: 124: 119: 114: 103: 102: 99: 93: 90: 86: 82: 78: 74: 70: 61: 59: 48: 46: 36: 27: 19: 5720: 5688: 5682: 5674:David Lauder 5645:User:GianoII 5636: 5632: 5620: 5616: 5614: 5561: 5554: 5551: 5540: 5535: 5531: 5524: 5521: 5456: 5421: 5410: 5359: 5353: 5324: 5319: 5317: 5305: 5286: 5263: 5260: 5237: 5234: 5217: 5202: 5199: 5193: 5163: 5148: 5120: 5082: 5062: 4894: 4889: 4865: 4845: 4828: 4808: 4782: 4746: 4729: 4726:Tony Sidaway 4706: 4674: 4660:WP:USRD/NEWS 4513:Project news 4475: 4372: 4358: 4355: 4352: 4349: 4316: 4279:Please view 4277: 4232: 4226: 4200: 4157: 4154:Typo at RFAR 4139:)? Thanks.-- 4136: 4135:has defined 4102: 4083: 4056: 4036: 3975: 3963:pfctdayelise 3890: 3872: 3871: 3866: 3861: 3814: 3765: 3762: 3758: 3754: 3751: 3618: 3600: 3568: 3564: 3562: 3558: 3555: 3530: 3525: 3523: 3519: 3481: 3451: 3447: 3444: 3439: 3437: 3434: 3408: 3406: 3402: 3399: 3395: 3389: 3387: 3383: 3379: 3366: 3362: 3339:Rocksanddirt 3294:Rocksanddirt 3281: 3277: 3268: 3264: 3207: 3193:Tony Sidaway 3147: 3136:Tony Sidaway 3131: 3112: 3107: 3102: 3072: 3057:Tony Sidaway 2994:Tony Sidaway 2968: 2932: 2916:Rocksanddirt 2876:sledgehammer 2835: 2821:WP:USRD/NEWS 2694:Project news 2656: 2603: 2601: 2582: 2557:Tony Sidaway 2554: 2507: 2499: 2480:Tony Sidaway 2462:Tony Sidaway 2444:Tony Sidaway 2422: 2368: 2364: 2329: 2325: 2320: 2316: 2306: 2295:Tony Sidaway 2289: 2268:Tony Sidaway 2253: 2230:Tony Sidaway 2222: 2220: 2201: 2197: 2194: 2161: 2128:Tony Sidaway 2124: 2117: 2112: 2087: 2053: 2051: 2040:Tony Sidaway 2034: 2004: 1986: 1978: 1963: 1949:Tony Sidaway 1940: 1917:Tony Sidaway 1914: 1895: 1876: 1860: 1846:WP:USRD/NEWS 1816:Pennsylvania 1734:Project news 1695: 1632: 1617: 1548: 1544: 1543: 1514:Tony Sidaway 1506: 1454: 1444: 1409:this section 1404: 1394: 1247: 1115: 1100: 1054: 1039: 1016: 991: 990: 964: 963: 953: 922: 919: 912: 904: 871: 823: 776: 774: 756: 733: 702: 699:RFAR Basboll 675:, 2008-01-01 666: 664: 539: 522:Edit Centric 503: 487:Edit Centric 443:Edit Centric 439: 395: 383: 380: 376: 358: 319: 297: 246: 230: 207: 172: 169: 165: 140: 121: 117: 109: 94: 91: 87: 83: 79: 75: 71: 67: 60:2 April 200 58:Bhaktivinode 54: 45:Bhaktivinode 42: 33: 25: 5723:—Preceding 5652:—Preceding 5340:I'll look. 5257:ArbCom case 4984:ArbCom has 4585:Connecticut 4575:Leaderboard 4506:Departments 4332:Fixed. :-) 4133:user:Dewrad 4117:user:Cherso 4105:user:Kubura 3961:(steward), 3939:Betacommand 3118:Utgard Loki 2771:Leaderboard 2687:Departments 2671:17 February 2317:to everyone 2262:—Preceding 2113:You wrote: 1873:Please help 1786:Leaderboard 1727:Departments 1614:Unprotected 1495:Of course. 1412:Thank you. 828:—Preceding 808:Newyorkbrad 641:Igor Berger 599:Igor Berger 550:Igor Berger 261:75.62.6.237 259:. Thanks. 5637:real terms 5627:'s and/or 5621:real terms 5594:situation. 5154:Bellwether 5111:Bellwether 5053:Bellwether 4986:ruled here 4849:Mayday2010 4825:Hey Sydney 4799:Bellwether 4773:Bellwether 4737:Bellwether 4713:Carcharoth 4652:Full Issue 4635:Washington 4605:New Jersey 4580:California 4481:Newsletter 4319:Carcharoth 4264:. Regards 4067:Ursasapien 3937:, there's 3615:IRC Admins 2937:? Because 2813:Full Issue 2786:New Jersey 2776:California 2662:Newsletter 2605:Rschen7754 2529:dave souza 2514:dave souza 2504:Apologies‎ 2334:Carcharoth 2330:continuing 2326:prolonging 2204:Solumeiras 2089:Rschen7754 2055:Rschen7754 1838:Full Issue 1806:New Jersey 1791:California 1710:January 19 1701:Newsletter 1598:Carcharoth 1554:Carcharoth 1468:Carcharoth 1414:Carcharoth 1298:Carcharoth 1261:Carcharoth 1193:Carcharoth 1172:Carcharoth 1157:Carcharoth 1133:Carcharoth 923:Solumeiras 920:Thanks, -- 824:Reasonably 777:reasonably 542:User:A. B. 386:Magpie1892 344:Sparkzilla 328:Sparkzilla 306:. Thanks, 5683:Confirmed 5676:account, 5633:Yes or no 5617:fantastic 5436:and from 4886:Excellent 4862:User Page 4421:Moved to 4409:Appraiser 4170:Wknight94 4141:Marygiove 3935:this list 3565:this time 3545:Mackensen 3505:Mackensen 3466:Mackensen 3390:proactive 3266:Gerard! 2585:Everyking 2109:Your vote 1821:Wisconsin 1364:Yes sir. 1354:Mackensen 1248:in camera 1228:Mackensen 587:Talk:Knol 546:Talk:Knol 365:SockingIt 308:AxelBoldt 271:Musical L 143:Everyking 5725:unsigned 5708:FloNight 5654:unsigned 5604:FloNight 5485:FloNight 5398:FloNight 5342:FloNight 5149:reminder 5078:WP:RFArb 5003:FloNight 4998:policies 4994:and here 4953:FloNight 4760:FloNight 4656:Shortcut 4648:Newsroom 4644:Archives 4615:Oklahoma 4610:New York 4595:Michigan 4542:Features 4490:22 March 4427:FloNight 4334:FloNight 4301:FloNight 4215:Thatcher 4185:FloNight 4125:user:PIO 4059:Kirill's 3873:Not true 3785:Thatcher 3638:FloNight 3424:FloNight 3309:FloNight 3234:FloNight 3161:FloNight 3091:FloNight 2953:FloNight 2817:Shortcut 2809:Newsroom 2805:Archives 2791:New York 2781:Michigan 2723:Features 2598:Highways 2567:FloNight 2397:FloNight 2349:FloNight 2276:contribs 2264:unsigned 2240:FloNight 2223:civility 2138:FloNight 2074:FloNight 2048:Highways 2009:Lawrence 1993:Thatcher 1967:Bishonen 1927:FloNight 1842:Shortcut 1834:Newsroom 1830:Archives 1811:Oklahoma 1801:New York 1796:Illinois 1763:Features 1650:FloNight 1621:Thatcher 1288:Thatcher 1212:Thatcher 1148:Thatcher 936:FloNight 887:FloNight 854:FloNight 842:contribs 834:Jim62sch 830:unsigned 799:Thatcher 685:FloNight 614:FloNight 566:FloNight 506:FloNight 472:FloNight 458:FloNight 283:FloNight 187:FloNight 153:FloNight 5586:strong. 5354:ignored 5267:Xiutwel 5261:Hello, 5218:Anthøny 4630:Vermont 4383:doncram 3951:Guillom 3943:Mercury 3113:like it 3108:used to 2423:looking 2164:WP:RFAR 1590:WP:TALK 1530:sit out 1023:Maniwar 877:Quadell 679:21:47z 673:Jeandré 340:WP:AN/I 322:WP:AN/I 274:inguist 5569:(talk) 5547:Alison 5463:(talk) 5331:(talk) 5289:Alison 4835:Europe 4600:Nevada 4590:Kansas 4137:insane 4084:As an 4071:(talk) 3971:Vishal 3959:Datrio 3955:Alphax 3947:Werdna 3766:per se 3693:Best, 3548:(talk) 3508:(talk) 3469:(talk) 3218:Risker 2898:Risker 2381:Risker 2321:really 1492:rules. 1481:Geogre 1357:(talk) 1231:(talk) 1108:Durova 901:Hello! 758:NCurse 485:bed... 137:Appeal 98:Jsw663 39:Thanks 5269:♫☺♥♪ 5244:Jakew 5228:FYI: 5134:Giano 5039:Giano 5020:Giano 4968:Giano 4926:Giano 4620:Texas 4207:WP:AE 4080:Well? 4007:Giano 3921:Giano 3877:Irpen 3845:Giano 3796:Giano 3725:Giano 3706:Giano 3651:Giano 3622:Giano 3573:Irpen 3534:Irpen 3487:Irpen 3455:Irpen 3413:Irpen 3321:Giano 3284:Irpen 3248:Giano 3178:Irpen 3151:Irpen 3075:Irpen 3032:Irpen 2973:Irpen 2943:Irpen 2471:Irpen 2453:Irpen 2427:Irpen 2376:WP:AE 2372:essay 2177:omtay 994:levse 967:levse 740:Prion 709:MONGO 16:< 5733:talk 5662:talk 5511:talk 5378:ban. 5311:and 5248:talk 5240:AN/I 5203:here 5138:talk 5043:talk 5024:talk 4990:here 4972:talk 4930:talk 4877:talk 4853:talk 4840:Asia 4833:and 4831:Asia 4732:this 4717:talk 4709:here 4625:Utah 4493:2008 4442:USRD 4413:talk 4387:talk 4323:talk 4289:talk 4270:talk 4245:here 4241:here 4174:talk 4145:talk 4044:talk 4011:talk 3941:and 3925:talk 3849:talk 3810:here 3800:talk 3781:here 3729:talk 3710:talk 3678:here 3674:here 3655:talk 3626:talk 3482:were 3377:") 3343:talk 3325:talk 3298:talk 3272:this 3252:talk 3222:talk 3122:talk 2939:this 2920:talk 2902:talk 2884:talk 2796:Utah 2674:2008 2623:USRD 2589:talk 2565:;-) 2533:talk 2518:talk 2385:talk 2338:talk 2328:and 2313:here 2309:here 2272:talk 2208:talk 2172:here 2155:and 2142:talk 2078:talk 2036:This 1971:talk 1944:this 1931:talk 1714:2007 1654:talk 1602:talk 1580:talk 1558:talk 1485:talk 1472:talk 1418:talk 1370:talk 1331:talk 1302:talk 1265:talk 1253:This 1197:talk 1176:talk 1161:talk 1137:talk 1101:Re: 1074:talk 1047:talk 1027:talk 1021:. -- 1001:Talk 974:Talk 956:here 940:talk 891:talk 858:talk 838:talk 812:talk 771:RfAr 762:work 705:here 689:talk 645:talk 618:talk 603:talk 597:you, 593:way. 570:talk 554:talk 526:talk 510:talk 491:talk 476:talk 462:talk 447:talk 363:. -- 255:and 5711:♥♥♥ 5607:♥♥♥ 5556:not 5488:♥♥♥ 5422:per 5401:♥♥♥ 5396:. 5345:♥♥♥ 5320:did 5006:♥♥♥ 4956:♥♥♥ 4873:PHG 4763:♥♥♥ 4682:бот 4430:♥♥♥ 4362:Cat 4346:IRC 4337:♥♥♥ 4304:♥♥♥ 4285:PHG 4266:PHG 4223:PHG 4188:♥♥♥ 4092:Cat 3771:FT2 3695:FT2 3641:♥♥♥ 3606:FT2 3526:you 3427:♥♥♥ 3372:--> 3312:♥♥♥ 3237:♥♥♥ 3164:♥♥♥ 3094:♥♥♥ 2956:♥♥♥ 2843:bot 2570:♥♥♥ 2544:cat 2400:♥♥♥ 2352:♥♥♥ 2291:--> 2243:♥♥♥ 1941:was 1535:Duk 1366:RxS 1327:RxS 1127:on 1070:RxS 1043:RxS 233:Zeq 198:Zeq 176:Zeq 5735:) 5693:is 5664:) 5532:is 5513:) 5364:is 5295:, 5250:) 5140:) 5100:te 5098:ai 5096:hw 5094:et 5092:tl 5090:os 5086:an 5084:Ry 5045:) 5026:) 4992:, 4988:, 4974:) 4932:) 4912:te 4910:ai 4908:hw 4906:et 4904:tl 4902:os 4898:an 4896:Ry 4879:) 4855:) 4719:) 4694:) 4690:• 4658:: 4654:• 4650:• 4646:• 4495:• 4415:) 4389:) 4359:-- 4325:) 4291:) 4272:) 4243:, 4213:. 4176:) 4147:) 4127:, 4123:, 4119:, 4107:, 4089:-- 4046:) 4013:) 3993:te 3991:ai 3989:hw 3987:et 3985:tl 3983:os 3979:an 3977:Ry 3927:) 3908:te 3906:ai 3904:hw 3902:et 3900:tl 3898:os 3894:an 3892:Ry 3851:) 3832:te 3830:ai 3828:hw 3826:et 3824:tl 3822:os 3818:an 3816:Ry 3802:) 3783:. 3731:) 3712:) 3657:) 3628:) 3569:ee 3485:-- 3345:) 3327:) 3300:) 3254:) 3224:) 3124:) 3103:is 2969:We 2922:) 2904:) 2886:) 2878:. 2855:) 2851:• 2819:: 2815:• 2811:• 2807:• 2676:• 2615:) 2591:) 2551:;) 2531:, 2516:, 2387:) 2340:) 2278:) 2274:• 2228:-- 2210:) 2182:38 2144:) 2126:-- 2099:) 2080:) 2065:) 2012:§ 1991:. 1976:. 1969:| 1947:-- 1933:) 1862:32 1844:: 1840:• 1836:• 1832:• 1716:• 1712:, 1656:) 1604:) 1582:) 1560:) 1533:-- 1487:) 1474:) 1420:) 1399:, 1372:) 1333:) 1304:) 1267:) 1199:) 1178:) 1163:) 1139:) 1125:}} 1119:{{ 1076:) 1049:) 1029:) 1004:• 998:• 987:— 977:• 971:• 960:— 958:. 942:) 893:) 860:) 844:) 840:• 814:) 785:62 691:) 647:) 620:) 605:) 572:) 556:) 528:) 512:) 493:) 478:) 464:) 449:) 384:-- 226:, 223:, 220:, 217:, 214:, 211:, 5731:( 5697:n 5695:o 5691:l 5689:A 5660:( 5509:( 5368:n 5366:o 5362:l 5360:A 5246:( 5164:C 5136:( 5121:C 5088:P 5063:C 5041:( 5022:( 4970:( 4928:( 4900:P 4875:( 4851:( 4809:C 4783:C 4747:C 4715:( 4692:ц 4688:т 4686:( 4677:О 4673:— 4411:( 4385:( 4321:( 4287:( 4268:( 4172:( 4168:— 4143:( 4042:( 4009:( 3981:P 3923:( 3896:P 3847:( 3820:P 3798:( 3727:( 3708:( 3653:( 3624:( 3341:( 3323:( 3296:( 3250:( 3220:( 3120:( 2967:" 2918:( 2900:( 2882:( 2853:c 2849:t 2847:( 2838:O 2834:— 2613:C 2610:T 2608:( 2587:( 2546:" 2383:( 2336:( 2270:( 2206:( 2140:( 2097:C 2094:T 2092:( 2076:( 2063:C 2060:T 2058:( 2021:e 2018:/ 2015:t 1929:( 1859:— 1652:( 1600:( 1578:( 1556:( 1549:. 1483:( 1470:( 1416:( 1368:( 1329:( 1300:( 1263:( 1195:( 1174:( 1159:( 1135:( 1072:( 1045:( 1025:( 992:R 965:R 938:( 889:( 856:( 836:( 810:( 742:. 687:( 677:t 643:( 616:( 601:( 568:( 552:( 524:( 508:( 489:( 474:( 460:( 445:( 128:✍ 118:✔

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

Index