User talk:FloNight/archive 8

3880:

comments on Tariq's page (the first one). I actually didn't determine the result of any page move I performed (though I could have through many days), because of that. I took a good-faithed judgment derived from an AN/I thread which doesn't even nearly violate any policy, after an RM had taken place which 4 admins versus 1 admin (the mover, who declared that he didn't see all the polls, that he didn't care and that he wouldn't reverse himself) thought was against consensus. I don't have the greatest veneration for the paranoia of wikipedia's ideologue community, but the situation couldn't have remained much longer per comments Angus Mclellan had made. I took an administrator action, which some users didn't like and were never going to, and you rushed to raise the question of my conduct after one of them complained without looking into it. You are an arb. This could make my life very difficult on wikipedia. Fair enough, I could have been on some British nationalist gadu-gadu arranging to undermine true community consensus, or I could have misjudged what the admin feedback on that AN/I thread was, or I could have been totally right. But you couldn't know this as there's no evidence and I haven't defended myself (and generally, I am cautious about defending myself unless I need to). Couldn't you have emailed him or something if you thought that point was worth raising? You are surely not naive about these things. Perception ... a word you used! ;) It seems now that the biggest task facing me on wiki as an admin is not helping in disputes like this, but doing so without random condemnation from "above".

1714:

was taking on a new account name for privacy reasons. Within a few days, the new account had racked up multiple complaints for his editing and suspicions of sockpuppetry. What to do then? Or consider the time I was checking a proxy range and found two notable and controversial admins sharing several IPs. I discussed that quietly for a long time with a small group of checkusers and arbitrators before taking actions. Small groups inherently have less information than a large group. If there is a requirement to discuss findings with larger groups (to make sure that any prior approvals are uncovered) won't this result in telling a much larger number of people about scandalous-sounding situations and doing more harm than good when it turns out there is a reasonable explanation?

1594:). If you think I should promise or declare something, please let me know; I have already in the scope of this arbcom recognized that there are certain issues I should address - thus I promised to pay more attention to BLP, avoid edit warring even more than I already do and to avoid the word neo-Nazi, and I am open to working with a mentor(s). Unfortunately, there are things Irpen has been asking for that I cannot agree to - like admitting I am the head of the revert-warring GG-coordinated Polish cabal :) If you think there is some agreement that would help us, please don't hesitate to suggest it; as far as I am concerned, I want simply to see an end to his years-long tactic of going around and portraying me as the "evil incarnate" on this project.-- 1748:

C was, that in fact I had never encountered her, read a post by her, or even knew of her existence before Avi asked me about her candidacy. (I know such an assumption will be difficult for you to make but in fact, my Knowledge experience does not revolve around you or your circle of friends.) From that assumption, tell me what clues I missed that would have told me that the account was (1) your sock, (2) an open secret, and (3) a joke that was ending soon. You could at some point take some responsibility for your own failure to communicate. For the record, my only off-wiki communications on this matter have been emails to Avi, Jimbo, Newyorkbrad, Kirill, and Lar. I have not been on IRC in months. Ironically, if I

1799:

exactly, based on Catherine's talk page, was I supposed to know in advance that it was you? I already answered, oublicly and privately, why I included Gerard in my email. Would it have been better to ask my second opinion of the entire Arbcom-L list, or the checkuser-L list, or #admins? I was attempting to be discreet and careful. I may retire (this is only one of the stupid dramas and downright unpleasantness I have been involved with as a checkuser) but I will never resign. Another irony, which I'm sure you will not believe; if you wanted an insider to advocate for higher standards for checkusers, I would have been your best choice among the current batch, at least until now.

1451:). All of my edits in this particular article were about cleaning up the article and adding more references. Please see the talk page , where I had tried to initiate discussions on this. Please note that it was me who had asked for admin intervention in this article. Please note that other editors (SPAs) were in no way adhering to WP policies. Even in this situation, I had reverted as per WP:3RR. I hope you will notice that I have not "disrupted" this article in any manner. Regarding my other 2 edits, it should be noted that those edits are in no way "disruptive to WP" in any manner. With due respect, I request you to reconsider your earlier decision.- 1811:

obviously a sock of someone else, and since the user in question was running for ArbCom, he did what anyone would have done in that position. He asked the account to identify its parent account, and when it refused, he ran a check. I fail to see how this is an issue. How was he supposed to know who it was if they refused to tell him? What followed after the check was unquestionably wrong, but it was not Thatcher's fault either. Thus, I cannot understand your anger at him. Essentially, from what I can see, you are mad at Thatcher because he did not already know that Catherine was your sock. So you expect him to

3069:

been misusing Knowledge to create drama and/or have been making her the top target at the Knowledge Review troll forum utilizing that offsite venue to misinform, malign and toss excrement at her whenever she tries to hold the line against the marauding POV pushers and bad hand single purpose accounts that permeate this website. Are FT2 and his actions never to be reversed? Since when did he become Jimbo Wales? Frankly, when we are going to enact legislation that gives trolls a victory and gives those who stand guard over problematic areas the shaft, we are descending down a very dark corridor.--

3561:, but was agreed by multiple observers to be clearly both violations of BLP and anti-semitic. (Some of Greg's later comments also had to be refactored after they were deemed anti-semitic). If you review that extended period, it is clear that rather than being "momentary," Piotrus is intervening aggressively on behalf of an editor who had engaged in days and days of off topic and offensive rants. The synopsis below clearly establishes that this was neither monetary nor benign, but rather, an inexcusable, days long exercise in admin bullying and abuse of authority: 3022:. It's deeply disturbing to see that the outcome of this case is based partly on the fact that SlimVirgin has been in trouble before, when the last "trouble" was because she supposedly made unfounded allegations in public without going through the proper channels, even though the committee received evidence that private attempts had previously and unsuccessfully been made, and even though the committee has been unresponsive to my earnest request for clarification about why they felt it was acceptable to leave the impression that those accusations she made really 1678:

that want to fix the problems that have been exposed. The issue involves policy and practices about doing checks as well as personnel issues (who has access). In January, I anticipate a robust discussion about how to address the way that checks are managed. There is still an open request at RFArb, if you think that action is needed could you spell out more clearly which policy was violated by whom. Newyorkbrad has made a suggestion to David and is considering making a motion. Let's see how the situation plays it's self out over the next day.

3914:

wanting the Committee to express their thoughts on site as we do our work. Back to the point of biases in decision making. People that have a bias often aren't aware of it, that is the problem. We need to guard against it by separating the use of our tools from the content area we work or comment. Knowledge has plenty of admins so there is no need for an admin to close a consensus discussion when they have given an opinion. It is an easy mistake to make. Just about every admin has done it at one time or another. No one is perfect, right?

2074:

these kinds of personal attacks. You have a history of a close mindlessly pursuing your own agenda on various articles, inability to compromise and trying to effectively block anyone you disagree with from making input on particular articles' content (hence trying to claim 'ownership' of particular articles). You misrepresent other editor's edits and when challenged resort to inapplicable wiki lawyering. This is what has been happening on this article, once again. Again, please stop spreading false misinformation.

3482:), it will doubtless want to show the same speedy diligence in other worrying matters. Could you outline the time scale and agenda for the investigation of David Gerard's suspected misuse of oversight rights in regard to the election of FT2 to the Arbitration committee. Obviously FT2 will need to be suspended from the Arbcom and its list during this investigation, can you give the community an approximated date for the conclusion of the investigation and the names of those carrying it out. Thank you. 170: 2862:

it further. I have no clear memory of the situation. As often happens with users with sanctions, Giano dislikes the arbitration committee. And he has stated that he refuses to recognize the legitimacy of blocks under the ruling. Since FT2 administered one of the blocks, any decision about him being involved from a conflict between them needs to take that dynamic into account. So, I'm not certain that your take on the situation is as clear cut as you make it.

2633:

was supported, then a community discussion at AE would make it clear to FT2 that he did something outside Community norms. Your original independent action, and then equally troubling decision to assign Fred Bauder the sole right to re-block, did nothing to solve the underlying issues that you said that you saw as a problem. Giano will have gained more confidence in the administrators if he sees that as a group they are willing to reverse poor choices.

1065:

out of it's way to allow the freak back and by doing so arbcom overrules the community ban probably for the first time in wiki history (we aren't talking about a ban by a single user but by multiple users). Arbcom is only and only helping once side of the dispute and that side clearly was never me. Not in 2005, not in 2006, not in 2007 and of course not in 2008. The fact that I am listing four years says something, doesn't it?

1178:. It is not my position to direct you to change your intent, however, I would like to ensure that you have read all the statements which were submitted to the case in question after you signalled your intent to take this case on board. In the event that you haven't kept up with developments on the case, could you please review the case again, and consider if it does in fact require arbcom intervention. Thanks. -- 1590:

outside a dispute resolution procedure that we were both a party of, and I don't follow him around, criticizing his (nonexistent in any case) content creation (thus I have no problem with the current restriction preventing us from discussing one another, although I do think it is a bit unfair in its current wording which may imply to an uninformed observer that we are both guilty of discussing one another,

3270:

didn't get straight answers. He became annoyed and said something about reporting FT2 to an animal welfare group. This was interpreted as a threat and he was blocked. He posted something about it on his blog and included links to two of FT2's earliest edits, which show knowledge of human-animal sex. In response, David oversighted them, though they don't tend to identify FT2 so far as anyone can tell.

1937:

I should not be cross with Thatcher, I should not be cross with the other one - presumably I should not be cross with Gerard because he is the pet of Jimbo and the Arbcom, and let's face it no-one is allowed to tell Jimbo that his tame checkuser is a lying cheat. Who invades and violates privacy at a whim. Why is this? What services does he perform for you all, that give him such protection?

856:

already community blocked". The user has been indef banned like three times and you are willing to lift that. It hasn't even been a year. I do want to remind arbcom that they went out of their way to even talk about lifting my three-year-old mediation ban. To an untrained eye (my eye) it seems like arbcom only and only rewards extremely poor conduct such has harassment going on for years. --

2457:. There is no proviso -- written or implied -- found there making the action of a "first mover" blocking as AE enforcement somehow nearly inviolate. Just as the judgment that a particular action violated an AE condition is left to the acting admin, so should unblocking. Should common sense be applied? Yes. Should this be codified by the AC creating an addendum/amendment to a policy? No. 798: 2140:

of their statements) I put Boodles' page on my watch list, which led me to working on a couple (that is exactly two) articles which Piotrus also edited, since basically Boodles appears to stalk Piotrus. And hey, I will even plead guilty to agreeing with Piotrus on several occasions. But come on, it's not like me and Piotrus actually get together to discuss edit war strategy or anything

36:

filed this request because mass deletion requests are an active hindrance to general consensus, because deletion is a hostile process. My assumption was that this reasoning was why TTN's previous engagement in this behavior - editing purely to merge articles and delete them without any attempt at discussion - was sanctioned. Because it was an active impediment to consensus building.

2723:

alone about a situation if stated on site would not be the controlling factor about a matter. So in my opinion, for you to rely on something that I said privately about an unrelated matter continues to show poor judgment. Additionally, an admin being too involved alone may or may not mean that a block should be overturned. The full issues of the situation must be taken into account.

519:

in a matter like this is procedurally correct, whatever its outcome. This is a problem created by the Arbitration Committee, and only it can resolve it. As you accurately state, this is a "community matter," and a major part of the problem is that the decision was taken from the hands of the community and decided by the preferences of a single, self-selected administrator.

350: 2941:! This has been going on for months. I've even tried to mediate between them and was driven nuts by them. And coming so soon on the heels of a David G block and checkuser, when I know that David and FT2 are friends, it doesn't look good. Well, given that we luckily have an RfAr filed here anyway, it's the perfect opportunity for me to take a closer look and make sure 3863:

situation. Whether you have a strong bias or not, unfortunately, the perception will be that you do. This makes it harder to issues to be resolved. Since I barely looked at the situation, I do not want to make you out as a problematic user, but I do think this is an example of why the situation is not being settled. Sorry to single you out.

565:

thus, more useful. Second, it would send a strong message to all parties that their conduct in the case is being monitored and may have consequences that would, hopefully, switch everyone to a more constructive mode. When looking at the pages you would see at once that the nonsense there is abundant and its presence disrupts the case.

3081:

way into this soft-thinking and (on your part) soft-spoken morass at this moment—destined, apparently, to pussyfoot round the moral and intellectual shortfalls of FT2 like the rest of you! It's hard to imagine myself.. but I expect it would have been hard for you, too, to imagine yourself in such a role before it happened.

2543:

for a repeated infraction, or "any uninvolved admin," or that there needs to be consensus, etc., seems already to be standard course. If you read NewYorkBrad's version, I think it also shows how effectively the same result can come about based on existing policy. I think this is part of the idea behind the motion.

3434:

Wait 24 hours from when the motions passed and then close them all. Send an email to the mailing list saying that is what you are going to do. And ask for an arbitrator to make the request on meta for the desysop. I'm going to be away so I can't do it myself. (I just now signed on for the day, so I'm

2805:

Dispute resolution has been followed. FT2 initiated a case. As you know, that normally means the ArbCom looks at the behavior of all parties. I am asking you to explain why you did not look at the behavior of FT2 in blocking a user he was in long-term conflict with, a conflict that you told me months

2632:

I want to make this clear...your use of the tools is under discussion now, that is what the Committee is addressing. If you had concerns about FT2 block, then discussion at AE was the correct approach. Or start a RFC on FT2. Unilaterally overturning a block does not fix the situation. If your opinion

2493:

Would you agree that admins sometimes use the guise of AE as a club? If you do, then why does the initial blocking admin get the benefit of the doubt, but the unblocking admin does not? However it is framed, the motions as they currently stand create new policy, whether as addenda or amendment. If we

2440:

Traditionally Knowledge policy is community practices not the exact words as written on a policy page. This approach mirrors real life. Since it is impossible to cover every situation, we don't try to write everything down. Because the rules are not all written down, but learned from experience, all

2139:

Hmmm, so I appear to be guilty of having Poland related Knowledge notice board on my watch list. Honestly, before Boodles turned up I interacted with Piotrus once or twice, when I first joined Wiki. But since Boodles (and his allies) insist on talking about me behind my back (i.e. without alerting me

1951:

I have no connection or association with David Gerard whatsoever and he has performed no services for me of any nature (I don't even know what that means). I have evaluated his actions and those of everyone else on their merits and have a question currently outstanding to him on the RfAr page. In the

1881:

I was not being rude. I was asking a factual question - can you prove it? the answer is (it seems) - no. Not really good enough is it? Thanks for the information you did provide. Knowledge and its management are long overdue a large kick up the ass. This is a world renown major site (one thing we can

1810:

Giano, the longer this drags on, the more ridiculous your position seems to become. Seriously, why would Thatcher lie about what he did? Logically, what could he possibly gain by lying as you say he did? I don't know about David Gerard, but your anger at Thatcher is totally unfounded. He saw what was

1752:

gone on to IRC to ask whether I should check the account, someone there probably would have been able to tell me what was going on without the need for a check. Certainly communicating with 50 admins instead of 3 would have increased the odds of finding someone who both knew the score and was on line

1064:

Arbcom will go out of their way to incompetently ignore any and all relevant evidence even when the case is a slam dunk. All arbcom needed to do was read the evidence - which arbcom did not even glance at. The community (non-arbcom) banned Jack Merridew forever. And once that was over arbcom is going

902:

This user had no useful contributions. He dedicated his time in removing my work. Weather it is Turkey related topics, or weather it is Anime related topics or any other topics I care about like mass removing episode and character articles. His ban here has not lasted half a year. Has it been quarter

855:

My response and the only comment I will make on the matter is utter disappointment at arbcom. The ban was placed by the community, not arbcom. It would be strange for arbcom to lift a ban arbcom did not even went as far as endorsing. Arbcom did not even accept the Jack Merridew arbcom case as "he was

729:

I've chatted with Steve a bit about this, and it's clear to me that he would like to edit again as soon as possible, and if banned, would like to be able to make a statement of some sort (I feel fairly sure that others might wish to comment too, so perhaps a semi-formal 'evidence', 'workshop' process

518:

I urge you to reconsider your stance. Your comments regarding DRV are particularly inapposite. Since the Committee has established the policy committing a decision to the discretion of a single, self-selected adminstrator when the community is divided (and, in theory, even if it is not), the decision

3185:

It is not for the community to give "feedback" on to FT2 on election tampering, it is a matter to be dealt with, and dealt with soon. It now seems that the Arbcom have known for some time that David Gerard tampered with FT2's edits during the election, I am begining to wonder if these wre not Arbcom

3168:

If you see a problem with FT2 (or David Gerard), I recommend starting a RFC to get views from the rest of the Community and give FT2 feedback. Regarding the oversighted edits, Thatcher's statements of the situation is the most accurate one that I've seen. I intend to make a fuller comment about this

3155:

motions were made to address them. Obviously, halting the civility sanction on Giano needed immediate action to stop any possibility of a one months block or other controversial blocks. It was largely felt that a motion was the appropriate way to address long standing concerns about you (SlimVirgin).

3080:

Flo... it's distressing to me to see you twist and turn and slip from the grasp like an eel in your replies to SlimVirgin. I'm looking forward with something like dread to your reply to ElinorD, assuming that you will make one. Thank god I've bowed out of the ArbCom election! I could have been on my

2390:

We are discussing it internally to see if we are truly writing policy. So far, I don't see that we are adding anything new. AE noticeboard exists to discuss sanctions. Unless there is massive Community support for it, an admin action done to apply Arbitration sanctions should not be reversed. ArbCom

2178:

Ok, so you "stalking" Piotrus is just my impression. Honestly I have no idea what it is you two do to each other. This still leaves you making accusations about me being an "ally", "making aggressive edits" and other innuendos. Whatever happens with you and Piotrus, I would appreciate it if you left

2010:

Imagine a powerful administrator who wants to silence some political opposition. He enters into an edit war on a Knowledge project page and censors all criticism of his pet cause. He then protects the page on his version and even threatens to move it to Meta where he can more effectively control the

1936:

So Brad, what has the Arbcom done about this situation so far? In emails yesterday to you and others I said I was prepared to ignore Thatcher and the other one, if gerard was dealt with. So far I see nothing has been done. It is left to me to sort it out, and prevent similar abuse. According to you,

1798:

I never checkusered you until after the results were clear. I checkusered an account with a few warnings on its talk page and a suspicious arbcom candidacy. You could have derailed this whole thing with a straightforward two sentence answer to my question. And you keep avoiding my questions. How,

1747:

Show me where it says on Lady C's talk page that she is an acknowledged open secret account. Show me where, when I asked Lady C to contact me, that you replied with a diff to your talk page discussion that would have made the situation clear. Assume, for a moment, that I had no prior idea who Lady

1728:

Then you dare to insult our intelligence by saying you thought it was Greg Kohs - FGS! Is that really the best lie you can come up with? No one believes that, not even you. Your great mate Gerard already knew who I was, can you not get that into your head! You all deserve firing, and that is what is

564:

beyond the freedom given to clerks. If you could go over the current evidence and workshop pages and aggressively remove the patent nonsense and senseless rants (including my own entries if they are perceived as such), the benefit would be two-fold. First, it would make case pages more readable and,

3818:

There is an important issue of whether greg was baited (as I believe he was) into his more emotional statements by Boody's confrontational attitude over the past few months of their interaction (analysis of Talk:Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz, where I believe those editors first met,

3234:

Well it appears to be "old news" to at least one Arb, perhaps the Arbcom's communication list does not function as effiently as it might. I will watch with interest to see how and if this is investigated, but it does indeed seem odd, that I with no powers at all, can discover things that all of you

3204:

I certainly was not aware of the oversighted edits and from the comments made by other members of the Committee and Jimbo, I think tampering with the election is highly unlikely. I think pushing this line of thinking is going to muddy the waters and is not wise. There are real questions to be asked

2861:

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm answering you, right? We only look at involved parties if there is a case made. Your comments about FT2 and Giano on my talk page is not part of the dispute resolution process and come late in the process. If you had raised them days ago, then I could have looked into

2840:

A case was brought involving me and FT2. It doesn't matter who brought it. The possible wrongs were (a) an inappropriate block and (b) an inappropriate unblock. The ArbCom normally looks into the behavior of ALL parties. But in this case, you looked into (b), but not into (a). This despite the fact

2722:

You are failing to get the point that your opinion in a matter does not give you the right to unilaterally undo a decision made by an admin. If you have concerns that an administrator is too involved, then that needs to addressed by talking to them about your concern. Or discussed at AE. My opinion

2601:

If this was the first or second case about SV, I would agree. Or if she was a new-ish administrator that merely needed some feedback. But that is not where we are. If you look at the RFArb page, the Committee regularly uses motions to handle situations with users that have prior case sanction. This

2521:

You seem to be missing the primary concern. Whether or not the community "accepts the Arbitration Committee" this isn't what we accept it for. No one in the community would ever vote for any candidate who said something like "Yes, the ArbCom can rewrite policy whenever it pleases." There's a simple

1840:

After Poetgate, I offered to tell anyone who was interested whether they were discussed on the checkuser mailing list during the time period when PoetGuy had access. Giano asked, and I told him "no" (which was the honest answer), and replied that he thought I was lying. So why bother asking? Who

874:

Since arbcom is not willing to be the solution to this problem and insists on being the source it, I have brought this matter into Jimbo's attention. I do not know if he will get involved. I hope he does. I am tired of dealing with this issue which will soon celebrate its fifth anniversary as of 12

552:

Case' pages being turned into a total mess adversely affects the chances of the cohesive outcome. Too much nonsense in the cases pages buries the constructive entries and make the whole pages unreadable or incomprehensible. This leads to the arbitrators' non-participation in the discussions, which,

72:

I was, it should be noted, unaware of the previous query - I had inquired idly on the mailing list as to why TTN had not been brought back to arbcom for his behavior, and nobody indicated that the answer was "actually, he has." Indeed, Matthew Brown seemed unaware that he had, and the archiving for

31:

I am puzzled and frankly a bit offended by this comment on RFAr: "As pointed out by bainer, since the Community has not reached consensus on a policy/guideline on the topic, we have repeated cycles of the issue causing content disputes. The Community needs to find a way to write this policy and not

3913:

Again, I really did not mean to make you out to be a problematic user. That was the reason that I did not use your name in my comment. But I felt I needed to communicate my thoughts to the other arbitrators about whether the case should be opened or not. The Community recently has been vocal about

3368:

No, of course not. I'm saying that we (Giano and FloNight) did not have any information about the oversighted edits until recently. Jimbo did not this information, either. Now that the information is available it is being looked into by Jimbo. He said on his talk page that he does not have time to

2874:

What has Giano recognizing blocks, or failing to, got to do with anything? The facts of the block and unblock were not in dispute. What was in dispute was the appropriateness. I'll ask you again: given that you KNEW FT2 was involved in a long-term dispute with Giano, and that you didn't need me or

2792:

Hmmmm. Advocating for action is not in my job description last time I checked. Again, if you have a concern about FT2 or David then follow the appropriate steps in the dispute resolution process. As Giano knows, I have indeed followed up about his concerns related to David Gerard involvement. Your

2542:

For ArbCom to set out the enforcement of their decisions doesn't seem to me unusual. For instance, if this had come in a case that created the particular restriction, I don't know that anyone would have noticed a specification as to how it should be implemented. Deciding that "any admin" may block

2480:

I'm certain that the Community accepts the Arbitration Committee, with our many faults, because they want the stability that comes from having finality to decisions. In order to have this stability we must include a reliable way to administer sanctions. Allowing admins to unilaterally overturn the

1723:

It exposes a weakness because you behaved like three naughty schoolboys on a fishing trip to try and find out information you had no right to. Except you are not schoolboys you are three grown men, wrongly given huge responsibility. God knows what you were planning to do with it/are planning to do

1713:

It will be interesting to see where that discussion leads. Unless we are talking about special rules for Giano again, wouldn't this mean that all identified socks would have to be run past arbcom and checkuer-L to see if it is an approved sock? One time Alison told checkuser-L that Kittybrewster

1677:

Giano, patience has never been your long suit, but I think it is your friend in this situation. These checks and your block highlighted some of the weakness with the way that ip checks are managed. People that are interested in fixing the problem have the opportunity to vote for ArbCom candidates

1070:

The sad part of it all is that this isn't the first time. I had to deal with the nonsense by MARMOT spoofing IPs and all. Brion has a report on it. I'll let you find it but I know you will not even look at it so there really is no point in me presenting a link. MARMOT too was given a second chance

59:

Given that the Committee answered a query about the situation already, I do not think that our response is surprising. Reading the comments of the users on the request page, I note that as usual, the editors involved in the situation see the issue somewhat differently than other users that are not

43:

I recognize that the committee is deeply disinclined to step into any issue involving notability (though I would ask where, in the absence of the committee, they foresee any sort of leadership on this issue coming from). But I wish that the committee would simply say that instead of accusing me of

39:

Even if the arbcom wishes to get away from this issue and not issue any further rulings on it - a change of policy I can understand, even if I find it deeply regrettable, I greatly resent the claim that, by bringing this request, I am somehow looking to the Committee to create a back door policy.

3879:

But you did, did you not? So why be sorry. I commented on a poll, sure. I commented based on policy and encyclopedic standards, the same basis I perform admin duties. What difference does it make ... it wasn't that poll, and there are no rules about it. Yes, there's perception, but please read my

3140:

SlimVirgin, I have answered your question. You just don't like the answer. :-( Strong evidence needs to be presented, not on my talk page, not late in the game, but in the correct venue at the correct time. The statement that you made was largely an opinion piece without diffs or other supporting

3105:

Please answer my straightforward question with a straightforward answer. Two admins are parties to a case. One admin blocked someone he was arguably involved with, which he perhaps shouldn't have done. The second admin, objecting to his involvement, unblocked without discussion, which she perhaps

3068:

Flo...in your comments on the proposed remedies of this matter involving SlimVirgin, you seem to indicate most of the issues surrounding SlimVirgin are of her own making...I couldn't disagree more...from what I have seen, she has been the persistant target of a bunch of jackasses that have either

2827:

saw a problem? There has been no substantial evidence offered to support your claim. My months old opinion about FT2 and Giano is hardly evidence. Or course, you can offer the diffs to show a problem and I will reconsider. As a first step, I suggest that you start a RFC if you see a problem as I

2301:

Wouldn't some form of restriction/parole be enough? Greg did not have any history of blocks, bans or warnings before his interactions with Boodlesthecat, and even now his block record is clean. I'd think that a stern warning should be at least tried before a permban, and I also don't think he has

2073:

Boodles, please stop making untrue statements and dishonest accusations. I am not anyone's "ally". I hardly know Piotrus. It is your attitude and editing that is disruptive and an embarrassment. You have a history of not being able to calmly discuss content with other editors without resorting to

1983:

Giano, the block was unambiguously misplaced - very few people appear to be disagreeing with you on that point. The rest of your objections, however, are being met mostly with universal disagreement. Before your responses become so heated that another hugely dramatic event occurs, you should take

1644:

Can we at least have a motion or even just a member of ArbCom tell DG directly that the way that this whole situation was handled was so far below optimal, that he created the very situation that he was trying to alleviate? Not to mention that if ANYONE was going to block Giano, it shouldn't have

886:

White Cat, I'll listen to Jimbo's thoughts, of course. But if he can edit without bother you, then I think we should let him come back. Jack Merridew will be under editing restrictions that will keep him completely away from you and from commenting about you. One or more experienced users will be

3896:

PS, I removed my statement. I can take nonsense from the nuts and crazies, but I'm doing something impolitic if not something wrong when, among all the craziness, I'm getting this kind of thing from arbs. If arbs want to force me to get involved, that is another matter, but I seriously don't see

2879:

not, of your own freewill, of your own volition, out of your concern for what benefits Wikpedia, out of your concern for ethical behavior, out of your concern for making sure admins exercise good judgment (all of which seem to have kicked in regarding me), not investigate the appropriateness of

2690:

I don't know where you get the idea that I "assigned" Fred the sole right to reblock. What would that even mean? I told Fred I wouldn't reverse anyone's else block, because I had no intention of wheel warring (i.e. unblocking twice), and that I wouldn't have unblocked had the blocking admin been

35:

I am hard-pressed, with the exception of Randomran, to find anyone commenting on this request who has been more involved than I have in developing a consensus about notability. There is an active policy discussion on this, and I've worked hard on it - unlike, frankly, any of the arbcom or TTN. I

3269:

Flo, it is by its very nature tampering with the election. FT2 was standing for ArbCom. An editor turned up on FT2's questions page asking about FT2's evident interest in and knowledge of human-animal sex. He asked the questions because he felt voters had a right to know about that interest. He

1909:

to you that you had never been checkusered in 2008? Seriously, how could that possibly be proved? (Except perhaps by sending you a printout of the list of all checks that were ever run during the time period so you could check that your name was not on the list—which would of course have been a

687:

After my FIRST post EVER to Arbcom about Martinphi (unless you count the request for clarification on the Paranormal case to be specifically about Martinphi), you have publicly stated thee Arbcom knows full well my opinion, and I should shut up and let other people speak. This was my first time

3213:

He has already asked questions several times since last December and evidently he did not receive any information that caused him concern. Now that fuller information is available, he is asking David and FT2 more questions. I'll inquire further about what he found out after Jimbo is available.

3154:

Based on the information provided (I read all the on site comments at RFArb and AE, emails submitted about the block and the motions (including ones from both of you), and the old cases), I agreed with members of the Committee that felt immediate action was needed to address some issues, and

1700:

For a start, inadequate methods for recording, discussing, and consulting about checks and the actions needed. You and the other checkusers had no way of knowing that this account had been discussed internally with the Committee years ago and was a known account of Giano's. If you had then the

1589:

The 1000 banrstar question is: a voluntary agreement to what? Current proposed decision, which puts an end to him going around various foras in this project and slandering me, is what I've been asking for all this time. To the best of my recollection, I have never commented on Irpen's behavior

82:

As for the comment about involved users, I'm not sure what you're driving at. I am barely involved, frankly - I've had no real dealings with TTN. I mostly discovered the situation when I was trying to get some data on the practical question of what AfD does and doesn't keep, and discovered his

1777:

No, it has no purpose what-so-ever, you have yet to find a lie to explain why you emailed Gerard - Oh yes, it was because you knew he has already checkusered. Thatcher you can squirm and lie all you like, you are in this up to your filthy little neck, and you are caught. Greg Kohs!! I suppose

3862:

My job is to look into situation and find solutions. Sometimes that means giving feedback to users. I truly am sorry if you feel my comments are too harsh. In my experience, when an user comments in a poll and then later uses their tools in a related matter, it almost always complicates the

2845:

that FT2 was involved in a long-term dispute with Giano, one you told me back in April you had tried to mediate. So you needed no evidence; in fact, you probably know more details about their involvement than I do. Yet still you ignore FT2's role in this. That is clearly unjust, not good for

2776:

I'm not upset, and I'm not writing this because of upset. I'm asking why you're not advocating action against FT2 for blocking someone he's been in conflict with, or against David Gerard for blocking and checkusering someone he's been in conflict with. Could you answer that question, please?

3335:

Giano, as someone that talks to you and the Committee regularly, I can say that the Committee and you often receive information about situations around the same time. As you know, often the information is exaggerated, or faulty in another why that makes in plain wrong. We both know that the

2672:

I didn't simply have "concerns" about FT2's block. I see FT2 taking admin action against Giano, or anyone else he's in such clear, long-term conflict with, to be absolutely inappropriate, and obviously so, as you yourself implied in that correspondence months ago. Blocks like that should be

2014:

It goes to the arbcom and parties present their cases in the usual way, except for this admin who presents his case behind closed doors, in complete secrecy. None of the other parties can see or respond to what he says. Furthermore, he's on the arbcom mailing list by virtue of his previous

909:

I demand arbcom to document their reasoning in detail. Why am I even having this conversation with arbcom? Jack Merridew is a sanctioned troll and sockpuppeter. He was convicted multiple times in harassing multiple users - of which at least three times by arbcom. He had absolutely no useful

97:

In my view you're involved because, as you state above, you have a stronger opinion than the average user about the issue. Some users feel that many Afds are needed to keep the non-notable articles thinned out. You see deletion as a hostile process and feel that the Afds are a hindrance.

1576:

Piotrus, I will give a longer answer to your question in the next several days. I need to finish reviewing all of the ruling as proposed. I was planning to contact you and Irpen about taking another try at a voluntary agreement. Do you think that is doable or is it dead in the water?

2618:

Flo, could you say whether you feel FT2 was uninvolved enough to block Giano? You wrote to me in April to say that both were in the wrong and were driving you nuts. That seemed to confirm in my mind that FT2 was definitely not someone who should be taking admin action against Giano.

3336:

information that people send us is sometimes dodgy and perhaps meant to deceive us so we make poor decisions. Like you, the Committee does not rush to judgments based on rumors and unsupported claims. When and if good information becoames available then we can act.

1074:

You know, I am not sure why arbcom is committing this illogical and disruptive behavior. Why is it that arbcom is so unwilling to be a part of a solution and going out of it's way to be the very source of the problem? I do not know what motivates arbcom to act this

2526:. If the community agrees to it then it will pass. If not, it won't. I'd probably be in favor of this, but I'd be surprised if 50% of the community supported such a measure. That should be a warning sign that the ArbCom is potentially stepping outside its bounds. 1543:

You wrote: " does make assumptions of bad faith about other editors". Could you point out where I have done so, so I can reflect on the specific examples and use them to improve my conduct? Thank you, PS. On the subject of good faith, you may be interested in

982: 3813:

that I "harassed greg", that greg's "attitude" is "much less problematic from the bad faithed attitude Boody displays" (note the content of Greg's posts!). As well, the above demonstrates that the following "evidence" supplied by Piotrus (link) is a complete

3303:

To do this during an election campaign is inappropriate for obvious reasons, not least of which is that, had voters known it had happened, the election may have turned out quite differently. In addition, six months later, FT2 claimed he knew nothing about it

3808:

Note that the above chronology not only demonstrates clearly that Piotrus' intervention was not a "momentary" lapse, but was indeed a sustained and belligerent effort, but it also establishes that Greg initiated the hostilities, and utterly puts the lie to

2217:

Boody clearly violated the 1RR restriction, the evidence of that is painstakingly clear and simple (2 reverts within 10 hours). That he hasn't been blocked is simply an example of ANI inefficiency when faced with tag team involvement, muddying the case.

2708:

But you are failing to address the key issue. Given that you clearly believed in April that both FT2 and Giano were in the wrong, you can't believe months later that FT2 was uninvolved enough to block Giano. So why is no action being taken against FT2?

1049:

Jimbo will not even get involved. Imagine helping out in a complicated - yet not so complicated case. I can understand his reasoning. Sure. I respect what he is doing. But if arbcom is this incompetent and unwilling to be the solution who else can I go

3830:

Forgive the length of this posting, but I believe it is necessary to clear up the endless obfuscations Piotrus creates with his endless series of little white lies, which have a tendency to culminate in a big lie. The evidence should speak for itself.

2391:

cases usually happen because the Community can not agree on an issue. Our rulings are not going to change the mind of all people. If any single admin can undo a sanction without Community agreement, then we accomplish nothing with the case. Of course,

2006:

This problem with Gerard should have been handled long ago. In fact, I was going to use him as an example in a question to all candidates (but that page seems to be protected now). So, in the light of the current arbcom elections, let me ask it here;

1140:

Fantastic. :-) This was a great project. With the large number of counties in rural areas, the driving time to cover the State made the Courthouse project a formidable endeavor. I appreciate the hard work that you and "Retired Username" put in to it.

1295:

The Stanford article re-write is fantastic. :-) I showed my husband last night and he was thrilled as well. We have a few more pics of the depot and the park around it, iirc. I'll look to see if we have anything that would help on the article.

2351:

I made mistakes, I recognize them, pledge not to so again and I am ready to work with arbcoms regarding appopriate restrictions/mentorship that would allow me to continue to productively contribute to non-controversial aspects of this project.

1002:

Fadix got a one year ban on 11 April 2007 which was extended until 25 February 2009 due to the abusive use of sockpuppets. The only relevance this has to my case is that this is was one of the three guys that interfered with my mediation

630: 972: 3019: 1404:

of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank

1690:

Pray tell, "weaknesses"? While I have seen a small number of checks in the log that I objected to, I am naturally curious as to why you think this particular check exposes a "weakness" in the management of the checkuser function.

958: 887:

monitoring his contributions to make sure that he is not bothering you in any way. I made the restrictions strict in this way because of the problems that you had in the past. I think we should give it a chance to work, truly.

2311: 1729:

going to happen. The longer this is dragging on the angrier I am becoming, if Jimbo or the Arbcom had a single care for the privacy of those that write this encyclopedia you and your cohorts would have been fired 36 hours ago.

926:

I still do want to know why arbcom isn't willing to lift my mediation ban yet is considering lifting Jack Merridews indef ban. After all he was the very reason I got that ban. He interfered with every mediation attempt I made.

780: 136:

While I still disagree with you on the matter with Steve, thank you for taking the time to explain the situation with me. I know I can come off as.. demanding.. and being an arb is not an easy job. I greatly appreciate it. --

1662:

Seeing as the arbcom are clearly afraid to fire him, I think we need a full and very frank and very public exchange of views and reasons on this. My patience is running out. I hate secrecy and I won't be party to it for very

1782:

payed Kohs to write her bio? Yeah, well, right Thatcher, really plausible that one, your smart obviously going places! - pull the other one Thatcher, it has bells on. FGS just resign and take your cohorts in crime with you.

992: 1545: 1291:

Sadly, the Southern Depot on South Broadway in Lexington was demolished on July 11, 1992. We lived in Lexington back then, and I remember when it happened. It was in terrible shape by the time we move to Lexington in the

952: 3388:

I think the concencus of opinion is that the reaons given were against policy. Whatever the reason - it is never wise to act in sensitive areas for friends. Perhaps IRC had closed down that evening and no one was there.

3169:

issue, but I need time to review the recent information and follow up with Jimbo. I'm not someone to shy away from doing informal or formal peer review. If I'm not satisfied with the answers, I will ask more questions.

2334:

I, too, hope that milder means than a permanent ban might be considered with a view to assisting some of our more temperamental colleagues in moderating their excesses and focusing on the central tasks of Knowledge.

1966:

So long as Jimbo and the Arbcom allow the likes of Gerard to have checkuser rights, you have no right to ask any questions of any of us. The less information any of you are trusted with the safer the rest of us are.

1071:

and he used it to make my day miserable. For that he was later unblocked. Fortunately he left the community or else I am sure arbcom would go out of their way to help MARMOT continue to be the source of annoyance.

1393: 1724:

with the information you hoped to get. On the last occasion Gerard discussed it on IRC - been there lately have you Thatcher? You checkusered what you knew to be a harmless spoof - that was not even a secret.

2116:

with the first of a series of aggressive edits in support of Piotrus. So yes, ally is correct. As to Radek's accusation of "Wikilawyering, well that just tickles me, if you read through Radek's contributions

2062:

I've had to put up with from him and his allies (in this case, Radek) for over half a year. I hope this will be remedies soon. It's a disgrace and embarrassment to this project that it has gone on this long.

899:

We already tried that in commons. That didn't quite stop him. After his ban from en.wikipedia his first few edits on commons were stalking which has seemingly stopped. He doesn't make any edits there anymore.

3141:

evidence. As an experience administrator you should know the correct way to present evidence for a case. Also, we routinely reject cases as premature if no other means to address an issue have been tried.

3939:

Why is Innuendo about particular admins the thing to get the ball rolling on arbitration process transparency? And if bias is used so broadly to mean that all people have it, what is its significance?

1890:

I think I stand by every word of that. I don't believe I accused him of lying - I asked him for proof - I deal in proof and fact, it's how I know instictively when others are economical with the truth.

985:: Revert war by Davenbelle over my format edits. I tried to use a color scheme and Jack Merridew (aka Davenbelle) revert wared to remove it. He later revert wared over a typo fix I had. To date he made 2129:. As for Radek's claims that I am spreading "false misinformation", well, I don;t know if that's better or worse than spreading "true misinformation," but I'll let the record speak for itself. Cheers, 2161:

LOL stalking. Piotrus has kept record of my every move for six months, has filed countless detailed complaints against me with detailed diffs lovingly noted. He knows more about my editing then I do.

1701:

discussion between the involved people would have been very different, I think. Based on this situation and other recent cases, we need to find better ways to communicate with each other. More later.

1617: 560:

I would like to request that some aggressive clerk-like work is applied to the pages of the case: the workshop and the evidence. This cannot be left to clerks since this requires application of the

3015: 996: 553:

in turn, brings, and I am not going to sugar-coat this, the case's outcomes being often too disconnected from actual concerns raised at its pages. This is why, I am calling for a rather unusual

1400: 2653:

That short-cutting justice for utility is normal for arbcom, is part of my point. If the community were flourishing as a result, that would argue in favor of continuing to do the same thing.

3516:

Thursday was a holiday in my country, and I was away from my Knowledge most of the day. After I get caught up reading my inbox and the on site comments, then I will make a further comment.

1271:

The only other thing I can really think of is an old train station at 701 S. Broadway in Lexington. I like doing articles on old stations; I'm fixing on improving the Stanford one soon.--

3709:

This is three days after his first intervention on behalf of greg, with numerous violations and rants in the record clearly visible, on a page Piotrus is clearly monitoring and is indeed

3549: 549:

for details. Yes, many bitter cases are filled with nonsense claims but there must be a limit to how much outright crankery can be tolerated at the ArbCom cases without any action taken.

291: 1471: 546: 741:

I'm happy to talk further about why I believe this is the best course of action for both the project, and for Steve - essentially it boils down to my belief that clarity is kind :-)

969:

yet Davenbelle followed me to that article and completely disrupted my mediation attempt with his constant revert waring even over the most minor issue documented in this paragraph.

1126:

We're down to needing only five more courthouse pictures of Kentucky, that "Retired Username" started. It was 11, but I took six this past week. Thought you might want to know.--

1417: 3636:

absurd post by Greg (in which he describes reliably sourced major newspaper reviews as "trash" and calls his use of a university press promotional website "a scholarly source").

688:

speaking on the matter. I am NOT Science Apoologist, I am not under any Arbcom restrictions for POV-pushing. Would you care to retract or rewrite your comment.person, you know.

664: 44:

trying to back door policy when all I was doing was asking the committee to step in on an issue they had previously ruled upon. That accusation is unwarranted and offensive.

3845:

I realise you are not my biggest fan, and I'm not yours, but having voted on a previous poll means only that I voted on a previous poll. What else do you think is going on?

3557:

Piotrus' ignoring of BLP was part of a sustained and aggressive defense of Greg Park Avenue's adding a series of nasty commentary that was not only in complete violation of

3835: 3480: 1078:

Maybe what prompted this nonsense is me trying to help arbcom with the CSI thing. Clearly, arbcom doesn't need any help as they do just fine in ignoring presented evidence.

2022: 2511: 2470: 2430: 324: 83:

nominations, which I found somewhat problematic. So again, I'd have to say that I don't feel like I should be lumped in with the group you're trying to lump me in with.

3186:

sanctioned edits. You are all fast enough to deal with matters when there is achance to sort me or de-sysop SV, but seem very reluctant to put your own house in order.

2498:

this to be within the scope of arbcom, I have no problem proposing as much at the VP. As arbcom's scope is currently measured though, it does not seem to be allowable.

2372: 634: 1549: 995:: Jack Merridew (aka Davenbelle) was of course involved but so was Karl Meier (aka Stereotek) who revert wared over thumbnail sizes with me. Fadix (aka many aliases: 2088:

Boodles and radek, I'm reviewing evidence and alternative proposals in the Piotrus case. I'll take both your comments into consideration when I make my final votes.

1475: 179: 2244: 3106:

shouldn't have done. The ArbCom examines the actions of the second admin, but not the actions of the first. The question that screams out for an answer is — why?

3824: 965:

where Jack Merridew (aka Davenbelle) did not even let me adjust section depths. This is evidence of Davenbelle stalking. I had no vested interest in the article

459: 1111:

Forget about it. Arbcom doesn't care about evidence. What good would it do if the evidence is collected by impartial parties if arbcom is going to ignore it. --

1012:

In conclusion Jack Merridew (aka Davenbelle) has interfered with each and every one of my mediation attempts even on articles he made no contribution at all (

2744:

I realize that having your tools removed is upsetting to you now. I hope that as time passes that you will benefit from the break and come back rejuvenated.

906:

Arbcom wasn't willing to lift my mediation ban. Why is arbcom removing Jack Merridew's ban? Is he more worthy to the community than I? I really want to know.

1097: 444: 2573: 2039:

Since you've got experience, the job of a member of ArbCom is equivalent to what kind of job in real life do you think? I don't expect it to be pretty :)

614: 599: 467: 3951: 3921: 3908: 3891: 3870: 2417:

to what the Committee is currently proposing. If this passes, the relevant policy will need amended. I'd be interested in your response to my concerns.

768: 437: 792: 660: 779:

In under 19 hours, this case will be two weeks old soon. All proposals pass, and one move to close has been made. If you could kindly hop on over to

411: 2441:

users might not knew the rules so we need to explain them sometimes. I see the motion as the Committee explaining the rules as they always existed.

2435: 2204: 2109: 3568:] (and note by "Disruptive activity" Greg is referring to my edits--all of which have been upheld, while all of greg's have been deemed improper.) 2516: 2488: 2475: 2448: 2361: 1308:

I guess no one bothered to get the Lexington station delisted. I'll need to go out eventually and take pictures of the few remaining monuments on

774: 735: 423: 3114: 2717: 1553: 817: 32:

look to the Committee to do it through Committee ruling that causes a back door policy decision that one side can link to in future discussions."

2270: 2255: 1441: 629:

I am leaving this note at the talk pages of four arbitrators who so far commented on the Piotrus_2 arbcom. Just letting you know that I posted a

119: 105: 92: 67: 3097: 2657: 2609: 2232: 2188: 2165: 2152: 2083: 2059: 333: 1976: 1961: 1923: 1900: 1866: 1371: 829: 624: 610: 595: 419: 3796: 3789: 3782: 3775: 3764: 3757: 3750: 3743: 3736: 3729: 3722: 3716: 3706: 3695: 3688: 3681: 3674: 3667: 3660: 3653: 3646: 3640: 3633: 3627: 3621: 3614: 3604: 3597: 3590: 3583: 3577: 3571: 3565: 3315: 3135: 2953: 2869: 2854: 2835: 2818: 2800: 2785: 2751: 2640: 2627: 1882:

probably agree on) yet it is run with less efficiency, reliability and professionalism than a children's creche in the backstreets of Palermo.

734:' you refer to is formally certified 'on wiki' - some uncertainty remains in my mind over this, and it would no doubt help others to maintain 3073: 3033: 2402: 2344: 2307: 1992: 1851: 1832: 1672: 1360: 1332: 1175: 948:

You may want to review the evidence and rephrase that statement. Arbcom did a poor job back then. I want all the relevant evidence reviewed.

415: 154: 3934: 3537: 3523: 3511: 3398: 3360: 3244: 3221: 3195: 3176: 2552: 2067: 1946: 1803: 1757: 1738: 1718: 1708: 1695: 1685: 1528: 1195: 943: 894: 3624:

and amazingly demands I respond to greg's rants "in a constructive manner" (as if removing anti-semitic BLP violations wasnt constructive)

2535: 2095: 1815:

or be fired simply because he is not capable of reading people's minds? Or because he did not act based on knowledge that he did not have?

1608: 1584: 1487: 1387: 1320: 1303: 1279: 1266: 1161: 1148: 539: 430: 3466: 3442: 1182: 528: 250: 3710: 671: 654: 396: 2211: 1046:

Arbcom will not actually discuss my mediation ban. We certainly do not want anyone like me on the project the slightest bit of courtesy.

618: 603: 280: 2103: 2591:

You may think this short cut is useful today, but it's this pursuit of short-term expediency over justice that's got us where we are.

470:, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! -- 160: 2673:

overturned immediately so that admins understand they can't go around blocking people they're in protracted, vitriolic disputes with.

2282: 2238: 545:

The pages of the case have deteriorated beyond reasonable due to the conduct of some of the case participants. Please take a look at

3856: 360:! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Knowledge's coverage of topics related to military history. 1654: 1016:). The "separate issue" isn't as separate as it seems to be. The evidence speaks for itself. All arbcom needs to do is look at it. 641: 110:

Your determination to lump users into easily defined categories in lieu of actually looking at what is being said is regrettable.

2133: 1792: 1309: 1169: 497: 3611:

by removing (rather than "refactoring" it (as if such a venomous rant with no relevant content for TALK could be "refactored"!)

2291: 3491: 697: 591: 575: 568:

I am not requesting any sanctions against anyone at this point. All I am asking is to return some normalcy to the case' pages.

452: 3014:

Those are excellent questions, Flo, and I hope that you will give them full consideration, and will also look at my questions

1460: 1253: 2413:, but I've also dealt with the concerns in my statement regarding the motion. Though you may not view it as such, nothing in 1465: 587: 2029: 1134: 3810: 3089:? Is it that FT2 relieves the rest of you of some intolerable and time-consuming chores? (For FT2 is indeed hard-working.) 2384: 2053: 1356: 3776:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Fear:_Anti-Semitism_in_Poland_after_Auschwitz&diff=next&oldid=213517939

3705:

despite my clear indication of the BLP issue (not to mention the clear BLP violation easily noted by reading Greg's post)

753: 2595: 2040: 1242: 1061:

Evidently arbcom will never enact any long term sanctions. At most arbcom would blocks for something like three months...

508: 2585: 2122: 976: 849: 1055:

Arbcom is very predictable with their incompetence. So I am sure all three things I stated above will become a reality.

256: 53: 2945:

parties in the dispute are dealt with fairly, otherwise it might look as though we're out to protect the arbitrator."

2310:

indicates he is now taking BLP into consideration and he has recently posted a pledge in the workshop (see discussion

986: 485: 317: 3428: 3376: 3343: 3305: 2875:

anyone else to tell you about it, and given that admins aren't allowed to block users they're involved with, why did

1509: 141: 731: 716: 3124: 2198: 1634: 1570: 448: 386: 375: 2048: 3307:— didn't know his edits had been oversighted and had never even heard the claim before, which strains credulity. 1827: 1616:

PS. I also want to thank you for considering 25.4 and supporting it. I consider this finding very important per

1434:

Last year's editing restrictions did not stop the disruptive editing so this year a different approach is needed.

1227: 1221: 962: 533: 500:, but since he hasn't responded in over a year to inquiries, I'm not exactly optimistic on him responding to it. 400: 2118: 3946: 3903: 3886: 3851: 1639: 865:

While I do not normally expect prompt responses, I'd welcome a response before arbcom decides on the matter. --

693: 583: 3768: 2328: 2793:

lack of knowledge is likely because you were not directly involved so I did not discuss the matter with you.

2410: 2108:

Thank you for your consideration. And yes, Radek is a Piotrus ally. Lets go to the videotape: Here's Piotrus

513: 368: 3502:

that one of your colleagues is,unusually for him, reticent to comment, is this a view shared by the Arbcom?

2409:

I have some deep concerns about the waters into which the AC is wading. Most of my concerns can be found in

1984:

some time away from Knowledge to calm down and think cooly about what happened and what should happen next.

1429: 726:

page is kinda quiet at the mo. so I thought I'd strike (again!) while the iron was, well, cold I guess :-)

3474: 2113: 1241:

gorge by Camp Nelson? I was too much in a rush to take pictures of it yesterday, and it would help my new

1232: 936:

Your mediation ban is a separate issue, but I will be glad to raise it with the Arbitration Committee now.

524: 440:

that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.

379: 730:

is actually a reasonable fit?). This isn't my call, of course, though - but what I would ask is that the '

342:

Thank you :) Here's the standard Welcome message. Please delete it if it's telling you how to suck eggs :)

3085:, actually, are the arbitrators in the grip of such a destiny? Has it been decreed by Jimbo Wales? Is it 1013: 3416: 712: 3351:

Are you saying we cannot trust the word of Thatcher and Fred Bauder who both comfirmed the oversights?

2481:

enforcement and replace it with their own opinion detracts too much from the mission of the Committee.

2395:

still applies. So if an admin goes on a blocking binge in the name of a ruling, then it can be undone.

2357: 2276: 2126: 1121: 2828:

doubt a case can be made for a desysop and this might give FT2 needed feedback if the problem exists.

2261:

More witch-hunting, shopping for verdicts. Make your case where everyone sees it in the proceedings. -

2011:

content. The criticism he removed was civil and came from administrators and long time contributors.

3941: 3898: 3881: 3846: 2937:

Why did you not say to yourself something like, "Gosh, here we have that FT2 hammering away at Giano

2375:? The arbcomm doesn't make policy. I'm disappointed that you're on board with nonsense like that. 1519:"confirmed and reviewed by multiple checkusers" I want the name of every single one of these people. 1423: 1100:

thread. The proposal should be shaped to meet the needs of arbcom above everything else after all. --

689: 232: 1952:

meantime, you have not answered the question I asked you above, perhaps because it is unanswerable.

989:

to the article. Clearly his interest was not the article in question but instead was my involvement.

3123:

I endorse SV's question. I also think this is a relevant place to ask for how long has this matter

1350: 764: 749: 2576:. Given your vote on Nyb's motion (which did address one of them), I'm not sure you've seen them. 2367: 2044: 1043:

Arbcom will lift the ban of Jack Merridew. We certainly need more people like him on the project.

520: 491: 407: 115: 88: 49: 3823:

And who does Piotrus cite in "support" of my supposed "slandering accusations of antisemitism"?

3528:

yes, I thought you all seemed more full of Christian spirit and goodwill yesterday then normal.

2015:

arbitratorship, and is therefore 'in the room' as the arbitrators discuss and decide the case.

1153:

Thanks. I plan to take pictures of Nicholasville's ACW monument and Camp Nelson on Wednesday.--

609:

Sorry for that. Every arbitrator or a clerk is very welcome to remove anything from my evidence.

999:: Didodo, Rodolui, Drosophilawhodoestnotfl, Anatolmethanol) later joined the joint harassment. 299: 2285:

and at the very least please at least make a comment on the way Molobo's presented his case.--

1379:

Sorry for the slow reply, for the past week I've been traveling with limited internet access.

73:

rejected requests does not make finding out key pieces of information like that terribly easy.

3840: 3617:, noting it was an anti-semitic rant (which numerous thrid parties agreed with subsequently) 2581: 2353: 1957: 1919: 1862: 1483: 837: 813: 788: 3802: 2314:). Perhaps an alternative, more merciful remedy could be proposed (same for stor stark7)? -- 1209:

I sent you an email last night (: Please bear in mind I don't want Elonka to be damaged. ——

3410: 2523: 2340: 1456: 997:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Blocks for violation of revert parole

542:

and I am leaving this same note to all four Arbitrators who commented on the case so far.

1556:(it's not very long, and it may give you further insight into my actions and thoughts). -- 702: 8: 2380: 1825: 1650: 1346: 1217: 760: 745: 711:

matter - I feel like I've dug around in quite a lot of detail at this point (you can see

3753:

anti-semitic BLP violation (and note the laughable example he dredged up from the web).

1449: 808:

Can't get much more prompt than that - appreciate it (and your thoughts, as always). :D

3931: 3918: 3867: 3832: 3533: 3520: 3507: 3487: 3439: 3394: 3373: 3356: 3340: 3240: 3218: 3205:

and answered about the use of oversight on those edits. I intend to get these answers.

3191: 3173: 3131: 3094: 2866: 2832: 2797: 2748: 2637: 2606: 2566: 2548: 2485: 2445: 2399: 2266: 2252: 2208: 2162: 2130: 2092: 2064: 1972: 1942: 1896: 1848: 1842: 1800: 1788: 1754: 1734: 1715: 1705: 1692: 1682: 1668: 1581: 1524: 1505: 1495: 1413: 1384: 1338: 1300: 1263: 1192: 1145: 940: 891: 846: 826: 708: 651: 590:

so important that he decided to intervene contrary to his own request. I replied here (

330: 247: 151: 111: 102: 84: 64: 45: 17: 910:

contribution for the past few years aside from an edit pattern that closely resembles

3030: 2654: 2592: 2531: 2321: 2225: 2184: 2148: 2079: 1627: 1601: 1563: 1538: 1113: 1102: 1083: 1058:

Now tell me, why should I or anyone even care about obeying any policy or guideline?

1021: 929: 919: 877: 867: 858: 679: 471: 357: 303: 295: 131: 3459: 3424: 2577: 2286: 1990: 1953: 1915: 1858: 1479: 809: 784: 707:

Hi Flo - I hope you're well, and I thought I'd swing by here with a request re the

273: 3479:

Now that the Arbcom has finished de-sysoping Slim Virgin (albeit very unpopularly

955:

and four workshop sections were linked to the rationale. I'll give you a snapshot

3500: 3308: 3107: 3086: 2946: 2847: 2811: 2778: 2710: 2620: 2454: 2414: 2336: 1452: 382:

if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including

285: 26: 3608: 3558: 3369:

address the issue until the end of the weekend because of his travel schedule.

2376: 1875:

Here is my emailed reply to Thatcher, when he said I had not been checkusered:

1816: 1646: 1284:

I like trains and train depots, as well. I originally come from Huntington WV,

1238: 1211: 975:: I self nominated myself to MedCom on 4 April 2005. Among the people opposing 723: 138: 3927: 3915: 3864: 3529: 3517: 3503: 3483: 3436: 3390: 3370: 3352: 3337: 3236: 3215: 3187: 3170: 3127: 3090: 2863: 2829: 2794: 2745: 2634: 2603: 2544: 2482: 2442: 2396: 2392: 2262: 2141: 2089: 2026: 1968: 1938: 1892: 1784: 1779: 1730: 1702: 1679: 1664: 1578: 1520: 1501: 1409: 1381: 1297: 1260: 1201: 1189: 1179: 1142: 966: 937: 888: 843: 823: 648: 327: 244: 148: 99: 61: 2572:

Just to note that I left you and/or other arbitrators a couple of questions

684:

Flonight, I am not Science Apologist. You seem to be mistaking me for him.

3027: 2527: 2317: 2296: 2221: 2180: 2144: 2075: 1623: 1597: 1559: 1365: 1313: 1285: 1272: 1246: 1154: 1127: 502: 2058:

In case you're wondering why I sent him an unkind email a few months ago,

3767:. It stays removed. On May 17, I had brought the BLP to the attention of 3450: 3420: 3206: 1985: 1726:

I had even discussed running Lady C for Arbcom on my Knowledge talk page!

1445: 1437: 262: 204: 192: 3926:

FloNight, please see my comment on this topic on Deacon's Talk page. --

1394:

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

759:

ping :-) (and there's a related chat on my talk page now, too :-) best,

169: 3070: 2248: 2112:

on his preferred forum for recruiting allies. Less than an hour later,

2034: 1472:

Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Proposed_decision#Halibutt

668: 638: 572: 3564:

On May 14, Greg opens the hostilities (his first talk page post) with

1500:

Who are the several other checkuser who have invaded my privacy? WHO?

3656:. (Two days AFTER Piotrus intervened in his defense the first time.) 1096:

On an unrelated note, I would recommend arbcommers to comment on the

1857:

Please don't. I went offline for awhile, and look what happened....

3805:

is still littered with BLP violations (word search "Thane" to see.

3235:

with all your mighty and wonderous powers cannot. Don't you agree?

1428:

This is in response to your comment in Arbcom_case.Regarding this,(

911: 744:

huge thanks for helping with this one in any way possible! cheers,

466:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the

3630:

that antisemitic posting are more serious violation of WP policy.

3554:

In case you hadn't seen this chronology, which I posted elsewhere

1436:" As you know , User:Toddst initiated this case after my edits at 736:

Knowledge:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Arbitration_Committee

538:

I request some urgent arbitrator's intervention into the pages of

3207:

It is my understanding that Jimbo is looking into the situation,

1188:

I kept abreast of the discussion but thanks for letting me know.

738:(I'm happy to update that page when this is cleared up etc. :-) 433:

that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.

3586:-violating rant (with an unequivocally clear edit summary). 3550:

Piotrus and BLP violations--what the evidence actually shows

2453:

At the very least, the motion as it currently stands amends

659:

Thank you. Just giving you heads up that I responded to the

443:

If you're looking for something to work on, there are many

631:

general comment on the workshop proposal by Kirill Lokshin

349: 199:

enjoy being the Star of the day, dear FloNight/archive 8!

3593:, amazingly claiming it was "censored for BLP purposes." 3713:. (See edit history of the article during this period). 3663:

to an xx236 rant, with it's clearly false accusations.

2806:

ago was "driving nuts," and for which you blamed them

1841:

knows. Anyway, I think I'm going offline for a while.

983:#Coolcat's mediation efforts at Greco-Turkish relations 395:

Most important discussions take place on the project's

197:

For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,

3415:

Hiya, Brad forwarded me on to you :) Your thoughts on

2823:

You did not bring a case against FT2 or David. Why if

2018:

He walks away with no consequences for his behavior.

1286:

which was a planned town built by Collis P. Huntington

371:

points to most of the useful pages within the project.

3652:

After more intervening pointless ranting, Greg posts

2110:

putting out a thinly disguised call for edit warriors

3897:

where you're gonna get any dirt from. All the best,

255:

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see

1359:). You are invited to comment on the discussion at 1040:You know, let me tell you what is going to happen. 914:

who IIRC was banned by arbcom for his edit pattern.

147:Thank you for the thoughtful reply. :-) Take care, 3819:should provide relevant evidence to address that). 2522:way to get this up for consideration: raise it on 259:and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. 1174:Hi, you recently signalled your intent to accept 1098:WP:VPP#A wiki equavalent of CSI (developing idea) 715:what I've read up on), and in particular I found 298:itself. Would you like to sign up? You can do so 191:and therefore, I've officially declared today as 951:My prohibition from mediating was passed 4 to 3 783:and vote on closing, that'd be great. Cheers :) 1753:at the time. But of course, IRC has no value. 3435:assuming that none of this has happened yet.) 1361:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Privatemusings 1838:In Giano's world I breathe, therefore I lie. 1478:, but forgot to sign? Wanted to clarify. :) 540:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2 363:A few features that you might find helpful: 3707:Piotrus restores it with a bullying threat. 3654:yet another antisemitic, BLP-violating rant 1377:I'll look. Interested to see the comments. 661:followup question by one of your colleagues 3126:been "old news" to the Arbcom? Thank you. 1910:violation of the privacy of everyone who 1470:I think you wanted to support the Fof on 1237:Has your hubby taken any pictures of the 231:A record of your Day will always be kept 3700:delete per WP:BLP Per BLP, do not revert 2846:Knowledge, and not good for the ArbCom. 775:Proposed decision - Abtract-Collectonian 3698:, complete with a CLEAR EDIT SUMMARY: " 3576:Greg responds with an absolutely clear 1408:This has been an automated delivery by 1310:List of Civil War Monuments of Kentucky 498:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Hemanshu 14: 3691:, complete with bizarre edit summary. 2302:been doing anything wrong in the past 2023:Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC 842:White Cat, look for an email from me. 3447:I contacted the arbs about this too. 2318:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 2222:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 2060:this is the kind of dishonest editing 1624:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 1598:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 1560:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 1333:RFC discussion of User:Privatemusings 555:remedy to be applied to a case itself 378:is updated very frequently. You can 243:Thank you. This is very kind of you. 3607:, amazingly claiming I had violated 399:; it is highly recommended that you 3711:editing himself in league with Greg 3419:would be much appreciated. Cheers, 1243:Camp Nelson Civil War Heritage Park 416:detailed article and content review 23: 3605:restores the clear violation AGAIN 2411:this conversation with Newyorkbrad 2021:What do you all think about this? 1592:even through I don't discuss Irpen 953:#Coolcat prohibited from mediating 719:very useful in clearing stuff up. 348: 257:User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! 168: 24: 3969: 3756:Piotrus responds 3 minutes later 3584:remove Greg's antisemitic and BLP 2239:Piotrus Arb 2 additional evidence 1905:But how could Thatcher or anyone 290:Hi! I see you're a member of the 3811:the fabricated claims by Piotrus 3668:remove Greg's second antisemitic 3417:User_talk:Newyorkbrad#SV_motions 796: 1170:Kuban Kazak-Hillock arbcom case 973:#Coolcat's status as a mediator 496:Per your suggestion I've filed 164: 161:Happy FloNight/archive 8's Day! 1448:. Please see my contributions( 1341:has been filed concerning the 1259:Reply on Bedford's talk page. 562:discretion on the cases merits 376:announcement and open task box 13: 1: 3836:19:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC) 3566:this uncivil post and heading 3538:14:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC) 3524:13:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC) 3512:22:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC) 3492:18:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC) 3467:15:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC) 3443:11:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC) 3429:00:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC) 3399:14:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC) 3377:14:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC) 3361:14:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC) 3344:14:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC) 3316:14:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC) 3245:14:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC) 3222:13:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC) 3196:13:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC) 3177:13:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC) 3136:08:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC) 3115:06:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC) 3098:00:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC) 3074:06:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC) 3034:21:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC) 2954:21:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 2870:20:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 2855:20:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 2836:19:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 2819:19:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 2801:19:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 2786:19:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 2752:19:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 2718:18:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 2658:18:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 2641:18:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 2628:18:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 2610:18:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 2596:18:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 2586:03:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 2553:20:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 2536:21:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC) 2517:21:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC) 2489:20:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC) 2476:20:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC) 2449:19:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC) 2436:19:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC) 2403:17:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC) 2385:17:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC) 2362:00:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC) 2345:10:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC) 2329:02:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC) 2292:00:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC) 2271:21:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC) 2256:17:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC) 2233:18:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC) 2212:05:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC) 2189:06:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC) 2166:04:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC) 2153:03:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC) 2134:02:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC) 2114:Radek shows up at the article 2096:12:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC) 2084:03:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC) 2068:22:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC) 2049:12:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC) 2030:18:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 1993:17:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 1977:17:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 1962:17:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 1947:17:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 1924:16:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 1901:16:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 1867:16:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 1852:01:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC) 1845:16:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 1833:16:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 1804:16:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 1793:16:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 1758:15:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 1739:15:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 1719:16:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 1709:15:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 1696:14:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 1686:20:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 1673:19:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 1655:02:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 1635:22:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC) 1609:05:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 1585:20:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 1571:01:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 1529:00:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 1510:23:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 1488:04:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC) 1466:Proposed decision - Piotrus 2 1461:08:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC) 1418:23:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC) 1388:14:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC) 1321:18:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC) 1304:17:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC) 1280:22:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC) 1267:14:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC) 933:04:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC) 923:22:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC) 881:21:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC) 871:18:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC) 862:07:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC) 619:19:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 292:American Civil War task force 3952:23:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC) 3935:21:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC) 3922:21:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC) 3909:20:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC) 3892:20:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC) 3871:20:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC) 3857:19:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC) 3737:personal anti-semitic attack 2054:Piotrus out of control again 1546:this thread on talk:proposed 1432:), you have mentioned that " 1372:01:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 1254:20:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC) 1228:19:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC) 1196:20:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC) 1183:03:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC) 1162:15:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC) 1149:15:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC) 1135:00:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC) 1117:18:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC) 1106:07:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC) 1087:18:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC) 1025:15:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC) 944:10:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC) 895:22:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC) 850:15:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 830:18:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 818:17:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 793:17:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 769:23:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC) 754:22:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC) 698:19:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC) 672:20:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC) 655:19:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 642:19:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 604:16:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC) 584:requesting "ethical_conduct" 576:21:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC) 547:this new section of evidence 529:12:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC) 509:01:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC) 486:13:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC) 445:articles that need attention 358:Military history WikiProject 334:11:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC) 318:11:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC) 296:Military history wikiproject 281:01:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC) 251:10:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC) 155:19:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 142:00:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 120:13:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC) 106:21:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC) 93:21:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC) 68:17:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC) 54:16:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC) 7: 3774:Greg continues ranting and 10: 3974: 2207:. He just doesnt give up. 625:Comment on proposal posted 412:article quality assessment 183:has been identified as an 3790:restores Greg's violation 3765:removes the BLP violation 3723:removes the BLP violation 2245:overwhelmingly supporting 1440:, an AFD proposed by me ( 959:#Mediation and opposition 586:from ArbCom, Irpen found 447:, as well as a number of 3730:another Jew-baiting rant 3677:, claiming "vandalism". 2199:Piotrus bogus 1RR report 722:I also noticed that the 571:Thank you in advance. -- 406:The project has several 302:. Thanks in advance, -- 193:FloNight/archive 8's day 1847:That's a little heavy. 1554:this mini-essay of mine 1550:this thread on workshop 732:internal committee vote 663:at the workshop's talk 592:please see "bare facts" 534:Case needs intervention 462:available for your use. 387:WPMILHIST Announcements 356:Hi, and welcome to the 180:User:FloNight/archive 8 3821: 3620:Piotrus accuses me of 3591:restores the violation 1640:The DG/Giano situation 353: 173: 3816: 3788:Poeticbent amazingly 3735:greg responds with a 2247:the findings against 2203:Filed (and rejected) 1176:a case on Kuban kazak 987:one and only one edit 514:Ginger Jolie deletion 352: 323:Thanks for the link, 172: 3942:Deacon of Pndapetzim 3899:Deacon of Pndapetzim 3882:Deacon of Pndapetzim 3847:Deacon of Pndapetzim 3763:On May 19, Gamaliel 3475:FT2 and David Gerard 2841:that you personally 2602:is within our norm. 1474:because of line 383 1339:request for comments 1233:Kentucky River gorge 635:workshop's talk page 468:project coordinators 429:We have a number of 397:main discussion page 690:Shoemaker's Holiday 453:copy-editing alerts 3801:Note: The article 3758:in support of Greg 3634:I reply to another 2277:The FoF against me 1988: 1401:October 2008 issue 1122:Courthouse project 709:User:Steve Crossin 521:Minos P. Dautrieve 458:The project has a 436:We've developed a 426:, and other tasks. 354: 186:Awesome Wikipedian 174: 18:User talk:FloNight 3949: 3906: 3889: 3854: 3797:attacked by an IP 3689:restores it again 3314: 3113: 2952: 2853: 2817: 2784: 2716: 2626: 2507: 2500: 2466: 2459: 2426: 2419: 2104:Yes, he's an ally 1986: 1854: 1618:my statement here 1424:ArbCom_Bharatveer 1420: 1380: 1116: 1105: 1086: 1024: 993:#Nanking Massacre 979:(aka Davenbelle). 977:was Jack Merridew 932: 922: 880: 870: 861: 647:Okay, I'll look. 481: 477: 424:article logistics 313: 309: 241: 240: 236: 3965: 3945: 3902: 3885: 3850: 3639:Tag team member 3465: 3462: 3313: 3311: 3112: 3110: 2951: 2949: 2852: 2850: 2816: 2814: 2783: 2781: 2715: 2713: 2625: 2623: 2501: 2499: 2460: 2458: 2420: 2418: 2354:greg park avenue 2326: 2324: 2230: 2228: 1846: 1823: 1632: 1630: 1606: 1604: 1568: 1566: 1407: 1378: 1368: 1318: 1277: 1251: 1226: 1214: 1159: 1132: 1112: 1101: 1082: 1020: 928: 918: 876: 866: 857: 804: 800: 799: 505: 483: 479: 475: 420:writing contests 391: 385: 325:I added my name. 315: 311: 307: 279: 276: 270: 230: 223: 220: 217: 214: 211: 208: 165: 3973: 3972: 3968: 3967: 3966: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3843: 3783:replies to greg 3721:another editor 3696:remove it again 3682:remove it again 3670:BLP violation. 3641:xx236 chimes in 3552: 3477: 3460: 3448: 3413: 3309: 3108: 3087:esprit de corps 2947: 2848: 2812: 2779: 2711: 2621: 2569: 2506: 2465: 2425: 2370: 2368:Deeply saddened 2327: 2322: 2316: 2299: 2279: 2241: 2231: 2226: 2220: 2201: 2106: 2056: 2037: 1830: 1817: 1642: 1633: 1628: 1622: 1607: 1602: 1596: 1569: 1564: 1558: 1541: 1498: 1468: 1426: 1396: 1366: 1335: 1314: 1273: 1247: 1235: 1224: 1212: 1204: 1172: 1155: 1128: 1124: 840: 797: 795: 777: 705: 682: 627: 536: 516: 503: 494: 492:Your suggestion 489: 472: 410:, which handle 389: 383: 304: 294:but not of the 288: 274: 263: 260: 221: 218: 215: 212: 209: 206: 163: 134: 29: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3971: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3937: 3894: 3874: 3873: 3842: 3839: 3795:Gamaliel gets 3578:BLP violation. 3551: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3476: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3412: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3199: 3198: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3118: 3117: 3102: 3101: 3077: 3076: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2613: 2612: 2589: 2588: 2568: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2539: 2538: 2519: 2502: 2461: 2421: 2406: 2405: 2369: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2348: 2347: 2315: 2298: 2295: 2278: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2240: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2219: 2200: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2156: 2155: 2105: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2055: 2052: 2036: 2033: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1980: 1979: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1914:on the list.) 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1828: 1807: 1806: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1742: 1741: 1641: 1638: 1621: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1595: 1557: 1540: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1497: 1494: 1492: 1467: 1464: 1425: 1422: 1406: 1395: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1347:Privatemusings 1334: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1293: 1289: 1239:Kentucky River 1234: 1231: 1203: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1171: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1123: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1079: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1062: 1056: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1047: 1044: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1017: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 990: 980: 970: 915: 907: 904: 900: 839: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 776: 773: 772: 771: 761:Privatemusings 746:Privatemusings 704: 701: 681: 678: 677: 676: 675: 674: 626: 623: 622: 621: 607: 535: 532: 515: 512: 493: 490: 464: 463: 460:stress hotline 456: 441: 434: 427: 404: 393: 372: 369:navigation box 347: 346: 345: 344: 343: 337: 336: 287: 284: 239: 238: 226: 203: 198: 196: 190: 175: 162: 159: 158: 157: 133: 130: 129: 128: 127: 126: 125: 124: 123: 122: 77: 76: 75: 74: 28: 25: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3970: 3953: 3948: 3943: 3938: 3936: 3933: 3929: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3920: 3917: 3912: 3911: 3910: 3905: 3900: 3895: 3893: 3888: 3883: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3872: 3869: 3866: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3853: 3848: 3841:Comment on me 3838: 3837: 3834: 3833:Boodlesthecat 3828: 3827:Case closed. 3826: 3820: 3815: 3812: 3806: 3804: 3799: 3798: 3793: 3791: 3786: 3784: 3779: 3777: 3772: 3770: 3769:another admin 3766: 3761: 3759: 3754: 3752: 3747: 3745: 3740: 3738: 3733: 3731: 3726: 3724: 3719: 3718: 3714: 3712: 3708: 3703: 3701: 3697: 3692: 3690: 3685: 3683: 3678: 3676: 3671: 3669: 3664: 3662: 3657: 3655: 3650: 3648: 3643: 3642: 3637: 3635: 3631: 3629: 3625: 3623: 3622:violating NPA 3618: 3616: 3612: 3610: 3606: 3601: 3599: 3594: 3592: 3587: 3585: 3580: 3579: 3574: 3573: 3569: 3567: 3562: 3560: 3555: 3539: 3535: 3531: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3522: 3519: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3509: 3505: 3501: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3489: 3485: 3481: 3468: 3463: 3457: 3456: 3454: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3441: 3438: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3426: 3422: 3418: 3400: 3396: 3392: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3375: 3372: 3362: 3358: 3354: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3342: 3339: 3317: 3312: 3306: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3246: 3242: 3238: 3233: 3223: 3220: 3217: 3212: 3210: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3197: 3193: 3189: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3175: 3172: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3133: 3129: 3125: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3116: 3111: 3104: 3103: 3099: 3096: 3092: 3088: 3084: 3079: 3078: 3075: 3072: 3067: 3066: 3035: 3032: 3029: 3025: 3021: 3017: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2955: 2950: 2944: 2940: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2878: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2868: 2865: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2851: 2844: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2834: 2831: 2826: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2815: 2809: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2799: 2796: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2782: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2753: 2750: 2747: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2714: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2659: 2656: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2642: 2639: 2636: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2624: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2611: 2608: 2605: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2594: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2570: 2554: 2550: 2546: 2541: 2540: 2537: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2520: 2518: 2515: 2514: 2510: 2505: 2497: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2487: 2484: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2474: 2473: 2469: 2464: 2456: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2447: 2444: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2434: 2433: 2429: 2424: 2416: 2412: 2408: 2407: 2404: 2401: 2398: 2394: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2350: 2349: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2325: 2319: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2294: 2293: 2290: 2289: 2284: 2272: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2254: 2253:Boodlesthecat 2250: 2246: 2234: 2229: 2223: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2210: 2209:Boodlesthecat 2206: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2179:me out of it. 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2167: 2164: 2163:Boodlesthecat 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2154: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2132: 2131:Boodlesthecat 2128: 2124: 2120: 2115: 2111: 2097: 2094: 2091: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2081: 2077: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2066: 2065:Boodlesthecat 2061: 2051: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2041:211.30.109.24 2032: 2031: 2028: 2024: 2019: 2016: 2012: 2008: 1994: 1991: 1989: 1982: 1981: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1935: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1908: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1889: 1883: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1855: 1853: 1850: 1844: 1839: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1831: 1826: 1824: 1821: 1814: 1809: 1808: 1805: 1802: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1781: 1780:Alice Reighly 1759: 1756: 1751: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1727: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1717: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1707: 1704: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1694: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1684: 1681: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1637: 1636: 1631: 1625: 1619: 1610: 1605: 1599: 1593: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1583: 1580: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1567: 1561: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1493: 1490: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1463: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1447: 1443: 1442:Hindu Taliban 1439: 1435: 1431: 1421: 1419: 1415: 1411: 1403: 1402: 1389: 1386: 1383: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1370: 1369: 1362: 1358: 1355: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1322: 1319: 1317: 1311: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1302: 1299: 1294: 1290: 1287: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1278: 1276: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1265: 1262: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1252: 1250: 1244: 1240: 1230: 1229: 1223: 1219: 1216: 1215: 1207: 1206:Hi FloNight, 1197: 1194: 1191: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1181: 1177: 1163: 1160: 1158: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1147: 1144: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1133: 1131: 1115: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1104: 1099: 1085: 1080: 1077: 1075:irrationally. 1073: 1069: 1063: 1060: 1059: 1057: 1054: 1048: 1045: 1042: 1041: 1039: 1023: 1018: 1015: 1014:Javier Solana 1011: 1001: 1000: 998: 994: 991: 988: 984: 981: 978: 974: 971: 968: 967:Javier Solana 964: 960: 957: 956: 954: 950: 949: 947: 946: 945: 942: 939: 935: 934: 931: 925: 924: 921: 916: 913: 908: 905: 901: 898: 897: 896: 893: 890: 885: 884: 883: 882: 879: 873: 872: 869: 864: 863: 860: 854: 853: 852: 851: 848: 845: 838:You got email 831: 828: 825: 821: 820: 819: 815: 811: 807: 806: 805: 803: 794: 790: 786: 782: 770: 766: 762: 758: 757: 756: 755: 751: 747: 742: 739: 737: 733: 727: 725: 720: 718: 714: 710: 700: 699: 695: 691: 685: 673: 670: 666: 662: 658: 657: 656: 653: 650: 646: 645: 644: 643: 640: 637:. Regards, -- 636: 632: 620: 616: 612: 608: 606: 605: 601: 597: 593: 589: 585: 580: 579: 578: 577: 574: 569: 566: 563: 558: 556: 550: 548: 543: 541: 531: 530: 526: 522: 511: 510: 507: 506: 499: 488: 487: 484: 482: 469: 461: 457: 454: 450: 449:review alerts 446: 442: 439: 435: 432: 428: 425: 421: 417: 413: 409: 405: 402: 398: 394: 388: 381: 377: 373: 370: 366: 365: 364: 361: 359: 351: 341: 340: 339: 338: 335: 332: 329: 326: 322: 321: 320: 319: 316: 314: 301: 297: 293: 283: 282: 277: 271: 269: 267: 258: 253: 252: 249: 246: 237: 234: 228: 225: 224: 200: 194: 188: 187: 182: 181: 176: 171: 167: 166: 156: 153: 150: 146: 145: 144: 143: 140: 121: 117: 113: 112:Phil Sandifer 109: 108: 107: 104: 101: 96: 95: 94: 90: 86: 85:Phil Sandifer 81: 80: 79: 78: 71: 70: 69: 66: 63: 58: 57: 56: 55: 51: 47: 46:Phil Sandifer 41: 37: 33: 19: 3844: 3829: 3822: 3817: 3807: 3800: 3794: 3787: 3780: 3773: 3762: 3755: 3748: 3741: 3734: 3727: 3720: 3715: 3704: 3699: 3693: 3686: 3679: 3672: 3665: 3658: 3651: 3644: 3638: 3632: 3626: 3619: 3613: 3602: 3595: 3588: 3581: 3575: 3570: 3563: 3556: 3553: 3478: 3452: 3451: 3414: 3367: 3334: 3208: 3082: 3023: 2942: 2938: 2880:FT2's block? 2876: 2842: 2824: 2807: 2655:Tom Harrison 2593:Tom Harrison 2590: 2512: 2508: 2503: 2495: 2471: 2467: 2462: 2431: 2427: 2422: 2371: 2303: 2300: 2287: 2280: 2242: 2202: 2107: 2057: 2038: 2020: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2005: 1911: 1906: 1880: 1837: 1819: 1812: 1776: 1749: 1725: 1643: 1615: 1591: 1542: 1499: 1491: 1469: 1433: 1427: 1399: 1397: 1364: 1353: 1342: 1336: 1316:Gen. Bedford 1315: 1275:Gen. Bedford 1274: 1249:Gen. Bedford 1248: 1236: 1210: 1208: 1205: 1173: 1157:Gen. Bedford 1156: 1130:Gen. Bedford 1129: 1125: 1095: 1094: 875:May 2009. -- 841: 822:No problem. 801: 778: 743: 740: 728: 721: 706: 686: 683: 628: 581: 570: 567: 561: 559: 554: 551: 544: 537: 517: 501: 495: 473: 465: 401:watchlist it 380:watchlist it 362: 355: 305: 289: 265: 264: 254: 242: 229: 205: 201: 185: 184: 178: 177: 135: 42: 38: 34: 30: 3825:Poeticbent! 3751:YET ANOTHER 3728:I reply to 3675:restores it 3499:I see here 3026:unfounded. 2691:uninvolved. 2578:Ncmvocalist 2306:- further, 2288:Stor stark7 2281:Please see 1954:Newyorkbrad 1916:Newyorkbrad 1859:Newyorkbrad 1480:Ncmvocalist 1446:Chandrayaan 1438:Binayak Sen 1292:mid-1980's. 961:: Links to 810:Ncmvocalist 785:Ncmvocalist 588:my evidence 438:style guide 431:task forces 408:departments 3778:I reply]. 3749:Greg adds 3649:the rant. 3615:I refactor 3411:SV motions 3310:SlimVirgin 3109:SlimVirgin 2948:SlimVirgin 2849:SlimVirgin 2813:SlimVirgin 2780:SlimVirgin 2712:SlimVirgin 2622:SlimVirgin 2567:SV Motions 2337:Nihil novi 1645:been him! 1496:Checkusers 1453:Bharatveer 1430:Bharatveer 1245:article.-- 903:of a year? 60:involved. 3803:talk page 3781:Gamaliel 3744:warn Greg 3732:by Greg. 3598:remove it 2377:Guettarda 2308:this post 2243:Directly 1647:SirFozzie 1539:Bad faith 963:this diff 781:this page 717:this diff 703:g'day Flo 680:Martinphi 139:Ned Scott 132:Thank you 3928:Evertype 3916:FloNight 3865:FloNight 3647:reply to 3603:Piotrus 3600:again. 3589:Piotrus 3518:FloNight 3437:FloNight 3371:FloNight 3338:FloNight 3216:FloNight 3171:FloNight 3091:Bishonen 2864:FloNight 2830:FloNight 2795:FloNight 2746:FloNight 2635:FloNight 2604:FloNight 2545:Mackan79 2524:WT:BLOCK 2483:FloNight 2455:WP:BLOCK 2443:FloNight 2415:WP:BLOCK 2397:FloNight 2090:FloNight 1849:Thatcher 1843:Thatcher 1801:Thatcher 1755:Thatcher 1716:Thatcher 1703:FloNight 1693:Thatcher 1680:FloNight 1579:FloNight 1444:) & 1410:BrownBot 1382:FloNight 1357:contribs 1298:FloNight 1261:FloNight 1190:FloNight 1180:Russavia 1143:FloNight 1003:attempt. 938:FloNight 912:User:TTN 889:FloNight 844:FloNight 824:FloNight 649:FloNight 328:FloNight 245:FloNight 149:FloNight 100:FloNight 62:FloNight 3717:I reply 3609:WP:TALK 3572:I reply 3559:WP:TALK 3028:ElinorD 2528:JoshuaZ 2513:Jameson 2472:Jameson 2432:Jameson 2263:PētersV 1822:delanoy 1367:MBisanz 1343:conduct 724:WP:RFAR 633:to the 611:Biophys 596:Biophys 504:MBisanz 286:Milhist 27:Puzzled 3628:I note 3421:Daniel 3031:(talk) 2393:WP:IAR 2373:Really 2125:, and 1987:Avruch 1813:resign 1552:, and 1213:Martin 582:After 392:there. 202:Peace, 3687:greg 3673:Greg 3661:reply 3530:Giano 3504:Giano 3484:Giano 3455:levse 3391:Giano 3353:Giano 3237:Giano 3209:again 3188:Giano 3128:Giano 3071:MONGO 2939:again 2323:talk 2304:weeks 2249:Tymek 2227:talk 2181:radek 2145:radek 2076:radek 1969:Giano 1939:Giano 1907:prove 1893:Giano 1785:Giano 1731:Giano 1665:Giano 1663:long. 1629:talk 1603:talk 1565:talk 1521:Giano 1502:Giano 1363:. -- 1202:Email 669:Irpen 639:Irpen 573:Irpen 480:AVIES 312:AVIES 268:levse 16:< 3947:Talk 3904:Talk 3887:Talk 3852:Talk 3814:lie: 3534:talk 3508:talk 3488:talk 3461:Talk 3425:talk 3395:talk 3357:talk 3241:talk 3192:talk 3132:talk 3095:talk 3024:were 3020:here 3018:and 3016:here 2943:both 2843:know 2808:both 2582:talk 2574:here 2549:talk 2532:talk 2509:D.J. 2496:want 2468:D.J. 2428:D.J. 2381:talk 2358:talk 2341:talk 2312:here 2297:Greg 2283:this 2267:talk 2205:here 2185:talk 2149:talk 2127:here 2123:here 2119:here 2080:talk 2045:talk 1973:talk 1958:talk 1943:talk 1920:talk 1897:talk 1863:talk 1829:adds 1789:talk 1735:talk 1669:talk 1651:talk 1525:talk 1506:talk 1484:talk 1476:here 1457:talk 1414:talk 1405:you. 1398:The 1351:talk 814:talk 802:Done 789:talk 765:talk 750:talk 713:here 694:talk 667:. -- 665:here 615:talk 600:talk 525:talk 476:OGER 451:and 374:The 367:Our 308:OGER 300:here 275:Talk 233:here 116:talk 89:talk 50:talk 3919:♥♥♥ 3868:♥♥♥ 3771:.) 3521:♥♥♥ 3440:♥♥♥ 3374:♥♥♥ 3341:♥♥♥ 3219:♥♥♥ 3174:♥♥♥ 3083:Why 2877:you 2867:♥♥♥ 2833:♥♥♥ 2825:you 2798:♥♥♥ 2749:♥♥♥ 2638:♥♥♥ 2607:♥♥♥ 2486:♥♥♥ 2446:♥♥♥ 2400:♥♥♥ 2093:♥♥♥ 2027:Duk 1912:was 1750:had 1706:♥♥♥ 1683:♥♥♥ 1620:.-- 1582:♥♥♥ 1385:♥♥♥ 1345:of 1312:.-- 1301:♥♥♥ 1264:♥♥♥ 1193:♥♥♥ 1146:♥♥♥ 1114:Cat 1103:Cat 1084:Cat 1050:to? 1022:Cat 941:♥♥♥ 930:Cat 920:Cat 892:♥♥♥ 878:Cat 868:Cat 859:Cat 847:♥♥♥ 827:♥♥♥ 652:♥♥♥ 557:. 331:♥♥♥ 248:♥♥♥ 152:♥♥♥ 103:♥♥♥ 65:♥♥♥ 3950:) 3907:) 3890:) 3855:) 3792:. 3785:. 3760:. 3746:. 3742:I 3739:. 3725:. 3702:" 3694:I 3684:. 3680:I 3666:I 3659:I 3645:I 3596:I 3582:I 3536:) 3510:) 3490:) 3464:• 3458:• 3449:— 3427:) 3397:) 3359:) 3243:) 3194:) 3134:) 3093:| 2810:. 2584:) 2551:) 2534:) 2504:D. 2463:D. 2423:D. 2383:) 2360:) 2343:) 2269:) 2251:. 2218:-- 2187:) 2151:) 2121:, 2082:) 2047:) 2035:Hi 2025:-- 1975:) 1960:) 1945:) 1922:) 1899:) 1865:) 1791:) 1737:) 1671:) 1653:) 1548:, 1527:) 1508:) 1486:) 1459:) 1416:) 1337:A 1225:—— 1220:Ψ 1081:-- 1019:-- 927:-- 917:-- 816:) 791:) 767:) 752:) 696:) 617:) 602:) 594:). 527:) 422:, 418:, 414:, 390:}} 384:{{ 278:• 272:• 261:— 227:~ 118:) 91:) 52:) 3944:( 3932:✆ 3930:· 3901:( 3884:( 3849:( 3532:( 3506:( 3486:( 3453:R 3423:( 3393:( 3355:( 3239:( 3211:. 3190:( 3130:( 3100:. 2580:( 2547:( 2530:( 2379:( 2356:( 2339:( 2320:| 2265:( 2224:| 2183:( 2147:( 2143:. 2078:( 2043:( 1971:( 1956:( 1941:( 1918:( 1895:( 1861:( 1820:. 1818:J 1787:( 1733:( 1667:( 1649:( 1626:| 1600:| 1562:| 1523:( 1504:( 1482:( 1455:( 1412:( 1354:· 1349:( 1288:. 1222:Φ 1218:☎ 812:( 787:( 763:( 748:( 692:( 613:( 598:( 523:( 478:D 474:R 455:. 403:. 310:D 306:R 266:R 235:. 222:e 219:s 216:v 213:e 210:l 207:R 195:! 189:, 114:( 87:( 48:(

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

Index