Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's/Workshop

909:

about edit warring. A little allowance for that encourages it as an editing practice. Some seem to get away with this regularly, and thus POV push, since others get blocked when they stand up to the pov warrior. This includes tag teaming, and not using the talk page provide sound and valid arguments for the edits. Editors should not be using revert to "vote" back and forth among versions (they should not vote period as that is the lowest form of form over substance (didn't Jimbo once say "voting is evil?"). When editors engage in this edit warring nonsense, all parties should get short blocks, but esp. those that are using it as a disruptive tactic after losing the merits of the argument on the talk page. This is esp. the case when the article gets repeatedly protected as a result. I've noticed that a group of editors get together to basically "attack" an article by starting a revert war and get the article protected in a damaged state, and so on. These editors are being disruptive. My point, above, is just a corollary to the negatives of edit warring because its results in article protection, which is itself a form of disruption. I think this is an opportunity for arbcom to make a strong point about this and perhaps set in some new norms among admins regarding this kind of behavior. I have in mind the kind of things we've seen repeatedly on the Allegations of US terrorism article. In the case of the Mao article, John Smith edit warred and violated 3RR--alone against many other editors. He was reported by instead of an appropriate block, the page got protected. I also don't believe in indef banns, unless its a vandal. All editors can be reformed, even if it means a topic or article ban, after repeated violations within a a relatively short period of time. Lets be tough, consistent but not harsh.

3127:

the fact that he was one other person who was edit warring with me over the issue with multiple reverts. However, one is reasonable to assume, barring you saying you did not notice it, that this fact is seen, for it is rather obvious that usually one can not see one without also seeing the other. Thus, the quetion becomes one of impartial actions. The pattern shows favoratism that happen to align with politics. Of course that could be purely conincidental. I raise it as a logical suspicion given the pattern I've noticed, i.e. despite long standing edit warring AND 3RR violation, you reduce the block on ultra-conservative TDC. I don't think you can say you did not see he was edit warring when you make the block reduction "for parity." Yet, there is no other partiy when it comes to me and my opponents. That, I see, as a clear double standard--in pratice, if not in intent.

2836:

which so far I have not seen--I think that would definitely be relevant and might indeed be a root cause of much of the edit warring. Obviously settling the conflict is the goal of the case, but if one of the underlying issues is POV pushing that leads to edit warring then I think a proposed FOF along those lines is reasonable. Also, whether or not Jung Chang's book is a valid source (personally I think we should use it as a source rarely or never), obviously undue weight provisions can be violated simply by giving her arguments too much play in certain articles, even if we decide that the book is a good source to use. Again though, Giovanni or someone else needs to supply evidence that John has done this rather than simply asserting it, and if that does not happen than obviously I would not support this FOF.--

2060:

edit conflicts over content, I no longer edit war as before. However, you never changed but are displaying a pattern of editing indicative of a very immature editing practice characteristic of a newbie--which you are not. Hence you edit war with everyone about any disagrements, even silly things like the BC/BCE issue, and that is why your 3RR block log has many recent blocks, whereas mine does not in over a year. Reverting is still valid but edit warring (excessive reverts over a topic is not ok). As I said many times, I accept fault, and that is why I'm fine with the 1RR limit. However, the problem is that you are not fine with that for yourself, which means that the problem lies with you not acknowleging your disruptive editing practices.

729:. People who edit-war across a number of articles should be blocked, but if protection can be used instead of blocking on a single article, that's all for the best to get them talking on the talk page or attempting dispute resolution. Of course, there comes a point when there is no good-faith effort to resolve the dispute by one or more parties (through discussion or dispute resolution), so then block. But until then, protection is preferable as blocks are both personal, and prevent dispute resolution. Unless we are going to indefinite-block people, then the dispute just won't disappear due to handing out a pair of edit-war blocks. 3916:

blocks are more relevant. In any case, you still avoided the question: how is a ban supposed to accomplish what a 1RR parole doesn't? How is stopping all editing helpful for WP? I have repeatedly stated its not ok to edit war, hence the reason I have reported you on AN3, and why we are here, with my proposed 1RR restriction for both of us (although there are plenty of other editors who could use it but are not a party to this case). Yet, its you who oppose any such restrictions. So, its you who has yet to even acknowledge, yet alone, learn that edit warring is not acceptable.

2581:

folks often do when someone is edit warring and violating 3RR. The common sense conclusion to draw from your evidence is that John Smith's has been blocked several times for edit warring, yet you want us to view those blocks as evidence of nefarious intent by Giovanni. I don't think that will work. If you want to make an accusation about wikistalking specifically (which arguably both editors have done, though you only seem interested in going after Giovanni) then craft a FOF that deals solely with wikistalking, not with "wikistalking in order to get someone blocked."--

950:

violation. Nothing that a 1RR parole and/or a topical restriction, and some stern rebuking won't cure. You have never engaged in any kind of vandalism, even of the sophisticated variety. And, I think you are operating from good faith assumptions, i.e. you really believe what you say and argue for, and are not trying to be disruptive for ends that you know go against WP's core policies. This places you in a category of the reformable editor who, with intervention, can be molded into a productive, net positive, editor. That is my goal.

3319:

KillerChihuahua, Black Falcon, etc). This is not about evading responsiblity. Its about working out an appropriate solution that is even handed, i.e. recognizes that both parties in this case appropriately can be dealt with through a 1RR parole. This is so even though John Smiths edit warring surpasses mine, per the evidence. None the less, the same restriction is apropos. As far as Tbeatty, and the other edit warriors, I'm sure if they continue in their ways, they will find themselves equally sanctioned, and rightfully so.

3065:, while you theny you singled me out for a 2 week block, and ignored the other party, ultra conservative Tbeatty who has a long block log for edit warring?' That is what was rather "light." Meanwhile my "long" record is a long record of NOT edit waring for close to a year when you gave me that 2 week block for what you agree was not even a 3rr violation. So we can see what your view of light is: it depends on who you are! 960:

rehabilitating you, rather than you pointing the finger at others to try to distract from your own faults. As for myself, the sock report on me wasn't been supported by the reviewing admin. Now I know as far as you're concerned it's probably guilty until proven innocent, but I really think you should drop the puppet claims - it makes you look like you're scraping the bottom of the barrel in desperation.

4089:

both have done in the past. I think the process of the ArbCom case itself (along with 1RR or a similar remedy) will effectively chasten both Giovanni and John (both of whom are obviously reasonable folk) such that any sort of ban is unnecessary. Let's separate them to different corners and move on rather than resort to unnecessarily draconian measures for established and productive editors.--

3170:

them in any way. Thus, they are not meatpuppets in any way. What I did was appropriate and its a commmon practice. In fact, its a sign that I did not want to edit war anymore, that I wanted to see where consensus was on the question and get it resolved. So your evidence against me, is really evidence in my favor when we remove your bad faith assumptions.

1384:

separate report in which the year old socket puppets my opponents always bring up, seeking my head, and an admin taking the bait (against community consensus, causing it to be overturned.) In finding a solution that would make everyone happy, JohnSmith refused, and that is the trigger of this case (of course everything is related).

997:. While protection is irritating, especially to those who have a personal stake in the subject matter, I firmly believe that page protections are an invaluable tool for administrators to counter problems just like these - editwarring and revert-warring - not to mention the shenanigans of the ubiquitous vandal. -- 4244:

No argument has been made as to why a 1RR would not solve the issue. Thus talking about other punitive actions, unless its a type of "feel good revenge" type of thing, is simply not logical. We do not try to put a square peg into the circle spot, if it doesnt fit. The remedy has to be tailored to the

3126:

Yes, its a reasonable assumption to make when there are two parties edit warring with each other, and one party reports the other (in the case Tbeatty reporting me), and only action is taking against me. I'll take you word that you only saw my reverts against him, and did not notice, for some reason,

2803:

I'm not sure that the subjects and topics about which the edit warring occurs are necessarily important. That edit warring occurred at all seems (to me, at least) to be the more relevant issue. I don't think ArbCom's role is to make a judgment about the veracity of Jung Chang's theories (I could be

2179:

Oppose, on the grounds that its being called a false report. Reports shows a valid 3RR vio. I also bring up the edit warring accross articles on related topics as an example of just that--not a 3RR. That is made clear on my report (and that is common to show that besides a 3RR violation, that user is

1726:

Please do not put words in my mouth - I have never said I wikistalked anyone. If you believe that wikistalking occurs simply through editing an article after seeing someone else doing so, then that would make the overwhelming majority of wikipedians wikistalkers. I suggest you read my statement where

1540:

Comment: The proposal is too superficial. HongQiGong's name shows up in my evidence, as having sided with Giovanni33 on significantly numerous occasions. There are actually 3 revert-warriors concentrating on the Mao/Jung Chang dispute: Giovanni33, John Smith's, and HongQiGong. HongQiGong is least

1065:

Administrators are counselled to evaluate the potential consequences of blocking compared to the consequences of protecting, and make a decision which is in the best interests of Knowledge as an encyclopedia and resolving the specific dispute in the future. In most cases, this means protection should

949:

Noted. That is why, even if you don't believe me, I do not think you should be banned. You are only guilty of edit warring, gaming the system, being unreasonable (or just stubborn), gaming the system, some meat/socketpuppetry, sometimes a little uncivil, a little wikistalking, and an occasional POINT

811:

says it all, really. The first instance was over a year ago, and we've proceeded to an arbitration case. Could some indefinite blocking have solved this nine months ago? We'll never know, but I have the feeling the answer is yes. Assumption of good faith is for when we have no reason not to think the

4138:

Giovanni's block log is deceptive. You need to read it closely, because a number of the "blocks" are back and forth blocks and unblocks from admins. I think the real number is between 10-15 (which still is not good of course) but most of them were from over a year ago. I think both Giovanni and John

3095:

But, I did not break the 3RR rule. The last block for that was LAST YEAR. Yet, despite this, you blocked me for 2 weeks, based on a block log that was much older than my edit warring conservative opponent. Since you are involved in this case against me (I also note you have nothing to say about John

2216:

Wrong. It does count. You undid other editors edits. The fact that its on two different issues, (1. adding in "in their eyes,", and 2. removing the "controverisal" language, and inserting quotes for "praise,"--each of these two times, adds up to four--hence a 3RR violation. The policy states undoing

2059:

Reverting your policy violations is not wrong, its the right thing to do. Why do you think we have a revert option for? Its for more than for vandalism. I was only wrong to continue to do so myself, instead of reporting you, or wait for others to revert your UndueWeight violations. Regarding regular

4214:

I support a remedy to deal with Giovanni's edit warring (and yours), just not the one you propose here. There is nothing in Giovanni's behavior or in our rules which require us to block him (or in your behavior which requires us to block you). Since I think you both make good contributions I feel a

3925:

Ok, you've been reported and a number of administrators not involved in your disputes have supported a longer-term ban than you received. As to why a ban rather than just parole, maybe you should ask Maxim. You also dodged my point about believing edit-warring is ok if you don't get blocked for it.

3635:

I don't know why people under restriction should not be the ones who bring to arbitrators attention a changed situation for consideration of good behavior. Those who are under restriction have the most interest and its logical that they would be the ones to present a case for consideration. Why are

3169:

Your evidence is skewed and tainted with a flawed interpretation and condlusion that doesn't fit. This is one example. I notified other editors who were active on the talk page, to get other opinions about the content dispute. I have had no other interaction with these editors before, nor do I know

2723:

This issue is quite central to this case, as can be seen from the clear acceptance of this as a proposed principle relevant to this case. And, there certainly is consensus among the China experts (those who specialize in the study of China's history and politics) as to the outrageous nature of this

748:

I agree with this proposal. When people repeatedly resume editwarring on the exact same article once protection expires, they should be indefinitely blocked instead of seeing the protection reapplied (they can be unblocked if they agree not to edit war any more). The fact that it's only one article

3711:

Ah, so this is about censoring anything mentioned by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday? Well at least you came out with it, rather than tried to hide behind something. Proves that it isn't about a fair balance between us, but trying to control what I do. You may have edited China-related articles in the

3535:

It's basically based on each user's block logs and I think these proposals are fair...I would not like to see either editor banned and hope they can instead do all they can to hash out differences on associated talkpages...the 1RR forces them to do this, or face a block. We could add an escalation

3286:

Not at all. You were attempting to confuse two issues, apples and organges: One is in regard to unequal treatment, producing my block log, and how only one party is being signed out (much like all of your evidence, btw), and the other issue that you confused this with, is that John Smith also edit

3255:

He's not Tbeatty, but JohnSmiths is JohnSmiths, who has his own extensive edit warring patterns, that makes this remedy (its not a pentalty--I dont' believe in punishment), quite suitable. These cures do not lend themselves to exact fits, etiher. That is why I'm fine with accepting parity with the

3109:

And I never said you broke 3RR. I said you edit warred. It is possible to edit war without breaking 3RR. But as for politics, I barely even pay attention to who supports what side when considering edit warring. Your block was based on edit warring alone, and if I had seen any evidence that Tbeatty

2580:

for those reports every time--you do know that, right? One of the blocks was reversed with the specific comment that it was "irrespective of the validity of the block," but because the page was protected. Reporting someone for edit warring and violating 3RR is not harassment or stalking, it's what

2380:

Oppose. Another classic faliure to assume good faith on the part of Endroit, whose conduct so far here has been rather shameful. I did not go edit in the article for the purpose of getting John Smith blocked. That is absurd. JohnSmiths is reponsible and controls his own actions and conduct. No one

1383:

reported, and for which he was correctly blocked, yet again. The blocking admin warned him that if he refused, it would go to arbcom where he could receive more severe sanctions. Thus, this was the trigger. The AN3 report only triggered a 48 block for each party. The indef block was triggered by a

123:

reports. I'm sure that would be literally dozens of editors. This case isn't exactly a secret, so contacting all parties to past disputes just sounds like an unnecessary move that would heighten the Wikidrama, which we really do not need at this point. I'm sure anyone who has something to say will

4088:

Oppose in non-bold text. We're dealing with two basically good editors who have a tendency to edit war with one another and with some others on topics about which they feel passionate. The goal of this ArbCom case should be to end that behavior and still allow them to contribute constructively as

3318:

I don't see how you come to that conclusion, at all. Did I ever say I exclusively edit warred with John Smith? Nope. Has John Smith exclusively edit warred with only me? Not at all (contrary to the picture you paint, he has edit warred with many more editors as user Hong pointed out, such as PHG,

2835:

Right, I don't think the ArbCom will deal with the content aspect. But they are obviously looking at the behavior of both of these users as a whole. If John is consistently pushing a POV across many articles that leads to a violation of undue weight--like I said there needs to be evidence of this

2512:

was to get John Smith's blocked. That is what your FOF states, and you simply cannot prove it, because you cannot prove Giovanni's intention, and quite frankly making an effort to do that is silly. Again, John Smith's made the decision to edit war on this article all by himself--there was nothing

2457:

Oppose. Unless Endroit is literally able to see inside Giovanni's thoughts, he of course has absolutely no way to know that Giovanni "wikistalked John Smith's in order to get John blocked." We absolutely cannot have finding of facts based on hunches, and unless we find a comment Gio made where he

908:

I think all the above points are valid. Page blocks can help to get people to cool down, and discuss, so that is why they are used. I'm fine with that. Other times blocks for all edit warring parties are indicated. Which is best is a case by case decision. But, I think we should get more serious

118:

ArbCom case before it was accepted are contacted naturally, but that's different). Of course anyone is welcome to comment on this ArbCom case, but I don't think we should make a point of trying to drag nearly everyone John Smith's and Giovanni have ever had a dispute with into this case, which is

4234:

Of course there is no "requirement" to block anyone, but it is an option. I'm not sure how a user having "good" contributions makes a block harsh. Blocks should be implimented based on the user's overall behaviour, and if they continue to cause problems such that administrators uninvolved in the

3701:

Actually JohnSmith misses the point. This is due to POV pushing that violates Undue Weight, not edit warring (what the 1RR parole is for), or what articles one is most "interested in." Irrelevant. I've edited a lot on China related articles, and the conflicts happen when I have to try to correct

1554:

Yes, it was worded to be simplistic. Giovanni33 and John Smith's have edit warred against each other on multiple articles - true or false? That's it. I'm not opposed to digging deeper into the issue once we can at least acknowlege this very simple fact, and this proposed finding is not biased

930:

The group that did this to the Allegations of US terrorism article, right before it was protected a couple months ago. They came back and started it again, and it got protected again (at least this time we had a couple of weeks to make improvement to the article before the attacks came). To your

3915:

That makes no sense. Anyone can get reported for anything on ANI. I could have reported you, as many others could have, many times on ANI. Not doing so doesn't materially affect what you did, and have been doing (btw, you have been reported multiple times to ANI, lest you forget). Your multiple

3493:

reported, and for which he was correctly blocked, yet again. 1RR parole is obviously indicated at the very least given JohnSmiths vast and extensive edit warring across several articles with many editors, and many 3RR blocks, including this year (much more than me, considering I have no 3RR vio

1450:

Given that both parties have engaged in some problematic behavior, it probably isn't necessary to have a finding on exactly which incident triggered the arbitration case being filed and accepted. If the point here is that one of the parties intentionally filed a false report, or that a block on

30:

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same

2779:

I don't think this is an irrelevant issue as it would be a background finding related to the issue of edit warring. However I don't see specific evidence relating to this on the evidence page, though both Giovanni and El C have asserted that John Smith's has pushed Jung Chang's theories across

1174:

Afterthought (minor): possibly put "Within reason..." or "...in the first instance..." to the first sentence, since it is not expected that editors should be endlessly (or over-) tolerant of unreasonable behavior. An editor with a single strong viewpoint and tunnel vision can only sometimes be

777:. In the first instance, a short protection should be applied and parties directed to the talk page to discuss. Blocking someone hardly makes them more encouraged to participate in discussion or dispute resolution, as they a) can't edit the appropriate pages and b) will probably be pissed off. 2027:

Opppose. My block log speaks for itself: clear indication of proven track record of not edit warring and as a result I did not have a single block or incident for close to one whole year, despite continuous, productive, and colaborative editing accorss wikipedia, including many controversial

2562:

I looked at your evidence, and see you have only listed one article, where you list as "suspected." Moving from a suspicion to a statement of fact, is a fallacious. What are the other three alleged article? Its not in evidence that I can see. On the other hand, there is evidence pointing to

3944:

I made a ban proposal as others had suggested it (so I formalised it). But it was Maxim, a neutral third-party admin, that said he thought a 3 month ban was just. Maybe he could give a justification you would accept - I'm not sure I can say anything that you would feel was fair comment.

959:

Giovanni, given your own behaviour I doubt very much you can point label me in such a fashion. You have edit warred, gamed the system, been very unreasonable, made point violations, wikistalked and I wouldn't be surprised if you indulged in meat puppetry - I think the priority should be

519:

Agree. It's a central issue in this case, and as I'm in touch with several China academics on the question (who are also supporters of WP and encourage their students to use it), I know they are looking at this issue (and this case!). WP's credibility is paramount, and we should protect

1686:

Disagree - Whilst I had not originally edited the two articles mentioned, I did have a genuine interest in the article content, history, philosophy, etc. Whereas Giovanni has never shown any interest in military affairs at all. Also, Hong, if you checked the history you'll see I made a

1651:

3) Giovanni33 and John Smith's have both wikistalked each other - while involved in a content dispute with each other, they have both shown up to revert edits at other articles that are being edited by the other, where these articles are topically unrelated to their content dispute.

1471:

Oppose: Not sure how much it actually matters, but the Arbcom case was due to the inability for all to agree on self imposed restrictions. This was due to some feeling as though parity in the self imposed restrictions was not required. The block was already over turned at that point.

2537: 2488: 2350: 1900: 1836: 1963:

Agree, there's evidence of wikistalking by both parties. However I think this should be a fairly irrelevant FOF--the edit warring between these editors (and the remedy for it) is what matters in this case. The fact that some minor wikistalking happened in the process is pretty

1712:

You can Wikistalk and not violate 3RR. The intention is the difference. As the proposal says, you both Wikistalked each other, it does not specify a date it ended. You have already admitted to doing it, and have accused Giovanni of it, so that makes both of you having done it.

1398:

what sanction I should receive. I can only guess your reason for refusing to let the community decide was that they would see you were the worse offender and put less stringent controls on me. After all I had no way to stop the community putting me under revert parole as well.

4112:

I wouldn't say that a user with over 40 blocks (including over 10 blocks for revert warring) is a good editor. I'm not saying that John Smith's is a constructive editor, he had also been blocked six times for violating 3RR, but he is a relatively better editor. I mean

3624:

Not supported. If a year-long restriction is imposed, it should last a year. If the arbitrators want to review someone's behaviour, fair enough. But I don't think people under restrictions themselves should ask to be let off/ask someone else to ask they be let off.

2517:

Giovanni showed up. Also, John did indeed receive a 48 hour block from an admin for his actions there, but apparently that is also Giovanni's fault. Perhaps if you reworded this FOF such that it did not express certainty about Giovanni's intentions it would be more

683:

3) Article protection undermines Knowledge's collaborative nature and should be used sparingly and temporarily. Repeated protections of a single article is disruptive, and editors who repeatedly cause protections due to edit warring may be blocked for disruption.

3715:

Also, as Picaroon said, you need to present findings of fact and get them agreed upon before you can make allegations of the sort that I "violate content policy". Otherwise it looks like you're trying to throw mud at the wall in the hope some of it will stick.

3893:

Opposed. There is no need for a ban. The issue is edit warring and your undue weight pov pushing. Both will be solved by a 1RR limit, and a topical ban on Mao related articles. What is the point of not allowing either of us to edit any article for a period of

1998:

to avoid further action and multiple WP:ANI reports where multiple admins (who have not been edit-warring with him) have recommended either long blocks or an indefinite ban, but has been let off - sometimes on the intervention of an admin like El_C. Proposed.

1579:

Disagree: Giovanni33 has edit warred against John Smith's, DHeyward, A.J.A., MONGO, Ultramarine, and Yaf. Conversely John Smith's has edit warred against Giovanni33 and HongQiGong. I'm sure there are others involved, but the major players are covered in my

1155:

Thanks; Note I don't have a view on the debate itself here, not having read it all. All I've done is some drafting and sharpening of the existing {tl;dr} proposal. I've also struck out the original, I *think* that's your intent; if I'm wrong please revert me.

2261:

I honestly think you're mistaken. If I was changing a word or something over the previous edit I had made, you'd be right. But making a completely different edit isn't a reversion in my view. Maybe that's something for the arbitrators to discuss/consider.

1593:

Cool. Thanks for acknowledging that John Smith's and Giovanni33 have edit warred against each other. And please - John Smith's has edit warred with more than just me and Giovanni33. Just off the top of my head, during the BC/BCE issue, you can add

1066:

be used before blocking, and blocking only for disputants who do not contribute, in good-faith or at all, to discussion or dispute resolution attempts on the appropriate talk pages. Failure to discuss but rather revert has the net effect of causing

2466:

are absurd, but the idea that we can seriously have a finding of fact which essentially states that we know what Giovanni's intentions were is even more ridiculous. Obviously I would be equally opposed to any sort of "mirror" FOF proposal for John

1691:. This is what I was trying to do, as I felt the version I had earlier reverted was poorly phrased. Note that Giovanni didn't revert my change there. If I had been wikistalking I would have reverted him again. On the other hand Giovanni reverted 4204:

Actually it was quite logical. The rules apply to everyone, and it is sometimes necessary for wikipedians to receive a block. That they are "valued" members of the community cannot give them protection from a remedy to rectify their behaviour.

3687:

Additionally it's fairly meaningless for yourself as your interest in this area is more the articles on Jung Chang and her book, rather than Mao or Chinese history more generally. Indeed you're much more interested in editing articles like

1393:

Support. Giovanni, it was you (and El_C, maybe unwittingly) that caused this by insisting I agree to the same sanction as placed on you. I said quite happily that I would submit to community review. However, it was not for you to decide

2662:

Oppose. The evidence provided (maybe Giovanni could link us to it) does not show that I have been doing any such thing. There is no consensus that the work in question is an "affront to scholarship" and to claim otherwise is incorrect.

2540:

shows that Giovanni33 reported John Smith's at AN3 repeatedly for a total of FOUR times (after revert-warring with him), whether or not John Smith's actually was guilty of any 3RR vio. This is a type of harrassment, and a violation of

1844:. John Smith's stalking don't appear to have the same level of harassment involved. Also, edits shown above by John Smith's appear to be rather ideologically motivated, while Giovanni33's is just gaming, as explained in my evidence.-- 1484: 2445:

Normally the evidence shows good intentions or not. As to the lack of a mirror proposal, it's for you or someone else to present evidence to show that. Endroit doesn't have any evidence for a mirror proposal, so why would he make it?

2328:

by Giovanni33 (at 12:44, 13 September 2007) has NO technical 3RR violations. The edits in those articles show John Smith's adhering to a 2RR rule, when Giovanni33 submitted the report. Others are welcome to analyze the situation as

2299:

Comment. Going over the 3RR report, it appears to be sound. Can you explain what is not correct about it? Just to clarify it was my understanding that 3RR meant 3 reverts total on an article and not 3 reverts of the exact same thing.

3143: 3078:

Last I checked, this arbitration is not about Tbeatty or TDC, nor about my blocking decisions. Furthermore, you seem to continue to labor under the belief that it's only edit warring when you break 3RR, which is far from the truth.

3256:

restrictions, even though I feel his edit warring and 3RR far suprasses my own. Its one fits all in this case as the problem is excessive edit warring. That has got to stop and a 1RR parole is a logical application for the problem.

1988: 4139:

are good editors because they make constructive contributions to the encyclopedia irrespective of their block logs. We want the edit warring to stop, we don't want to lose prolific editors who often make valuable contributions.--

3764: 3522:

Please propose a finding of fact detailing some instances of this editwarring. Remedies need findings of fact so people looking at the closed case can figure out what the issue with the editor was. Same with the other proposal.

3475:

in the last year, there is a big inbalance of incidents between the 2 editors. Considering that John Smith's largest prior penalty was a 48 hour block and there were no other warnings against him, a more lenient penalty is in

3472: 56: 3796: 2247:

You are mistaken. A reversion is an edit, and you did undo others edits to a version you were edit warring over. Each one of those 4 I listed counts. I've seen it applied in exactly this way several times, including against

1436:

Comment on Giovanni33's claim: The indef block (based on the false AN3 report) was the root cause which triggered this Arbcom case, although John Smith's refusal may have been a more immediate trigger. They're not mutually

2003: 1535: 4466:

1) If JohnSmiths or Giovanni33 performs more than one content revert in any 24 hour period, or fails to discuss a content revert, any administrator may, at his or her discretion, block the violator for up to one week.

1646: 2131: 3110:

was edit warring at the time, I would have blocked him as well (and yes, it's possible he was doing so and I didn't see it). You have assumed bad faith and decided that my block was political, which is not the case.

2045:

said, one can edit-war without getting a 3RR block. The fact you seem to believe it's ok to revert pages provided you don't get blocked for 3RR rather indicates you haven't actually accepted your behaviour is wrong.

3304:

offer, and if you're not confused between Tbeatty and John Smith's.... You're nevertheless evading any sanctions for your other disruptions against Tbeatty and the others, by insisting for equal "parity" with John

749:

doesn't negate the fact that repeated editwarring on the same page is very disruptive, as is long-term protection. Regarding Daniel's comment, I think we are in general too conservative in identifying said "point".

3886: 1740:

So you had those pages on a list of articles you were going to get to, then decided to pop in on them? Or are you stating its not wikistalking because you did not have malicious intent. If that is the case then I

844:. If this principle is reworded to emphasise that protection should be used initially but blocks later if the parties continue to revert with or without discussion and without good faith, I will support it fully. 1703: 4128:

JohnSmith has had 6 blocks for 3RR violations this year, compared to my zero blocks. So I am the relatively better editor. I have no idea where you get 40 blocks from. That is sheer fantasy. I suggest you look

3702:

JohnSmith's violations of content policy. Also, since Jung Chang and her book is all about Mao and China under Mao, its completely inclusive, and stops him from POV pushing her theories all over WP's articles.

4047:. After being banned for sockpuppetry last year, Giovanni33 apparently pledged to reform, yet continued to receive short-term bans for violations of 3RR. I believe that a more serious penalty is in order. 4287: 3857: 2741:

is irrelevant - I'm saying that you've asserted, but not proved, that John Smith's is pushing Jung Chang's theories, nor have you proven that references to Jung Chang's theories are, in fact, violations of

2688:. That content dispute is irrelevant to the case before the committee, especially since there certainly no consensus that Jung Chang's theories fall outside the principles that govern the policy regarding 840:, as I'm sure you know, being more experienced with this process than most). The Arbitration Committee, in my opinion, would do well to discourage blocks where protections are possible and, more important, 3905:

Because it's the only way you will learn to respect the rules - you've been reported to the ANI board too many times. Plus you've implied it's ok to edit-war so long as you don't get blocked for 3RR vios.

2390:

Support. It is true that Giovanni tried to get me blocked by either wikistalking and then reporting, or making incorrect reports on me. The evidence is quite clear, especially with the block received over

39: 3935:

You made the bann proposal, so I asked you. No, I do not believe edit warring is to be condoned, blocked or not blocked. I think I have made that clear. But, I think the corrective action is a 1RR limit.

1993:

4) Giovanni has had multiple opportunities to reform his behaviour, based on the lifting of a month-long block on the promise not to break the rules again (MONGO, 11 August 2006), warnings and blocks, a

812:

user(s) in question will do better job of adhering to policy in the future. If protection and/or short blocks have failed three times or more, I think we can conclude they have no intention of doing so.

3503:

Oppose: This punishment seems disproportionate. It seems unfortunate that the opponent in this case is such a concerted abuser. It would be unfair to tar John Smith's with Giovanni33's offences brush.

2780:

multiple articles. Could be relevant if true, but evidence definitely needs to be provided first (a large number of diffs for different articles with short explanations would probably be sufficient).--

2513:

which forced him to revert over and over again in violation of the 3RR policy. Giovanni certainly did not make him do it and indeed John was rv warring with Mark 83 (and arguably already violated 3RR)

1598:

PHG, KillerChihuahua, Black Falcon, etc, to the list. But this section is not for evidence gathering is it? It's a simple fact that the two have edit warred against each other on multiple articles.

3213:

No problem. And for the record, now that you have explained that you didn't see it, I take your word for it and do not assume negative causal reasons for your action, even though I disagree with it.

1920:

In your link, you provided evidence of Giovanni's wikistalking - please read my comment again, especially the part where I wrote "I'm not saying Giovanni33 was innocent of wikistalking". Thanks.

2381:

forced him to violate the 3RR rule, yet again. I simply reported him, as is the correct thing to do, since many times I have not, just just warned him. That doesn't work, so a block was in order.

1771: 3740: 2955: 2450: 2317: 1871:... On two articles that he's never edited before... Excuse the sarcasm, but seriously, give me a break. And again, I'm not saying Giovanni33 was innocent of wikistalking. I'm saying they 1762: 1749: 1731: 1717: 1451:

someone's block log should be disregarded because it was made in error, then that finding could be proposed without getting into a sterile debate about exactly why the case is in arbitration.

1060:). However, where good-faith discussion is continuing, blocking will generally only inhibit discussion and dispute resolution, which is undesirable, and protection should be considered first. 973: 634: 1388: 1086:, since the latter excludes legitimate concerns on the grounds of poor expression by their proponent, which does not usually resolve the dispute long term, nor address the underlying issue. 1052:

In the event that the reverting continues after protection is lifted or expires, or a disputant refuses to discuss but rather revert, reverters should be warned and blocked accordingly (per

668: 4239: 4229: 4190: 4181: 4162: 3910: 3696: 3494:

blocks this year, period). I refer to my evidence, including an amazing 37 reverts made on a single day (Aug 6th), and in each article, reverting another 3 times for each the following day.

3050: 3572: 533: 4249: 4209: 4199: 4153: 4035: 3949: 3939: 3930: 3920: 3898: 3720: 3706: 3640: 3462: 3034: 2850: 2826: 2794: 2667: 2638: 2595: 2440: 2411: 2333: 2304: 2266: 2252: 2238: 2225: 2207: 2064: 2050: 2032: 1978: 1829: 1788: 1636: 1476: 1403: 964: 954: 944: 935: 925: 32: 2768: 2728: 2714: 514: 496: 3233: 3217: 3202: 3131: 3117: 3100: 3086: 3069: 3025: 2553: 2532: 2495: 2481: 2138: 138: 4123: 3602: 3471:

by Giovanni33 against John Smith's. We are discussing John Smith's here only because Giovanni33 used John Smith's as his defense, and a leverage to reduce his block. Also, based on

1464: 1455: 1132: 1019: 737: 563: 524: 4103: 3999: 3834: 3559: 3498: 3323: 3309: 3291: 3277: 3260: 3246: 3174: 3160: 3006: 2975: 2567: 2431: 2294: 1948: 1935: 1911: 1890: 1848: 1613: 1584: 1570: 1545: 1429: 147: 4133: 3682: 3405: 913: 711: 4069: 4022: 3507: 2997: 1179: 505: 1441: 852: 819: 785: 756: 101: 3540: 3530: 4186:

Well, that's his own fault for his continual violation of the rules. You can't hide behind the excuse "oh, I make contributions too". The rules apply to everyone or they don't.

3480: 2984: 1767:

I see where I made the mistake, Endriot said you were wikistalking in April, my apologies. However as Endriot points out, there appears to be Wikistalking in both directions. --

1149: 885: 63: 4083: 3847: 3375: 2234:

I did not undo any edits - a reversion is not an edit. If it were then people would be restricted from editing articles after someone had made a reversion, which is ludicrous.

2041:

Your block log (and Endroit's evidence) shows you have gamed the system. It is clear that you have edit-warred, despite being let off blocks and being reported to WP:ANI - as

1194: 1110: 38:

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the

4167:

He would not be able to contribute for the period of the ban, which I do not think is desirable. This is what I was getting it, perhaps "lose" was not the best word choice.--

3415: 1160: 21: 3689: 3002:

Support, given parity for both sides. I'd also support a topical bann on Mao related articles (for both parties) for 1 year, provided a 6 month good user provision is added.

1332: 2385: 616: 3468: 2325: 2154: 1344: 3678:

Oppose for myself - completely over-the-top and not necessary. Also disproportionate for me as you have little or no interest in Chinese history. Finally far too vague.

4215:

1RR limit makes a lot more sense. Giovanni's good contributions don't absolve him of any wrongdoing, but it does suggest to me that a block is too harsh of a penalty.--

919:

I've noticed that a group of editors get together to basically "attack" an article by starting a revert war and get the article protected in a damaged state, and so on.

2615: 2184: 3655:(using whatever account or IP address), and Giovanni33 are banned for one year from editing content about Mao Tse-Tung, or China under Mao (applies to any article). 3629: 3273:

deal here at Arbcom, where Giovanni33 admits to equal parity with John Smith's, in exchange for Arbcom ignoring his disruptions against Tbeatty and all the others.--

2917: 2912:

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

1039:

on articles to prevent edit wars, rather than blocks, especially when the issue is confined to one page. All users involved should be directed to the talk page and

3810:

I think a year is a bit excessive; although I'm afraid Giovanni is heading for a ban, three months and 1 year revert parole seems more just at this point in time.

50: 921:

Who is this, then? Don't make vague complaints - be specific, or it will appear that you're attempting to smear others through general, unsubstantiated comments.

477: 3636:

you opposed to that? WP, states in its policies, that it recognizes changed, good behavior. That is an important principal to be upheld, in principal at least.

1489:

2) Giovanni33 and John Smith's have persistently edit warred against each other across multiple articles, some of which are topically unrelated to each other.

2436:

Oppose. I do not think we can assume one person had good intentions and the other did not. I am worried about the lack of a mirror proposal for John Smith. --

97:

Please notify the "Reported by" editors & all admins in each incident. If necessary I can contact everyone on behalf of Arbcom, so just let me know.--

2028:

subjects. That refutes the false contention above taht I have not significantly reformed and changed my behavior, which included socketpuppets. No more.

3242:

It is abundantly clear that Tbeatty is not John Smith's, and this is an example of why it doesn't make sense to apply equal penalty for John Smith's.--

2993:

Oppose: I too support something more than parole. This user has had many chances to reform and has not changed ways. A further ban is also called for.

2119: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2091: 2087: 4048: 3581: 3384: 3193:, which was the time and article in question when I blocked you, so I'm having a hard time seeing why I should have been expected to block him, also. 2805: 2747: 2693: 1840:

shows that Giovanni33 deliberately stalked John Smith's for the sole purpose of getting John blocked. That is a far greater type of harassment, per

998: 707:

Protection is often necessary for many different reasons - I don't agree that it is disruptive even if it has to be used more than once on articles.

647: 542: 2462:

someone else breach 3RR--it is always John Smith's (or any other editor's) decision to do that. Endroit's efforts to blame most of John's blocks on

4117:

are just incredible, I don't see why Giovanni shouldn't be banned an expiry time of indefinite and how banning him for 1 year would be excessive.--

2309:

First of all, the 3rd "revert" on the Mao book page wasn't a revert - it was a new edit. Simply editing the page doesn't count as a revert. On the

3504: 2994: 1379:

Opposed. It missing the mark given that this case was triggered because JohnSmith refused any parity for this edit warring and 3RR vios, which I

678: 3646: 3692:. Given your edit-warring there maybe it would be more appropriate if you were banned from editing content in relation to articles like that. 3617:

5) If, in six months, either parties can demonstrate good behavior, they may request that the Arbitration Committee lift their ban or parole.

1327: 2123: 1422: 114:

This does not seem like a good idea to me, and I also don't think it's how we typically proceed in these cases (parties who commented on a

3229:. He was the one edit warring with me and reported me. He was guilty of edit warring just as much as I was on the issue, at the same time. 2400: 3489:

Support. And, Endroit is wrong. This case was triggered because JohnSmith refused any parity for this edit warring and 3RR vios, which I

2724:

book, which is an affront to scholarhip. To propagate it into main history articles is a severe violation of a sound and vital WP policy.

2563:

JohnSmith's possible stalking for more than one article. I wonder why you ignore that and only focus on me? Care to answer that question?

2343: 45: 510:

Like BigT I think it needs to be reworded, as although I understand where Picaroon is going with this it is a tad vague at the moment.

2130:

and the page-protect logs are conclusive proof of disruptive edit-warring by Giovanni33, which has continued up until now as shown in

4245:

nature of the offense. If its edit warring, then 1RR, with blocks being placed into effect for its violation, is completely adequate.

2458:

noted "the reason I came to this page was to try to get him blocked" there will be no evidence to support this FOF. Also, no one can

1029: 3752:

I continue to maintain that Giovanni33 has not proved the allegations that John Smith's is POV-pushing, or that his edits violate

3191: 419: 573: 3096:

Smith), your admin conduct is fair game for me to comment on, which points to bias given the inconsistency on political lines.

2743: 2738: 2689: 2624: 2616: 482:

Definitely seems relevant, though I think "their following" should be reworded as it's a fairly ambiguous phrase as written.--

437:, and should not be misrepresented as the majority viewpoint. Insignificant minority viewpoints should not be covered at all. 434: 2905: 2148: 433:, significant minority viewpoints should be covered in articles about the disputed topic. They should not, however, be given 1862: 1657: 3287:

warred, and what these other POV warriors did is besides the point. Stop making up stuff, and putting words in my mouth.

4225: 4177: 4149: 4099: 3736:

Support. As long as we are discussing any article where it is the main topic, not any article where it is mentioned. --

3555: 3153: 3021: 2846: 2790: 2591: 2528: 2477: 1995: 1974: 1632: 492: 134: 17: 3712:

past, but generally you've given up on that. Which is why this wouldn't mean anything for you, whilst it would for me.

1661: 31:

format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the

1688: 646:

should not be violated. Less than three reverts, while irksome, should be allowable under normal circumstances. --

4055: 4017: 3588: 3391: 2812: 2754: 2700: 1944:

Also, your evidence does not show proof of wikistalking by John Smith's beyond April. Mine does, for Giovanni33.--

1930: 1885: 1824: 1608: 1565: 1530: 1005: 654: 549: 2504:

Obviously it does to you, but it will not for most others. None of the evidence shows that when Giovanni went to

414: 1869: 1340: 578:

2) Chronic edit warring is harmful to Knowledge. Excessive reversions may lead to imposition of a ban under the

3612: 424: 55:

1) Requesting all involved parties and admins to be contacted, from previous disputes & edit-warring. See

2746:. Thus, I oppose this assertion as a finding of fact. In my opinion, it's not even close to being "fact." -- 2127: 1664:. Checking article histories will show that those reversions are the first edits they made in the articles. 1653: 3150: 3148: 1727:

I said that I had a genuine interest in the articles and attempted to improve on them (giving an example).

1520:

Proposed - I would think this is a pretty easy one to see given everything that's been said on this case.

1079: 1067: 1040: 4673: 4456: 3383:. I prefer Proposal 5 below (3 month ban, then 1 year 1RR). If 5 is rejected, then I'd support this. -- 3226:

Not correct. Tbeatty has changed his user name (which cleans his extensive 3RR block log btw) to DHeyward

1758:

You think that reverting several times and then reporting me for a 3RR violation is not malicious intent?

119:

essentially what we would be doing if we contacted everyone involved in past blocks and, especially, past

3990: 3825: 3187: 1075: 1057: 1036: 643: 579: 1780:

Two negatives don't make a positive, SevenOfDiamonds. I maintain that I haven't seen any evidence of a

1857:

Yes, I can see how John Smith's was ideologically motivated to revert, as evidenced by his... err...

4947: 4235:

disputes are going to recommend long blocks on WP:ANI then no amount of good works can outweigh that.

3060: 240: 808: 726: 1074:

4.1) Administrators should endeavour to resolve genuine but heated content disputes using temporary

3862:

5) Giovanni33 is banned for 3 months and placed on revert parole for a year after the ban expires.

612:

What is that, exactly? This is far too vague, though of course edit-warring is not good generally.

3063:

03:29, 4 September 2007 Heimstern (Talk | contribs) unblocked TDC (Talk | contribs) ‎ (For equity)

2086:

Support: The following admins have endorsed an indef ban on Giovanni33, at one point or another:

196: 4461: 2804:

wrong) - I think they're more concerned with settling the conflict between these two editors. --

430: 4221: 4173: 4145: 4095: 3753: 3551: 3017: 2842: 2786: 2587: 2524: 2473: 2196: 1970: 1628: 969:

This is why self imposed restrictions were given as an option, to avoid Arbcom all together. --

488: 130: 2951:

Like Endroit, I also think Giovanni should receive a ban in addition to subsequent probation.

155: 3369:. Hopefully the 1RR would calm him down. I actually think he should be banned for one year.-- 368: 327: 286: 245: 2354:

shows that Giovanni33 wikistalked John Smith's in order to get John blocked, a violation of

4281:

I actually checked again, no doubt he has over 35 blocks (excluding the unblock bullets).--

4062: 4013: 3737: 3595: 3580:. Not sure that John Smith's actions warrant a full year. I'd support something less. -- 3569: 3398: 3031: 2819: 2761: 2707: 2437: 2301: 1926: 1881: 1820: 1768: 1746: 1714: 1604: 1561: 1526: 1473: 1012: 970: 661: 631: 556: 530: 2980:

Oppose: I'd support a ban from 3 months to a year, followed by a one year 1RR probation.--

2864: 409: 8: 3199: 3114: 3083: 3047: 1745:

this fully and the below since it does not seem as either of you had malicious intent. --

1044: 501:

Agree in principle, minority viewpoints should be clearly attributed in a fair fashion--

4236: 4206: 4187: 4159: 4032: 3946: 3927: 3907: 3883: 3793: 3717: 3693: 3679: 3652: 3626: 3527: 3424: 3416: 2952: 2664: 2447: 2408: 2314: 2263: 2235: 2204: 2047: 2000: 1759: 1728: 1700: 1400: 1107: 1053: 961: 941: 931:

credit you have not been guilty of this. They are far more organized and sophisticated.

922: 816: 753: 708: 613: 583: 511: 474: 824:

I agree that in this case that it has gone past protection-only. However, arbitration

4909: 4871: 4833: 4795: 4757: 4719: 4681: 4632: 4591: 4550: 4509: 4216: 4168: 4140: 4090: 3546: 3012: 2837: 2781: 2582: 2519: 2505: 2468: 2392: 1965: 1696: 1623: 483: 125: 4007:

Unless John Smith's is placed on revert parole as well. It takes two to edit war.

630:

Support. "Excessive" I believe is meant to be taken as in excess of the 3RR rule. --

1452: 4415: 4374: 4333: 4292: 3011:

Support, best way to resolve this I think, and is appropriate for both editors. --

1286: 1245: 1204: 4246: 4196: 4130: 4008: 3985: 3936: 3917: 3895: 3820: 3703: 3637: 3495: 3467:

Oppose: This Arbcom case was triggered by an indef block on Giovanni33, based on

3320: 3301: 3288: 3270: 3257: 3230: 3214: 3171: 3128: 3097: 3066: 3003: 2926: 2918: 2725: 2635: 2564: 2542: 2404: 2396: 2382: 2355: 2249: 2222: 2181: 2061: 2029: 1921: 1904: 1876: 1841: 1815: 1781: 1599: 1556: 1521: 1385: 1083: 951: 932: 910: 789: 774: 521: 144: 3196: 3111: 3080: 3044: 2546: 2199:

page - the 3rd "revert" was an entirely new edit, which does not count. On the

2042: 3524: 2310: 2200: 813: 770: 750: 471: 120: 3769:

4) Giovanni is banned for one year and then placed on 1RR for another year.

3477: 3306: 3274: 3243: 3157: 2981: 2550: 2492: 2428: 2330: 2291: 2135: 1945: 1908: 1845: 1785: 1581: 1542: 1461: 1438: 1426: 1418: 1191: 940:

Then it's worth noting this is in relation to disputes separate from ours.

502: 98: 60: 2407:

pointed out that there hadn't actually been a 3RR vio in the first place.

4282: 4118: 4078: 3841: 3370: 1143: 1126: 879: 846: 779: 731: 4195:

That was not a logical response to the point raised. Its a non-sequitur.

3765:

Giovanni33 is banned for 1 year and subsequently placed on revert parole

3043:

Seems rather light for a user with such a long history of edit warring.

1899:

I'm surprised you don't read the content being edited, HongQiGong. And

1541:

likely to venture into unrelated topics, while Giovanni33 is the most.--

1141:

following discussion about how superflously-worded 4) is. Thanks FT2 :)

3978: 3813: 3537: 3459: 2972: 4158:

How would an editor like Giovanni be "lost" through a temporary ban?

1989:

Giovanni has had many chances to reform and not changed his behaviour

1485:

Giovanni33 and John Smith's have edit warred across multiple articles

1460:

OK, simple does it. Item # 5 below should now supercede this item.--

1814:

Proposed - Evidence is presented in the text of proposed finding.

1176: 1157: 1138: 3473:

this comprehensive list of AN3 Reports, Blocks, & Near Blocks

704:

This was proposed by Giovanni33 at 21:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

606:

This was proposed by Giovanni33 at 21:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

4678:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

4031:

There is a suggestion above where I am placed on revert parole.

3059:

Light like your undoing the block of this user for edit waring,

1175:

brought to the table, and makes it harder for others to do so.

2623:

7) The evidence shows that John Smiths has for years violated

3858:

Giovanni33 is banned for 3 months and placed on revert parole

3690:

Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States

2195:

Support. It's clear that I did not revert four times on the

1647:

Giovanni33 and John Smith's have both wikistalked each other

3147:

shows Giovanni recruited others to carry on that revert war

2627:

by inserting the claims and theories of Jung Chang's book,

2180:

edit warring in general, and thus needs a "cool off" block.

3750:"This is due to POV pushing that violates Undue Weight" 3227: 2508:--which is the only stalking evidence you offered--his 3536:

scheme...first block 24 hours, second, a week...etc.--

3975:

Proposed, similar to remedy 4 except for ban length.

3156:. That's a 3RR vio if you include the meatpuppet.-- 1035:

4) Administrators should endeavour to use temporary

1658:

John Smith's shows up at "The War Against the Jews"

42:page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting. 1699:page. That shows he was definitely wikistalking. 3186:As I look back at it, Tbeatty did not even edit 57:/Evidence#AN3 Reports, Blocks, & Near Blocks 3269:So Giovanni33 is attempting for some sort of a 1784:violation by John Smith's, even before April.-- 1662:John Smith's shows up at "Theory of everything" 541:, with BTP's concern about "their following." 2399:brought the lifting of the block up on WP:ANI 642:, if by "excessive reversions," you mean that 1866:Undid revision 122171576 by Giovanni33 (talk) 1903:by Giovanni33 is a far more evident type of 2313:page, my edits were well outside 24 hours. 2203:page, my edits were well outside 24 hours. 1864:, and the ideological explanation such as " 3195:Never mind, username change threw me off. 1654:Giovanni33 shows up at "Type 45 destroyer" 725:Respectfully disagree, per my comments at 143:I agree with Bigtimepeace, here. Bad idea. 2157:against John Smith's, in September 2007. 1354:Rephrased and replaced by item # 5 below. 35:and for general discussion of the case. 2395:. For the block lifted by Deskana, when 1333:False AN3 report (replaced by # 5 below) 14: 2869:8) {text of proposed finding of fact} 3882:Support, after withdrawing remedy 4. 1421:19:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC) (See 1339:This Arbcom case was triggered by an 3839:I agree that one year is excessive. 3568:Support, agree with BigTimePeace. -- 3030:Support, agree with BigTimePeace. -- 59:on where to look for the involved.-- 3423:2) Due to persistant edit warring, 2925:1) Due to persistant edit warring, 1347:by Giovanni33 against John Smith's. 46:Motions and requests by the parties 27: 4637:5) {text of proposed enforcement} 4596:4) {text of proposed enforcement} 4555:3) {text of proposed enforcement} 4514:2) {text of proposed enforcement} 28: 18:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration 4994: 2324:The edits speak for themselves. 3792:Withdrawn per below suggestion. 3545:Support. As I do for Giovanni.-- 1555:against either party involved. 1291:7) {text of proposed principle} 1250:6) {text of proposed principle} 1209:5) {text of proposed principle} 836:about the case (specifics go in 3427:is placed on 1RR for one year. 2929:is placed on 1RR for one year. 1689:proactive, positive change here 3721:22:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 3707:21:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 3697:21:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 3683:21:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 3630:21:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 3531:18:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 3508:18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 3499:19:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 3481:18:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 3463:17:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 3007:19:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 2998:18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 2985:17:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 2976:17:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 2956:17:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 1585:23:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 1571:23:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 1546:23:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 1536:23:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 1442:19:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 1430:19:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 1404:19:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 1389:19:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 1133:05:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC) 1111:08:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC) 965:19:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC) 955:18:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC) 945:16:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC) 936:15:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC) 926:09:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC) 914:05:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC) 886:05:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC) 853:05:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC) 820:02:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC) 786:01:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC) 757:01:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC) 738:01:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC) 727:Talk:Jake Gyllenhaal#Protected 712:21:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC) 617:21:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC) 525:05:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC) 515:06:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC) 506:23:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC) 497:22:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC) 478:02:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC) 241:Proposed temporary injunctions 148:21:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC) 139:22:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC) 102:22:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC) 64:22:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC) 51:Motion to contact all involved 13: 1: 4420:9) {text of proposed remedy} 4379:8) {text of proposed remedy} 4338:7) {text of proposed remedy} 4297:6) {text of proposed remedy} 3647:Banned from editing about Mao 3419:is placed on 1RR for one year 3300:So Giovanni33, if it's not a 2921:is placed on 1RR for one year 2631:into main history articles. 679:Protection considered harmful 4288:19:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 4250:00:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC) 1996:self-imposed 2 revert parole 1907:than your mere 2 examples.-- 1106:Yes, I think that's better. 22:Giovanni33-John Smith's 7: 4240:22:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC) 4230:22:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC) 4210:19:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC) 4200:19:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC) 4191:06:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC) 4182:22:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC) 4163:21:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC) 4154:21:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC) 4134:19:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC) 4124:18:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC) 4104:09:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 4084:01:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 4070:01:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 4036:16:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC) 4023:16:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC) 4000:11:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC) 3950:22:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC) 3940:21:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC) 3931:20:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC) 3921:20:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC) 3911:18:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC) 3899:18:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC) 3887:16:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC) 3848:11:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC) 3835:11:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC) 3797:16:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC) 3741:14:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 3641:20:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC) 3603:00:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 3573:14:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 3560:06:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 3541:05:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 3406:00:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 3376:21:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC) 3324:22:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 3310:22:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 3292:20:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 3278:20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 3261:19:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 3247:18:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 3234:17:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 3218:17:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 3203:17:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 3188:Criticism of George W. Bush 3175:17:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 3161:17:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 3154:this edit by his meatpuppet 3132:17:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 3118:17:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 3101:17:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 3087:16:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 3070:15:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 3051:05:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 3035:14:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 3026:06:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 2851:18:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 2827:16:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 2795:15:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 2769:16:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 2729:14:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 2715:20:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC) 2668:15:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 2639:20:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC) 2596:02:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC) 2568:23:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 2554:23:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 2533:22:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 2496:20:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 2482:18:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 2451:14:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 2441:12:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 2432:19:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 2412:21:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 2386:20:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 2334:21:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 2318:14:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 2305:10:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 2295:15:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 2267:20:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 2253:19:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 2239:16:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 2226:15:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 2208:14:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 2185:20:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 2139:19:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 2065:22:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 2051:19:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 2033:19:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 2004:08:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 1979:09:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 1949:01:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 1936:01:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 1912:01:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 1891:01:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 1849:00:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 1830:00:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 1789:20:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 1772:12:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 1763:14:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 1750:10:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 1732:14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 1718:13:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 1704:06:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 1637:08:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 1614:00:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 1477:13:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 1465:15:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 1456:03:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 1195:20:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 1180:11:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 1161:11:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 1150:11:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 1058:Knowledge:Three-revert rule 1020:17:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 974:10:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 792:isn't used anywhere? Wow... 669:16:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 635:13:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 564:16:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 534:14:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 529:Support, NPOV is policy. -- 10: 4999: 3190:at all on August 14 or 15 2629:"Mao: the Unknown Story," 1328:Proposed findings of fact 1137:Proposed 4.1, wording by 429:2) If their following is 4470:proposed by: Giovanni33 2619:Violations by JohnSmiths 1343:on Giovanni33, based on 410:Questions to the parties 4954:Comment by Arbitrators: 4916:Comment by Arbitrators: 4878:Comment by Arbitrators: 4840:Comment by Arbitrators: 4802:Comment by Arbitrators: 4764:Comment by Arbitrators: 4726:Comment by Arbitrators: 4688:Comment by Arbitrators: 4642:Comment by Arbitrators: 4601:Comment by Arbitrators: 4560:Comment by Arbitrators: 4519:Comment by Arbitrators: 4478:Comment by Arbitrators: 4425:Comment by Arbitrators: 4384:Comment by Arbitrators: 4343:Comment by Arbitrators: 4302:Comment by Arbitrators: 3867:Comment by Arbitrators: 3774:Comment by Arbitrators: 3663:Comment by Arbitrators: 3658:Proposed by:Giovanni33 3621:Proposed by Giovanni33 3432:Comment by Arbitrators: 2934:Comment by Arbitrators: 2874:Comment by Arbitrators: 2645:Comment by Arbitrators: 2363:Comment by Arbitrators: 2162:Comment by Arbitrators: 2010:Comment by Arbitrators: 1669:Comment by Arbitrators: 1494:Comment by Arbitrators: 1362:Comment by Arbitrators: 1296:Comment by Arbitrators: 1255:Comment by Arbitrators: 1214:Comment by Arbitrators: 1091:Comment by Arbitrators: 1030:Protection and blocking 769:Well, I'd prefer to be 689:Comment by Arbitrators: 591:Comment by Arbitrators: 442:Comment by Arbitrators: 415:Proposed final decision 378:Comment by Arbitrators: 337:Comment by Arbitrators: 296:Comment by Arbitrators: 255:Comment by Arbitrators: 206:Comment by Arbitrators: 165:Comment by Arbitrators: 70:Comment by Arbitrators: 2576:Endroit, John Smith's 2344:WP:STALK by Giovanni33 2197:Mao: The Unknown Story 610:"Excessive reversions" 124:find their way here.-- 3469:this false AN3 report 2155:this false AN3 report 1622:Support, obviously.-- 1345:this false AN3 report 4674:Analysis of evidence 4457:Proposed enforcement 3748:. Giovanni33 says: 2737:I'm not saying that 2491:speaks for itself.-- 2153:5) Giovanni33 filed 574:Edit warring harmful 4965:Comment by parties: 4927:Comment by parties: 4889:Comment by parties: 4851:Comment by parties: 4813:Comment by parties: 4775:Comment by parties: 4737:Comment by parties: 4699:Comment by parties: 4653:Comment by parties: 4612:Comment by parties: 4571:Comment by parties: 4530:Comment by parties: 4489:Comment by parties: 4436:Comment by parties: 4395:Comment by parties: 4354:Comment by parties: 4313:Comment by parties: 3878:Comment by parties: 3785:Comment by parties: 3674:Comment by parties: 3443:Comment by parties: 2945:Comment by parties: 2885:Comment by parties: 2656:Comment by parties: 2374:Comment by parties: 2173:Comment by parties: 2124:Anonymous Dissident 2021:Comment by parties: 1875:are guilty of it. 1680:Comment by parties: 1505:Comment by parties: 1373:Comment by parties: 1307:Comment by parties: 1266:Comment by parties: 1225:Comment by parties: 1102:Comment by parties: 1082:, in preference to 1043:to try and reach a 877:Proposed 4, below. 809:This protection log 700:Comment by parties: 602:Comment by parties: 453:Comment by parties: 420:Proposed principles 389:Comment by parties: 348:Comment by parties: 307:Comment by parties: 266:Comment by parties: 217:Comment by parties: 176:Comment by parties: 81:Comment by parties: 4976:Comment by others: 4948:General discussion 4938:Comment by others: 4900:Comment by others: 4862:Comment by others: 4824:Comment by others: 4786:Comment by others: 4748:Comment by others: 4710:Comment by others: 4664:Comment by others: 4623:Comment by others: 4582:Comment by others: 4541:Comment by others: 4500:Comment by others: 4447:Comment by others: 4406:Comment by others: 4365:Comment by others: 4324:Comment by others: 3971:Comment by others: 3806:Comment by others: 3730:Comment by others: 3454:Comment by others: 2967:Comment by others: 2896:Comment by others: 2679:Comment by others: 2423:Comment by others: 2286:Comment by others: 2080:Comment by others: 1964:inconsequential.-- 1810:Comment by others: 1516:Comment by others: 1413:Comment by others: 1318:Comment by others: 1277:Comment by others: 1236:Comment by others: 1120:Comment by others: 1080:dispute resolution 1054:Knowledge:Edit war 1045:consensus solution 1041:dispute resolution 721:Comment by others: 626:Comment by others: 584:Knowledge:Edit war 464:Comment by others: 400:Comment by others: 359:Comment by others: 318:Comment by others: 277:Comment by others: 228:Comment by others: 187:Comment by others: 88:Comment by others: 40:/Proposed decision 4462:Parole Violations 4228: 4180: 4152: 4102: 4021: 3995: 3830: 3558: 3024: 2914: 2906:Proposed remedies 2849: 2793: 2594: 2531: 2506:Type 45 destroyer 2480: 2393:Type 45 destroyer 2116:Butseriouslyfolks 1977: 1934: 1889: 1828: 1697:Type 45 destroyer 1635: 1612: 1569: 1534: 1396:for the community 1163: 995:Strongly Disagree 793: 580:Three revert rule 495: 137: 95:Please notify all 4990: 4285: 4219: 4171: 4143: 4121: 4093: 4081: 4066: 4059: 4052: 4011: 3997: 3993: 3988: 3984: 3981: 3844: 3832: 3828: 3823: 3819: 3816: 3599: 3592: 3585: 3549: 3402: 3395: 3388: 3373: 3197:Heimstern Läufer 3112:Heimstern Läufer 3081:Heimstern Läufer 3045:Heimstern Läufer 3015: 2910: 2840: 2823: 2816: 2809: 2784: 2765: 2758: 2751: 2711: 2704: 2697: 2585: 2522: 2471: 2149:False AN3 report 1968: 1924: 1879: 1818: 1626: 1602: 1559: 1524: 1154: 1146: 1129: 1016: 1009: 1002: 882: 849: 838:findings of fact 832:statements, not 788: 782: 771:too conservative 734: 665: 658: 651: 560: 553: 546: 486: 470:Seems relevant. 128: 4998: 4997: 4993: 4992: 4991: 4989: 4988: 4987: 4950: 4912: 4874: 4836: 4798: 4760: 4722: 4684: 4676: 4635: 4594: 4553: 4512: 4464: 4459: 4418: 4377: 4336: 4295: 4283: 4119: 4079: 4064: 4057: 4050: 3996: 3992:(contributions) 3991: 3986: 3979: 3977: 3860: 3842: 3831: 3827:(contributions) 3826: 3821: 3814: 3812: 3767: 3754:WP:Undue Weight 3738:SevenOfDiamonds 3649: 3615: 3597: 3590: 3583: 3570:SevenOfDiamonds 3421: 3400: 3393: 3386: 3371: 3302:plea-bargaining 3271:plea-bargaining 3032:SevenOfDiamonds 2923: 2908: 2867: 2821: 2814: 2807: 2763: 2756: 2749: 2709: 2702: 2695: 2621: 2438:SevenOfDiamonds 2405:User:Bladestorm 2397:User:HongQiGong 2346: 2326:This AN3 report 2302:SevenOfDiamonds 2151: 1991: 1769:SevenOfDiamonds 1747:SevenOfDiamonds 1715:SevenOfDiamonds 1649: 1487: 1474:SevenOfDiamonds 1335: 1330: 1289: 1248: 1207: 1144: 1127: 1076:page protection 1032: 1014: 1007: 1000: 971:SevenOfDiamonds 880: 847: 780: 732: 681: 663: 656: 649: 632:SevenOfDiamonds 576: 558: 551: 544: 531:SevenOfDiamonds 427: 422: 417: 412: 371: 330: 289: 248: 243: 199: 158: 53: 48: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 4996: 4985: 4983: 4982: 4981: 4980: 4972: 4971: 4970: 4969: 4961: 4960: 4959: 4958: 4949: 4946: 4945: 4944: 4943: 4942: 4934: 4933: 4932: 4931: 4923: 4922: 4921: 4920: 4911: 4908: 4907: 4906: 4905: 4904: 4896: 4895: 4894: 4893: 4885: 4884: 4883: 4882: 4873: 4870: 4869: 4868: 4867: 4866: 4858: 4857: 4856: 4855: 4847: 4846: 4845: 4844: 4835: 4832: 4831: 4830: 4829: 4828: 4820: 4819: 4818: 4817: 4809: 4808: 4807: 4806: 4797: 4794: 4793: 4792: 4791: 4790: 4782: 4781: 4780: 4779: 4771: 4770: 4769: 4768: 4759: 4756: 4755: 4754: 4753: 4752: 4744: 4743: 4742: 4741: 4733: 4732: 4731: 4730: 4721: 4718: 4717: 4716: 4715: 4714: 4706: 4705: 4704: 4703: 4695: 4694: 4693: 4692: 4683: 4680: 4675: 4672: 4671: 4670: 4669: 4668: 4660: 4659: 4658: 4657: 4649: 4648: 4647: 4646: 4634: 4631: 4630: 4629: 4628: 4627: 4619: 4618: 4617: 4616: 4608: 4607: 4606: 4605: 4593: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4587: 4586: 4578: 4577: 4576: 4575: 4567: 4566: 4565: 4564: 4552: 4549: 4548: 4547: 4546: 4545: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4526: 4525: 4524: 4523: 4511: 4508: 4507: 4506: 4505: 4504: 4496: 4495: 4494: 4493: 4485: 4484: 4483: 4482: 4473: 4463: 4460: 4458: 4455: 4454: 4453: 4452: 4451: 4443: 4442: 4441: 4440: 4432: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4417: 4414: 4413: 4412: 4411: 4410: 4402: 4401: 4400: 4399: 4391: 4390: 4389: 4388: 4376: 4373: 4372: 4371: 4370: 4369: 4361: 4360: 4359: 4358: 4350: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4335: 4332: 4331: 4330: 4329: 4328: 4320: 4319: 4318: 4317: 4309: 4308: 4307: 4306: 4294: 4291: 4279: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4262: 4261: 4260: 4259: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4252: 4107: 4106: 4086: 4072: 4041: 4040: 4039: 4038: 4026: 4025: 3983: 3967: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3902: 3901: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3859: 3856: 3855: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3850: 3818: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3766: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3743: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3713: 3699: 3685: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3648: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3620: 3614: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3575: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3501: 3484: 3483: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3420: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3313: 3312: 3295: 3294: 3281: 3280: 3264: 3263: 3250: 3249: 3237: 3236: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3206: 3205: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3164: 3163: 3135: 3134: 3121: 3120: 3104: 3103: 3090: 3089: 3073: 3072: 3054: 3053: 3038: 3037: 3028: 3009: 3000: 2988: 2987: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2922: 2916: 2907: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2866: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2830: 2829: 2798: 2797: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2732: 2731: 2718: 2717: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2620: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2571: 2570: 2557: 2556: 2499: 2498: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2434: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2388: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2345: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2321: 2320: 2297: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2256: 2255: 2242: 2241: 2229: 2228: 2211: 2210: 2188: 2187: 2176: 2175: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2150: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2126:. Giovanni's 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2054: 2053: 2043:User:Heimstern 2036: 2035: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 1990: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1939: 1938: 1915: 1914: 1894: 1893: 1852: 1851: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1775: 1774: 1765: 1753: 1752: 1735: 1734: 1721: 1720: 1707: 1706: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1648: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1588: 1587: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1549: 1548: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1486: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1391: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1334: 1331: 1329: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1288: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1247: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1206: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1190:Agree to 4.1-- 1183: 1182: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1031: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 991: 990: 989: 988: 987: 986: 985: 984: 983: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 899: 898: 897: 896: 895: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 864: 863: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 855: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 762: 761: 760: 759: 743: 742: 741: 740: 717: 716: 715: 714: 705: 696: 695: 694: 693: 680: 677: 676: 675: 674: 673: 672: 671: 622: 621: 620: 619: 607: 598: 597: 596: 595: 575: 572: 571: 570: 569: 568: 567: 566: 536: 527: 517: 508: 499: 480: 460: 459: 458: 457: 449: 448: 447: 446: 426: 423: 421: 418: 416: 413: 411: 408: 407: 406: 405: 404: 396: 395: 394: 393: 385: 384: 383: 382: 370: 367: 366: 365: 364: 363: 355: 354: 353: 352: 344: 343: 342: 341: 329: 326: 325: 324: 323: 322: 314: 313: 312: 311: 303: 302: 301: 300: 288: 285: 284: 283: 282: 281: 273: 272: 271: 270: 262: 261: 260: 259: 247: 244: 242: 239: 237: 235: 234: 233: 232: 224: 223: 222: 221: 213: 212: 211: 210: 198: 195: 194: 193: 192: 191: 183: 182: 181: 180: 172: 171: 170: 169: 157: 154: 153: 152: 151: 150: 141: 109: 108: 107: 106: 105: 104: 84: 83: 77: 76: 75: 74: 52: 49: 47: 44: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4995: 4986: 4979: 4978: 4977: 4974: 4973: 4968: 4967: 4966: 4963: 4962: 4957: 4956: 4955: 4952: 4951: 4941: 4940: 4939: 4936: 4935: 4930: 4929: 4928: 4925: 4924: 4919: 4918: 4917: 4914: 4913: 4903: 4902: 4901: 4898: 4897: 4892: 4891: 4890: 4887: 4886: 4881: 4880: 4879: 4876: 4875: 4865: 4864: 4863: 4860: 4859: 4854: 4853: 4852: 4849: 4848: 4843: 4842: 4841: 4838: 4837: 4827: 4826: 4825: 4822: 4821: 4816: 4815: 4814: 4811: 4810: 4805: 4804: 4803: 4800: 4799: 4789: 4788: 4787: 4784: 4783: 4778: 4777: 4776: 4773: 4772: 4767: 4766: 4765: 4762: 4761: 4751: 4750: 4749: 4746: 4745: 4740: 4739: 4738: 4735: 4734: 4729: 4728: 4727: 4724: 4723: 4713: 4712: 4711: 4708: 4707: 4702: 4701: 4700: 4697: 4696: 4691: 4690: 4689: 4686: 4685: 4679: 4667: 4666: 4665: 4662: 4661: 4656: 4655: 4654: 4651: 4650: 4645: 4644: 4643: 4640: 4639: 4638: 4626: 4625: 4624: 4621: 4620: 4615: 4614: 4613: 4610: 4609: 4604: 4603: 4602: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4585: 4584: 4583: 4580: 4579: 4574: 4573: 4572: 4569: 4568: 4563: 4562: 4561: 4558: 4557: 4556: 4544: 4543: 4542: 4539: 4538: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4528: 4527: 4522: 4521: 4520: 4517: 4516: 4515: 4503: 4502: 4501: 4498: 4497: 4492: 4491: 4490: 4487: 4486: 4481: 4480: 4479: 4476: 4475: 4474: 4471: 4468: 4450: 4449: 4448: 4445: 4444: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4434: 4433: 4428: 4427: 4426: 4423: 4422: 4421: 4409: 4408: 4407: 4404: 4403: 4398: 4397: 4396: 4393: 4392: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4382: 4381: 4380: 4368: 4367: 4366: 4363: 4362: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4352: 4351: 4346: 4345: 4344: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4322: 4321: 4316: 4315: 4314: 4311: 4310: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4300: 4299: 4298: 4290: 4289: 4286: 4251: 4248: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4238: 4233: 4232: 4231: 4227: 4223: 4218: 4213: 4212: 4211: 4208: 4203: 4202: 4201: 4198: 4194: 4193: 4192: 4189: 4185: 4184: 4183: 4179: 4175: 4170: 4166: 4165: 4164: 4161: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4151: 4147: 4142: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4132: 4127: 4126: 4125: 4122: 4116: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4108: 4105: 4101: 4097: 4092: 4087: 4085: 4082: 4076: 4073: 4071: 4068: 4067: 4061: 4060: 4054: 4053: 4046: 4043: 4042: 4037: 4034: 4030: 4029: 4028: 4027: 4024: 4019: 4015: 4010: 4006: 4003: 4002: 4001: 3998: 3994: 3989: 3982: 3974: 3973: 3972: 3969: 3968: 3951: 3948: 3943: 3942: 3941: 3938: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3929: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3919: 3914: 3913: 3912: 3909: 3904: 3903: 3900: 3897: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3885: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3876: 3875: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3865: 3864: 3863: 3849: 3846: 3845: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3833: 3829: 3824: 3817: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3804: 3803: 3798: 3795: 3791: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3783: 3782: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3772: 3771: 3770: 3755: 3751: 3747: 3746:Strong Oppose 3744: 3742: 3739: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3728: 3722: 3719: 3714: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3705: 3700: 3698: 3695: 3691: 3686: 3684: 3681: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3672: 3671: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3656: 3654: 3642: 3639: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3628: 3622: 3618: 3613:Good behavior 3604: 3601: 3600: 3594: 3593: 3587: 3586: 3579: 3576: 3574: 3571: 3567: 3566: 3561: 3557: 3553: 3548: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3539: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3529: 3526: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3509: 3506: 3502: 3500: 3497: 3492: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3482: 3479: 3474: 3470: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3461: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3452: 3451: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3441: 3440: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3426: 3418: 3407: 3404: 3403: 3397: 3396: 3390: 3389: 3382: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3374: 3368: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3325: 3322: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3311: 3308: 3303: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3293: 3290: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3279: 3276: 3272: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3262: 3259: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3248: 3245: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3235: 3232: 3228: 3225: 3224: 3219: 3216: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3204: 3201: 3198: 3194: 3192: 3189: 3184: 3183: 3176: 3173: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3162: 3159: 3155: 3151: 3149: 3146: 3145: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3133: 3130: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3119: 3116: 3113: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3102: 3099: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3088: 3085: 3082: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3071: 3068: 3064: 3061: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3052: 3049: 3046: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3036: 3033: 3029: 3027: 3023: 3019: 3014: 3010: 3008: 3005: 3001: 2999: 2996: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2986: 2983: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2974: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2965: 2964: 2957: 2954: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2943: 2942: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2928: 2920: 2915: 2913: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2894: 2893: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2883: 2882: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2839: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2828: 2825: 2824: 2818: 2817: 2811: 2810: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2783: 2778: 2777: 2770: 2767: 2766: 2760: 2759: 2753: 2752: 2745: 2740: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2730: 2727: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2716: 2713: 2712: 2706: 2705: 2699: 2698: 2691: 2687: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2677: 2676: 2669: 2666: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2654: 2653: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2637: 2632: 2630: 2626: 2618: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2584: 2579: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2569: 2566: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2555: 2552: 2548: 2545:, as well as 2544: 2539: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2521: 2516: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2497: 2494: 2490: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2479: 2475: 2470: 2465: 2461: 2456: 2452: 2449: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2439: 2435: 2433: 2430: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2421: 2420: 2413: 2410: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2394: 2389: 2387: 2384: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2372: 2371: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2357: 2353: 2352: 2351:This evidence 2335: 2332: 2327: 2323: 2322: 2319: 2316: 2312: 2311:Bruce Cumings 2308: 2307: 2306: 2303: 2298: 2296: 2293: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2284: 2283: 2268: 2265: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2254: 2251: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2240: 2237: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2227: 2224: 2220: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2209: 2206: 2202: 2201:Bruce Cumings 2198: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2186: 2183: 2178: 2177: 2174: 2171: 2170: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2156: 2140: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2104:Until(1 == 2) 2101: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2078: 2077: 2066: 2063: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2052: 2049: 2044: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2034: 2031: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2019: 2018: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2002: 1997: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1967: 1962: 1961: 1950: 1947: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1937: 1932: 1928: 1923: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1913: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1892: 1887: 1883: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1867: 1863: 1860: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1850: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1838: 1837:This evidence 1833: 1832: 1831: 1826: 1822: 1817: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1808: 1807: 1790: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1773: 1770: 1766: 1764: 1761: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1751: 1748: 1744: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1733: 1730: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1719: 1716: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1705: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1678: 1677: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1625: 1621: 1620: 1615: 1610: 1606: 1601: 1597: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1586: 1583: 1578: 1577: 1572: 1567: 1563: 1558: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1547: 1544: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1532: 1528: 1523: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1514: 1513: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1503: 1502: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1478: 1475: 1470: 1466: 1463: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1454: 1449: 1443: 1440: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1428: 1424: 1423:this ANI case 1420: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1411: 1405: 1402: 1397: 1392: 1390: 1387: 1382: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1371: 1370: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1360: 1359: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1346: 1342: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1316: 1315: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1305: 1304: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1275: 1274: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1264: 1263: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1234: 1233: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1223: 1222: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1196: 1193: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1181: 1178: 1173: 1172: 1162: 1159: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1148: 1147: 1140: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1131: 1130: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1118: 1117: 1112: 1109: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1100: 1099: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1072: 1071: 1069: 1062: 1061: 1059: 1055: 1049: 1048: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1021: 1018: 1017: 1011: 1010: 1004: 1003: 996: 993: 992: 975: 972: 968: 967: 966: 963: 958: 957: 956: 953: 948: 947: 946: 943: 939: 938: 937: 934: 929: 928: 927: 924: 920: 917: 916: 915: 912: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 887: 884: 883: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 869: 868: 867: 866: 865: 854: 851: 850: 843: 839: 835: 831: 827: 823: 822: 821: 818: 815: 810: 807: 806: 805: 804: 803: 802: 801: 800: 791: 787: 784: 783: 776: 772: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 758: 755: 752: 747: 746: 745: 744: 739: 736: 735: 728: 724: 723: 722: 719: 718: 713: 710: 706: 703: 702: 701: 698: 697: 692: 691: 690: 687: 686: 685: 670: 667: 666: 660: 659: 653: 652: 645: 641: 638: 637: 636: 633: 629: 628: 627: 624: 623: 618: 615: 611: 608: 605: 604: 603: 600: 599: 594: 593: 592: 589: 588: 587: 585: 581: 565: 562: 561: 555: 554: 548: 547: 540: 537: 535: 532: 528: 526: 523: 518: 516: 513: 509: 507: 504: 500: 498: 494: 490: 485: 481: 479: 476: 473: 469: 468: 467: 466: 465: 462: 461: 456: 455: 454: 451: 450: 445: 444: 443: 440: 439: 438: 436: 432: 403: 402: 401: 398: 397: 392: 391: 390: 387: 386: 381: 380: 379: 376: 375: 374: 362: 361: 360: 357: 356: 351: 350: 349: 346: 345: 340: 339: 338: 335: 334: 333: 321: 320: 319: 316: 315: 310: 309: 308: 305: 304: 299: 298: 297: 294: 293: 292: 280: 279: 278: 275: 274: 269: 268: 267: 264: 263: 258: 257: 256: 253: 252: 251: 238: 231: 230: 229: 226: 225: 220: 219: 218: 215: 214: 209: 208: 207: 204: 203: 202: 190: 189: 188: 185: 184: 179: 178: 177: 174: 173: 168: 167: 166: 163: 162: 161: 149: 146: 142: 140: 136: 132: 127: 122: 117: 113: 112: 111: 110: 103: 100: 96: 93: 92: 91: 90: 89: 86: 85: 82: 79: 78: 73: 72: 71: 68: 67: 66: 65: 62: 58: 43: 41: 36: 34: 23: 19: 4984: 4975: 4964: 4953: 4937: 4926: 4915: 4899: 4888: 4877: 4861: 4850: 4839: 4823: 4812: 4801: 4785: 4774: 4763: 4747: 4736: 4725: 4709: 4698: 4687: 4677: 4663: 4652: 4641: 4636: 4622: 4611: 4600: 4595: 4581: 4570: 4559: 4554: 4540: 4529: 4518: 4513: 4499: 4488: 4477: 4472: 4469: 4465: 4446: 4435: 4424: 4419: 4405: 4394: 4383: 4378: 4364: 4353: 4342: 4337: 4323: 4312: 4301: 4296: 4280: 4237:John Smith's 4217:Bigtimepeace 4207:John Smith's 4188:John Smith's 4169:Bigtimepeace 4160:John Smith's 4141:Bigtimepeace 4114: 4091:Bigtimepeace 4074: 4063: 4056: 4049: 4044: 4033:John Smith's 4009:Hong Qi Gong 4004: 3976: 3970: 3947:John Smith's 3928:John Smith's 3908:John Smith's 3884:John Smith's 3877: 3866: 3861: 3840: 3811: 3805: 3794:John Smith's 3789: 3784: 3773: 3768: 3749: 3745: 3729: 3718:John Smith's 3694:John Smith's 3680:John Smith's 3673: 3662: 3657: 3653:John Smith's 3650: 3627:John Smith's 3623: 3619: 3616: 3596: 3589: 3582: 3577: 3547:Bigtimepeace 3490: 3453: 3442: 3431: 3425:John Smith's 3422: 3417:John Smith's 3399: 3392: 3385: 3380: 3366: 3185: 3142: 3062: 3013:Bigtimepeace 2966: 2953:John Smith's 2944: 2933: 2924: 2911: 2909: 2895: 2884: 2873: 2868: 2838:Bigtimepeace 2820: 2813: 2806: 2782:Bigtimepeace 2762: 2755: 2748: 2744:undue weight 2739:undue weight 2708: 2701: 2694: 2690:undue weight 2685: 2678: 2665:John Smith's 2655: 2644: 2633: 2628: 2625:undue weight 2622: 2617:Undue Weight 2583:Bigtimepeace 2577: 2520:Bigtimepeace 2518:plausible.-- 2514: 2509: 2489:The evidence 2469:Bigtimepeace 2463: 2459: 2448:John Smith's 2422: 2409:John Smith's 2373: 2362: 2349: 2347: 2315:John Smith's 2285: 2264:John Smith's 2236:John Smith's 2218: 2205:John Smith's 2172: 2161: 2152: 2100:Tom harrison 2079: 2048:John Smith's 2020: 2009: 2001:John Smith's 1992: 1966:Bigtimepeace 1922:Hong Qi Gong 1877:Hong Qi Gong 1872: 1865: 1861:edit summary 1858: 1835: 1816:Hong Qi Gong 1809: 1760:John Smith's 1742: 1729:John Smith's 1701:John Smith's 1692: 1679: 1668: 1650: 1624:Bigtimepeace 1600:Hong Qi Gong 1595: 1557:Hong Qi Gong 1522:Hong Qi Gong 1515: 1504: 1493: 1488: 1437:exclusive.-- 1412: 1401:John Smith's 1395: 1380: 1372: 1361: 1338: 1336: 1317: 1306: 1295: 1290: 1276: 1265: 1254: 1249: 1235: 1224: 1213: 1208: 1142: 1125: 1119: 1108:John Smith's 1101: 1090: 1073: 1064: 1063: 1051: 1050: 1034: 1033: 1013: 1006: 999: 994: 962:John Smith's 942:John Smith's 923:John Smith's 918: 878: 845: 841: 837: 833: 829: 825: 778: 730: 720: 709:John Smith's 699: 688: 682: 662: 655: 648: 639: 625: 614:John Smith's 609: 601: 590: 582:, see also 577: 557: 550: 543: 538: 512:John Smith's 484:Bigtimepeace 463: 452: 441: 435:undue weight 428: 425:Undue weight 399: 388: 377: 372: 358: 347: 336: 331: 317: 306: 295: 290: 276: 265: 254: 249: 236: 227: 216: 205: 200: 186: 175: 164: 159: 126:Bigtimepeace 115: 94: 87: 80: 69: 54: 37: 29: 3152:, and then 3144:My evidence 2634:Proposed by 2578:was blocked 2132:my evidence 1834:Disagree - 1453:Newyorkbrad 1341:indef block 775:too liberal 4247:Giovanni33 4197:Giovanni33 4131:Giovanni33 3937:Giovanni33 3918:Giovanni33 3896:Giovanni33 3790:*Proposed. 3704:Giovanni33 3638:Giovanni33 3496:Giovanni33 3458:Proposed-- 3321:Giovanni33 3305:Smith's.-- 3289:Giovanni33 3258:Giovanni33 3231:Giovanni33 3215:Giovanni33 3172:Giovanni33 3129:Giovanni33 3098:Giovanni33 3067:Giovanni33 3004:Giovanni33 2971:Proposed-- 2927:Giovanni33 2919:Giovanni33 2726:Giovanni33 2636:Giovanni33 2565:Giovanni33 2467:Smith's.-- 2427:Proposed-- 2383:Giovanni33 2290:Proposed-- 2250:Giovanni33 2223:Giovanni33 2182:Giovanni33 2062:Giovanni33 2030:Giovanni33 1417:Proposed-- 1386:Giovanni33 1124:Proposed. 1068:disruption 1037:protection 952:Giovanni33 933:Giovanni33 911:Giovanni33 842:preferable 826:principles 522:Giovanni33 431:verifiable 145:Giovanni33 4115:40 blocks 3491:correctly 2510:objective 2128:block log 1381:correctly 33:/Evidence 4910:Template 4872:Template 4834:Template 4796:Template 4758:Template 4720:Template 4682:Template 4633:Template 4592:Template 4551:Template 4510:Template 4416:Template 4375:Template 4334:Template 4293:Template 4226:contribs 4178:contribs 4150:contribs 4100:contribs 4018:Contribs 3556:contribs 3525:Picaroon 3505:Xmas1973 3476:order.-- 3022:contribs 2995:Xmas1973 2865:Template 2847:contribs 2791:contribs 2592:contribs 2543:WP:STALK 2538:Evidence 2529:contribs 2478:contribs 2464:Giovanni 2356:WP:STALK 2112:MastCell 2092:Moreschi 2088:Dmcdevit 1975:contribs 1931:Contribs 1905:WP:STALK 1886:Contribs 1842:WP:STALK 1825:Contribs 1782:WP:STALK 1633:contribs 1609:Contribs 1596:at least 1566:Contribs 1531:Contribs 1287:Template 1246:Template 1205:Template 1084:blocking 834:specific 814:Picaroon 790:WP:DRAMA 751:Picaroon 493:contribs 472:Picaroon 369:Template 328:Template 287:Template 246:Template 197:Template 156:Template 135:contribs 116:proposed 20:‎ | 4075:Support 4045:Support 4005:Opposed 3578:Neutral 3478:Endroit 3367:Support 3307:Endroit 3275:Endroit 3244:Endroit 3158:Endroit 2982:Endroit 2551:Endroit 2547:WP:GAME 2493:Endroit 2429:Endroit 2331:Endroit 2329:well.-- 2292:Endroit 2136:Endroit 2108:Ryulong 1946:Endroit 1909:Endroit 1846:Endroit 1786:Endroit 1695:on the 1693:3 times 1582:Endroit 1580:list.-- 1543:Endroit 1462:Endroit 1439:Endroit 1427:Endroit 1419:Endroit 1192:Endroit 830:general 503:Endroit 99:Endroit 61:Endroit 4129:again. 3987:(talk) 3843:Daniel 3822:(talk) 3381:Oppose 3200:(talk) 3115:(talk) 3084:(talk) 3048:(talk) 2686:Oppose 2515:before 2096:Durova 1743:Oppose 1660:, and 1145:Daniel 1128:Daniel 881:Daniel 848:Daniel 781:Daniel 733:Daniel 121:WP:ANI 4284:Jerry 4120:Jerry 4080:Jerry 4051:Folic 3980:Maxim 3894:time? 3815:Maxim 3584:Folic 3538:MONGO 3460:MONGO 3387:Folic 3372:Jerry 2973:MONGO 2808:Folic 2750:Folic 2696:Folic 2692:. -- 2221:edit. 1859:empty 1001:Folic 773:than 650:Folic 640:Agree 545:Folic 539:Agree 16:< 4222:talk 4174:talk 4146:talk 4096:talk 4065:Acid 4014:Talk 3598:Acid 3552:talk 3401:Acid 3018:talk 2843:talk 2822:Acid 2787:talk 2764:Acid 2710:Acid 2588:talk 2525:talk 2474:talk 2460:make 2401:here 2120:Aude 1971:talk 1927:Talk 1901:this 1882:Talk 1873:both 1821:Talk 1629:talk 1605:Talk 1562:Talk 1527:Talk 1078:and 1056:and 1015:Acid 828:are 664:Acid 559:Acid 489:talk 373:4) 332:3) 291:2) 250:1) 201:3) 160:2) 131:talk 4224:| 4176:| 4148:| 4098:| 3651:3) 3554:| 3528:(t) 3020:| 2845:| 2789:| 2590:| 2549:.-- 2527:| 2476:| 2348:6) 2248:me. 2219:any 2134:.-- 1973:| 1631:| 1425:)-- 1337:1) 1177:FT2 1158:FT2 1139:FT2 817:(t) 754:(t) 644:3RR 520:it. 491:| 475:(t) 133:| 4220:| 4172:| 4144:| 4094:| 4077:-- 4016:- 3550:| 3016:| 2841:| 2785:| 2586:| 2523:| 2472:| 2403:, 2358:. 2300:-- 2122:, 2118:, 2114:, 2110:, 2106:, 2102:, 2098:, 2094:, 2090:, 1969:| 1929:- 1884:- 1823:- 1713:-- 1656:, 1627:| 1607:- 1564:- 1529:- 1472:-- 1047:. 586:. 487:| 129:| 4058:_ 4020:) 4012:( 3756:. 3591:_ 3394:_ 2815:_ 2757:_ 2703:_ 1933:) 1925:( 1888:) 1880:( 1868:" 1827:) 1819:( 1611:) 1603:( 1568:) 1560:( 1533:) 1525:( 1070:. 1008:_ 657:_ 552:_

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

Knowledge

:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's/Workshop - Knowledge

Index