Knowledge talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 1

726:

doesn't like if one sources them - which is anyways always a good idea, from an academic point of view. But VV is absolutely beyond reason and I think that in this case tolerating him amounts to "collaboration". VV is not willing to work with anyone and while he reverts to vandalism himself if he doesn't like an author - kinda like a bombing run - it is only vandalism if someone reverts his edits. A classic case of Double Standards. If you let such people continue people will read in WP that the Japanese actually wanted to be nuked, that Henry Kissinger was a nice guy, that only the Commies believe that the 73 Coup in Chile was started / backed by the US and that the US has "the best Human Right Records in the world." We are not talking about POVs here, this is plain propaganda.

3676:- nothing. Discussion has been attempted by multiple users to the exhaustion of all of them. I am very very skeptical that further discussion - even in the form of mediation - would be of any benefit. Your mediators get some pretty tough cases as it is. I have sat through mediation before with much more reasonable people, and it often results in a stand off. The only weapon used by some of the users is stubborness. VV has thouroghly demonstrated that that is his favorite weapon. This page is going to be protected once again after it is unprotected, and it will probably become permanently protected if policy is not enforced. In this case, 3672:

five consecutive page protections and the exhausted objection of the other contributors. As soon as the page is unprotected, he continues his relentless revert war with everyone as if nothing had ever happened. He completely ignores our reasoned objections. What would mediation do? Firstly what would be it's title? VV versus everyone else. VV would probably expect to "win" because, well, he is "right" and everyone else is "wrong". If he loses, well that's because the mediator was "wrong". What would happen after mediation? The same thing that has always happened after reasoned discussion and objections, page protections, even

713:

am going to have to insist because VeryVerily is utterly incorrigible and even prides himself on the fact. Right now I am awaiting VeryVerily's reply to my request for mediation, which I fully expect to be a refusal, since he has sneered at every one of my dozens of requests to discuss matters. If he refuses, I will wish to proceed with arbitration immediately, and I will have to request swift action. Given that VeryVerily is well known to the committee as a troublemaker, I trust that this request will be understood and accepted. I am also willing to combine my case with another one if the committee deems that appropriate.

3667:

seen, now, a page protectection every week with no sign of slowing. VV is responsible for more reverts in the past five weeks or so than all of the other contributors to the page put together. (in fact, the numbers add up pretty squarely). Each of these reverts was a violation of consensus that was reached on the talk page, from both contributors to the page and the general community, in response to an article RfC. And yet we continue our completely ineffective moderative discussion. In fact, you can check out the last discussion i've had w/vv on his talk page, which took place right before the page got protected for the

2193:

generous terms of use to anyone who wants to use them under those terms. That includes, but is not exclusive to, Knowledge. Knowledge is an effective and good way to build this corpus of open and free content, and it is a great front end to edit and view it, it is also an excellent group of people who do this, but it is not the same thing as the material licensed under the GDFL, which is not licensed exclusively to it (that's what 'free' means). I don't understand how pointing out this fact about the license is disrespectful or an afront. It's there in black and white, and it's not a bad thing.

2366:

So what I'm suggesting is that if Anon wants the case to be heard he should be allowed to place a new request - which those who have been party to the dispute (including you and I) should not remove - just as he would not have been permitted to remove the complaint against him while it was active. Although all this is relevant to this recent case, more important is the general principle and how it will apply to future cases. Like you, I have no illusions about the likelihood of Anon genuinely wanting resolution (my talk and user pages are also a current area of attack). --

1654:. There is no doubt in my mind that Knowledge has become a piratocracy. Basically, you would give time, energy, knowledge away for free, only to be insulted and libelled. That's how piratocracies work: They grab what they can and then they boast and tap each other on their respective shoulders about how democratic they are. They aren't. They are only pathetically brutal pirates, giving themselves a collective treat by pampering their "position" in wolf packing-order. If you want to give it a try at your turn, be ready to lose enormous amounts of time of your life, only because 4102:

best advice I can give, for I will never fit your ideal of perfection. Just look at you, probably after having seen a few minor adjustments in my edits, automatically fixated on exterminating me once again. I disagree with your editing style, but you don't see me following you around on those things. I have better things to do, unless you get really anal like this and I feel compelled to show up again in my own defense. Get it right; do not talk about me, do not talk to me, and do not think about me. Leave your monomanic stalking behind, and you'll be happier! Thanks:)

1221:

arbitrators are voting on findings of fact for instance). Perhaps when you've settled into a pattern on how you deal with cases, you could draw up a standard timetable/guide to help users who wish to gather evidence (you could also give an idea of how to best present evidence, should you expound on the evidence page or should you rely just on links with little commentary, etc, etc, because as we can't see the debates, we don't know how useful or persuasive you find different kinds of evidence and how to present it in a useful format).

2271:

was not necessary. The request was removed on that basis, but the alleged threats were not assessed by the arbitration committee. Although I've referred to a specific case, I think the principle holds for all cases. I believe we should ensure that no case is removed from this page unless it has been fully rejected by the committee. And to ensure this is so, I feel only the arbitration committee should remove requests. Please let me know if this discussion is posted in the wrong place - I wasn't sure of the best page for it. --

2027:

we are horrible and unfair, or B) taunt us about the fact that we are powerless to stop banned users from returning. Whatever they're doing here, they are choosing to operate and portray themselves in a way that is specifically designed to distract the community from the cooperative task of building an encyclopedia. Anyone who comes here with that goal, doesn't belong here. That's my opinion. Mark disagrees, and I respect his reasoning, but I don't think it workable, and I don't share his conclusions.

2299:

that the current situation should continue (whatever that is). In the case I've raised, it is not that arbitration was denied, but rather that it was seen to be unnecessary because the situation was dealt with by administrator action. But the anon apparently believes that that administrator action was wrong (I don't, but that's not relevant here I think) - so where should he go? I think the arbitration committee is the right place for him to go, so we need to be sure that this is available to him.

4286:"top-level" summary that Raul put together about Plautus. Instead, the case is made more appropriately with multiple links to specific diffs. But that's partly how the first proceeding's Evidence page got to 183kb. I certainly understand why Raul wants it digested down. Still, if Rex, as compared with Plautus, has a larger number of smaller offenses, the digesting is harder to do. If we cover each dispute, with specific links as urged by Fred, then the page grows instead of shrinking. 31: 2188:

not be 'owned' by anyone in a restrictive sense. The fact that the license allows use by others and forks means that the total amount of free and open encyclopedia that can be built is bigger than Knowledge itself, also, the GFDL material contributed by Internet Encyclopedia, WikiTravel, WikiQuote and Wiktionary to name but a few are part of the GFDL corpus, but not Knowledge. I don't think that to point that out is disrespectful at all. Perhaps I was misunderstood.

504:

vigorously against a position that is not actually being taken by those he's arguing against (both the editors on the talk page and the version of the article he was disputing), and I think the version he wants to replace it with is highly POV. I've tried at great length to explain why I think this but it just doesn't seem to be helping and VV has rejected all the other approaches to dealing with this that are suggested on the dispute resolution page.

3476:

the content of the article (I have no problem with your version of the popularity section myself, I just don't think it should be pushed against consensus), but about your behaviour, which only results in the page being protected half the time. If a poll goes 20-3 against you, you can't just say everyone is biased or uncommunicative. It's up to you to make your case on the talk page and try to convince people to change their vote.

2242:

indexing, no unifed means of access, no uniform means of access, but that isn't the point, the point is that one could download all of this material, print it out, and publish it as 'printopedia'. What would you call the text and images? Well, it seems like GFDL encyclopedia corpus would be a useful term, since it isn't Knowledge (although, of course, it would be appropriate to give credit to Knowledge for parts of it).

2110:

either, Internet Encyclopedia, anyone. Re the 'crisis', I actually havn't noticed one. Sure, there's always some drama, but I don't believe the sky is falling, and I believe that the way that you deal with conflict incites more. One only has to look at the edit history of your userpage to see what I mean. I think there are more effective ways to deal with these sorts of things. Best wishes,

684:

the three revert rule, which he has been banned for before, because I suppose he figures the dispute resolution process will take forever, and perhaps he will succeed in that time in driving away someone like Shorne. I wonder what he will say that with the capable abilities of me, Fred Bauder, Everyking, Shorne, Mikkalai, Andris, and others working out a compromise on the

3462:, which I think probably had the effect of making both requests for comment and mediation ineffective options for VeryVerily. I'm not asking for sanction against Danny (Or against Mirv or Hephestos, both of whom later signed this summary), but I think that this action and the consequences it probably had for dispute resolution with VV need to be taken into account. 2083:

reincarnated banned user is a helpful one. Believe it or not we are on the same team Heph, I simply don't believe that the methods you are espousing are good for the project or reduce the effect of these users. While we're at it, reverting edits without explaining why doesn't help you to win friends and influence people. Take her easy, and have a good weekend,

3589:

However, I agree that this is not the place for debate. This is not the place for a lot of things, including ad hominem attacks and counter-claims. (2 wrongs dont make a right) I think that the stated policy would be jurisprudential if other protections were in place, such as the suggestions i recently made in the proposition section of this talk page.

3844:"Resolution of whether VeryVerily will mediate" is a response not to what gzornenplatz said, but a response to a convolution of what he said. He did not say that it was resolved that VV will not accept mediation. He said that, regardless of whether VV accepts mediation or not, it is resolved that he will not voluntarily stop reverting. 2348:

been reverted - effectively removing his only means of challenging the decision to ban him. This is within policy as I understand it, but I'm not sure that it is fair - which is why I'm suggesting a change of policy. I'm certainly not intending for either party to have more rights than the other - sorry if it came across that way.

1117:) where people can post evidence they think the arbitrators should consider. Such evidence can be posted by involved parties, arbitrators themselves, and any other users. If mediators want to post evidence, that could be very useful, as they're likely to have pretty good knowledge of users' history. In the case of Wik, we also had 3640:

content in question and that he therefore can endlessly revert. I'm asking for a decision on whether that is acceptable. By refusing to even consider the case, you seem to say it is acceptable, which may prompt others to behave in the same way, which would finally result in the Bush page being permanently protected.

4005:. He completely refuses to accept consensus and often does not even discuss until several others protest. Although numerous pages had to be protected because of him he often started to fight about the same points again just after unprotection. I see no way to deal with such behaviour other than ban him, cf. 4315:

were not vandalism but were instead being made in the course of an edit dispute. Rex responds by defending his position in the edit dispute, thus helping to establish that there was one, and by lashing out at me and other Wikipedians. Because his response in no way undercuts the RfAr, I see no need

4258:

I've felt the problem that Ambi notes. The way I've tried to deal with it has been to pick a narrow area over a short time frame and give a comprehensive treatment of the material thus limited, with edit links as suggested by Fred. For example, by my count, this Request for Arbitration has 16 links

4219:

Thanks for the pointer to the Plautus timeline. Not being too familiar with the Plautus case myself, was that just the very worst of it? I think this is the way we're going to have to go here, as the evidence page has turned into an utter mess. If we went down that road (preferably creating it in the

3475:

Yes, the second poll is currently at 5-1, but you were already reverting when it stood at 5-0. I don't know how you can accuse others of turning this into a revert-fest, when no one reverts as much as you. If polling is no substitute for discussion, reverting isn't either. The issue here is not about

3421:

Nobody put any words in your mouth; in the above exchange, you clearly stated that 172s actions were "why i moved to wiki.pt". If you mispoke -- that is your fault. I would guess the real problem here, is not that Muriel objects to 172s behaviour; but that she is afraid of being labeled a "troll" and

2654:

As the primary proponent of the earlier request involving 172 and VeryVerily, I believe that matter should not be considered by the Arbitration Committee at this time. The parties seem to have reached a workable solution and I see no indication that the dispute has resumed. In examining the situation

2265:

I'd like to suggest that only arbitrators remove requests from this page. For example - the request to arbitrate in the case of the anon originally editing from 68.36.175.254 has been removed because the user has been hard banned for allegedly making death threats. The user denies that what he said

2241:

I agree, using the term to refer to ALL GFDL materials wouldn't be very useful very often, but using 'GFDL encyclopedia/dictionary corpus' to refer to the text and images generated by Internet Encyclopedia, Knowledge and Wiktionary could be, and it wouldn't be disrespectful to any. There is no common

2218:

Those who offer read-only access to a Knowledge snapshot are not "GFDL text corpus access providers" because they do not provide access to the totality of material released under said license. They are best described as Knowledge mirrors, because they mirror content from Knowledge in particular, and

2164:

The GFDL is an imperfect license. Those involved early on chose it with awareness of its flaws. GFDL is widely used and, though it has not received scrutiny in a court of law, is regarded as among the most likely licenses to remain enforcable. Alternative licenses, such as those promulgated by the

2160:

Knowledge (though Knowledge is many other things as well, not least of all a community). The GFDL is the choice of license, and is a means to an end rather than an end itself. Trivializing Knowledge by calling it merely as an "access provider" to a purportedly independent "GFDL text corpus" is both

2026:

I'm sure Mark did see my note -- it's from weeks ago, and we've had good discussions. I respect Mark, and respectfully disagree with him in this instance. If the user in question is not this banned user, it is someone intentionally mimicing a banned user either to A) have us ban him so he can claim

1809:

in my opinion should be of a lesser focus for your committee, and is likely best solved by polite, well-reasoned intellectual discourse. Foul language and brutish behaviours hurt everyone when our (stated) goal is the compilation and promotion of reliable reference materials. As a volunteer, I simply

1418:

It is an interesting idea, but executing it may be as difficult as arbitration itself in many situations. When you have two parties in an edit war on a page, whose version of the page would you leave when you ordered the end of hostilities? Wouldn't it encourage sock puppeting? Would you order allies

963:

If the arbitrators are "seized" of a case they may request that the parties try mediation, but if mediation fails, then the arbitrators cannot refuse to rule after they follow their procedures. As far as the "courts" are concerned it would be best that you don't refer anything to the courts. The idea

721:

I also would like to speak out and point that the reason why I am currently not active at Knowledge anymore is exactly the fact that VV began reverting all my edits and that I simply decided that while I enjoyed Knowledge continuously fighting against such people was a bad way to spend my free time.

712:

Although I do not know the conventions here for disciplinary action, which I had never hoped to invoke, I consider a ban of some sort appropriate. At a minimum, some way to prevent him from making the same change (usually a reversion) twice in a row without discussing it on the talk page is needed. I

3713:

discussion. Third, despite your portrayal of it as "VV vs. the world", it is not. Fourth, I am unimpressed by you "holding back... personal animosities, in spite of repeated instigations", as I have too. Finally, I do not agree with your assertions of consensus, for reasons I have stated clearly,

3616:

place for formal debate between the involved parties. I don't think just one complaint and one response is very useful, as the respondent will typically make counter-complaints or comments that the original plaintiff considers to be in need of correction. But I can see that the page can get too long

3083:

They should not be expected to have to respond to it. each side makes a statement, and that statement should not be interfered with. The defendant should not attack the plaintiff(s), but should address the specific allegations on factual grounds. If this is done, there is no need for the plantiff

2308:

I have been thinking more about this, and I think that saying only the arbitration committee should remove items may be the wrong way to deal with this. Perhaps it should be that the originator of the request can withdraw it. But if the other party then places a counter-request, this should not be

2298:

I think that is a slightly different situation. If arbitration is denied, then I would say the only route left is a direct appeal to Jimbo (or other solutions such as mediation). In effect the committee is ruling that the situation is either outside their remit, other solutions should be tried, or

2282:

I was advised to remove the request by User:Snowspinner, as it was not a case for arbitration, but a simple application of administrator policy. While I disagree that anonymous (User:68.36.175.254) has any wish of resolution, I also have the same question. Arbitration is listed as the last resort on

2210:

There is much released under GFDL, and a good deal of it is not encyclopedia articles. In particular, documentation and books for FSF-related software are generally released under GFDL. It is a disjoint set of materials authored under widely varying circumstances. Referring to this as a "corpus,"

2168:

Knowledge (the content) is something that has been created by Knowledge (the community). It is not a mere aggregation of GFDL documents authored elsewhere. The license serves the community, not the other way around. The collaborative authorship model, and the totality of Knowledge's editorial

2056:

You might want to chill out Heph. I am not in favour of troublemakers, and find your particular brand of self righteous abuse increasingly difficult to tollerate. To state that your accusation is baseless slander is to dignify it. I'll ignore it in the spirit of the holiday weekend. Stop looking for

1774:

violations made by a number of prominent admins. What is most important IMO is that a precedent be formed, and a consequence given, rather than any particular shaming, loss of status, etc... These rules are simply not being enforced, and when on off chance they are given any attention, it is only in

1198:

I would say that the easiest way that Mediation can help is by letting people settle their differences, so that we don't have to look at it at all. ;-) Of course, that's not always possible; in the case of informatin from Mediation comeing through to the AC, we consider it privileged information, so

1046:

It is the Arbitrator's job to recuse him- or her-self in the event of a conflict of interest; if other members of the Committee feel that an Arbitrator has such a conflict, they can have him removed (a vote of 4, IIRC), but failing to note, if not recuse oneself over, a conflict of interest would be

954:

4-5) If you feel that we cannot or should not refuse, for legal or other reasons, we'd be interested to hear your opinion. While discussing the issue, we generally felt that we'd be referring cases to mediation where we felt mediation might help, that we'd be refusing to rule on very trivial matters

4139:

page, but it's just so unrewarding to deal with such things; I admit I've been slack about it. The problem with Rex isn't an occasional unfortunate incident. It's a constant pattern of improper conduct. Scarcely a day goes by when he doesn't do something that, in my personal opinion, merits some

4101:

I'm sorry I only pop up every once in a while, being quite busy. This must disappoint you because there's no more mob scene. I'm not interested in these games you play. If you've got a problem with each offhand instance that my screen name appears, I suggest you consult a therapist. This is the

3137:

In the first instance the title of an arbitration request derives from the initial request made by the first person who makes the request. This person may or may not be a prinicipal participant in the matter depending on who else joins in the complaint and how much they participate. However if they

2989:

I'm not playing devil's advocate here. I'm noting that the rule you're citing hasn't, in practice, been a guiding principle for some time on RfAr, nor could it be - if it were, it would go against the arbitration policy, which explicitly notes that the arbcom will hear cases where mediation is seen

2365:

My initial idea was that we change the policy to state that once a request has been made, neither side can remove it, only the arbitrators can. But I think now that that was a mistake. The originator should be able to remove the request up to the point that it is fully accepted by the committee.

2347:

No, I'm happy that you removed the request - that seems to me to have been the correct action for the situation, and that you were the correct person to do it (or an arbitration committee member). What concerns me is that Anon replaced it, apparently wanting the case to be heard, and that this has

2245:

What you call mirrors are offering access of a kind to some of the GFDL corpus - if they allowed edits on their own dumps then they would be forks. They are mirrors in a sense, because they regularly update, but they are also GFDL text corpus access providers. I agree that they are next to useless,

2192:

I don't really understand your points about the relationship between the GFDL text and the community and software. Props are due to the founders, their vision, the contributors and all involved, but the fact is that when someone presses 'submit', they maintain copyright over the material, and grant

1438:

Aw, just go and let the fur fly. Human psychology is such that with potential parental involvement the involved participants will become more extreme since such behavior reinforces the ego's system of rationalization to self support their internal view of the reasonableness of their own position.

1340:

I'd like to propose an additional element to add to the arbitration process. It occurred to me that while the arbitration is ongoing there is nothing in place to stop, or at least deter, the conduct that has prompted the arbitration in the first place. I suggest that Knowledge should borrow a tool

1216:

I assumed that the AC members would have a glance at the evidence to see if the case seemed worthy of attention (rather than base their vote just on my official request), so I felt I had to hurry to get as much evidence as possible on the page so that AC members wouldn't vote it down without seeing

1102:

dedication and duty respect, or is it more like a review of written evidence properly gathered by others ? In this case, who are the others ? Who are the gatherers ? Yous ? One of yous ? Disputants ? Before arbitration ? During arbitration ? If before, how can mediation help ? (so that we do not do

917:

Aren't members really guaranteed arbitration by the Bylaws? So how can the committee refuse to arbitrate? Where do those people go? BTW if a court has jurisdiction it is usually required at least to rule if there is a case that can be brought against it, and if not it renders a decision dismissing

683:

is a good example because many editors and admins with different opinions have come together since September 24th to work on the article - me, Fred Bauder, Everyking, Shorne, Mikkalai, Andris, and others. VeryVerily walks into this and just starts a revert war. And not only that, he openly flouts

4324:

There was indeed vandalism in that the (POV) edit which kept getting re-inserted was indeed also oddly defective punctuation wise, with the word "Kerry?s" instead of "Kerry's" in several palces, The perp(s) who kept inserting that, seemed to have no interest in correcting it, just re-inserting it.

4241:

I don't think that's awfully fair, Fred. We've all got articles to write, and the huge amount of time it takes to dig up diffs for the huge number of edits is simply not worth it if it can be at all avoided. If we had gone and found diffs for simply the evidence when we started here, it would have

4163:

page could conveniently be separated out from his improper edits of articles. I deliberately kept the focus of this complaint narrow so that all the evidence from both sides could be presented succinctly and the matter decided quickly. The remedy sought is quite mild. My hope was that a 24-hour

3671:

time. I've tried to reason with him many times, and each time he has been unremitting in his belief that he is manifestly right on the content in question, and therefore is justified in indefinite reversion to get his way. This is exactly how the user has been conducting himself through a total of

3038:

It should be emphasized that this rebuttle should address the specific claims, regarding either (a) whether the events in question did or did not occur, or (b) whether the events cited constitute a violation of policy. The user should avoid rhetorical or deferrential ranting, and avoid ad hominem

2693:

It reads to me more like a prediction than a request, and even if it is a request, Stevertigo (SV) is a mediator and not an arbitrator, so it wasn't necessarily desired by the Arbitration Committee. I think it would have been better to let the arbitrators speak for themselves if they wanted to see

2270:

users should have access to some process to challenge bans and blocks. If the arbitrators decide not to view a case, then that is in effect a review of the ban. In this case, there were three votes to accept, with the qualification from James F that if the user had made death threats arbitration

2187:

No dispect was intended UC, but I do feel strongly that the purpose of the Knowledge community is to build an open content encyclopedia, I don't know what it would mean for it to be the other way around. I thought that the intent of the project was to build a free and open encyclopedia, that would

1987:

Personally, I think a user springing up shortly after a previous user was banned, with a very similar username, identical approaches to Knowledge politics, an interest in the same pages is pretty compelling evidence, and the telltale awareness of Knowledge policy, who runs Knowledge, and the other

1604:

You'd probably have a better idea than I'd have. After all, you seem to be spending more time following me around and going through my user history than writing articles; you seem to be devoting more time to all this fuss and hot air than I am. If you want things to die down, withdraw that noxious

1393:

I leave open the question of how a TRO could be authorised. Perhaps we could give the complainant the option of requesting a TRO, with the decision being made through time-limited vote among sysops of whom a supermajority and a reasonable number of actual votes cast would required to agree the TRO

1212:

I'm going to jump in and add my experiences in bring Irismeister's case before the AC. I made my request on the page and waited to see if my request to Jimbo would bear fruit. Several other people requested the case be heard, so Jimbo passed it to the committee. Then we suddenly had an evidence

1086:

In the second case, that means arbitration can occur even though a disputant is missing. All disputants should arrive at arbitration with a prepared case. Cases are usually prepared by lawyers. Perhaps users need recommandations of how they can organise their case, gather links, facts. Because all

968:

under one of their arbitration rules or to some online arbitration service (there are several) would be appropriate. I mentioned to Jimbo that there might be more than one type of arbitration, i.e. if some user brings some kind of money claim against Knowledge the arbitrators might better be those

4211:

The problem is that much of the 183 kb is debate. While Rex certainly has a right to answer charges, and those countercharged by Rex should be able to answer his charges, there are so many individual charges, each accompanied by lengthy and sometimes irrelevant chunks of quoted text. Participants

3941:

After arbitration was rejected, Gzornenplatz immediately requested mediation. VV has not expressed any desire for mediation, but, to the contrary, has pleaded that Gzornenplatz's desire to resolve the dispute is ingenuine and tainted, and thus the case should be dismissed. Mediation has not yet

3666:

I can atest to what Gzornenplatz has said. I have also done the same. Other contributors have done the same. We have been trying to work this out with VV for over a month now, and we have all been very reasonable in holding back our personal animosities, in spite of repeated instigations. We have

3639:

No, I have already spent weeks trying to negotiate, and my exchanges with VeryVerily have been reasonable enough (in the sense of not being hampered by particular personal animosities) so that the involvement of a mediator would not have made a difference. His view remains that he is right on the

3588:

I think that the suggested policy, in a perfect world, is a good idea. However, as policies stand, the defendant may distort the truth and add confusion. in such a case it is jurisprudent for the plantiff to counter this as directly as possible, i.e. in subsequent dialogue in the same section.

3303:

Well, we don't archive requests so much as reject them, in which case their content merely gets deleted, or accepted, when it is moved to the case pages; the current request against JRR Trollkien cannot be "archived" because it's still active, by the rules of the policy, until a fourth Arbitrator

3227:

I removed them because I had no idea who added them, or why, and there wasn't any discussion on it that I could see or recall - didn't even know if it was an arbitrator. Such counts imply that when I vote I should be updating them, and this takes up a good deal of time that I don't want to spend.

2266:

was a death threat, and with the request being removed from here he has no route to challenge this decision (he could e-mail Jimbo, but has said that he does not wish to give his address out to any member of Knowledge.) While I believe that a ban of this user is fully justified I also think that

2109:

Well, I guess the reason for not saying 'Knowledge text and images' is that it isn't really owned by Knowledge. One could close Knowledge, or fork it, and keep the text and images, and that would be fine. I'm looking for a term to describe the material placed under the GFDL, not just by Knowledge

1322:

I expect it's a caching issue. Anonymous users retrieve pages from a cache, and this new page has presumably not been cached yet. Try a hard refresh, or edit as a logged in user (who shouldn't hit the cache, but often have similar problems with images). I know of no way to hide the contents of

3154:

Arbitrators may change the title of requests to reflect both the general nature of the matter as well as the identity of the main participants. If the complaint is generally the work of one user or a counter-claim have been filed against a user as a part of the case they may be identified in the

2646:

evidence (the distinction is important, given that 172 is an administrator). Really, he's not just disputing the evidence, but disputing that it's appropriate to put on this page. I would suggest that people requesting arbitration may certainly start collecting any evidence they wish on subpages

2390:

I've just realised one of the areas I was unclear in - when I said "I think that is a slightly different situation", I meant the case we are discussing is different from a situation where the arbitration committee have denied a case. With Anon they didn't (because the case was removed for other

2249:

Using the term GFDL corpus emphasises the freedom of the text, and the ability of people to use it under broad terms, and is inclusive of other projects contributions to this corpus. I'm not belittling the contribution by Knowledge, I'm not suggesting that you should use the term to refer to the

2133:

No, the problem is that you seem to involve yourself in almost continuous conflict. Even people who basically like you and are very much trying to find common ground. Trying to pick a user page blanking fight with a user that has done nothing to you except disagree with you is only the latest. I

725:

I think it is time that WP-Admins take position on such issues. There are two people who try to turn Knowledge into a US-Propaganda-Encyclopedia : VV and TDC. While TDC has a tendency to bring out the worst in people, including me, one can at least work with him - he just doesn't delete thing he

503:

I'm the "disinterested moderator" CK mentions above (not that I consider this a particularly "official" role, I just happened by), and at this point I think I'm satisfied enough that the talk: page discussion is going nowhere that I'll add my voice to this request. VeryVerily seems to be arguing

4246:

diffs. If you doubt the context, then do a "find" in your browser on the appropriate page, and voila. For the John Kerry pages (where most of the evidence comes from), this should be easy, as all the archives are assorted by date, and with the timestamps, you should be able to find the relevant

2583:

While I agree that deletion of evidence is a bad thing, perhaps archiving this in your userspace would be a better idea than archiving it on the talk page? You could then, perhaps, let the arbcom members know on their talk page that the evidence is there and that you're concerned about it being

2214:

Knowledge (the content), on the other hand, is deserving of distinct treatment, because it does have a method of authorship and review that, in practice, provides some degree of uniformity of quality and style. Projects like Fred Bauder's (internet-encyclopedia), though they have some parallel

2082:

I'm not aware of any abuse Heph, I try to be pretty tollerant. I meant the body of text that is accumulated by the Knowledge project, as distinct from the Knowledge software and community. Is there a better term for it? I don't believe that the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is a

4155:

at 183kb. It's larger than all the others combined. It's larger than the committee can reasonably be expected to deal with. (I assume you all knew that being on the committee would involve some unreasonable demands on you, but the fewer the better.) If, every few days, that page is further

4110:

The arbitrators, whose caseload has never been larger, I think, admittedly moved more slowly than is usual in considering Kenneth Alan's case. The decision is in the works, however, and several updates have been made today, which I hope is an indication that the case will soon be successfully

3929:

It is extremely important in order that your submitted evidence be considered by the Arbitrators that when you cite evidence to provide a link to the exact edit which displays the transaction, links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article

3801:

However things might go the other way, Rex071404 might be banned from editing and perhaps others too. It could even happen that the arbitration committee is unable to reach a decision. The main point to take is that it will not be your decision while what you agree to during mediation will be.

2035:

I read the note on my page, and respect your opinion, although I disagree with it. I believe that we should ban people who make attacks on other users, vandalise pages or refuse to discuss edits in reasonable ways. I think this user has provided credible evidence that they are not the same (IP

661:

has been having a problem with him as well, he unfortunately has become so unhappy he is discussing leaving Knowledge. VeryVerily has a great technique for harrassing people - he goes through people's edit history backwards, reverting all of the changes they have made. No user page comments,

2043:

You know what Mark Richards? I am becoming more and more convinced that your account is yet another manifestation of Craig Hubley. I don't know of anyone else who throws around the phrase "GFDL corpus" with a straight face or consistently comes to the defense of Hubley or his clones (but not,

706:

It has become perfectly clear to me that user VeryVerily has no intention whatsoever of working together with anyone. I see no place here for someone who boasts about getting his own way come hell or high water and shows absolutely no regard for the rules, the rights of others, or even common

4190:

Yes, indeed we do want to add all of these things to the existing proceeding. Whether this a minor problem related to partisan fervor during an election or a general problem that affects all of his edits will determine the scope of suggested remedies. Speaking of which, do either of you have

2836:). My point is that he didn't go thru the required process in order to be requesting arbitration. Of course the arbitrators can arbitrate whatever they want to, but he simply does not meet the minimum requirements (according to the guideline at the top of the page) to be making this request. 2172:

There are all manner of shortcomings of the GFDL, and I take no position on its interpretation. Many have raised questions about attribution, joint authorship, handling of cover texts and invariant sections, and whatnot. The only opinion that matters on these subjects is that of a court of

1978:

I actually don't see any real evidence - sure, it looks like this user shares the politics of JRRT/EMT etc, but the edit history doesn't seem the same, except, as you note, an interest in some of the same pages. I don't think that we can say that users who agree with each other are the same,

1384:

The limited and temporary nature of the TRO would provide a means of enforcing a "time-out" without prejudging the rights and wrongs of a case. Nobody would be harmed by a temporary restriction on which pages they can edit; they can go and make contributions to something harmless (anyone for

4285:

My impression is that Plautus was more inclined to big, substantive, problematic edits. Rex does some of those, but a lot of my objection to him is that it's like being nibbled to death by ducks. His tireless edit warring over a barrage of smaller points doesn't lend itself to the kind of

1220:

At the moment I find it a bit confusing that we don't know when the committee are focusing on each case, or when all evidence should ideally be presented by. People have been adding evidence to pages very late, and we don't know if this is even considered (if it falls in the time when the

3877:

I accept the decision of the arbitrators, as I respect the imperative to preserve the due process of justice. Yet, I would like to note my grievance. I do not feel that I have done anything to deserve being temporarily banned from the George W. Bush page. Nor do I feel that Neutrality,

1171:

Those involved present information (evidence) and arguments (seperated, so as to avoid confusion as to who is saying what). If people want others to represent them here, I suppose that that's fine, though it does seem a bit overly formal to me. This goes on the specific sub-page for the

688:

page, why he will say it was absolutely necessary for him to break the three revert rule and revert the page six times within 93 minutes. And of course, this is just one example of many for a user who has already been banned in the past for the same thing - breaking the reversion rules.

1001:

We discussed this, and we generally decided that we'd like to continue to have the option to either dismiss a case quickly, or else refuse to hear it. Being largely untrained there was a feeling that we should be honest when faced with a case that is beyond our abilities to arbitrate.

3138:

are a principal participant and especially if a counterclaim is made either against them or an other important participant in the matter it is reasonable that the title may be changed to reflect the major participants in the matter, not just the name of the original defendant.

4134:

The main pending proceeding involving Rex is quite extensive. A major problem is the constant flood of new issues that arise, most of which we just haven't added to the proceeding. I'm partway through a writeup of his misconduct that resulted in the first protection of the

2226:

to give due credit to Knowledge (the project) for producing Knowledge (the content). The effort by so many hands at building the community and the encyclopedia in ways that mutually reinforce is considerable. The articles are not mere aggregations of individually authored

1407:

Well, I think this is an idea worth considering (I hope we could come up with a name other than "temporary restraining order" though, which makes users sound a bit like stalkers or something), but I'd like to hear what other people (arbitrators and not) think. Any thoughts?

3249:

This case has been languishing for a long time, as has UninvitedCompany's (still-open?) request. Since JRR Trollkien is now blocked indefinitely, and nobody seems to be disputing the block anymore, can we please just close the case and the request to reduce the clutter?

2327:

I think you have misunderstood me. We are talking about the same request. It sounds like what you are saying is that I have no recourse, but Anon should. I placed and removed the original request, and thus your concern that it was removed by someone else is unecessary.

910:

If you don't like that idea will you do what they do in most courts, i.e. the arbitrator will be chosen by some random process so that there is some difference in decision making and people don't feel like they have been railroaded to appear before a commitee chosen by

4198:

To put it simply - we don't want the unabridged version of every edit Rex has made to Knowledge. We don't have all the time in the world to pour over the evidence, so I recommend that you digest it down to something a little more concise and managable than 183 kb. See

2740:

172 has attempted to indicate that Mr. Spade is a pro-Nazi gay-basher. I really don't think its appropriate; and I hope the arbitration committee takes this propagandic twisting of truth into account, as it deliberates the arbitration requests against myself and 172.

2477:

Interesting, yes. The policy as it currently stands means that the case can either remain in limbo or, if the two other active Arbitrators vote to accept, accepted, but cannot be rejected without some votes changing. Perhaps we might need to revise the policy in this

2165:

Creative Commons, were not in widespread use at that time. And the cost and uncertainy of developing a Knowledge-specific license did not seem worthwhile. Some of these discussions are archived on the meta and on the mailing list, if you should wish to review them.

2094:

There's probably a better term for it, maybe the "Knowledge text and images"? (Of course that's what you meant, sure, yeah.) And yes, that's the problem, you're too tolerant. This place is in a sort of crisis if you haven't noticed. Please stop contributing to it. -

1967:

Well, of course, though I think by the time we're to the point of checking IPs we've probably already amassed a decent amount of other evidence on the matter. My point was really that, regardless of the IP evidence, I think the case for a ban of this user is strong.

3458:

I'd like to note that I don't think VV's conduct can be reasonably looked at without looking at the larger issue of his treatment by the community at large, and, specifically, by people who are supposed to be in the position of settling disputes. I refer here to

1182:

The Committee discusses the evidence provided on the mailing list, and we suggest possible findings, which we then agree or disagree on, and find specific evidence to support. The evidence, if possible to place in the public gaze, will go on the case's evidence

4164:

block imposed by the committee would convey the message to Rex that he needs to clean up his act. I admit that the previous 24-hour block and the committee's continuing temporary injunction haven't had that effect, but I thought it was at least worth a shot.

1775:

opposition to those unpopular w the community. IMO prominent community members aught also to maintain minimum standards of conduct. Things like are not good for anybody. Some of us have academic pretenses, and all of us make claim to being scholars of sorts.

1051:, disregarding such concerns, as otherwise a determined troll could deliberatly seek to reduce the Committee to below-quorum levels. Obviously, Jimbo can disregard one of our decisions handed down, or dismiss or censure or whatever us, if he feels appropriate. 3602:

My thought is that when people are already upset it is probably not cool to try to ride herd on them. I think we can still set guidelines but if they are not followed, it's probably not a good idea to jump in and start deleting things or moving stuff around.

753:

If VeryVerily is allowed to ride roughshod over the articles, just have the integrity, please, to drop the pretence of NPOV and a three-revert rule and spell out quite plainly that this is a right-wing Web site with rules from which certain users are exempt.

2211:

which, I believe, is latin for "body," is misleading because it implies a degree of cohesion that is simply not present. In particular, there is no common indexing, no unified means of access, and no uniform standards of authorship and editorial review.

3077:

Users may join in the Complaint by seconding the complaint or elaborating on it, but by doing so they implicitly respresent that they wish to be a party to the case and are thus subject to counterclaims which they should be expected to have to respond

1132:

That's how things have been so far. It's hard to say how they might work out in the future. Our methods are constantly in flux and likely to change--especially in these early days--as we learn what works best. There's a little bit about the process at

1248:

Also, I noticed all the currents cases were accusations against one person only, perhaps sometimes with someone playing the role of the community. Do you plan to accept conjoint cases, or should these be presented separately when both disputants have

3773:? They can only be enforced by arbitration, and I agree that Rex should be prohibited from editing the Kerry article, and VeryVerily from editing the Bush article. If you think that's the best solution, why do you reject the request for arbitration? 3228:

Things that take up my time for no discernable purpose "piss me off". Given that there've been lots of similar debates about whether or not such counts are a good or bad thing, the addition of these counts without discussion "pissed me off".

4295:

I hope the foregoing doesn't come across as too whiny. Having unburdened myself of these observations, I'll contemplate the subject and try to figure out how best to present it to the committee, without letting it consume my life or yours.

1037:

What happens if an arbitrator accepts to consider a matter against a user with whom he was involved in edit wars? I am concerned about possible bias, despite my confidence that the nominated arbitrators will known how to separate things.

3945:

The GWB article has been protected, as predicted, for the 6th time. It was unprotected, and protected again, for the 7th time, this time indefinitely. Contributors to the GWB page are now discussing the issue of the page protection on

3579:

Users may join in the Complaint by seconding the Complaint or elaborating on it, but by doing so they implicitly respresent that they wish to be a party to the case and are thus subject to counterclaims which they may have to respond

3343:

That does seem sensible. Perhaps a round of tweaks to the Arbitration policy is in order? Others possible ideas would be setting quorates to hard limits rather than proportions of Arbitrators (so as to avoid hold-ups quite so much),

1186:

Then, again on the mailing list, we suggest possible decrees (ban, edit throttling, censure, &c.). These will be put up on the case's decision sub-sub-page, along with the agreed-upon findings and a small amount of corroborating

1126:

We haven't talked directly to the involved parties ourselves in cases so far (not that I can think of, anyway). I wouldn't rule out doing that in the future, however, if we wanted to ask a particular question or clarify a particular

3401:

As you have learned, by arguing with 172, the cabal is real. They are a group of petty tyrants with no respect for common decency -- their goal is not to make the wikipedia better, but to make the wikipedia theirs. Lirath Q. Pynnor

3965:

was made to develop consensus so that the GWB article could be unprotected. I have recused myself from said page. A message on that page explicitly states: "This is a temporary page created to find a compromise on the content of

3029:

The complaint including enough links to evidence that an arbitrator considering the matter can without a lot of work find an example of what is being complained of. It is good if there are links to any policy which is claimed to

3231:

However, if someone else wants to spend their time keeping such counts up to date, and doesn't care if I just ignore them, that's fine by me. Heck, I'll even make it up to mav by putting the inaccurate counts I removed back in.

4167:

From the point of view of the committee members, and from the point of view of those of us trying to deal with Rex's constant disruptions, I respectfully submit that this complaint should be accepted as a separate proceeding.

2525:

I understand there will be additional arbitrator's elected over the next little bit, which will fix the issue with leaving folks in limbo in requests, I expect, though it won't solve requests being accepted and left in limbo.

2036:

address). Yes - this could be faked, but what more do you want? They have not done anything else to deserve banning except express opinions you don't like on their user page. Don't bait people if they are not causing trouble.

1439:

Having further polarized the behavior the arbitrators will have a clearer view of what is happening and will find it easier to come ot a conclusion. (I'd love to work on Gastropods!) Stephen Holland, M.D. (Gastroenterology)

3789:

They show what you might expect if the case eventually proceeds to arbitration. They are not enforced by arbitration but by users and administrators. The proposed decision does not include prohibiting Rex071404 from editing

1047:

considered a serious failing, and might lead to Jimbo removing such a person from the Arbitration Committee. If, however, a majority of the Committee feel that they would have a conflict of interest, the Committee will sit

4156:

augmented by the chronicling of the most egregious of Rex's latest misdeeds, plus of course his responses, how will the proceeding be manageable? It will turn into a blog about Rex and will never be ready for decision.

3504:

page, I have been watching and measuring the activity on the talk page there. I can tell you that the comments and questions I raise, do not garner full participation from the same various editors who now complain about

1909:

Your username, your article edit history, your uncomprehending answers when questioned all virtually match those of JRR Trollkien. The community does not want that user here. Ergo the community does not want you here. -

3977:

page to be "pseudoprotected", with the message "This page is presently the subject of an editing dispute. Please see the discussion page for details and avoid making edits related to this dispute until it is resolved."

729:

If you want to ban me for getting freaked out because of VV do so, but please write a warning on the front page that WP has a strong Pro-US Right-Wing Bias and that serious users should look elsewhere for information.

2990:

as unhelpful. This would be difficult to do if no such cases could be listed at RfAr. The link to ignore all rules was mostly a reminder that rigidly following the rules is not entirely consistent with said rules. :)

4147:, as being in the Voting stage. The Evidence pages weigh in as follows: Lance6wins, 31kb; RK, 57kb; Avala, Kenneth Alan, and RickK vs. Guanaco - too small for a size to be reported in the edit window. By contrast, 1285:

If there are no rules... if there aren't any common practices or consensus-backed policy, then I guess we'd have to reject the claim and suggest that the community come to a consensus over the matter. A case-by-case

1886:

We don't ban people. We ban on the basis of behavior. This account (Navarone) should be banned on the basis of displaying identical behavior to that which resulted in a ban before (almost certainly deliberately). -

1245:

Does the arbitration committee plan to ever accept settlements over article dispute ? Or does it consider it is out of its juridiction ? It is best we know, so that to be clear with disputants mediation is the only

528:

I've brought this comment back into the main page, since I consider this to be me "seconding" the request (as allowed for in the "what belongs in requests for arbitration" list) rather than an outside side-comment.

2790:

Indeed, I would also like to note that mediation has not been attempted in regards to my case. I am more than happy to accept mediation, and have been trying to get 172 to discuss his problems for quite some time.

1289:

Advocates can help by making statements on the arbitration page, by structuring evidence in a helpful and persuasive manner, and by objecting to evidence they consider to be flawed. Same as non-advocates, really.

3630:

In this case I think debate is very much in order, negotiation and mediation in fact. That may be part of what is happening here. You folks may be trying to communicate with each other more than you are with us.

2176:

Knowledge chose GFDL, in awareness of its faults, to allow reuse in other media, to allow forks, and to ensure the availability of the content in perpetuity. The GFDL serves Knowledge, not the other way around.

3280:

My god! The requests for arbitration page is COMPLETELY incomprehensible. I'd like to do some arbitration but I can't for the life of me understand what's going on. Does anyone have any refactoring suggestions?

2863:

I would point out that the arbitration policy also suggests that most cases will be referred via mediation or Jimbo, so I wouldn't take it as a rule that's too strictly followed. If nothing else, there's always

2494:

Do you think you might be willing to propose such a policy? Clearly being on RfA is kinda embarrassing, and it isn't really very fair to condemn those who are not fit to be arbitrated to an eternity of shame ;)

3878:

Gzornenplatz, Get Back World Respect, Rex, Cecropia, Wolfman, or Pedant, or any other contributors for that matter, deserve this tacit sanction, which we will now be recieving for the sixth consecutive time.

3527:

and found the same symptom there: A few loosely aligned pro-Democrat edtitors reach a partial consensus among themselves, and then close their minds to even the most well reasoned and fact-supported rebuttals.

662:

nothing said on the discussion page, nothing said even on the edit except "rv". Of course, editting a dozen pages make take hours of my time, for VeryVerily it just takes one minute to wreck all of that work.

3894:

Shouldn't it be of some concern that of all the cases being heard at present, all but two have had no action taken in the last week? As far as I can see, there's no reason for the delay, so what's the holdup?

1167:

Those Arbitrators who feel that they are involved will recuse themselves; further, those involved in the case can complain about an Arbitrator that they feel should have recused themself (as is set out in the

959:, and we'd be referring serious matters to the Wikimedia Board, to the police, or to the courts. Essentially in this cases we would be ruling that we have no jurisdiction over the dispute at the present time. 478: 2751:

It doesn't make it invalid... just slightly dodgy. The arbitration commitee is not required to only take cases that went through other forms of dispute resolution. It's just noted that they'll glower at you.

898:

Is there any provision for having the parties each picking on arbitrator and then have those to arbitrators pick a third out of the committee. This is a standard procedure and is the preferred method at the

2065:

Then it's mutual. I find your brand of self-righteous abuse difficult to tolerate as well. When you're done ignoring it, maybe you'd like to explain what, exactly, you were referring to by "GFDL corpus" in

1361:(e.g. posting abuse to user talk pages or repeatedly reverting) the complainee should be required to temporarily cease the complained-of conduct: editing any user talk pages, performing any reversions, etc. 4027:

As two arbitrators expressed, you seemed to have done something wrong yorself as well. I have not looked into it, but it would certainly be helpful if you did not do anything that can be used against you.

3970:. If the same edit war continues on this page, and no progress is made, it may be deleted." In spite of this explicit warning, VV has continued the same revert war against everyone on the compromise page 2719:

Its worth noting that not all of the links 172 removed had to do with Verily Verily; regardless of whether or not Verily Verily evidence should be mentioned here...172 is still deleting relevant evidence.

570:

Would such a record qualify for the current events section? I do have warned Turrican not to "retaliate", I however point to the fact that VeriVerily did not manage to freak out others for the first time.

1429:

Since we are unlikely to get 5 arbitrators to quickly issue a TRO, if authorized, as part of arbitration policy, it probably should be issued by one arbitrator and take another arbitrator to overrule it.

3414:. I never dealt with 172 (except in VfD) so i couldnt have an opinion on the matter. And i apreciate if people refrain from putting words into my mouth, especially when they are grossely out of context. 4260: 4077:

Simply wrong? Then point me to the rule please that says no links whatsoever to sister wikis can ever be removed for whatever reason. If this doesn't exist, then you have nothing to "inform" me about.

3052:

Any Complaint by the "defendant" against the user who made the original complaint as well as against other users who have seconded the complaint or were intimately involved in the events complained of.

2173:

competent jurisdiction. Such an opinion is likely to come with the passage of years. Until then, we will all have to do the best we can, and each act according to the dictates of our own conscience.

2017:

seconded. "Don't do that then" is applicable here. Did you read the long note Jwrosenzweig left on your talk page? I don't see how you can read Navarone's user page and continue to assume good faith -

2613:

to Lir's bogus request on this page. (Indeed members of the arbitration committee are fully aware that this dispute has been settled, and they should stop Lir if he reinserts these links once again.)

1271:

We've had a number of decrees involving warnings or reminders given to one party or the other. I'm not sure about apologies. How would one enforce that? What if the apology is perceived as insincere?

3569:

Any Complaint by the defendant against the user who made the original Complaint as well as against other users who have seconded the Complaint or were intimately involved in the events complained of.

867:

I have no knowledge of any anonymous IP. I post only from this account. To tell you the truth, I am getting tired of the constant accusations that I am masquerading as this, that, or the other user.

512:

The conversation is indeed starting to head to nowheresville, because BD is simply not processing what I am saying, whether out of laziness or, whatever. However, he is not an involved party here.

4230:

Another thing that is holding this up: all of you, despite efforts at explaining what's happening, have provided very few links to actual edits. For example here is a link to Raul654's edit above

565: 2309:

removed except by the committee or the new originator. In anon's case, he should be reverted if he replaces the old case, but should be allowed to place a new request. How does that sound? --

1988:

various things one tends not to know as a brand new user builds a pretty strong case. An IP match would be a clincher. A lack of IP match would mean Entmoot learned about the wonders of proxies.

3267:

We can close UninvitedCompany's request when and if three more arbitrators vote to reject it. That two arbitrators are apparently still voting to accept it is a matter of some bemusement to me.

2966: 1374:

If users abided by the TRO, it would avoid the need to protect the article to the general detriment of other users. It would also hopefully reduce the temperature of a conflict between users.

4143:

Are we to add all of these things to the existing proceeding? For comparison purposes, I checked the "Evidence" pages of the five other arbitrations that are currently listed, along with

4159:

There's certainly a logical relationship between this complaint and the earlier one. In beginning a new proceeding, I was trying to be practical. My thought was that Rex's abuse of the

3023: 1605:"arbitration committee" request, forget about all the nonsense allegations hurled back and forward by angry editors letting off steam, and simply stop blowing things out of proportion. 1658:

takes advantage of your life, and try to smear you or your ideals, dragging you into unnecessary babysitting sessions with the incredibly ignorant "peers". Consider yourself warned! -

3563:

The Complaint including enough links to evidence that an arbitrator considering the matter can find examples of what is being complained of. Include links to any policy which applies.

3680:

will be effectively banned from the page. Every week we are all effectively banned. Wouldn't it make more sense if just one of us was banned, even temporarily, than to ban everyone?

3096: 1935:'The community does not that user here'? Again, I conclude that you think that 'the community does not (want? apreciate? understand?) that user', although how you know, I'm not sure. 4306: 4233:

This is what a person needs to actually look at an edit without having to look all over. It does not work to simply quote an edit; we want to look at it and view it in its context.

3429:

I don't think Muriel needs her mind read, her motivation intuited, or her opinions stated for her. Nor is she in any danger of being labelled or punished on the basis of a label. -

3033:

The Answer which should address the matters raised by the complaint explaining why the complaint is ill-founded. Again, links to evidence showing how what you say is so are useful.

697:

I concur wholeheartedly with every word that Ruy Lopez wrote. There is too much for me to repeat here on the subject of VeryVerily, so I would like to incorporate the discussion at

2609:

I am removing links to an already settled dispute with VeryVerily and long-delisted request for comment pages reinserted by Lir. A resolved dispute with VV and delisted pages are

2149:

Mark, I believe it would be helpful if you would show greater respect for the project's history, which is extensive and extends considerably beyond your time of involvement here.

1142:

Everything I say here is just how I see things, by the way - I'm not claiming to speak for the committee as a whole. And sorry if I'm not very coherent - I'm dropping asleep :) --

459: 3794:

except as a temporary measure. I don't think that is the best solution, I think a solution you yourselves agree to is the best solution which is why I request you try mediation.

3746:. It remains to be seen if the Arbitration committee as a whole will endose the proposed remedies, but in my opinion they represent the best solution to disputes of this nature. 3141: 1717:

Looks like you are comparing apples to oranges. You cannot compare a prohibited action of restoring a deleted page to a normal edit of a talk page. -- ] 09:10, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

973:

then everyone who sees this site we hope will be bound by it and we won't have to worry about people suing people in the courts (who is going to pay for Knowledge's legal fees!).

3146:

Each party may present the evidence that they regard as relevant. The other party should not remove the assertions of the opposing party or the links they suggest are relevant.

3118:

counter-claims - they are irrelevant. if the defendant is really concerned, and not simply trying to defame/discredit the plaintiff(s), they should file a separate complaint.

771:, which were made from an anonymous IP and mirror edits which you made before and after to the same articles. I have also noted said IP, along with one other, making edits to 4259:

to actual edits by Rex and others. There were 14 such links in the section I wrote in the first proceeding about one specific instance of Rex's violation of the NPOV policy (

3743: 2067: 3132: 1076:

I perhaps have not read well, or not the right pages, but I have not understood whether the committee was actually talking to the disputants during arbitration. Or not at all

4043: 4029: 4009: 627: 600: 572: 707:

decency. VeryVerily simply must be kept from incessantly reverting others' work and imposing his own POV if the site is not to degenerate into a grotesque propaganda-fest.

1352:, relating to a single article or group of articles, both the complainant and complainee should be required to cease editing those articles until the dispute is resolved. 3962: 1948:

It should be noted, IPs are really something that can only prove in the affirmative. That is, an identical IP proves reincarnation. A different IP does not disprove it.

3011: 4212:

cannot remove any of this without objections from the people who added in the first place. How would you suggest this situation be handled? ] 22:36, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

3810:

Except that VeryVerily has to agree to it too. He needs to stop reverting, and he already made it clear he's not doing it voluntarily, so there's nothing to mediate.

3149: 1979:

especially when there seems to be pretty compelling evidence that they are not the same (IP addresses) and nothing that the user has done that would warrent banning.

2161:

factually inaccurate as well as being an affront to the project. In like fashion, referring to Knowledge as an "accumulator of text" is inaccurate, and an affront.

1513: 1090:

Explain to me how you organise yourself, and aside from all that paperwork about quorum and other technical considerations, what does happen exactly ? Do you plan a

485: 1401: 765:

I'm not actually involved in this dispute, but I've been keeping a wary eye on this whole morass. I would like very much to hear your explanation for these edits:

672:

might serve as an example. Within 93 minutes (04:01, 11 Oct 2004 to 05:34, 11 Oct 2004), VeryVerily reverted the page six times. This of course is disobeying the

2238:

For sure - I agree with you. We should absolutely give credit to Knowledge for producing a lot of good content. I really don't think I am suggesting that we don't.

398: 3057:

I don't think this should be on here. It obscures the issue. Two wrongs don't make a right. If the defendant has a complaint, it should be filed separately.

1542:

Probably just a technical gremlin (section editing, blanking the edit box, hitting "save page twice", something like that, I guess). Anyway, it's restored now. --

1863:

but this appears disputed. I'm inclined to say "of course he bloody is", but would like the opinion of someone with more experience of the ex-user in question -

1839:

But whats to be done between us danny? What can I do to assure you that I edit in good faith? I think I've offered one soloution, if you choose to accept it...

750:

are absolutely impossible to work with. Most other people will at least negotiate; these three are virtually unyielding, and VeryVerily is the worst of the lot.

3983: 3955: 3883: 3849: 3685: 3594: 3123: 3089: 3062: 3044: 1655: 1651: 1315: 2899:

I'm sorry to say, I disaprove of your attitude, and of your involvement here. What exactly is your intent, or are you just "playing in the mud", so to speak?

4148: 4035:

I have done nothing wrong. I made an edit which I explained on the talk page. VeryVerily reverted (10 times) without explanation. That's all there is to it.

3415: 3259: 2680:

Well, Im sure that Lir and Sam will attempt to provide linked evidence to support their claim, before the committee makes its decision to hear it or not. -SV

1304: 1179:

someone saying that, in their opinion, user A is a maligned individual who, whilst difficult to work with, is nonetheless zn important part of the Knowledge)

1054:

Please note: The above is merely the current state of the Arbitration Policy, and could change (though the rules are and will continue to be published - see

1039: 1011: 278: 273: 4276:), I see it taking the opposite tack. Many points there are covered with a link to one edit, followed by summary language like "This provokes an edit war". 3583:

The Plaintiff(s) and the Defendent(s) should limit their posts to their own section, the Complaint and the Response to it; this is not the place for debate.

3551:

The Plaintiff(s) and the Defendent(s) should limit their posts to their own section, the Complaint and the Response to it; this is not the place for debate.

2771:

Where a dispute has not gone through mediation, the arbitrators may refer the dispute to the mediation committee if it believes mediation is likely to help.

2597:

Well, Im sure that Lir and Sam will attempt to provide linked evidence to support their claim, before the committee makes its decision to hear it or not. -

2563:

Well, Im sure that Lir and Sam will attempt to provide linked evidence to support their claim, before the committee makes its decision to hear it or not. -

2246:

and pretty irritating, but Knowledge does not give access to the entire GFDL encyclopedia corpus either (Internet Encyclopedia, Wikiquote, Wikitravel etc).

1199:

you would need the consent of all involved. If you have that, a special section on the evidence page is nominally reserved for the products your hard work.

1257:

What is your feeling with regards to advocates ? If disputants are not really exchanging (words) with AC, what can be their role ? Just providing facts ?

3469: 2433:

It seems simple to me. Requests can be removed by arbitrators (by rejection/referral), or by the originator (dropping or withdrawing the complaint). If

1419:

of the parties to also cease? Finally, the arbiters don't hasten to make decisions, but a "TRO" only really helps if it happens early in the process. --

3463: 2991: 2965:

and general playing of devils advocate to be unhelpful. Fortunately this sort of thing should be officially condemned by the policy suggested below at

2869: 2810: 2774: 2753: 2585: 1989: 1969: 1949: 1822: 1659: 1524: 1502: 215: 210: 205: 200: 195: 190: 185: 180: 175: 170: 165: 160: 155: 150: 3542: 4049:

They attacked me for my position in the content dispute (which isn't the issue at all), simply taking VeryVerily's side. Just see Fred Bauder below.

3979: 3951: 3879: 3845: 3681: 3590: 3119: 3085: 3058: 3040: 2250:

Knowledge project, just that there are times when one is talking about just the material generated, and not only the material generated by Knowledge.

934:

en banc means that you will all rule together. It comes from the time when judges all sat on a bench (Court of Queen's Bench) in the monarch's court.

145: 140: 135: 130: 125: 120: 115: 110: 79: 71: 66: 3709:. Second, I contend discussion has been notably absent, as you refused it repeatedly; "trying to work this out" has consisted of almost everything 1253:

Is there any arbitration decision which are not banning or slowing down, or unsysoping people, but more things like apologizing to another person ?

1821:

I hardly think it takes a committee to find a problem with Spleeman. Whereas figuring out what NPOV is... that may well take several committees.

1397:

I recognize that this probably would not be much use in the most complex cases, but for the simpler cases it might be a useful tool to adopt. --

1114: 799: 2832:

Well, I'm willing to accept mediation if anybody wants to reccomend it, but 172 seems pretty intractable (review our convo if your interested @

1335: 389: 384: 379: 374: 369: 364: 359: 354: 349: 344: 339: 309: 1531:

I've notified Martin, who apparently was the one who removed it, and I expect he will provide an explanation and/or restore it to the list. --

2510: 1926:

The arbitration committee, Jimbo, and all sane people, have agree that there is nothing wrong with my username. Change yours, it's no better.

1398: 1137:, but it's quite vague - this is deliberate, really, as we hope to fill out the details as we gain more experience and learn what works well. 1080:

In the first case, people coming to you should come with an advocate preferably to help them, and should be prepared to vocally defend their

454: 334: 329: 324: 319: 314: 304: 299: 294: 3155:

title. The participants in the matters should not be involved in struggles to change or revert the title of a matter in order to suit them.

1956:

To be fair, by the same logic, an idntical IP doesn't really prove anything either. Shared ISPs, ownzed boxes etc can give false positives.

1675:

after injunction "Temporary injunction: Irismeister cannot edit any page other than his/her user and user talk pages and his/her AC pages":

964:

is to keep Knowledge independent of the courts. Of course if someone has some really serious claim against WP then maybe a reference to the

4144: 4248: 4221: 3915: 3896: 3293: 3220: 2732: 944:, progress report). I'm aware of your comments on this elsewhere, and will bring them to the committee's notice at the appropriate time. 2517:

I now have two withdrawn requests. Could somebody please change the policy to accommodate those of us "in limbo"? Thanks for your time,

1579:

No, he hasn't. We've been through this before, but I've lost count of how many times he's announced his departure and then come back. --

1379:

If they didn't obey the TRO it would provide a fairly instant measure of their good intent and willingness to accept the AC's decisions.

4006: 1190:

We vote on the findings and decrees, and, when we have come to a conclusion, we publish this on the main Requests for arbitration page.

1871:

I am an expert on half of this conundrum, and can confirm that I am not the same user as 142/Entmoots/JRR etc. My IP address is on my

3990: 2260: 1366:

If the restraint is ignored then the offending user(s) should be given an immediate temporary ban until the arbitration is resolved.

3705:

Absent from this analysis is any inkling of the actual issues. First, as for "he continues his relentless revert war", please see

471: 4177: 3460: 2548: 4247:

quote. Same goes for any other pages, as I believe the specific page involved was highlighted on the evidence page for each one.

4231: 2809:

I think your case falls under that clause about "if it believes mediation is likely to help." Or, at least, that was my feeling.

766: 47: 17: 3211:

useful since it shows, at a glance, what the progress of accepting each case is. I spent a good deal of time putting them in. --

1857: 1643:

page, even after I'm gone for good. This is essential for newcomers. They absolutely need this warning, so that their would-be,

914:

As arbitration is a consensual matter too if both parties want arbitration then can you guys (and I do mean guys) really refuse?

1700: 1118: 256: 251: 246: 241: 1032: 2670:, or what aspects thereof, they are accepting or rejecting. This would make more clear what evidence is actually relevant. -- 1010:

I would like to congratulate the idea of this "court" and the professional way on which it promisses to deal with conflicts.

4184: 4118: 3275: 266: 261: 236: 231: 4176:

My answer to JamesMLane's most recent attempt at advancing his admitted agenda of getting me hard banned can be read here

3566:

The Response which should address the matters raised by the Complaint. Again, links to edits or other evidence are useful.

846:, which means he's been paying attention to recent developments, as Turrican, to my knowledge, never wandered over there. 1901:

I'm sorry Hephaestos, can you specify what behavior I am displaying that means I should be banned? I can't think of any.

1678: 1676: 1195:

So, in review, Arbitration is a combination of a review of evidence given by others, and a finding of evidence ourselves.

449: 4016:

At least he needs to be put on a revert parole. But the arbitration committee is not only not doing that, it's not even

3514:. Suffice it to say, because these various editors refuse to deliberate, they ought not to be allowed to complain about 4002: 3714:

and if you provide that as a sole reason to erase edits I have made, I will revert; if this is stubbornness, so be it.

3207:

Why were the (0/0/0/0) counts removed from each of the ===Comments and votes by arbitrators=== subsections? These were

1157: 652: 1847: 666: 3262:. I'm sure the non-recused arbitrators will pick that up sooner or later. JamesF has already, but he needs seconding. 2152:

By original intent and choice, as well as ongoing tradition in the minds of many if not most contributors, Knowledge

1150:

First off, please note that I am speaking for myself here, and not the AC, as I'm a little hazy on the exact details.

444: 3903:

I can only speak for myself, but one problem is folks not putting clear links to the evidence they want to present.

3822: 1134: 698: 1265:

We haven't ruled out arbitrating article disputes, but our policy clearly favours taking on user conduct disputes.

4160: 2444:

request. But he can't force someone else to remake a request they've already dropped. So this seems fine to me.

2134:

think that there is a word for users who seek out conflict, but it slips my mind right now. That's the problem.

1666: 1487: 1477:

I too; this makes for 5 Arbitrators' votes for, and none against. If an internal measure, is it hence enacted?

1341:

from the legal system and use temporary restraining orders to "freeze" a dispute until the AC has resolved it.

3931: 3016:

I suggest the following guidelines for content of Requests for Arbitration and regarding titles for requests.

2509:

has been ongoing since April but hasn't yet been concluded. Is there any chance of bringing it to a close? --

4325:

Also, a normal response would have been to dialog on talk page. The perps(s) did not do that. So as I see it:

1794: 1493: 1217:

the full picture. Then of course, nothing has happened for weeks as more urgent cases have been dealt with.

956: 831: 2674:

20:24, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) (amended, stricken text rendered meaningless when content was copied to this page)

1810:

ask for better; better enforcement of our current (and may I say excellent) policies. Thank you in advance,

4220:

user namespace), and made sure to move any discussion to the talk page, then hopefully it'd stay readable.

3573: 3071: 1861: 1055: 3860: 3971: 1942: 1902: 1876: 1872: 1853: 779: 776: 673: 420: 2651:. It can then be presented formally should the Arbitration Committee actually choose to hear this case. 2620:

I am reverting yet another attempt by Sam Spade to reactivate disputes that have already been resolved.

2967:

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Some_propositions_regarding_content_of_Requests_for_Arbitration

2962: 2865: 1736:

banned from editing pages (except his own page and the arbitration pages) until the AC says otherwise.

1121:, where Wik made a statement. We've then sifted through all this stuff, and tried to reach conclusions. 769: 38: 3108:

Essentially any posting by anyone who is not involved in the case. These are welcome on the talk page.

2704:

Well, regardless of bizzare edit wars, I've read it now. Still need to decide how to vote, of course.

3397:

I believe Muriel G would also agree with this request, the following exchange is from her talkpage:

1672: 1631:

automatic addition of the "Wikipolice tag", when attributed by computed stats to personal signatures;

1251:

How are perceived accusations made between 2 people, not involving the community at all for example ?

842:), and other similar topics, without reference to talk page consensus. He also axed the NPOV tag on 3292:

that old cases, such as JRR Trollkien's, really, really need archiving, in order to stop page lag.

3240:

Thanks. You can ignore the counts if you like and others will fix them. Such is the wiki way. --mav

3102:

Comments regarding the viability of the complaint especially by persons not involved in the matter.

1026:

Hey, you should not put titles in comments, for it breaks the edit sections. It is unfortunate :-)

2118:

My userpage gets vandalized, and that makes me a problem? That's an interesting leap of logic. -

4261:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence#POV inclusions, deletions and modifications

4069:. No one should have to explain this to you and having been informed of it you should accept it. 3994: 3105:

Comments regarding how the matter is to be titled or the effect of choosing one title or another.

2592: 1523:

Maybe I'm missing something, but why was the request for arbitration between 172 and VV removed?

1243:

I suppose it is best that each disputant comes with a full description of what he is asking then.

614:

True enough, one's user page cannot be vandalized unless one has one. So it's equally my fault.

544:

Fred Bauder, why did you restore these comments here? They don't need to be on the project page

3936: 1618: 1087:

they will have the right to do is to give a little package that will support the case for them.

2283:

the Dispute resolution page. Request for arbitration denied, where does one turn to? Anonymous

2222:

While we cannot and do not wish to force the rest of the world to do so, it is appropriate for

970: 904: 2506: 1507: 918:

the case by the plaintiff (or petitioner, or whatever you want to call that person or entity).

583:

RfAr was being used so much against me. And readers may note that Gz's was soundly rejected.

3870: 3576:

procedures were followed. Not the details, especially not what happened during any mediation.

3354: 3310: 3165: 3074:

procedures were followed. Not the details, especially not what happened during any mediation.

2833: 2484: 2231: 2180: 1650:

FINAL WARNING In my own half-year assignment I had to deal with aggressive, brutal, ignorant

1596: 1572: 1481: 1205: 1064: 941: 940:

2-3) That will be discussed when we move onto the "Who takes part?" point on the agenda (see

410: 3175:

The unwritten rules work well enough, but I've no objection to Fred writing them down... :)

657:

I would like to add that I have been having a problem with VeryVerily as well. I also know

4273: 4200: 3826: 3718: 3518: 3509: 3495: 2930:

Snowspinner's aid in explaining and helping along the arbitration process is very welcome.

2601: 2567: 2123: 2100: 2075: 2049: 1915: 1892: 1318:

limited and to whom is it limited? I can only see it or post to it while logged in. 168...

806: 618: 587: 552: 516: 1929:

Ah, a damningly specific charge. "Your edit history". Please, you're embarrasing yourself.

1856:'s edits and talk page. If he's not a reincarnation, he's doing his best to look like one 1751:

Sorry for the delay. Yes, Theresa is correct - it's a temporary ruling, not a suggestion.

1071: 882: 640: 8: 3947: 3500:

as being unfounded and fraudulent. As another editor who has been recently active on the

1802: 1771: 1213:

page and a vote was opened to see if the members of the committee would accept the case.

1078:

When you arbitrate a case, do you talk to those involved, or do you just review evidence.

95: 3453: 2629:

You are free to dispute evidence; but, it is unacceptable that you delete the evidence.

1274: 3282: 2767:

The arbitrators reserve the right to hear or not hear any dispute, at their discretion.

2254: 2200: 2194: 2135: 2111: 2084: 2058: 2037: 1997: 1980: 1957: 1798: 1767: 1737: 1328: 1226: 530: 505: 3924: 2457: 1996:

I can see how you might reach that conclusion, but its not evidence, its speculation.

1761: 1450: 1113:

In the cases we've dealt with so far, we've set up an /evidence page (see for example

4112: 4103: 4094: 4078: 4050: 4036: 4021: 3821:

Resolution of whether VeryVerily will mediate is accomplished by making a request on

3811: 3774: 3641: 3618: 3477: 3251: 2695: 2671: 2572: 2460:? Am I still in limbo, or is the vote over, or whats going on? A bit of help please. 2028: 2018: 1864: 1703: 1681: 1580: 1532: 1498:

Arbitrators don't set policy, just enforce it. Proposals to policy pages, please. :)

969:

trained to decide such disputes, but if there is a general arbitration clause in the

626:

I am completely sure he did that for no reason at all, just targeting a random user.

3190:

Almost all the comments in the arbitration requests page seem to be repeated twice.

2144: 2004:

under your rules of evidence we would never block anyone ever. this is not useful.

1932:

My 'uncomprehending answers'? I really don't comprehend you. Perhaps this is a typo?

1268:

A vs B cases are fine. Yes, even if the community at larges is basically uninvolved.

4234: 4192: 4136: 4128: 4070: 3904: 3867: 3830: 3803: 3795: 3747: 3652: 3632: 3604: 3556: 3351: 3307: 3162: 3017: 2481: 2469: 2395: 2370: 2313: 2275: 2009: 1860:

and writes in an almost identical style. Some consider him a reincarnation already

1593: 1569: 1478: 1431: 1202: 1061: 907:

has pointed out that having the arbitrators just thrust upon one is not very fair.

4317: 4297: 4169: 3715: 3515: 3506: 3492: 3325: 3212: 2656: 2598: 2564: 2119: 2096: 2071: 2045: 1911: 1888: 1471: 1234: 1019: 803: 739: 615: 584: 549: 513: 432: 2726: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3998: 3967: 3529: 3501: 3377: 3268: 3233: 3176: 3005: 2970: 2931: 2900: 2837: 2712: 2705: 2683: 2659:, I do not find enough similarities to warrant dredging up those issues again. 2576: 2552: 2535: 2527: 2518: 2496: 2461: 2445: 1840: 1831:

I happen to agree with Sam on this point. Spleeman's behavior is unacceptable.

1811: 1780: 1752: 1557: 1543: 1499: 1464: 1454: 1409: 1394:(e.g. requiring a minimum of 60% in favour with at least six votes in favour). 1291: 1143: 1003: 980: 922:

Just some random thoughts from someone who does arbitration in the real world.

847: 782: 747: 690: 1309: 676:

which he certainly knows about since he's been banned before for breaking it.

428: 406: 3446: 3430: 3002:

Would it be acceptable to merge the two cases involving both myself and 172?

2418: 2329: 2288: 1420: 1324: 1222: 566:

VeriVerily made it to the arbitration page three times in just about one week

4066: 2507:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ChrisO_and_Levzur

1779:

attacks, abuse or incivility of any kind really, are simply not acceptable.

4312: 4204: 4124: 4091: 3159:

These seem a good codification of the current unwritten rules; I like them.

2662:

Incidentally, I believe it would be very helpful if the arbitrators voting

1258: 1106: 1027: 991: 923: 645:

Copied here from the main discussion because VeryVerily keeps deleting it.

3196: 3084:

to post a response. this is not a dialogue, and definitely not a fight.

2392: 2367: 2310: 2272: 2005: 1440: 868: 755: 714: 685: 680: 669: 658: 646: 3258:

Angela and I have requested that the JRR Trollkien case be closed - see

3930:

Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:

3791: 3651:

Just give it a try, our mediators need some hard cases to get good on.

3524: 1832: 1776: 1386: 498: 3555:

be included in this policy? It has certainly caused enough trouble...

3392: 2169:

policies and community culture have a key role in overall authorship.

1298: 599:

You initiated the last one because you were the guy it took to tango.

4090:

When is there likely to be any update in the matter of Kenneth Alan?

3989:

VeriVerily has fought edit wars in numerous articles, amongst others

2437:

people have seconded the request, they need to agree to drop it too.

1790:. I think something needs done about enforcing the violations of the 1278: 772: 3244: 4131:, I'm writing to explain why I proposed starting a new proceeding. 3438: 3423: 2792: 2742: 2721: 2630: 2621: 2614: 1606: 1153:

Here's an overview of how things have gone for the last few cases:

839: 743: 430: 408: 4085: 4020:

the case in the first place. In my view it's totally discredited.

3617:

that way, so perhaps every request should get its separate page.

835: 3405:

Thats why i moved to wiki.pt :) Muriel G 10:25, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1255:

When there are no rules about the case, what do you plan to do ?

4343:

makes a strong case for vandalism. ] 20:53, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

3012:

Some propositions regarding content of Requests for Arbitration

2642:"evidence" from this page, but it's worth noting that he's not 2468:

Prospects are dim, looks like a deadlock as currently phrased.

434: 412: 3744:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Proposed decision

2558: 1692:

is only a suggestion, not a ban. -- ] 22:32, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

1638: 435: 413: 3706: 843: 3625: 1788: 2961:

I'm sorry to say, I find his interjections with links like

1852:

Could someone more expert in these things please look over

1806: 1732:

It's not a suggestion it's a temporary ruling. Irismeister

3185: 2997: 1938:

You don't speak for 'the community', please stop trolling.

1323:

pages from any user, and why would we want to anyway? :)

798:

Actually, those edits were made by the same person who is

3115:

violations of policy/etiquette, such as personal attacks.

2206:

No time for a careful essay at the moment, but in short:

1514:

Knowledge talk:Requests for arbitration/Mr-Natural-Health

1463:

Fred's suggestion looks good. Seems a popular idea, too.

4065:

It is simply wrong to remove the link to a sister wiki,

3523:

at this time. I recently ran into revert war trouble at

1787:

Here’s just a hint of what’s going on among non-admins

1370:

I see this measure as offering a number of advantages:

3202: 2451: 1518: 1316:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Mav v. 168/Evidence

4149:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence

3324:

We should have a auto-reject clause after a month. --

3260:

Knowledge talk:Requests for arbitration/JRR Trollkien

2711:

Actually removing it from the talk page too. *sigh*.

1568:

Well, 172, at least, seems to have left Knowledge...

1305:

Knowledge talk:Requests for arbitration/JRR Trollkien

1233:

All very good ideas, IMO. Thanks for the feedback! --

1098:

tea house to talk this over between all of you, with

965: 4272:

Now, when I look at the example that Raul provided (

4123:

In response to the comments and votes thus far from

3889: 3742:

It might be helpful during mediation to contemplate

3304:

votes to reject (or four vote to accept, of course).

2733:

Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration#Sam_Spade_and_172

2694:

evidence in support of a request for arbitration. --

2287:blocked, but is now back vandalizing my talk page. 2215:content, diverge from Knowledge in important ways. 2044:significantly, other trolls and troublemakers). - 900: 3437:But she apparently needs you to speak for her... 2391:reasons) - appologies again for being unclear -- 955:that should have been addressed by stages 1-3 of 3769:What do those proposed remedies have to do with 3491:I object to the basis of this complaint against 2542: 1759: 1624:systematic inclusion of "Wikicreative indices" ( 579:Actually, I initiated the last one, and largely 3097:What doesn't belong in Requests for Arbitration 1922:What a lot of hot air. As you know, I am sure: 1647:volunteer contributions would not be exploited. 1634:real-time measures of the "Wikicreative index"; 1115:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Wik/Evidence 1084:spinach salad. Perhaps even come with witnesses 4307:Rex's responses to the Request for Arbitration 2417:No problem. Thanks for the clear explination! 1858:(a favourite slab of text of 142/Entmoots/JRR) 4336:c) with odd "?" marks where they don't belong 4042:So what did the two arbitors complain about? 3422:facing future punitive actions by the cabal. 2261:Removal of requests - suggested policy change 479: 4145:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 3219:I agree with mav - these were quite useful. 1766:I am interested in having an arbitration of 2551:acceptable? If not, can something be done? 2219:not, generally, content from other sources. 4007:Knowledge:Requests for comment/VeryVerily2 2440:Anon has recourse because he can create a 1033:Question for people better informed than I 486: 472: 4119:Multiple proceedings concerning Rex071404 3991:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 3470:Material added to VerilyVerily's response 3276:Refactoring Requests for arbitration Page 2156:the project and the text and images here 4203:for an example of a good evidence page. 3572:Information regarding what steps of the 3543:What belongs in Requests for Arbitration 3288:I don't see any problems with it as is, 3070:Information regarding what steps of the 3024:What belongs in Requests for Arbitration 2682:". We simply responded to that request. 2638:I agree that it looks bad for 172 to be 1156:We get a new case. This is announced on 834:. Most of the usual stomping grounds ( 1875:for verification. Your humble servant, 1699:Looks like the suggestion's been taken 1175:Others may give accessory information ( 1164:here) and also on the AC mailing lists. 18:Knowledge talk:Requests for arbitration 14: 4191:suggested remedies you might propose? 2534:Thank you for your kind attentions :) 2505:I seem to be a bit in limbo as well - 2070:. Try not to crib from Consumerium. - 1848:Another 142/Entmoots/JRR reincarnation 1592:I wrote that. So never mind to that. 1336:Proposal: temporary restraining orders 1119:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Wik 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2666:could indicate which of the requests 3142:Deletion of evidence by participants 1135:Knowledge:Arbitration policy#Hearing 930:1) I don't understand the question! 460:Clarification and amendment requests 25: 3963:compromise page for the GWB article 3376:Two months makes more sense to me. 1667:Irismeister violation of injunction 23: 4003:Project for a New American Century 3193:Someone should merge both copies. 3133:Titles of Requests for Arbitration 1348:If a dispute is essentially about 1158:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration 24: 4352: 4311:The RfAr asserts that changes to 1628:) on each editor's personal page; 830:Our friend is back, this time as 3861:Note of grievance re. VeryVerily 3823:Knowledge:Requests for mediation 699:Knowledge:Requests for mediation 29: 4161:Knowledge:Vandalism in progress 1160:(in future, obviously, it will 665:A look through the edit history 287:Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009–) 3150:Changing of titles of requests 1344:Here's how I see it working. 90:Arbitration talk page archives 13: 1: 3039:attacks on the plaintiff(s). 1795:wikipedia:No personal attacks 1494:wikipedia talk:banning policy 1357:If the dispute is more about 957:wikipedia:conflict resolution 891:Will the committee only site 4179:. ] 16:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) 3574:Knowledge:Dispute resolution 3072:Knowledge:Dispute resolution 2057:trouble, and get some rest. 1389:?) while the AC deliberates. 1056:Knowledge:Arbitration Policy 421:Archive of prior proceedings 224:Various archives (2004–2011) 7: 4187:] 16:49, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) 3937:Update on rejected case, VV 3674:threats from administrators 3445:I'm speaking for myself. - 1854:User:The Trolls of Navarone 1619:Proposed practical measures 1470:I also like Fred's idea. -- 674:Knowledge:Three revert rule 10: 4357: 4237:22:30, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC) 4207:19:54, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC) 4195:17:49, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC) 4039:04:15, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC) 4024:01:57, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC) 3806:14:04, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC) 3798:13:36, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC) 3635:22:58, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC) 3559:21:28, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC) 3466:16:45, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC) 2963:Knowledge:Ignore all rules 2866:Knowledge:Ignore all rules 1508:Original response to MNH 2 1434:01:03, May 29, 2004 (UTC) 4320:17:04, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) 4172:14:58, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) 4115:20:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC) 4097:21:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) 4073:13:37, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC) 4032:02:15, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) 4012:01:36, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) 3986:21:37, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC) 3958:00:40, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC) 3886:23:29, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC) 3833:15:26, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC) 3814:14:16, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC) 3777:12:17, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC) 3750:12:11, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC) 3655:00:40, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC) 3644:23:16, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC) 3621:21:49, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC) 3607:22:58, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC) 3547:Should the last section: 3480:22:16, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC) 3020:14:09, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC) 2994:14:12, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC) 2708:21:29, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2617:18:16, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2588:21:36, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC) 2579:22:14, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2555:18:31, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2530:23:21, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2513:09:12, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2472:23:05, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC) 2464:19:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2448:23:19, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2278:18:09, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1952:17:42, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC) 1835:22:43, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) 1825:22:50, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC) 1783:18:46, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) 1684:22:29, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) 1673:Talk:Alternative medicine 1588:Well, yeah, he came back 1527:16:30, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC) 1484:01:34, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) 1474:01:15, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) 1467:00:47, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) 1423:23:38, May 24, 2004 (UTC) 1261:18:16, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) 1229:04:24, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) 1109:00:53, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) 1042:08:04, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1014:15:50, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC) 994:05:56, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC) 983:18:47, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC) 926:06:55, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC) 887:I have a few questions: 693:07:32, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) 649:22:10, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) 4300:23:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) 4251:22:43, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) 4224:22:43, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) 4106:12:07, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) 4081:14:23, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC) 4053:14:23, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC) 4046:12:34, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC) 3907:03:43, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC) 3899:02:18, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) 3873:00:09, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) 3852:20:31, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC) 3723:03:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) 3688:01:29, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC) 3597:21:45, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC) 3532:07:22, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC) 3418:18:34, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC) 3380:23:27, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) 3357:05:12, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) 3328:03:59, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) 3313:18:47, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) 3296:21:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC) 3271:00:04, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC) 3254:21:56, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) 3236:17:29, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) 3215:01:23, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) 3199:12:29, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) 3126:19:30, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC) 3092:19:30, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC) 3065:19:30, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC) 3047:19:30, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC) 3008:03:37, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) 2872:13:51, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC) 2813:03:42, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC) 2777:03:40, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC) 2756:02:03, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC) 2715:17:49, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) 2698:20:42, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2686:20:28, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2624:18:52, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2538:03:46, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2521:23:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2499:01:07, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2487:23:13, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2421:03:54, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2398:22:05, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2373:21:34, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2332:19:37, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2316:18:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2291:04:44, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2257:15:59, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2234:04:15, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2203:16:39, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2197:02:15, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2183:00:43, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2114:22:34, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2078:01:18, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2052:22:42, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2040:21:13, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2000:20:39, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1992:20:32, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC) 1983:20:21, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1972:20:14, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC) 1945:16:04, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1905:15:15, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1867:13:58, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1843:22:59, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) 1814:22:37, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) 1755:23:41, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) 1740:09:48, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC) 1706:22:58, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) 1662:12:09, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC) 1609:05:58, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC) 1599:06:00, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC) 1583:22:59, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC) 1575:04:20, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC) 1560:23:38, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) 1503:23:26, 29 May 2004 (UTC) 1457:00:47, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) 1402:18:41, 18 May 2004 (UTC) 1331:06:37, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) 1294:14:19, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC) 1237:06:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) 1208:02:35, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) 1072:Question of organisation 1067:09:47, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1006:19:00, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) 883:Comments on jurisdiction 871:01:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) 850:22:55, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) 811:09:26, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) 785:00:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) 758:13:13, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) 717:08:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) 653:VeryVerily and reversion 641:VeryVerily and reversion 623:06:46, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) 575:05:36, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) 508:01:32, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC) 4339:d) no talk page dialog, 3995:Anti-American sentiment 3918:03:54, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) 3454:VerilyVerily discussion 3449:03:52, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) 3433:02:48, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) 3223:03:28, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) 3179:22:21, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) 3168:12:10, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) 2973:23:30, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) 2934:22:27, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) 2903:18:42, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC) 2840:05:52, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC) 2834:User_talk:Sam_Spade#172 2649:of their own user pages 2593:discussion re: evidence 2138:16:43, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2126:00:49, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2103:06:25, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2087:04:02, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2061:23:11, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2031:20:48, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2021:20:42, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2012:20:39, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1960:19:29, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1918:15:52, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1895:23:57, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1879:22:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1535:17:02, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC) 1443:19:23, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC) 1241:Thanks for the answers. 1103:twice the same work ?) 630:06:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) 603:06:39, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) 592:05:59, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) 557:23:11, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC) 533:20:54, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC) 521:04:07, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC) 4316:to reply to him here. 4044:Get-back-world-respect 4030:Get-back-world-respect 4010:Get-back-world-respect 2575:Re: Snowspins advice. 1943:The Trolls of Navarone 1903:The Trolls of Navarone 1877:The Trolls of Navarone 1488:Baiting block proposed 1275:meatball:DemandApology 1273:<for more info see 971:Knowledge:Terms of use 628:Get-back-world-respect 601:Get-back-world-respect 573:Get-back-world-respect 455:Declined case requests 2145:Off topic on the GFDL 1451:Meatball:TrialByExile 1259:FirmLittleFluffyThing 1107:FirmLittleFluffyThing 942:wikipedia:arbitrators 42:of past discussions. 4333:b) multiply inserted 4274:User:Raul654/Plautus 4201:User:Raul654/Plautus 3914:Define clear links. 3827:User talk:VeryVerily 1656:Knowledge:Wikipolice 1652:Knowledge:Wikipolice 98:archives (2004–2009) 4242:required more than 3948:Talk:George W. Bush 3925:Clear links defined 2573:Evidence moved here 1688:Excuse me, but the 1094:group meeting in a 1799:Knowledge:Civility 1768:wikipedia:civility 1310:Access to Evidence 1101: 1097: 1093: 1083: 701:here by reference. 2727:Sam_Spade_and_172 1590:immediately after 1314:Why is access to 1099: 1095: 1091: 1081: 775:(see diffs here: 496: 495: 85: 84: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4348: 4137:Texans for Truth 4067:In Memoriam Wiki 3721: 3612:There should be 3521: 3512: 3498: 3439:Lirath Q. Pynnor 3424:Lirath Q. Pynnor 3412:No she would not 2793:Lirath Q. Pynnor 2743:Lirath Q. Pynnor 2731:Small talk from 2722:Lirath Q. Pynnor 2631:Lirath Q. Pynnor 2232:UninvitedCompany 2181:UninvitedCompany 809: 621: 590: 555: 519: 488: 481: 474: 436: 414: 399:WT:RFAR subpages 87: 86: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4356: 4355: 4351: 4350: 4349: 4347: 4346: 4345: 4309: 4121: 4104:Kenneth Alanson 4088: 3939: 3927: 3892: 3863: 3719: 3628: 3545: 3519: 3510: 3496: 3472: 3456: 3395: 3278: 3247: 3205: 3188: 3152: 3144: 3135: 3099: 3026: 3014: 3000: 2729: 2657:New Imperialism 2595: 2561: 2545: 2456:Whats going on 2454: 2263: 2147: 1850: 1764: 1669: 1621: 1521: 1510: 1490: 1338: 1312: 1301: 1100:blood and sweat 1074: 1035: 885: 832:195.182.127.170 807: 740:User:VeryVerily 655: 643: 619: 588: 568: 553: 517: 501: 492: 437: 431: 415: 409: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4354: 4341: 4340: 4337: 4334: 4331: 4327: 4326: 4308: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4290: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4277: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4253: 4252: 4228: 4227: 4226: 4225: 4214: 4213: 4181: 4180: 4120: 4117: 4108: 4107: 4087: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4063: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4054: 3999:George W. Bush 3973:, causing the 3968:George W. Bush 3938: 3935: 3926: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3909: 3908: 3891: 3888: 3862: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3854: 3853: 3837: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3816: 3815: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3758: 3757: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3729: 3728: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3646: 3645: 3627: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3609: 3608: 3599: 3598: 3585: 3584: 3581: 3577: 3570: 3567: 3564: 3553: 3552: 3544: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3502:George_W._Bush 3482: 3481: 3471: 3468: 3455: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3442: 3435: 3434: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3394: 3393:172 discussion 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3349: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3305: 3298: 3297: 3277: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3264: 3263: 3246: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3225: 3224: 3204: 3201: 3187: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3170: 3169: 3160: 3151: 3148: 3143: 3140: 3134: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3116: 3110: 3109: 3106: 3103: 3098: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3080: 3079: 3075: 3067: 3066: 3054: 3053: 3049: 3048: 3035: 3034: 3031: 3025: 3022: 3013: 3010: 2999: 2996: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2758: 2757: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2728: 2725: 2718: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2688: 2687: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2594: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2560: 2557: 2544: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2523: 2522: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2489: 2488: 2479: 2474: 2473: 2453: 2450: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2293: 2292: 2262: 2259: 2252: 2251: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2229: 2228: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2190: 2189: 2146: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2128: 2127: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2089: 2088: 2063: 2062: 2033: 2032: 2023: 2022: 2014: 2013: 1994: 1993: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1962: 1961: 1940: 1939: 1936: 1933: 1930: 1927: 1920: 1919: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1881: 1880: 1849: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1816: 1815: 1763: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1694: 1693: 1668: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1648: 1635: 1632: 1629: 1620: 1617: 1615: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1537: 1536: 1520: 1517: 1509: 1506: 1489: 1486: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1445: 1444: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1413: 1412: 1391: 1390: 1381: 1380: 1376: 1375: 1368: 1367: 1363: 1362: 1354: 1353: 1337: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1311: 1308: 1300: 1299:case of trolls 1297: 1296: 1295: 1287: 1283: 1269: 1266: 1256: 1254: 1252: 1250: 1247: 1244: 1242: 1239: 1238: 1210: 1209: 1200: 1196: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1151: 1147: 1146: 1139: 1138: 1129: 1128: 1123: 1122: 1085: 1079: 1077: 1073: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1059: 1052: 1034: 1031: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1008: 999: 998: 997: 996: 978: 977: 976: 975: 952: 951: 950: 938: 937: 936: 920: 919: 915: 912: 908: 896: 884: 881: 879: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 855: 854: 853: 852: 851: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 802:, not Shorne. 789: 788: 787: 786: 760: 759: 751: 748:User:Adam Carr 733: 719: 718: 709: 708: 703: 702: 654: 651: 642: 639: 638: 637: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 607: 606: 605: 604: 594: 593: 567: 564: 563: 562: 561: 560: 559: 558: 537: 536: 535: 534: 523: 522: 500: 497: 494: 493: 491: 490: 483: 476: 468: 465: 464: 463: 462: 457: 452: 447: 439: 438: 433: 429: 427: 424: 423: 417: 416: 411: 407: 405: 402: 401: 395: 394: 393: 392: 387: 382: 377: 372: 367: 362: 357: 352: 347: 342: 337: 332: 327: 322: 317: 312: 307: 302: 297: 289: 288: 284: 283: 282: 281: 276: 270: 269: 264: 259: 254: 249: 244: 239: 234: 226: 225: 221: 220: 219: 218: 213: 208: 203: 198: 193: 188: 183: 178: 173: 168: 163: 158: 153: 148: 143: 138: 133: 128: 123: 118: 113: 108: 100: 99: 92: 91: 83: 82: 77: 74: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4353: 4344: 4338: 4335: 4332: 4329: 4328: 4323: 4322: 4321: 4319: 4314: 4299: 4294: 4293: 4292: 4291: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4281: 4275: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4262: 4257: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4250: 4245: 4240: 4239: 4238: 4236: 4232: 4223: 4218: 4217: 4216: 4215: 4210: 4209: 4208: 4206: 4202: 4196: 4194: 4188: 4186: 4178: 4175: 4174: 4173: 4171: 4165: 4162: 4157: 4154: 4150: 4146: 4141: 4138: 4132: 4130: 4126: 4116: 4114: 4105: 4100: 4099: 4098: 4096: 4093: 4080: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4072: 4068: 4052: 4048: 4047: 4045: 4041: 4040: 4038: 4034: 4033: 4031: 4026: 4025: 4023: 4019: 4015: 4014: 4013: 4011: 4008: 4004: 4000: 3996: 3992: 3987: 3985: 3981: 3976: 3972: 3969: 3964: 3959: 3957: 3953: 3949: 3943: 3934: 3932: 3917: 3913: 3912: 3911: 3910: 3906: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3898: 3887: 3885: 3881: 3875: 3874: 3872: 3869: 3851: 3847: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3832: 3828: 3824: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3813: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3805: 3799: 3797: 3793: 3776: 3772: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3749: 3745: 3741: 3740: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3722: 3717: 3712: 3708: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3687: 3683: 3679: 3675: 3670: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3660: 3654: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3643: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3634: 3620: 3615: 3611: 3610: 3606: 3601: 3600: 3596: 3592: 3587: 3586: 3582: 3578: 3575: 3571: 3568: 3565: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3558: 3550: 3549: 3548: 3531: 3526: 3522: 3517: 3513: 3508: 3503: 3499: 3494: 3490: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3479: 3474: 3473: 3467: 3465: 3461: 3448: 3444: 3443: 3441: 3440: 3432: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3419: 3417: 3413: 3404: 3403: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3379: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3356: 3353: 3350: 3347: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3327: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3312: 3309: 3306: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283:The Cunctator 3270: 3266: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3253: 3245:JRR Trollkien 3239: 3238: 3237: 3235: 3229: 3222: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3214: 3210: 3200: 3198: 3194: 3191: 3178: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3167: 3164: 3161: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3147: 3139: 3125: 3121: 3117: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3107: 3104: 3101: 3100: 3091: 3087: 3082: 3081: 3076: 3073: 3069: 3068: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3055: 3051: 3050: 3046: 3042: 3037: 3036: 3032: 3028: 3027: 3021: 3019: 3009: 3007: 3003: 2995: 2993: 2972: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2933: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2902: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2871: 2867: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2839: 2835: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2812: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2794: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2755: 2750: 2749: 2744: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2724: 2723: 2716: 2714: 2709: 2707: 2697: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2685: 2681: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2673: 2669: 2665: 2660: 2658: 2652: 2650: 2645: 2641: 2632: 2628: 2623: 2619: 2618: 2616: 2612: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2600: 2587: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2578: 2574: 2570: 2569: 2566: 2556: 2554: 2550: 2537: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2529: 2520: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2512: 2508: 2498: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2486: 2483: 2480: 2476: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2463: 2459: 2449: 2447: 2443: 2438: 2436: 2420: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2397: 2394: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2372: 2369: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2331: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2315: 2312: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2290: 2286: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2277: 2274: 2269: 2258: 2256: 2255:Mark Richards 2248: 2244: 2240: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2233: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2204: 2202: 2201:Mark Richards 2198: 2196: 2195:Mark Richards 2186: 2185: 2184: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2159: 2155: 2150: 2137: 2136:Mark Richards 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2113: 2112:Mark Richards 2102: 2098: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2086: 2085:Mark Richards 2081: 2080: 2079: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2060: 2059:Mark Richards 2055: 2054: 2053: 2051: 2047: 2041: 2039: 2038:Mark Richards 2030: 2025: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2003: 2002: 2001: 1999: 1998:Mark Richards 1991: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1982: 1981:Mark Richards 1971: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1959: 1958:Mark Richards 1955: 1954: 1953: 1951: 1946: 1944: 1937: 1934: 1931: 1928: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1917: 1913: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1904: 1894: 1890: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1866: 1862: 1859: 1855: 1842: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1834: 1824: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1813: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1793: 1789: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1782: 1778: 1773: 1769: 1762: 1754: 1750: 1749: 1739: 1738:theresa knott 1735: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1705: 1701: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1683: 1679: 1677: 1674: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1646: 1642: 1641: 1637:NEVER delete 1636: 1633: 1630: 1627: 1623: 1622: 1616: 1608: 1603: 1598: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1582: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1574: 1571: 1559: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1545: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1526: 1516: 1515: 1505: 1504: 1501: 1496: 1495: 1485: 1483: 1480: 1475: 1473: 1468: 1466: 1456: 1452: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1442: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1433: 1422: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1411: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1400: 1395: 1388: 1383: 1382: 1378: 1377: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1365: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1342: 1330: 1326: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1317: 1307: 1306: 1293: 1288: 1284: 1282: 1280: 1276: 1270: 1267: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1260: 1236: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1228: 1224: 1218: 1214: 1207: 1204: 1201: 1197: 1194: 1189: 1185: 1183:sub-sub-page. 1181: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1154: 1152: 1149: 1148: 1145: 1141: 1140: 1136: 1131: 1130: 1125: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1108: 1104: 1088: 1066: 1063: 1060: 1057: 1053: 1050: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1041: 1030: 1029: 1021: 1018:Thank you! -- 1017: 1016: 1015: 1013: 1007: 1005: 995: 993: 988: 987: 986: 985: 984: 982: 974: 972: 967: 961: 960: 958: 953: 949: 946: 945: 943: 939: 935: 932: 931: 929: 928: 927: 925: 916: 913: 909: 906: 902: 897: 894: 890: 889: 888: 880: 870: 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 861: 849: 845: 841: 837: 833: 829: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 810: 805: 801: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 791: 790: 784: 780: 777: 774: 770: 767: 764: 763: 762: 761: 757: 752: 749: 745: 741: 737: 736: 735: 731: 727: 723: 716: 711: 710: 705: 704: 700: 696: 695: 694: 692: 687: 682: 677: 675: 671: 667: 663: 660: 650: 648: 629: 625: 624: 622: 617: 613: 612: 611: 610: 609: 608: 602: 598: 597: 596: 595: 591: 586: 582: 578: 577: 576: 574: 556: 551: 547: 543: 542: 541: 540: 539: 538: 532: 527: 526: 525: 524: 520: 515: 511: 510: 509: 507: 489: 484: 482: 477: 475: 470: 469: 467: 466: 461: 458: 456: 453: 451: 448: 446: 443: 442: 441: 440: 426: 425: 422: 419: 418: 404: 403: 400: 397: 396: 391: 388: 386: 383: 381: 378: 376: 373: 371: 368: 366: 363: 361: 358: 356: 353: 351: 348: 346: 343: 341: 338: 336: 333: 331: 328: 326: 323: 321: 318: 316: 313: 311: 308: 306: 303: 301: 298: 296: 293: 292: 291: 290: 286: 285: 280: 277: 275: 272: 271: 268: 265: 263: 260: 258: 255: 253: 250: 248: 245: 243: 240: 238: 235: 233: 230: 229: 228: 227: 223: 222: 217: 214: 212: 209: 207: 204: 202: 199: 197: 194: 192: 189: 187: 184: 182: 179: 177: 174: 172: 169: 167: 164: 162: 159: 157: 154: 152: 149: 147: 144: 142: 139: 137: 134: 132: 129: 127: 124: 122: 119: 117: 114: 112: 109: 107: 104: 103: 102: 101: 97: 94: 93: 89: 88: 81: 78: 75: 73: 70: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4342: 4313:Stolen Honor 4310: 4243: 4229: 4197: 4189: 4182: 4166: 4158: 4152: 4142: 4133: 4122: 4113:Jwrosenzweig 4109: 4089: 4086:Kenneth Alan 4079:Gzornenplatz 4064: 4051:Gzornenplatz 4037:Gzornenplatz 4022:Gzornenplatz 4017: 3988: 3974: 3960: 3944: 3940: 3928: 3893: 3876: 3865: 3864: 3812:Gzornenplatz 3800: 3788: 3775:Gzornenplatz 3770: 3710: 3677: 3673: 3668: 3642:Gzornenplatz 3629: 3619:Gzornenplatz 3613: 3554: 3546: 3478:Gzornenplatz 3457: 3436: 3420: 3411: 3410: 3396: 3345: 3289: 3279: 3252:Michael Snow 3248: 3230: 3226: 3208: 3206: 3195: 3192: 3189: 3153: 3145: 3136: 3015: 3004: 3001: 2988: 2770: 2766: 2730: 2717: 2710: 2703: 2696:Michael Snow 2679: 2672:Michael Snow 2667: 2663: 2661: 2653: 2648: 2643: 2639: 2637: 2610: 2596: 2571: 2562: 2546: 2524: 2504: 2455: 2441: 2439: 2434: 2432: 2284: 2267: 2264: 2253: 2230: 2223: 2205: 2199: 2191: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2163: 2157: 2153: 2151: 2148: 2108: 2064: 2042: 2034: 2029:Jwrosenzweig 2019:David Gerard 1995: 1977: 1947: 1941: 1921: 1900: 1865:David Gerard 1851: 1830: 1791: 1765: 1733: 1704:David Gerard 1689: 1682:David Gerard 1670: 1644: 1639: 1625: 1614: 1589: 1581:Michael Snow 1567: 1533:Michael Snow 1522: 1511: 1497: 1491: 1476: 1469: 1462: 1428: 1421:Ben Brockert 1396: 1392: 1369: 1358: 1349: 1343: 1339: 1313: 1302: 1272: 1240: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1176: 1161: 1105: 1089: 1075: 1048: 1036: 1025: 1009: 1000: 989: 979: 962: 947: 933: 921: 892: 886: 878: 732: 728: 724: 720: 678: 664: 656: 644: 580: 569: 545: 502: 499:BD's comment 105: 60: 43: 37: 4330:a) POV edit 4244:two hundred 4235:Fred Bauder 4193:Fred Bauder 4129:Fred Bauder 4071:Fred Bauder 4018:considering 3905:Fred Bauder 3831:Fred Bauder 3804:Fred Bauder 3796:Fred Bauder 3748:Fred Bauder 3653:Fred Bauder 3633:Fred Bauder 3605:Fred Bauder 3557:Fred Bauder 3464:Snowspinner 3348:. Thoughts? 3018:Fred Bauder 2992:Snowspinner 2870:Snowspinner 2811:Snowspinner 2775:Snowspinner 2754:Snowspinner 2586:Snowspinner 2470:Fred Bauder 1990:Snowspinner 1970:Snowspinner 1950:Snowspinner 1823:Snowspinner 1660:irismeister 1525:Snowspinner 1432:Fred Bauder 1096:coffee shop 992:— Alex756 990:Replies by 924:— Alex756 686:Great Purge 681:Great Purge 670:Great Purge 659:User:Shorne 36:This is an 4318:JamesMLane 4298:JamesMLane 4183:Also, see 4170:JamesMLane 3980:Kevin Baas 3975:compromise 3952:Kevin Baas 3880:Kevin Baas 3846:Kevin Baas 3792:John Kerry 3682:Kevin Baas 3591:Kevin Baas 3525:John Kerry 3120:Kevin Baas 3086:Kevin Baas 3059:Kevin Baas 3041:Kevin Baas 2611:irrelevant 2120:Hephaestos 2097:Hephaestos 2072:Hephaestos 2046:Hephaestos 1912:Hephaestos 1889:Hephaestos 1805:policies. 1803:wikiquette 1777:Ad hominem 1772:wikiquette 1690:injunction 1387:Gastropoda 1249:requests ? 734:Turrican 4140:penalty. 3771:mediation 3626:Mediation 3530:Rex071404 2584:removed? 2068:this edit 1873:user page 1645:bona fide 1556:(it was) 1544:Camembert 1410:Camembert 1187:evidence. 1144:Camembert 1092:male only 848:Mackensen 783:Mackensen 773:Anarchism 738:I agree. 691:Ruy Lopez 548:in Talk. 80:Archive 5 72:Archive 3 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 4205:→Raul654 4125:→Raul654 4111:closed. 3942:begun. 3868:James F. 3678:everyone 3447:Nunh-huh 3431:Nunh-huh 3416:Muriel G 3352:James F. 3308:James F. 3186:Déjà vu? 3163:James F. 2644:deleting 2640:removing 2559:Evidence 2482:James F. 2419:Hyacinth 2330:Hyacinth 2289:Hyacinth 1792:existing 1671:Editing 1479:James F. 1325:fabiform 1223:fabiform 1203:James F. 1062:James F. 905:JamesDay 840:FOX News 800:Turrican 744:User:TDC 679:I think 4153:already 4092:Mintguy 3825:and on 3346:&c. 2769:" and " 2478:area... 1770:and/or 1359:conduct 1350:content 1168:Policy) 1049:en banc 948:Thanks. 893:en banc 836:Lon Nol 581:because 450:Motions 96:WT:RFAR 39:archive 4001:, and 3871:(talk) 3378:Martin 3355:(talk) 3311:(talk) 3290:except 3269:Martin 3234:Martin 3203:Counts 3197:cesarb 3177:Martin 3166:(talk) 3030:apply. 2998:Merger 2932:Martin 2713:Martin 2706:Martin 2528:Martin 2511:ChrisO 2485:(talk) 2452:Hello? 2446:Martin 2396:(talk) 2393:sannse 2371:(talk) 2368:sannse 2314:(talk) 2311:sannse 2276:(talk) 2273:sannse 2227:prose. 2006:Morwen 1753:Martin 1558:Martin 1519:172/VV 1512:-: --> 1500:Martin 1492:-: --> 1482:(talk) 1465:Martin 1455:Martin 1441:Kd4ttc 1399:ChrisO 1303:-: --> 1292:Martin 1286:thing. 1206:(talk) 1127:point. 1065:(talk) 1040:Muriel 1028:fr0069 1012:Muriel 1004:Martin 981:Martin 911:Jimbo. 869:Shorne 808:Verily 756:Shorne 746:, and 715:Shorne 647:Shorne 3890:Speed 3707:Tango 3669:fifth 2678:see " 2668:above 2664:below 2435:other 1833:Danny 1281:: --> 1172:case. 1162:start 1082:steak 844:Kulak 531:Bryan 506:Bryan 445:Cases 16:< 4249:Ambi 4222:Ambi 4185:this 4127:and 3984:talk 3956:talk 3916:Ambi 3897:Ambi 3884:talk 3850:talk 3686:talk 3614:some 3595:talk 3294:Ambi 3221:Ambi 3209:very 3124:talk 3090:talk 3063:talk 3045:talk 2549:this 2458:here 2010:Talk 1807:NPOV 1640:this 1626:WICI 1594:john 1570:john 1329:talk 1279:Cyan 1246:way. 1227:talk 1177:e.g. 804:Very 768:and 279:ARM2 274:ARM1 4151:is 4095:(T) 3711:but 3580:to. 3326:mav 3213:mav 3078:to. 3006:Sam 2971:Sam 2969:. 2901:Sam 2838:Sam 2684:Sam 2655:at 2622:172 2615:172 2577:Sam 2553:Sam 2547:Is 2543:172 2536:Sam 2519:Sam 2497:Sam 2462:Sam 2442:new 2285:was 2268:all 2158:are 1841:Sam 1812:Sam 1781:Sam 1760:Re: 1607:172 1472:mav 1277:-- 1235:mav 1020:mav 966:AAA 903:. 901:AAA 781:). 668:of 546:and 257:2.4 252:2.3 247:2.2 242:2.1 4263:). 3997:, 3993:, 3982:| 3961:A 3954:| 3950:. 3933:. 3882:| 3866:. 3848:| 3829:. 3684:| 3593:| 3281:-- 3250:-- 3122:| 3088:| 3061:| 3043:| 2868:. 2773:" 2224:us 2154:is 2008:- 1801:/ 1797:/ 1734:is 1702:- 1680:- 1453:? 1408:-- 1327:| 1225:| 838:, 778:, 742:, 390:20 385:19 380:18 375:17 370:16 365:15 360:14 355:13 350:12 345:11 340:10 310:3A 216:23 211:22 206:21 201:20 196:19 191:18 186:17 181:16 176:15 171:14 166:13 161:12 156:11 151:10 76:→ 3720:V 3716:V 3520:V 3516:V 3511:V 3507:V 3497:V 3493:V 2765:" 2602:V 2599:S 2568:V 2565:S 2124:§ 2122:| 2101:§ 2099:| 2076:§ 2074:| 2050:§ 2048:| 1916:§ 1914:| 1893:§ 1891:| 1597:k 1573:k 1058:. 895:? 620:V 616:V 589:V 585:V 554:V 550:V 518:V 514:V 487:e 480:t 473:v 335:9 330:8 325:7 320:5 315:4 305:3 300:2 295:1 267:4 262:3 237:2 232:1 146:9 141:8 136:7 131:6 126:5 121:4 116:3 111:2 106:1 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 1 - Knowledge

Index