Knowledge talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 2

1863:

seeing arbitrators who heard what the people were saying and are doing their best to fulfill the expectations of the electorate. If the community has, in fact, desired more care and tolerance in the AC's decision-making, I can assure you it has never been made known to the arbitrators (all I ever heard was how dreadfully slow and soft we all were). As someone who felt the criticism was always a little off-base, I would agree that they have moved more quickly and decisively than I would have advised, but they are responsible to those who elected them, and I applaud them for their commitment to do this. If the community desires something else from their arbitrators, then I hope the community will be far more clear in the future about what it wants, exactly, from its arbitrators (and I mean no offense at all to the fine names above me -- I'm not saying your opinions have no merit, and indeed I hope it's clear that I share them to some extent.....but having been on the other side of the line, I also know exactly what many many voices have urged the AC to do, and as far as I can tell they're simply following what they perceive to be the general will).

1380:

are unfamiliar with the culture of the community, there developed a need for more formal processes. I think we actually came up with a pretty good system. I really don't understand your point about the consistency of decisions -- they aren't arbitrary, they reflect the judgement of people who have a very good sense of what is going on around here. You used my case as an example of one accepted for arbitration even though we have not exhausted other dispute-resolution mechanisms, when you are simply mistaken about the facts and the process. The record of our trying to resolve this dispute through others' comments and mediation is clear, and I think virtually every member of the community knows that, all other attempts having failed, arbitration is the only recourse.

1723:

between you and Dante), and I wish he'd said something earlier. If there were reasonable concerns about us old AC members not hearnig the cases we accepted, I would have gladly considered the issue and perhaps not have been so hasty to leave. The only objections I was seeing were logistics (which I thought was easily solved) and whether or not the new AC could get up to speed on the cases (but I didn't see why not -- two weeks was more than enough time to at least understand the principles in the cases, and I think enough time to cast well-considered votes). I agree, however, that at this point the bird has flown.

1741:

discussion that would have taken place openly and obviously. As for "tough", I'm so terribly glad to see the attitude of at least one of the people we so wisely elected as an arbitrator, I look forward to your rational and polite attitude towards case work, Ambi. My suggestion at this point is that, given the old arbitrators are NOT continuing, their votes be removed from any still ongoing cases. They can't both leave AND vote... that's clearly not fair. So, they need to make up their minds. Finish what they started, OR get out of dodge and remove their votes. --

31: 1822:

we've had previously. The year long ban on CheeseDreams, who seems to have much to offer (but has been going the wrong way about offering it) is extreme - why can't they encourage people to adopt Wikiquette rather than shoving them off the website? The case where Fred Bauder, one of the older ArbCom members, noted that there was, in fact, no supporting evidence for their decisions is particularly concerning. They are the new guards, but may I ask

1149:

current action against himself/herself is just the latest wrinkle. This is not just a case of a moody editor who gets into a lot of tussles. It looks like a conscious effort to get dozens of Wikipedians chasing after loose ends to divert them from the real work of Knowledge. I think we need a sysop to refer this confidentially to Jimbo.

1882:

people put into this project. A one-year ban on editing all articles on a subject that is of particular interest to a person, in addition to a few other one-week bans and such, just seems excessive to me. I don't believe in that kind of treatment, and it depresses me to see it. It just doesn't seem constructive.

1881:

Well, I think you're mostly right; I too often see that people want the rulings to be more swift and severe. But I worry that's mainly from a relatively small number of the most active Wikipedians, and I worry about politics replacing evenhanded fairness. We really need to respect the time and energy

1714:

Tough. The arbitrators that were defeated/resigned have now ended their terms, and cannot hear any more cases, and these aren't going to sit in the void forever. FTR, Theresa and I both suggested that the outgoing arbitrators finish all existing cases, but this was opposed by several of them, such as

1513:

HB, I believe the reason the initial RfA concerning CheeseDreams was rejected is quite simply, the request was a mess. Additionally, he did not fulfill the basic requirement for a case to be accepted: He did not notify the users he was opening an RfA against. I was under the impression that all other

1493:

This is a gross oversimplification and distortion of what James said. We don't claim carte blanche -- rather, we reserve the right to exercise our own good judgment concerning how to apply policy to contingencies. We were elected for this very purpose. If arbitration consisted merely of consulting

1195:

Dunc, I'm afraid that, if the ability to temp-ban Jimmy for reinserting edits on prohibited articles is insufficient to stop his behavioral issues, you do have to file a second case. The cases against Irismeister may serve as an example -- he was taken to arbitration three times, as the consequences

1124:

There are no consequences if a case against you isn't accepted, especially if you yourself bring the case. I can't understand your assertion -- in neither the American nor the British legal systems (nor any other I know) can someone sue themselves on behalf of another party, and certainly anyone who

1752:

Well, Dante, I'm sorry you're angry, but since arbitrators have "terms", I don't think anyone should have assumed that they would continue to serve after a term expired. The point about votes is well made, and I would ask that none of my votes be considered valid for any open cases. If necessary I

1348:. He misunderstand my comment about the mediation -- and I apologize if I mesled anyone else -- but we all accepted the mediator, mediation was attempted, Amgine and CheeseDreams withdrew because of their disatisfaction with the mediator, we cannot agree on another mediator -- this is what you call 1086:

CheeseDreams wrote the entire RfA. No one, but himself, signed it. If you will notice, I responded to the RfA and requested it be denied on the grounds that he had neither fulfilled the basic requirments for opening an RfA, nor had he utilized any other dispute resolution. After reading the comments

1023:

There is a new complaint against CheeseDreams, and I am listed as one of the complainants. However, I did not make this complaint. Someone suggested that it is actually CheeseDreams who is making the complaint. But I am confused. I looked at the template for requests and tried to make sense, but

610:

Well, yours has nothing to do with Gzornenplatz. I would venture that the difference in how the requests are received is because I went to considerable lengths to present my request clearly - by specifically identifying the issue I'm complaining about, presenting the evidence, and saying what remedy

1821:

Personally I find the over-eagerness to use their new powers somewhat unsettling. I know they have had a few days since the results came out to mull over all of those cases, but one wonders how much mulling they all did, particularly as many of them having been voting for far harsher sanctions than

1527:

Here is how we are going to handle the arbitration committee come January 1st, when all the new arbitrators' terms begin. We're going to assume they are recused from all cases started prior to their terms, unless they explicetely un-recuse themselves by voting in the case. This should allow them to

1379:

HBE, Sorry, you misunderstand me. I am tired of CheeseDreams, but I am not tired of the dispute resolution proces which I do not regard as highly bureaucratic. Ideally, informal community processes would be enough to resolve disputes here, but as the community has grown, with many new members who

529:

Ambi, I agree there is an added inconvenience with this structure. But I also see Cunc's reasoning -- a lot of people are turning arbitration requests into a chance to renew the entire argument here. So each case fills at amazing speed with snide remarks, quips, outrage, and threats to leave. It

505:

Whose bright idea was it to remove everything bar the links from the RFAR page itself? Considering the slow pace of the AC, I've appreciated being able to bookmark the main page and see the status (at least until the time of accepting or rejecting the case) of proceedings. Now, I'd have to bookmark

1032:

and be signed by CheeseDreams? I do not want to screw up the process. If CheeseDreams is asking for arbitration against me, so be it. But I would appreciate it if Fred or someone on the AC could clear this up. It looks like I am supposed to be making a complaint right now, but I am not (I have

1000:

or whatever you all want to call me (other than Late for Dinner), especially if any new arbitrator feels they would benefit from the ideas/perceptions/perspective of someone who's been on the AC. I am also more than happy to not see RfAr again for six months or more. :-) Whatever will be best --

987:

As a practical matter, it takes a bit of work to cast even one vote on anything. In practice it involves doing research on the evidence the parties have presented which can take a half hour or more. So regardless of any rule we might make a new arbitrator will ease into their role at the pace they

938:

Not to be needlessly attentive to detail, but Theresa, it may be that the number of newbies is noticeably smaller than 7. There are three arbitrators running for reelection -- if all are voted in, that would leave only 4 new positions. It may not affect the argument much, but I thought I'd point

899:

I suggest the current AC deal with all cases that have been started before the changeover date. The New AC should only deal with requests started after that date. This means the old AC will still be active for a while and those who want to retire will not be able to do so immediately. But it will

722:

I've partially un-done Cunc's wildly unpopular refactoring of this page. He was correct in that this page is becoming far, far too chatty. In general, the ONLY people who should be posting here is the complainer and the arbitrators. Everyone else (including the person against whom the complaint is

1964:

Mind you, it's a case of being faced with a mountain of shite to deal with. I appreciate Dante Alighieri's views - old arbs for old cases, new arbs for new cases - but as far as I recall, the new arbs were always expected to help clear the old cases ... and that that was how it was done last time

1903:

I'm not saying they aren't effective, I'm saying that the penalties that are being applied are frequently too harsh. Of course there are people that do little but cause trouble, and some degree of harshness may be required in those cases, but I see a trend towards stepping over the line. You guys

1862:

I would argue that the swift decision-making is probably motivated by this community's constant calls for arbitration to be more swift and less namby-pamby. I'm not claiming that I would have voted in support of all of the measures the new AC has decided upon, but I really think the community is

1148:

It is beginning to look like CheeseDreams is working toward one silent goal: the subversion of Knowledge. He/she has made over 2500 edits in the course of a few weeks, most of them leading to confusion and contention, not only in article bodies but in namespaces, titles, dispute pages, etc.,. The

1393:

You must be tired or there must be some other reason why you do not understand what happened. If it really matters to you, wait until you have all your wits about you and go through the record of events carefully. We followed the rules step by step, and they led here. Why are you complaining?

1041:

A note - the list of "signatories" is part of the list of people who signed their support of the complaint on the RfC page. If you do not wish to be considered part of the issue, please remove your signature from the RfC page. If it is read carefully, this RfAr actually does not state that these

802:

The reasoning behind this is as follows - the slowest part of arbitration is arbitrators trying to understand what happened in a dispute. All too often, disputants do 'mental dumps' onto the evidence pages, making the job of sorting it out extremely difficult and time consuming. This requirement

1722:

My apologies for complicating matters -- my fatigue was great. Certainly when Raul and I arrived we were expected to pick up cases mid-stream, and I don't recall there being any objections at that time. I do respect Dante's opinions (I'd say "Tough." was a little too brusque, Ambi, but that's

1050:

Oh no, I really have no problem with the "request for comment" page and am happy to sign my name to a comment there. But I did not sign my name to a request for arbitration. Right now there is a complaint against Cheesedreams on the RfA page and my name was attached. But I have not requested

1531:

Also, to determine term lengths, we are going to figure out which tranches are open (and thus, how manys seats of which term lengths are open), and give the new arbitrators the choice in order of their placement - thus, Theresa Knott gets first pick, followed by myself, followed by Ambi, etc.

1740:

I agree that the old arbitrators should have finished out their terms by finishing what they had started. I wasn't aware that this had been suggested and rejected, mostly because I can't find any place that this was discussed. Forgive me for assuming that this would be the sort of important

1363:

I share your dissatisfaction with the highly bureaucratic dispute resolution process (I was repeatedly unjustly blocked by a sysop abusing powers to settle personal scores, but was denied a hearing by this ArbCom). However, this post is only about the consistency of accept/reject decisions.

1438:

Thanks for confirming what evidence suggests. However, the rules do not state that "personal attacks" are more serious than "sysop abuse", and many would argue the opposite. Also, the rules do not specify exemption from DR for either class, so the double standard is doubly

1216:

CheeseDreams has opened up the RfA page already, without any decision to accept the case (and it appears his "case" will be rejected). Furthermore, he has copied the RfC on him on to it, without anyone agreeing to move the RfC to the RfA. Is this not a violation of multiple

569:

Thanks. It may be worth adding in a link to some sort of comments page for requests that have still yet to be accepted as a case. Sometimes, discussion is necessary, but it's not good if it creates huge lag on this page. But the way it is now is a pretty poor solution.

1657:

972:

Upon the designated date (January 1?) for taking office the new arbitrators are full arbitrators, but become active, and thus counted in the total, when they begin to participate by voting on a request for arbitration, adding to or voting on a proposed decision, see

988:

set for themselves. There is no requirement that an active arbitrator vote on any particular case. The only consequence of not voting is that since an arbitrator not voting is counted in the total of active arbitrators the number of votes required is increased.

1760:

Well, I'm not exactly angry, except perhaps with Ambi. I'm certainly satisfied if the exiting Arbitrators are removed from the votes of ongoing cases, I was just seeing a "have your cake and eat it too" sort of situation, but it's been remedied at this point.

1343:

What is the point here? Everyone knows that I an CheeseDreams have been going at each other with multiple reversions and protected pages for well over five weeks; there have been extensive comments on the Request for Comment, and there was a mediation that

1352:

mediation. OBVIOUSLY if the mediation succeeded we wouldn't have to ask for arbitration. But you must be the only one on the WWW who is not sick and tired of my conflict with CheeseDreams and hoping for a speedy arbitration that will put an end to it!

1074:

I am stating that it was not I who wrote the complaint against you currently on the RfA page, and that although my name was attached to the request I removed it because I have not officially requested arbitration -- that is all I am saying (that, plus I

890:

In a couple of weeks, there'll be seven new members, and at least two people presently active in voting upon cases will no longer be arbitrators. How are cases going to be handled where they've already voted? I can see potential quorum problems here.

977:. They are immediately able to vote on all pending cases, but have quite a bit of catching up to do. Optimally, they have done a bit of homework before the election. Hopefully, they can help to break some of the deadlocks in pending cases such as 598:

case will resolve yours (or most of it). I refuse to coöperate with this case until my prior one is heard, and I find it scandalous that yours got a vote within seven minutes when mine hasn't had any attention in the three days since I posted it.

1102:

No, I'm saying I'm getting confused against who he is making the RfA against. Is he wanting against us, or is he wanting a ruling about himself? (and listing our names, since we are the ones who have brought the RfC & RfM against him in the

705:

I am currently involved in the mediation of a (potententially related) dispute between Kevin Bass and Gzornenplatz vs. VeryVerily. If the parties would please advise if this arbitration trumps the current mediation, I'd greatly appreciate it.

585:

As a supplemental note, I would like to add that I believe if the Arbitration Committee hears and decides this case as presented, this would allow the Committee to dispense with several of the other requests that are currently pending.

1540:

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, and probably every other editor knows this already, but of the following, who will actually be an abitrator as of January? All 15? Sorry if this is obvious. I'm having a bit of a slow day.

1463:

Err. No personal attacks was the first ever inter-personal policy on Knowledge, handed down by Jimbo as fiat. It is, by far, the most important rule about behaviour (as opposed to actions, IYSWIM), and trumps anything else, pretty

1854:

That is indeed disappointing. A year-long ban from editing a whole range of articles? That's not what Knowledge is about. Are arbitrators trying to outdo each other in harshness? They should try to outdo each other in tolerance.

1808:

I'm quite surprised at how quickly and eagerly the new arbitrators are working through the caseload. Just today, in fact, they closed two cases. I guess all those cases needed was a fresh pair of eyes, or several.

1682:

I would like to state that I am categorically opposed to allowing ANY of the new arbitrators to arbitrate on issues that were opened prior to the beginning of their terms, whether or not they "un-recuse" themselves.

981:. Arbitrators who have not been re-elected or have resigned are no longer arbitrators and cannot vote to accept cases, change prior votes or add to proposed decisions after the end of their term or date they resign. 1125:

tried to couldn't ask for any consequences to be levied against that other party if the suit was dismissed. Your line of reasoning does not make any sense to me. What consequences did you envision would result?

1294:(" please follow the dispute resolution procedure rather than trying to taking this straight to arbitration. Fred Bauder 22:14, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)"), even though the complaint cited dispute resolution attempts. 480: 1417:

Agree in principle, but evidence above suggests that cases of "sysop abuse" are regularly rejected and bounced back to DR (even if DR was attempted), while charges of "personal attacks" are promptly accepted

1486:

You are claiming a carte blanche for the ArbCom to do anything they please, with no rules or accountability. That is not likely to inspire much confidence in the arbitration process by the community.

996:

I am happy with Fred's proposal, or with any proposal that will mean I never have to cast an arbitrator's vote again. :-) I am more than happy to remain involved in discussions concerning cases as an

978: 921:

That may work - but don't forget that when you came in there were only two of you newbies. This time there will be 7. As long as the old AC hang aroung for a bit, there shouldn't be any problems.

914:

I think the method I used was the best - let the new arbitrators decide which cases they want to get involved in instead of forcing them to get caught up on a dozen that are already in progress.

626:

Mine is quite clear, as others have already agreed, and extensively documented as well. It continues to be ignored despite several requests for an answer. I suspect some sort of partiality.

1474:

Further, the Arbitration policy is a guide to what we do, not a straight-jacket binding our primary job: to use common sense and policy to protect the project from harmful internal forces.

1467:

Requirement for attempts at dispute resolution is something that we can hand down at our discretion, not something we are required to do in any and all cases; it is not a double standard

1117:

Wrong. The correct answer is I am bringing an RfAr against you AND one against me. Remember what the consequences are if one against me is rejected, or your side of the argument lose it.

2038:

has been removed from "Current requests for Arbitration", but I can't find it under "Matters currently in Arbitration", or any other heading (although it does appear at the top of the

1494:

a guideline and applying the stated penalty, we wouldn't need arbitrators -- an AC is needed because each case is different. I have to believe that you know the difference between

461: 1430:

Personal attacks are a very serious matter that need to be dealt with promptly and firmly while claims of sysop abuse are often ambiguous and usually involve isolated instances.

1779:

Oh, so VERY sorry, Ambi, I looked over my earlier message and I saw how terribly rude I was. I can't BELIEVE I had the audacity to state my opinion. Can you ever forgive me? --

1874:, and if anyone feels wronged by a ruling, I am sure an intelligent and rational note (that is low on ranting and Kentucky cuss words) would at least be given consideration. 770:

It is helpful to have this section, although troublesome to keep up to date. The link to the templates is vital to set up the pages for a new case. I have restored it.

1110:

That's the question I'd like answered as well; is CheeseDreams bringing an RfAR against us, or is he insisting that we bring one against him? It appears the former.

487: 2033: 2024: 400: 1087:

he added later, I am confused as to whether he is opening an RfA on the multiple people listed (who he did not notify), or if he is opening one against himself.--

754: 967: 667: 1233:

We usually do add the material from RfC's to the case, but as it seems unlikely the case will be accepted he is just wasting his time not breaking policies.

759:

Argh! Way too much duplication in this set of pages. Let's start reducing this by getting rid of the 'Matters currently in Arbitration' section and just use

280: 275: 791:

One of the largest complaints about arbitration is that it is too slow. In an attempt to remedy this, the arbitration committee has decided to require that

1487: 1453: 1423: 1387: 1365: 1336: 838: 530:

overwhelms the page. Granted, I don't know if this new way is any better. I'm more than happy to hear other people's opinions, as I'm undecided myself.

822:

It applies to all cases that have not yet been opened, and (speaking for myself) it will be applied retroactively if there is a particular need for it (

823: 217: 212: 207: 202: 197: 192: 187: 182: 177: 172: 167: 162: 157: 152: 663: 147: 142: 137: 132: 127: 122: 117: 107: 81: 76: 71: 59: 1772:

If you had stated this in the beginning, instead of being quite so rude, I think you would have found a significantly less brusque response, Dante.

1061: 1028:

CheeseDreams and has a list of signitaries such as Jayjg and John K. If CheeseDreams were making the complaint, wouldn't the complaint be against

984:

Note that I propose that votes previously cast by a retiring arbitrator count. And that all new arbitrators can participate in all pending cases.

580: 2054: 1180: 1183:

who is breaking his ban and whose behaviour IMHO merits a hard ban. Can we go back and rerequest arbitration decision? Can we ban him anyway?

1447: 391: 386: 381: 376: 371: 366: 361: 356: 351: 346: 341: 311: 1443: 1060:

So you are stating that you do not want arbitration against me? This runs contrary to the statement you made within the last two days on the

743: 742:

I like the partially-unrefactored version, but with one problem; my entire participation in the VeryVerily RfA has now been left orphaned at

456: 336: 331: 326: 321: 316: 306: 301: 296: 1773: 1716: 932: 892: 571: 507: 1018: 1095:

I am confused then, it isn't the RfA template. Are you saying CheeseDreams has forged a complaint by us against him? I am confused.

662:

I would like to join the Gz, Shorne, VV arbitration. I have engaged in revert wars and have violated the 3RR on multiple occasions.

558:

I too dislike the new structure. A lot. I think I'm going to revert unless someone comes in and presents better reasons to keep it.

1196:

imposed the first and second times were insufficient (in the eyes of the complainants and the AC, ultimately) to stop the problem.

473: 47: 17: 258: 253: 248: 243: 268: 263: 238: 233: 1272:("... violated policy, it was an isolated event not a pattern of wrongful actions. Fred Bauder 13:32, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)") 451: 1246: 446: 1498:(essentially no accountability) and allowing arbitrators the flexibility to respond differently to different cases. 1332:, even though an RfC has just been opened, and there was no mediation by a mediator acceptable to both sides yet. 786: 1753:

will take the time to find them and strike them through, but I hope a simple declaration will be sufficient.

1571:

James W. Rosenzweig, -- jwrosenzweig at yahoo.com (Access to Internet improving, but still somewhat limited.)

1667:

So how does that cope with the fact that the 50% margin on such cases after January 1st would be 2 votes?

1514:

methods of dispute resolution had been used with Alberuni. Outside of Mediation, what had not been done?--

795:

on evidence pages be formatted chronologically, with concise summaries of events and links to page diffs.

422: 1889:

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. On the other hand, as someone who has had to deal with an

1261:("... failure to use earlier steps in dispute resolution process Fred Bauder 12:08, Dec 6, 2004") (UTC)" 1042:

people necessarily support the RfAr, merely that they hold the view, which the RfC page clearly states.

38: 1646:

And in connection with the above, what happens to the votes of those who cease to become arbitrators?

1528:

ease into the workload instead of being thrown into the deepend like Jwros...g and I were in August.

2039: 1784: 1766: 1746: 1688: 760: 711: 974: 939:

out that it is at least premature (and possibly inaccurate) to say there will be 7 new faces. :-)

1833:

It is not that there is no evidence; they just haven't cited examples in their findings of fact.

1702: 1576:

The Cunctator -- cunctator at kband.com -- the Requests for Arbitration page is utterly confusing

1409:

Different facts call for different solutions. Remember, they all come to arbitration in the end.

1386:

If you like the process then why not try mediation with an impartial mediator, as rules require?

1276: 950: 925: 904: 885: 1904:

came within an inch of applying a two month ban to three contributors just for revert warring.

1298: 855:

Good suggestion. Yes, at some point, I'll endevour to do that, unless someone beats me to it.

1480: 1254: 874: 545:

I'm curious to know just how long the Arbitration Committee takes even to vote on a request.

506:

another whole load of pages unnecessarily. I really don't see the purpose of the new design.

412: 1890: 1780: 1762: 1742: 1684: 1188: 796: 707: 521: 1616:

I have now fixed the list. All the uncrossed names will be the arbcom members come Jan 1.

1240: 8: 2022: 1893: 1870:

P.S. Of course it cannot be forgotten that all Wikipedians have the right of appeal to a

845: 97: 2047: 1699: 1471:, merely a reflexion of the importance which we feel the primary requires and deserves. 1265: 947: 922: 901: 747: 514: 1896:

before, I can say firsthand that long bans and subject-related bans can be effective.

799:

should serve as an example. Evidence not formatted this way may be summarily deleted.

2003: 2002:

have to account for that lot in a fair manner), but we're trying to do it properly -

1875: 1864: 1754: 1724: 1668: 1647: 1639: 1499: 1395: 1381: 1354: 1314: 1226: 1197: 1157: 1126: 1118: 1096: 1080: 1065: 1052: 1043: 1034: 1009: 1002: 940: 612: 587: 531: 1287: 2057: 1871: 1834: 1814: 1477: 1431: 1410: 1234: 1205: 989: 871: 778:

Just keep the link to the templates (which was already at the top of this page). --

771: 763:

instead. If there are no objections, I will implement this myself in a few days. --

1211: 1848: 1628: 1542: 1515: 1218: 1184: 1104: 1088: 779: 764: 518: 434: 1522: 931:

I think your idea works, Theresa. It's probably the easiest way to handle this.

500: 46:

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

1905: 1883: 1856: 842: 812: 1051:

arbitration. I will keep my complaints to the RfC page, thank you very much!

645:

I think that requests should be processed in the order that they are recieved.

430: 408: 2043: 611:

I'm looking for. As to whether you "cooperate" or not, that's your choice. --

1305:(except, Fred Bauder would accept "based on the need to examine behavior"). 717: 1897: 1715:

Jwrozenzweig. In any case, it's too late to be having this discussion now.

1661: 1617: 1533: 1204:

Has he been temporarily banned and if so, how many times and for how long?

915: 856: 827: 804: 734: 723:

being lodged) should discuss on a seperate page. Thus, the new format is:

559: 1638:

Who will be allowed to vote after Jan 1 on cases started prior to Jan 1 ?

1283:("... please request mediation.... Fred Bauder 12:23, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)") 979:

Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration/Gene_Poole_vs._Samboy/Proposed_decision

1810: 690: 627: 600: 546: 1111: 1079:

comment on the request for comment page, but that is another matter).

1844: 1826: 811:

I presume this applies to new requests, not to existing ones, right?

1156:

I see, an attempt to subvert the whole RfAr process. Very grown up.

841:, so that future requests have a better framework to start from? -- 1150: 432: 410: 1803: 1174: 1321:, even though no mediation attempt is mentioned in the complaint. 1660:. By implication, all the old votes stay attached to each case. 1008:

There's a reason I picked a one-year term rather than two ... -

436: 414: 437: 415: 1655:

To repeat what I said above when I started this discussion =

837:

Could the Arbitrators please incorporate this guideline into

1560:

James Forrester, aka Jdforrester -- james at jdforrester.org

1998:

the evidence page in Jayjg and HistoryBuffEr? Just imagine

1325: 1001:

but the sooner I'm completely free, the happier I'll be.

1585:

Daniel Mayer, aka Maveric149 -- maveric149 at yahoo.com

755:'Matters currently in Arbitration' section is redundant 1581:

Lee Pilich, aka Camembert -- lee at audiblerecords.com

1442:

Incidentally, your response confirms the validity of

803:

should serve to make this step it easier and faster.

839:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Template/Evidence

746:. Perhaps a link to that subpage could be included? 581:

Regarding the Gzornenplatz/Shorne/VeryVerily request

1994:We do have a pile of things to deal with (have you 1564:Sean Barrett, aka The Epopt -- sean at epoptic.org 824:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Reithy/Evidence 2053:Yes, not sure who removed it or why but it is at 1611:Steven Melenchuk, aka Grunt -- crazyr2 at shaw.ca 1567:Mark, aka Raul654 -- mapellegrini at comcast.net 1062:Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus 2055:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Antifinnugor 1553:Mark, aka Delirium -- delirium at rufus.d2g.com 1301:, charging "POV, revert wars, harassment... ", 1019:Query concerning complaint against CheeseDreams 1843:Perhaps we need some sort of official Arbcom 1299:CheeseDreams vs. a-cabal-of-"fundamentalists" 1290:, charging "abuse of sysop powers", has been 744:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/VeryVerily 481: 1599:Rebecca, aka Ambi - misfitgirl at gmail.com 968:Fred's proposal for dealing with changeover 488: 474: 2042:, under "Evidence"). I suppose a slip? -- 1592:Arbitrators-elect; take office January 1 1422:having to go through normal DR channels. 1225:RfAr page darling. Note the last letter. 1033:put in a request for mediation, though). 900:give the new members a nice clean slate. 1328:, charging "personal attacks", has been 1317:, charging "personal attacks", has been 1279:, charges "misuse of sysop powers", was 1268:, charged "misuse of sysop powers", was 18:Knowledge talk:Requests for arbitration 14: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1556:Fred Bauder -- fredbaud at ctelco.net 1257:, major charge "vandalism", is being 462:Clarification and amendment requests 25: 1627:Thanks for the information, Raul. 787:New requirements for evidence pages 23: 1247:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration 1245:Recent accept/reject decisions on 24: 2069: 1602:Sannse - sannse at tiscali.co.uk 29: 946:Doh - I never thought of that! 289:Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009–) 594:I believe that the hearing of 92:Arbitration talk page archives 13: 1: 1446:in my case and justifies my 1024:I can't -- The complaint is 975:Knowledge:Arbitrators#Active 423:Archive of prior proceedings 226:Various archives (2004–2011) 7: 1824:Et quis custodes custodiet? 1817:) 19:28, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC) 1249:seem to present a pattern: 886:Dealing with the changeover 10: 2074: 1769:19:57, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC) 1664:21:28, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC) 1536:01:04, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC) 1179:We're having trouble with 992:13:34, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC) 918:02:46, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC) 870:Tried to do it. Thoughts? 807:02:16, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC) 774:13:01, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC) 730:Link to page for dicussion 714:07:11, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC) 2060:18:27, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) 2040:Template:ArbCommOpenTasks 1900:02:51, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) 1837:00:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC) 1787:02:08, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC) 1776:01:14, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1757:03:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1749:19:54, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC) 1650:21:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1642:21:15, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1631:21:54, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC) 1620:11:41, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC) 1545:05:42, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC) 1434:22:34, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC) 1413:21:47, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC) 1237:12:37, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC) 1221:03:30, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC) 1208:12:33, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC) 1107:03:04, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC) 1005:20:52, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) 935:11:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) 928:11:24, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) 895:00:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) 859:05:34, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC) 830:02:31, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC) 767:04:47, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) 761:Template:ArbCommOpenTasks 737:07:26, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC) 590:05:19, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) 562:16:25, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC) 526:09:27, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) 510:08:32, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) 2050:17:48, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) 2006:23:08, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1886:02:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1878:02:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1859:00:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1851:22:18, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC) 1719:00:56, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1691:22:26, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC) 1671:00:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1518:01:36, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC) 1490:01:29, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC) 1483:13:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1390:21:59, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC) 1339:20:51, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC) 1241:Inconsistent selections? 1191:18:32, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1153:06:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1121:01:07, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1114:03:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1091:01:31, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC) 1037:00:08, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1012:23:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) 943:22:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) 907:00:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) 877:01:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) 848:17:36, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC) 815:02:28, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) 782:01:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) 750:23:43, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) 693:19:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) 689:I've added you. Thanks. 670:16:40, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC) 630:06:54, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) 615:05:52, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) 603:05:36, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) 574:09:12, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) 549:16:18, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) 534:13:54, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) 1908:03:01, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1867:02:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1829:21:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1727:21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1705:23:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1502:23:17, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1456:23:52, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC) 1426:21:59, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC) 1368:21:33, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC) 1229:10:29, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1200:01:53, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1160:10:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1129:01:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1068:01:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1046:01:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) 953:22:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1064:page. Please explain. 733:Votes by arbitrators. 457:Declined case requests 42:of past discussions. 1891:extremely disruptive 1277:Arminius and Darrien 1212:CheeseDreams (again) 797:User:Raul654/Plautus 100:archives (2004–2009) 1605:Ben, aka Neutrality 1523:Election transition 1309:On the other hand: 998:Arbitrator Emeritus 501:Refactoring of RFAR 718:Refactoring, pt 2 498: 497: 87: 86: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2065: 1703:(The snott rake) 1448:call for recusal 1255:User:ExplorerCDT 1103:past/present.)-- 951:(The snott rake) 926:(The snott rake) 905:(The snott rake) 826:comes to mind). 524: 490: 483: 476: 438: 416: 401:WT:RFAR subpages 89: 88: 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2073: 2072: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2031: 1806: 1781:Dante Alighieri 1763:Dante Alighieri 1743:Dante Alighieri 1685:Dante Alighieri 1525: 1243: 1214: 1177: 1021: 970: 888: 789: 757: 720: 708:Dante Alighieri 583: 522: 503: 494: 439: 433: 417: 411: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2071: 2030: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1868: 1852: 1831: 1830: 1805: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1693: 1692: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1637: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1622: 1621: 1613: 1612: 1609: 1606: 1603: 1600: 1597: 1590: 1589: 1586: 1583: 1578: 1573: 1568: 1565: 1562: 1557: 1554: 1547: 1546: 1524: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1475: 1472: 1465: 1458: 1457: 1451: 1440: 1428: 1427: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1358: 1357: 1334: 1333: 1322: 1307: 1306: 1295: 1284: 1273: 1262: 1242: 1239: 1231: 1230: 1213: 1210: 1202: 1201: 1176: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1093: 1092: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1048: 1047: 1020: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 969: 966: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 954: 909: 908: 887: 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 878: 863: 862: 861: 860: 850: 849: 834: 833: 832: 831: 817: 816: 788: 785: 784: 783: 756: 753: 752: 751: 739: 738: 731: 728: 719: 716: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 697: 696: 695: 694: 678: 677: 676: 675: 674: 673: 672: 671: 653: 652: 651: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 619: 618: 617: 616: 605: 604: 582: 579: 578: 577: 576: 575: 564: 563: 555: 554: 553: 552: 551: 550: 538: 537: 536: 535: 502: 499: 496: 495: 493: 492: 485: 478: 470: 467: 466: 465: 464: 459: 454: 449: 441: 440: 435: 431: 429: 426: 425: 419: 418: 413: 409: 407: 404: 403: 397: 396: 395: 394: 389: 384: 379: 374: 369: 364: 359: 354: 349: 344: 339: 334: 329: 324: 319: 314: 309: 304: 299: 291: 290: 286: 285: 284: 283: 278: 272: 271: 266: 261: 256: 251: 246: 241: 236: 228: 227: 223: 222: 221: 220: 215: 210: 205: 200: 195: 190: 185: 180: 175: 170: 165: 160: 155: 150: 145: 140: 135: 130: 125: 120: 115: 110: 102: 101: 94: 93: 85: 84: 79: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2070: 2061: 2059: 2056: 2051: 2049: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2036: 2028: 2027: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1907: 1902: 1901: 1899: 1895: 1892: 1888: 1887: 1885: 1880: 1879: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1866: 1861: 1860: 1858: 1853: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1836: 1828: 1825: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1816: 1812: 1786: 1782: 1778: 1777: 1775: 1771: 1770: 1768: 1764: 1759: 1758: 1756: 1751: 1750: 1748: 1744: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1726: 1721: 1720: 1718: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1704: 1701: 1700:Theresa Knott 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1681: 1680: 1670: 1666: 1665: 1663: 1659: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1649: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1641: 1630: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1614: 1610: 1607: 1604: 1601: 1598: 1596:Theresa Knott 1595: 1594: 1593: 1587: 1584: 1582: 1579: 1577: 1574: 1572: 1569: 1566: 1563: 1561: 1558: 1555: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1544: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1535: 1529: 1517: 1512: 1511: 1501: 1497: 1496:carte blanche 1492: 1491: 1489: 1488:HistoryBuffEr 1485: 1484: 1482: 1479: 1476: 1473: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1455: 1454:HistoryBuffEr 1452: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1433: 1425: 1424:HistoryBuffEr 1421: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1412: 1397: 1392: 1391: 1389: 1388:HistoryBuffEr 1385: 1384: 1383: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1367: 1366:HistoryBuffEr 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1356: 1351: 1347: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1338: 1337:HistoryBuffEr 1331: 1327: 1323: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1248: 1238: 1236: 1228: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1220: 1209: 1207: 1199: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1181:Jimmyvanthach 1159: 1155: 1154: 1152: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1128: 1123: 1122: 1120: 1116: 1115: 1113: 1109: 1108: 1106: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1090: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1078: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1045: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1036: 1031: 1027: 1011: 1007: 1006: 1004: 999: 995: 994: 993: 991: 985: 982: 980: 976: 952: 949: 948:Theresa Knott 945: 944: 942: 937: 936: 934: 930: 929: 927: 924: 923:Theresa Knott 920: 919: 917: 913: 912: 911: 910: 906: 903: 902:Theresa Knott 898: 897: 896: 894: 876: 873: 869: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 858: 854: 853: 852: 851: 847: 844: 840: 836: 835: 829: 825: 821: 820: 819: 818: 814: 810: 809: 808: 806: 800: 798: 794: 781: 777: 776: 775: 773: 768: 766: 762: 749: 745: 741: 740: 736: 732: 729: 726: 725: 724: 715: 713: 709: 692: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 682: 681: 680: 679: 669: 665: 661: 660: 659: 658: 657: 656: 655: 654: 644: 643: 642: 641: 640: 639: 638: 637: 629: 625: 624: 623: 622: 621: 620: 614: 609: 608: 607: 606: 602: 597: 593: 592: 591: 589: 573: 568: 567: 566: 565: 561: 557: 556: 548: 544: 543: 542: 541: 540: 539: 533: 528: 527: 525: 520: 516: 515:The Cunctator 513: 512: 511: 509: 491: 486: 484: 479: 477: 472: 471: 469: 468: 463: 460: 458: 455: 453: 450: 448: 445: 444: 443: 442: 428: 427: 424: 421: 420: 406: 405: 402: 399: 398: 393: 390: 388: 385: 383: 380: 378: 375: 373: 370: 368: 365: 363: 360: 358: 355: 353: 350: 348: 345: 343: 340: 338: 335: 333: 330: 328: 325: 323: 320: 318: 315: 313: 310: 308: 305: 303: 300: 298: 295: 294: 293: 292: 288: 287: 282: 279: 277: 274: 273: 270: 267: 265: 262: 260: 257: 255: 252: 250: 247: 245: 242: 240: 237: 235: 232: 231: 230: 229: 225: 224: 219: 216: 214: 211: 209: 206: 204: 201: 199: 196: 194: 191: 189: 186: 184: 181: 179: 176: 174: 171: 169: 166: 164: 161: 159: 156: 154: 151: 149: 146: 144: 141: 139: 136: 134: 131: 129: 126: 124: 121: 119: 116: 114: 111: 109: 106: 105: 104: 103: 99: 96: 95: 91: 90: 83: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2052: 2035:Antifinnugor 2034: 2032: 2026:Antifinnugor 2025: 2004:David Gerard 1999: 1995: 1876:Jwrosenzweig 1872:higher power 1865:Jwrosenzweig 1832: 1823: 1807: 1804:My goodness! 1755:Jwrosenzweig 1725:Jwrosenzweig 1669:CheeseDreams 1656: 1648:CheeseDreams 1640:CheeseDreams 1636: 1608:David Gerard 1591: 1580: 1575: 1570: 1559: 1549:As of 12/19 1548: 1530: 1526: 1500:Jwrosenzweig 1495: 1468: 1429: 1419: 1408: 1396:Slrubenstein 1382:Slrubenstein 1355:Slrubenstein 1349: 1345: 1335: 1329: 1326:CheeseDreams 1318: 1308: 1303:not accepted 1302: 1291: 1280: 1269: 1258: 1244: 1232: 1227:CheeseDreams 1215: 1203: 1198:Jwrosenzweig 1178: 1175:Rerequesting 1158:CheeseDreams 1127:Jwrosenzweig 1119:CheeseDreams 1097:Slrubenstein 1094: 1081:Slrubenstein 1076: 1073: 1066:CheeseDreams 1053:Slrubenstein 1049: 1044:CheeseDreams 1035:Slrubenstein 1029: 1025: 1022: 1010:David Gerard 1003:Jwrosenzweig 997: 986: 983: 971: 941:Jwrosenzweig 889: 801: 793:all evidence 792: 790: 769: 758: 721: 704: 613:Michael Snow 595: 588:Michael Snow 584: 532:Jwrosenzweig 504: 112: 65: 43: 37: 2058:Fred Bauder 1835:Fred Bauder 1432:Fred Bauder 1411:Fred Bauder 1235:Fred Bauder 1217:policies?-- 1206:Fred Bauder 990:Fred Bauder 772:Fred Bauder 36:This is an 1849:Neutrality 1444:objections 1439:troubling. 664:Kevin Baas 1906:Everyking 1884:Everyking 1857:Everyking 1845:ombudsman 1324:The RFAr 1313:The RFAr 1297:The RFAr 1286:The RFAr 1275:The RFAr 1264:The RFAr 1253:The RFAr 843:Netoholic 727:Complaint 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 2044:Bishonen 2023:Where's 1898:→Raul654 1811:Peter O. 1662:→Raul654 1618:→Raul654 1534:→Raul654 1478:James F. 1330:accepted 1319:accepted 1315:Alberuni 1292:rejected 1281:rejected 1270:rejected 1259:rejected 916:→Raul654 872:James F. 857:→Raul654 828:→Raul654 805:→Raul654 735:→Raul654 560:→Raul654 1965:around. 1935:"Just"? 1420:without 1288:Quadell 1026:against 452:Motions 98:WT:RFAR 39:archive 1516:Josiah 1481:(talk) 1469:per se 1350:failed 1346:failed 1219:Josiah 1105:Josiah 1089:Josiah 875:(talk) 691:Shorne 628:Shorne 601:Shorne 547:Shorne 523:Verily 1698:Why? 1658:case. 1588:Nohat 1464:much. 1266:Jayjg 1112:Jayjg 748:Bryan 447:Cases 16:< 2048:Talk 1996:seen 1894:user 1827:jguk 1815:Talk 1785:Talk 1774:Ambi 1767:Talk 1747:Talk 1717:Ambi 1689:Talk 1629:Slim 1543:Slim 1185:Dunc 933:Ambi 893:Ambi 813:Gady 712:Talk 668:talk 572:Ambi 519:Very 508:Ambi 281:ARM2 276:ARM1 2000:you 1151:JDG 1077:did 780:mav 765:mav 259:2.4 254:2.3 249:2.2 244:2.1 2046:| 1847:? 1783:| 1765:| 1761:-- 1745:| 1687:| 1683:-- 1030:me 710:| 706:-- 666:| 596:my 586:-- 517:. 392:20 387:19 382:18 377:17 372:16 367:15 362:14 357:13 352:12 347:11 342:10 312:3A 218:23 213:22 208:21 203:20 198:19 193:18 188:17 183:16 178:15 173:14 168:13 163:12 158:11 153:10 2029:? 1813:( 1450:. 1189:☺ 1187:| 846:@ 489:e 482:t 475:v 337:9 332:8 327:7 322:5 317:4 307:3 302:2 297:1 269:4 264:3 239:2 234:1 148:9 143:8 138:7 133:6 128:5 123:4 118:3 113:2 108:1 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 2 - Knowledge

Index