User talk:Achidiac

1699:

be noted by Knowledge, as its common knowledge that anything can be considered notable for inclusion on this site. Example -racehorses seem to escape notability guidelines for inclusion into wikipedia when in fact they should be merged into events such as "The Melbourne Cup, "The Kentucky Derby" or similar if they actually won the coveted prize. By not adhering to a consistent policy about such this leaves open a very wide door to having people write about their dog appearing on Letterman as being stubbed as notable. So, anything can be considered notable can be here. Its not a career advancement on my part to have a BIO on wikipedia, but just a nice fuzzy feeling. My career did change an entire industry. It had a lot of coverage in print media back when the internet was a military project, and there are millions of copies of Cd's and Vinyl out there with my credit, nom-de-plume, stage name, or otherwise. If I wanted coverage I would turn to Newspapers and Reuters as my PR Agent has done previously on a few occasions over my long career. These are credible, professional publishers, not an electronic version of an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". When approached by student for interview I didn't think it would hurt to have a little mention here, and helped out when I could - not knowing the rules at the beginning - as I'm not an experienced wikipedia editor and I never had claim to such. I could contribute a lot to some very badly written articles here. They are so bad they shouldn't even be on here, it doesnt give credibility to this site. However my reward for such time is usually payment or something "in kind". I don't know what "in kind" consists of here on wikipedia, but a stub of my achievements would have gone a long way into me taking on a new hobby to bring up the quality of badly written articles with factual information, and I can write with neutrality first and foremost. By the way, I note that my career achievements go uncontested - funny enough

1720:

analog to digital editing" and not me. Neither has anybody laid a contested claim for the other four points that T3Smile presented in the last revision of the article. As an example I can place a patent application in the US and get a patent for an idea, until such time someone else comes along and contests my patent with a similar patent, I have the patent for such idea. That is how wikipedia should work too, especially in this case where the admins who AfD'd quoted on writing style rather than contesting achievement to that of another person who already exists on wikipedia. I think I am more notable than a racehorse that hasn't won a major horserace, but the writer who volunteered to cover my career that changed an industry on this site is also a volunteer mutually inconvenienced in their time by all of this political posture without the assumption of good faith at all times by the intervening admins. I believe the reaction by such persons aiming to publish an article of me to be completely within the bounds of reactionary discourse when being prodded by abrupt procedural methods which were harshly applied without just reason, and the BIO Stubs of horses just kept appearing...

1500:"If you write in Knowledge about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels. Content is not deleted just because somebody doesn't like it. Any editor may add material to or remove material from the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. More than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. In addition, if your article is found not to be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our deletion policies. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about." 1660:

above, which seems to indicate a role quite unlike that of a uni lecturer (I should know, I've spent far too much of my own life in and out of academia). It's fundamental to Knowledge administration that admins who are trusted and appointed by the community after a period of service and having volunteered to the task, have a responsibility to the community to manage situations and investigate allegations - if it had emerged that Gnangarra (I pick him only as he was singled out) was way out of line and the claims were baseless, there would have been no problem as evidence would have come forward confirming this. In fact it went the other way - more and more evidence seemed to point to a situation of three people working together to promote one of them on Knowledge. (Some have suggested the evidence points to one person pretending to be two others, but I'm willing to

1880:, which states: "we require that you do not edit Knowledge until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels...Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding." You are more than welcome to pursue legal avenues should you wish to, however, you should note that Knowledge is a private website, and as such, we are free to set any policies and guidelines for inclusion of material and the community is free to block people according to our own standards. I'm afraid another administrator has now protected this page because it is inappropriate for you to be editing here while you claim you are pursuing legal and publicity actions. 1856:

is less stringent." Again, there are many, many people who are just not considered notable for the purposes of Knowledge. Your belief that anything and anyone is considered notable enough for inclusion on Knowledge is completely false. I really wish you would read some of these policies and guidelines we have given you because I think you would come to understand that you are completely mistaken about Knowledge and what we do here. We can only find four independent articles that mention your name and none of these give significant coverage about you. Your bio simply does not meet our notability standards for inclusion.

1014:"This article has so far remained deleted after some very unusual looking reviews in which anonymous IPs appeared out of nowhere and voted to restore the article as their first ever edit. I would argue that the claimed relationship should be treated with extreme scepticism and not be taken at face value. It defies belief that a masters student and their supervisor would appear out of nowhere and dedicate their time to fighting to keep a distinctly non-academic article up on Knowledge while also spamming other articles with references to Mr Chidiac's business and adding personal photos of Mr Chidiac and his family" 2038:

carefully. Since that time T3Smiles has done nothing except try to reinsert that one article (and chidiac-links)... and clinically, you have done little except state contradictorily that 1a/ you wish no article if not due, and shun publicity but 1b/ press exceptionally hard for all the reasons you are due one and should be allowed one, whether for notability or to help your student, and 2/ make legal threats on grounds that I cannot honestly see having any merit. As a man of the world, that's just not on.

1711:

I am unsure as to whether I would support their cause or support the group of admins here. With the sort of accusations presented by such group of admins without conclusive proof or evidence, I am of the opinion to support the student and lecturers cause at this stage. And for me, Reuters, AP, and coveted award winning press out there can report objectively about events - albeit without neutrality in some cases but thats another debate.

229:

Interest writing an article of you and I don't even have contact details of you except for your PR Agent. Another quotes sources such as YouTube being an "unreliable" source - I don't get it - the videos show your work and the credits for citation purposes - ie it is a method for presenting the reader with the video evidence of projects. PS - yes, I was in the best of bits video at Jooce Nightclub. Hope u r enjoying your holiday. T --

1528:(On a side, user pages and sub-pages are not to be used to host copies of such material, other than transiently for active development of a likely mainspace article. To clarify this, user spaces are not in fact "owned" by any users. I don't own mine, you don't own yours. They are community space allowed to be used by that user for Knowledge editorial purposes, and on which a certain latitude is allowed within limits. Please see policy 371: 432: 917:"n the past that I had paid a PR Agency to curtail any media reporting about me in 2002 as I didn't like the media circus it was generating and invading my private life. I've only given the ok for and the uni folk to publish a wikipedia article for encyclopaedic reference, and would appreciate it being neutral in its tone. After all, what is there to promote about me now?" 1174:"I have, and will allow User:T3Smile and her teacher to work on an article that meets or exceeds the quality standards set here on wikipedia and its guidelines, if in fact my career qualifies for such inclusion. This warring via "investigative efforts" by people with too much time on their hands needs to stop as I have been innocently been dragged into the crossfire, and 1475:

hours you yourself posted your first three incivilities/attacks. Others find your words (that you do not want controversy or an article especially) at odds with your actions, and feel that our policy on multiple accounts should apply to the three accounts named. (That is an administrative decision, if it happens, and also open to appeal.)

1619:, but there is evidence that they have one agenda in common, namely re-adding the same article above, they are your close associates or connected parties at best, and the presence of these accounts and theur continuing single-minded attempts to reinsert this article and Chidiac-links are what is fueling the problem. 2070:

with policy. But you are not, nor are any of your close associates, to ever edit any Chidiac-related content, in any form whatsoever. That subject is to be given space and distance, in its entirety. That is to protect yourself and all involved from the obvious conflict, and protect the community from more problems.

893:-- A second deletion discussion opened. Extra time beyond normal was given - the normal close should have been Oct 28 but this was left open untilo Oct 31. I closed this discussion and again it was deleted per the rationale in the discussion header, which was lengthy in order to explain it better to those involved. 2073:

Respect for communal decisions, processes, and conduct norms (no personal attacks, civility, deletion processes, appropriate use of user space, and the like), and appeal via communally sanctioned routes (dispute resolution, request for comment and the like). This includes no "concerted editing" (that

2069:

and chidiac-promotion related activities. If you (or any person) wants to edit on MPEG technology, or Australian history, or racehorses, or university subjects, or hobbies and interests, or buddhism, or military history, or geography and towns of Victoria, or anything else, please do so in compliance

2033:

knows this, as do many others. In addition, it is a common thing for administrators here to review others actions here and comment. In fact we have a complete noticeboard basically for such consensus-checking. It is done, because of consensus, not "backing", so we may see how a wider range of parties

1990:

There are three accounts editing closely on this. One of these, T3Smiles, is described as a student of yours, and is pushing that bio, bio links and the link onto the site. This is against your stated wishes and those of the community. Very well. You need to please deal with that, and make clear that

1855:

states: "A person is presumed to be notable enough for a standalone article if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Notability criteria is also needed for a person to be included in a list or general article; however, this criteria

1706:

Though I still reserve the right at this early stage to take further action against certain individuals who are likely the suspects that spurned the lecturer and student to behave - as you put it - uncivily, if there were 10,000 of you on here FT2 there would be no reservation over taking any further

1698:

However, the actions and behaviour of other admins in this entire process is something I would want to pursue, first by taking such issue to you Sir (FT2) and if no resolve can be made - as a last resort letting the lawyers take care of it. The other concern I have is that I did not have a desire to

1474:

I do not concur that you were "dragged in". Nobody has made you edit, and as an experienced "man of the world" you might have been expected to advise any others involved to respect the norms of this site. Instead you yourself arrived here two days after the account T3Smile first edited, and within 48

21:

That's fair enough but any content that you do add must be backed up with references. Without references the mass of the wikipedia community will just see your edits as vandalism, as the content you're adding is not well known unlike the rest of wikipedia's content. If you have any problems with the

1888:

policy clearly states: "For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has ruled that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity." I understand that it is upsetting for you, but

1714:

On the note of whether I should be granted editing access, its up to you but I truthfully admit that I opened this account specifically to monitor the progress of the article written about me by the two others, and used it to intervene when I thought the article would infringe on my good standing in

1710:

When I can ascertain the specifics I humbly ask you that these individuals are dealt with accordingly and without tolerance. I believe that would save last resort legal intervention. I agree that the lecturer and student accounts stay blocked as they are going to the press about such incident, and

1688:

was all three or four people in question. It was made clear by the students user page that she "always had some affiliation with the articles (she) wrote.", or words to that effect. If thats not a blatant statement to declare that articles by said author may be written with a form of slant I don't

1683:

Hi FT2 - Thanking you for the summization. It may take a few days to review your notes as I am across the article, am in communication with the main writers, but remain distant on the actual writing of article on myself being the subject. That has been stated previously and in conversations here,

1538:

I think it's fairly evident the article was appropriately judged for deletion by the community. That is their place to decide, and the decision was not a marginal one. There was incivility and attack in certain posts you made, which I'd ask you refrain from whilst posting here, but would not suggest

514:

I have reviewed the entirety of this discussion and feel it might help to sum up what's going on and what it means. This will be a bit of a long post, because a lot's gone on, but hopefully the information will be useful and make up for it. If after reading, you have queries about it, please comment

228:

Hi Again Anthony, I've again updated your copy of article in my user space. I'm not really liking it anymore, the article intro is sucking a bit and everytime I try to do something with it I get rude responses from my efforts to try and get others to assist. One guy is now saying its a Conflict Of

591:

The basic premise of Knowledge is, it's an encyclopedia. That means we have strict policies about what is, and is not, suitable for an article. Articles should meet all these criteria to be considered sustainable. We also have policies on how one may act, how certain borderline cases such as should

2082:

If you are willing to fully agree to these, please let me know and I will ask that your page be unblocked so you can say so and discuss further. If you feel that you cannot in writing affirm that these are agreeable to you, then I will not be able to endorse a return of editing rights. Note that I

1986:

You have stated many times you do not have an especial interest for a bio on Knowledge, that you only wish one if the community deems you notable, and that you have in fact paid a PR company to remove mentions from the public. You have stated you are here only to support a student and to watch the

1883:

As far as the issue of allegations of proxying and sockpuppetry, the evidence has been reviewed by more than one uninvolved administrator, and it is generally felt that there either been sockpuppetry in violation of policy, i.e. to give the impression of more support for a position that what there

1875:

You have reaffirmed above your legal and media threats against the project, and individual editors who have been trying to apply our policies and guidelines appropriately since mid-July. Four months is far more than what most similar articles get in consideration. The fact you have reaffirmed your

1820:

Engaged in a Revert War with T3Smile without a consultation process and assuming good faith. As far as I can see, T3Smile cleaned up article and added references, in-line citations, and a very small paragraph about my research project in its history section. Also, Yahoo competition was a notable

1810:

Hi FT2. Without content about article of me, and I'm not as good searching historical information about it all either, I will ask that these people comment on acting in bad faith towards the writers. I believe that this behaviour displayed by such people is the basis to which the controversiality

1470:

Notably, the subject himself is evidenced above as stating several times that they do not wish for attention nor for an article, and that the article should be deleted, so I feel the result needs to be that T3Smile and colleagues must move on to a new non-Chidiac related project on a subject where

1987:

article, if one should exist. Very well. I take you at your word. On 3 occasions now, the community has spoken and each time decided (racehorses aside) you are not due a biography article. So you and the community agree. So the bio article has been deleted. Subject closed. That's one issue solved.

1719:

in making the article compliant and most just spent time in enforcing AfD and processes in order to politically posture, not correct, disputed neutrality, or any other claim. I note again, that nobody tried to contest or dispute that "it was really xyz person that changed the music industry from

1450:

was reviewed first time round, and upon re-creation, both in the normal way. Following discussion the second time, I closed that discussion based upon policy and contributor's views, which together indicated there was not evidence that our strict criteria are met. It is also relevant that I am an

1693:

for non-neutrality in what the author writes, and is a form of disclaimer that the author thereby absolves themself personally from any legal action arising from their work here. This could be a good or bad thing for wikipedia, depending on the subject edited. But it is a public statement on a

1550:

You have stated that you wish to not have high visiblility in the media, and such, and only want an article if genuinely merited, and only for encyclopedic utility (if any). You also stated to delete it on at least one occasion. Knowledge's community has been asked three times now, and each time

971:

The basis stated is that T3Smile, Achidiac and Rdpaperclip are "SPA" editors. This means, "Single Purpose Accounts", ie accounts created for one task only; in this case the promotion of Anthony Chidiac and writing of articles and adding of links and images about him. They also edit pictures each

352:

I have closed the MfD on your userpage as a "keep", after marking it more explicitly as a userpage. If you wish, you might consider further revisions to it, to make it appear dissimilar to your article. (In particular, perhaps you'd like to share your personal views on the encyclopedia's work,

1994:

The community has expressed concern that the situation as described is implausible. Exactly how many "students" have you had who push with their "lecturers" to promote their teachers and nothing else? Exactly how are your protestations that you do not want an article at all (if against communal

1659:

I endorse the above summary - this has wasted hours of the community's time, and several parts of the narrative of these three individuals do not stack up. I'd be particularly interested, were the original narrative to be held to, to hear explanations from the parties regarding the 31 July post

1794:

FT2, could you please provide me with copy of last edit by T3Smile in my userspace for review? Jrefree, could you please hold off on deleting orphaned pictures until I have some time in reviewing all of this? FYI Jrefree, note Ben's form of consultation before taking abrupt actions, I now am

2037:

Anthony, the problem is this. You (and all visitors) are warned and strongly advised not to post self-related material, in our guidelines. This was reinforced at the deletion discussion, where the material was assessed and deleted in the fairest way we have, a process which examines evidence

1478:

I have also looked hard and even after much searching, have not seen significant evidence of improper actions on the scale and type that you suggest exists. T3Smile asks Gnangarra if he is "aboriginal", not the other way around, for example. The actions I have seen by far, are, editors and

1634:

I have left this page open to editing, so that you (or T3 or RD) may respond or seek a second opinion if you feel the above misses some crucial point. I also stand as ever willing to have my decisions double checked or critiqued by multiple others in the community. I have also noted it at

1515:

That said, if there is evidence of personal attack or defamation, please point me to it to look into, and I will most surely investigate it. Note that a mere statement of concern or reasonably founded request for discussion of evidence that an editor may be editing in bad faith, is

1896:

You have been at this for months now and all your accounts are indefinitely blocked. You are not welcome to edit Knowledge. Please try to understand this as I get the impression from your comments that you do not understand that your accounts are indefinitely blocked and under the

1511:

It is because of problems such as the present case that we advise so strongly against this. This advice has been ignored now multiple times (some 5 or 6 times I think) with sadly predictable results. It's time to respect the multiple-stated wishes of both subject and community.

1991:

since the community has firmly decided, no biography is to be uploaded again. You need to make clear to any other person involved, that you have firmly stated that you do not wish publicity nor a bio if it would differ from the community's view. That solves that problem too.

1863:

policy states that the "test" for "inclusion in Knowledge is verifiability, not truth...'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Knowledge has already been published by a reliable source." WP:V also states that

1547:. That is a communal decision rather than an "attack", and those raising the question were doing so legitimately. Again, this is why the advice that all three accounts ignored related to editing on an article where one has a significant interest, was there initially. 1671:

It should be noted that the decision to ban is never a personal one in these sorts of cases, but deals specifically with Knowledge - I (and I'm sure others here too) wish Chidiac the best of luck in his future endeavours in the business and entertainment world.

1466:

Unfortunately, this seems to be best characterized as a hoped-for article for Knowledge that is ultimately unsupportable - this was affirmed at AFD (july), AFD again (october) and now finally the rewritten article has failed to gain consensus at DRV (november).

1723:

I'd like to help to further the cause of wikipedia but my observations of process in this instance have not been good, except your work FT2. So if I have offended anyone or any horse in my statement above I am sorry for that as it is unintentional. Thankyou.

2083:

cannot speak for others or the community, but my impression is that this is a view which will be widely supported. These are conditions we apply universally, and are important for the integrity of our reference pages. They apply, or editing cannot take place.

518:

Note that I have assumed zero knowledge, partly so I don't assume your awareness of matters that you might have no reason to know, partly so others can comment and review my comments for accuracy if there is a question of factuality or policy interpretation.

592:

be reviewed, and what is or is not acceptable conduct, too. These apply fairly to all editors, and all articles; as I'm sure you will appreciate that's essential in order to be credible as a reference source. I'll mention relevant ones as I come to them.

1601:

The three accounts concerned will, unfortunately, be blocked and will be asked not to edit under any name, whilst the option of legal threats is outstanding and until agreement is reached on future conduct. This is a fixed rule that applies to all

1646:

if needed. The main issues will probably be the concerns of multiple accounts, the editing intent and focus of their owner/s, and the threats, but others will also have their views on what else must be agreed, in order to allow editing in future.

2028:

Last, to fill in one gap, you ask why there is "backing". Knowledge is a community. You have noticed that I have a good reputation in dispute resolution. Part of that is that I have traditionally asked for criticism and correction from others.

1463:, which is our appeal process if you feel the close was in error, and that is your right at any time. However the review that has taken place is of a proposed rewrite, and that too has failed to obtain agreement that the subject is notable. 1442:

I have summed these events up in some depth insofar as they are pertinent and policy related, so that I can be sure I have captured the main events in this incident. Based on this history, I will try to sum up where the matter stands.

1995:

norms) to be squared with the impassioned claims of notability and apparent demands that these have to be recognized? Exactly how many students write to websites to reiterate legal threats on a "will HAVE TO" basis on behalf of their

1542:

I think the sockpuppetry discussion is valid. Note that as part of our policy, it has been repeatedly held that individuals who are editing in common in this manner and cannot be distinguished from forbidden use of multiple accounts,

1579:

The article itself to be salted -- that is, protected against recreation until such time as good evidence may exist the community agrees the article is justified in advance. This is because it has been recreated multiple

964:, expresses concern over "puppetry". That is, the concern that there may be multiple accounts run by one individual, or closely connected individuals, possibly attempting to "stack" the system. The concern was taken to 1892:

Finally, you complain in your last message that I removed your personal photos and edits from the Internet cafe article without consulting you. I'm afraid that I am under no obligation to consult when removing spam.

2045:

exists to allow a problem to be resolved before editing continues. Editing is a privilege, not a right. The stipulations on editing access that I would regard as a minimum to do anything more on this are therefore

1684:

so theres no new news there. The "push" to publish article on me is due to the student (T3Smile) completing her educational year. What inclined me to ask you for immediate intervention was the allegation that

2065:(Note: the foregoing should be read as examples only; any chidiac related editing whether direct or indirect is what is intended.) That is because all problems of editing to date have arisen from ignoring 1479:

administrators who have repeatedly attempted to point out that Knowledge has strict policies about self-edited articles, and strict policies on article inclusion and conduct, and who have applied those.

1154:"If you believe the actions of these initiators, I apparently am of aboriginal origin, a lecturer, and the subject of article at the same time - thats the way this group of people are trying to portray it" 386: 1626:

borderline and uncertain cases when there may be doubt. This is without prejudice and without any accusation; it is a purely impersonal comparison of the circumstances of the case, and applied neutrally.

1129:"action the cease and desist of behaviour by a group of people keen to discredit and defame my name by taking discrediting and derogatory actions against others that have an interest in writing about me" 1524:

was appropriate for such a discussion, and such discussions happen dozens of times a week. This is part of our fact finding as a community, to which each and every person seeking to edit is answerable.

1434:

and images beginning "O1/2/3" are Chidiac related items for the purpose of reviewing this dispute, and that 2/ All deleted contributions of these editors are the Chidiac article or related to Chidiac.

272:

which similar theme with two completely irrelevant references, after the 'most ancient common ancestor' article was deleted. I removed these two irrelevant references, and commented on these on the

1811:

began. I will add more people here when I get time to do so, and I will assume good faith at this stage in that the individuals acted to protect my good name when interacting with the two editors:

265: 1703:

as an example. In any AfD, discussion or otherwise, were the nominations and comments from people other than T3Smile and RDPaperclip meritous or the postulization of ones power as an admin?

1830:

I will provide more details but I'm in and out of here as I have other priorities, so please excuse me if it takes me a few days to come back here. Thanking you in advance for thoughts. --

1747: 2054:

No editing can take place whilst any legal threats remain stated and unresolved (standing policy). You have to choose one or the other, and nobody here can help you in that decision.

62:

be counted. Please understand that this is a common practice on Knowledge, and it is necessary to prevent deliberate misuse of our discussion pages. Our discussion processes value

242:

is looking for information pertaining to Group CDB - can you give "from horses mouth" details? He might post you a few Q's for you to answer. Hope you can help once again, T --

932:"The subject has been pushing hard to get his article here and that makes protestations that the lack of sources results from a desire for privacy somewhat difficult to swallow" 1086:"Please provide reason as to why you keep reverting it without discussion. That is the main issue, you need to get off the subject of chidiac and read the references. thankyou" 927:-- At the time of writing, the deletion review (still open to discussion) shows some 8 or 9 experienced users endorsing the rationale of this discussion, with none dissenting 2024:

You have made a statement that an administrator breached 3RR. Please email or post the exact edits (or diffs, or their timestamps) for the edits concerned, to check this out.

1187:"Please e-mail me or message me directly with your take on resolving this issue that impacts on my good name and career. I believe you have a penchant for sorting out messes" 280: 1795:

beginning to understand why T3Smile and RDPaperclip reacted in such a way. Thanking you in advance for "assuming good faith" especially in my call for such intervention.--

407:. I started a discussion over there and invited the copyright holder to the discussion. Taking the image out of the article it was in didn't remove it from wikipedia. -- 322:

during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

663: 311: 2063:

related to, or linking to, anything about yourself, websites concerning you, or things you are involved in, and so on. By any of the 3 accounts concerned. At all.

547:

Apparent intent being to somehow force an "A. Chidiac" article to exist despite 2 AFDs, a DRV, and 3 SPEEDY deletions of recreations of the newly AFD'ed material.

972:

other has uploaded, including changing the licencing information on them to "GFDL-no-disclaimers and cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0". :* In response, T3Smile posted that

449: 564:

with the recommendation "These accounts are the same person, or several people in collusion. I recommend indef blocking all of them for abusive sockpuppetry".

1827:

In adding comment here on my userpage - why? I asked for a response and intervention by FT2 and he needs no re-enforcement. FT2 doesn't need "backing".

1889:

there is considerable uncertainty whether there is one person here operating three accounts, or whether there is two or more people acting in concert.

1844:

Anthony, I think that the problems here boil down to some very profound misunderstandings about Knowledge and our purposes and goals. Knowledge is an

445: 983:"Bit of a bully really. Please respect my privacy and close this and other outstanding discussions of and about my name. If this behaviour continues 904:"I have followed your recommendations but simply cannot in such a short time provide the citations aside from the subject himself and his colleagues" 1750:

to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

1359: 690: 1851:

You state above "its common knowledge that anything can be considered notable for inclusion on this site." Unfortunately, this is simply not true.

403:

Hey, man. I know there's a lot going on. When it clears up (and if you have time) you could help me by clearing up something about an image... try

1743: 55: 48: 334:

Hi anthony, I think they want to delete this page because YOU ARE NOW PUBLISHED in mainspace. I'm sure you wouldn't object to that. cheers T--

2021:. In addition, you have made legal threats. In email, T3Smiles has repeated those. Legal threats are further incompatible with editing access. 464:

Hi Anthony. Sorry. Looks like we've been sucked into some wikiwar and I'm really sorry about it. Some people need to get a life. rgds. T --

268:, you are invited to comment on another article by the same author which I just nominated for deletion. The same author coined a new article 1486:

about the problems which self-edited bio articles (or articles edited by those close to a subject) so often create. They state most clearly:

1288: 751: 550:

Apparent spurious accusations of bad conduct, couldn't see evidence to warrant this. (I have requested that if this is wrong, to inform me).

1219: 629: 33: 1057:"Dear Gnagarra ... thanking you as inspiration to such. Are you of aboriginal origin? Or do you have a lot of time on your hands? cheers" 353:

which would not be appropriate in article, but which are often featured on userpages.) That remains your choice, however. Best wishes,

1389: 1318: 1249: 1164:

I am afraid I will have to as a last resort, insigate legal action in both the US and Australia on the offending persons and wikipedia

1023:"These accounts are the same person, or several people in collusion. I recommend indef blocking all of them for abusive sockpuppetry" 168:

Accounts cannot be deleted. Just abandon it. Also, if you want, you can have it renamed to something like "Retireduser21" by going to

1456: 1353: 899:-- T3Smile asks for help. I review the draft as an administrator, and make suggestions, for which he posted a strong thank-you note 684: 1701:

nobody tried to contest or dispute that "it was really xyz person that changed the music industry from analog to digital editing"

965: 1554:

The serious problem remaining is the legal threat. The post to my talk page was a clear threat of legal action, and that is a

812:"I felt rather uncomfortable about it, and understandably, with the treatment that some loons on here have given these people" 2066: 1783: 1764: 1483: 1282: 823:-- the deletion discussion ended and the article was by communal consensus, deleted. This was after a full 5 day discussion. 745: 96: 2057:

You have said you would like to be unblocked and can contribute a lot. My other stipulation for that, is that if unblocked,

1455:

on difficult closes. I also discussed the article with T3Smile and what exactly from an encyclopedia viewpoint might help. (

70:

over simple voting. However, please do make further contributions to Knowledge and express your opinion on policy matters.

1965:

have been protected. Under these circumstance all complaints and requests should be directed to The Wikimedia Foundation.

1213: 623: 216:

Hi Ant, thanks for adding my article to yours. I've made some updates, and added it here too. Hope you like them. T. --

118: 113: 58:. Participation in the community is encouraged, of course, but your status as a brand new user means that your opinions 1643: 570: 1866:

if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Knowledge should not have an article on it.

1061:. Both Gnangarra and another administrator noted this was a further breach of policy (No Personal Atacks and also 1938: 1377: 708: 382: 175: 123: 1122:"I note that you have been the most informative and neutral admin on the subject of an article written about me" 1591: 30: 1859:

You also say that in these discussions no one challenged the truthfulness of the claims made in your bio. Our

573:

would be in order but would depend upon the above being resolved, and agreement on future editing approaches.

404: 273: 1694:

public site declaring such and this negates liability on the authors part, period, fullstop, end of subject.

1365: 696: 186: 310:. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at 1673: 1306: 769: 239: 103: 92: 2010:, without assumption or prejudice as to fact. The community, without judging those involved, has decided 269: 257: 1868:" This is why, in each of the discussions, about this article, the focus was on the lack of verifiable, 1347: 1237: 678: 647: 441: 420: 130: 1739: 1447: 1294: 757: 659: 378: 364: 134: 1664:

here.) Furthermore, as FT2 said, Knowledge is being utterly consistent in noting that violations of

1969: 1225: 635: 456: 385:. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at 190: 146: 138: 23: 1202: 612: 484:

I'll write at length in a little while, when I've read the rest of the background in more detail.

465: 335: 243: 230: 217: 1777: 1758: 1539:

are important unless the behavior repeats, in which case they would then be seen as significant.

1529: 108: 99:. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: 1848:, not a blog or a forum or an open website and we have policies and guidelines that we follow. 829:-- article recreated (and redeleted) later that day. And again on July 26. And again on July 27. 719:

creates an account and begins editing on the same articles, adding AC links to various pages.

145:(~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out 22:

article, you can leave a message on my talk page and I will try my best to help. Happy Editing

2030: 1824: 1207: 1009: 724:, uploading images of Chidiac's internet cafe, and contributing as a "strong keep" to the AFD 617: 835:-- Rdpaperclip writes to T3Smile in the context of Chidiac related media pieces and samples, 206: 196: 1982:

Okay, let's sum this up. This should be read in the context of my longer summary higher up.

1958: 1342: 1076: 673: 202:

I'll just hang onto it for now, but will keep this in mind when I do want to do it. Ta! --

2014:

to treat the three accounts involved as either one person, or as "on behalf of one person".

1551:

decided that in fact no such article should exist as well. This should resolve the matter.

986:

I will be taking further action out of pure necessity to protect my name and my past career

532:

Following review, I have blocked all 3 accounts concerned. The brief reason is as follows:

2074:

is, multiple accounts under close connection editing on one issue) takes place, to ensure

2042: 1999:? The concern is a rather plausible one, that there may be some improper editing going on. 1924: 1910: 1902: 1898: 1877: 1665: 1603: 1062: 999: 865: 798: 408: 390: 1012:, a long-standing editor with some 9000 edits on Australia-related topics, comments that 2075: 2018: 1966: 1885: 1689:

know what is. Note to other admins, when one notes such it is a form of declaring the

1612: 1045: 961: 906:, and listed the article for deletion review to gain independent views on the rewrite. 557: 453: 1884:

really or, there has been a concerted effort of proxying or meatpuppetry. Either way,

1962: 1954: 1932: 1852: 1831: 1796: 1770: 1751: 1725: 1661: 1636: 1571: 1521: 1460: 1431: 1427: 1419: 1271: 1052: 1048: 871: 859: 734: 561: 539: 319: 315: 307: 303: 297: 287: 203: 169: 73: 1177:

privacy breaches will also be of concern to me and noted by my legal representatives

370: 1869: 1586:

The excessive Chidiac-related links added to other articles will be removed unless

154: 1084:. A note was posted to Sarah's talk page asking for an explanation of her revert, 804:

In the same post the subject asks for the article, and his account, to be deleted.

1876:

legal threats means that no administrator will unblock you. Please read through

1860: 1555: 1415: 431: 1583:

The Chidiac-related user pages being used to mirror the article will be removed

940:

level of serious media mentions by Sarah would also seem to add weight to this

1817: 1136:"being bombarded by a 'bully' war and my name is implicated as the motivation" 943:. Others concur that the subject does not meet Knowledge notability standards. 354: 1611:

The accounts of T3Smile and Rdpaperclip are being blocked in accordance with

998:

Chidiac is asked to clarify if this is a formal legal threat, and linked to

791:"w@nkers that interpret their own set of rules derived from their own head" 149:, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place 2089: 1928: 1650: 1423: 1108: 858:-- T3Smile recreated the article again, and also added AChidiac links to 497: 485: 323: 2006:

such. Rather, it has a rule that says if unsure then it may be treated

1615:, since we have no evidence that these are people intent on writing an 2092: 1972: 1913: 1834: 1799: 1788: 1728: 1676: 1653: 1051:

for administrator discussion, that T3Smile had breached the policy on

974:"I have interviewed chidiac (Achidiac) and RDPaperclip is my lecturer" 500: 488: 468: 459: 411: 393: 357: 338: 328: 290: 246: 233: 220: 157: 76: 42: 180: 1545:

may be treated as equivalent to one person using multiple accounts

142: 837:"Don't edit any of the pieces unless you get the OK from Anthony" 1198:

Further information: Edits by T3Smile , Achidiac and Rdpaperclip

387:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Anthony Chidiac (2nd nomination)

448:

for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with

54:

Welcome, Achidiac! I noticed that you joined the discussion on

2034:(both involved and independent) view a decision, if reviewed. 1821:

competition from a notable company that received world press.

1570:

The edits and posts added which are problematic in respect of

1451:

experienced closer of these discussions, and as you surmize,

318:

with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of

1707:

action as there would be no issue at all in the first place.

666:

on 18th July and following communal discussion deleted 24th.

369: 266:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Most ancient common ancestor

848:

Part 2 - events of October 2007 (incl. deletion and review)

538:

Legal threats by Achidiac, one of three closely connected

2017:

The right to edit does not exist. It is a privilege. See

1668:

are a "bright red line" and we have no choice but to act.

1459:). You can seek independent review of this conclusion at 884:, edited the geographical article to add Chidiac to that 1806:

Admins involved in Behaviour that is "Not In Good Faith"

968:

for discussion, and a basis of concern was posted there.

810:-- This is followed by a request for help, stating that 1950: 1946: 1942: 1452: 1406: 1403: 1383: 1371: 1335: 1332: 1312: 1300: 1264: 1243: 1231: 1112: 1088: 1082: 1079: 1072: 1059: 1026: 1017: 989: 976: 941: 934: 928: 919: 907: 900: 885: 882: 881:, created a school article to add a Chidiac link there 879: 877: 874: 868: 862: 839: 815: 802: 781: 775: 763: 725: 722: 720: 714: 702: 653: 641: 565: 543: 1715:

the industry I am in. I am saddened by the fact that

1259:, slightly on Aug 9-10, 23, 28, and sept 15, 18, then 1063:

Do not disrupt Knowledge to make or illustrate a point

902:. T3Smile then rewrites the article, commenting that 1738:

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,

1395:

Including deleted contributions, Rdpaperclip edited

795:"I know another two words people can say to you too" 377:An article that you have been involved in editing, 281:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Species integration

1923:Achidiac you were blocked on the 5th November due 876:(possibly viable), various music related articles 1324:Including deleted contributions, Achidiac edited 780:creates an account and begins editing on the AFD 1255:Including deleted contributions, T3Smile edited 481:I was already on the case when I saw your note. 1949:, you have since returned and made accusations 1945:. You then responded reiterating those threats 1471:they do not have such problematic connections. 312:Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/User:Achidiac 2012:for the purposes of Knowledge editorial policy 1127:He states a hope that it will be possible to 306:, a page you created, has been nominated for 8: 1558:rule. It is enforced without bias or favor. 1075:by Sarah, reinstating the Chidiac links to 1002:for more information. There is no response. 1566:My personal view is therefore as follows: 658:creates an account and creates an article 279:The new nomination/discussion page is at: 129:I hope you enjoy editing here and being a 446:Knowledge:Suspected sock puppets/Achidiac 56:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Elendor‎ 49:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Elendor‎ 1744:Knowledge:Images and media for deletion 1520:considered defamatory. The evidence at 1497:Consequences of ignoring this guideline 1147:"My LA Lawyer can quote you laws on it" 515:below, and I'll try to help further. 153:before the question. Again, welcome! 936:. An analysis of the problematically 7: 1734:Image:O3 ph5.jpg listed for deletion 981:Achidiac states that Gnangarra is a 162: 1953:against specific editors violating 1872:, as defined by Knowledge policy. 1401:recommenced editing Oct 22 to date 1330:recommenced editing Oct 21 to date 827:July 24 to 27 (multiple incidents) 801:that was not necessary or useful. 452:before editing the evidence page. 14: 2002:The community does not say there 1594:, and the view of the community). 1457:User_talk:T3Smile/Anthony Chidiac 1574:will be removed. This includes: 966:Knowledge:Suspected sock puppets 583:More detail follows if wanted. 430: 264:As someone who has commented on 163:How To Delete 'retired" accounts 2059:no editing takes place that is 1717:very few people actually helped 1055:. The response by T3Smile was 950:Part 3 - Allegation of puppetry 2067:Knowledge:Conflict of interest 1957:. As such, to stop continued 1927:this was explain at length by 1769:16:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 1622:The above policy specifically 1484:Knowledge:Conflict of interest 960:-- a Knowledge administrator, 238:Hi Again, sorry to bother you 1: 1161:"If you cannot sort out this 783:and similar related articles. 426: 104:The five pillars of Knowledge 2093:12:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 1973:02:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 1914:02:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 1835:01:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 1800:01:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 1789:16:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 1729:14:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 1677:19:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC) 1654:17:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC) 1492: 1482:There are clear warnings at 1021:The SSP reviewer concluded: 814:, another incivility/attack 523: 501:17:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC) 489:11:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC) 469:06:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC) 460:15:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC) 412:23:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 394:19:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 358:15:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 339:21:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 329:20:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 172:, and then abandoning it. -- 119:How to write a great article 95:to Knowledge! Thank you for 1961:the User and talk pages of 1907:you are not welcome to edit 1644:Knowledge:Appealing a block 601:Part 1- events of July 2007 2108: 1261:recommenced editing Oct 17 1172:Achidiac also states that 930:.) One DRV comment reads, 291:01:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 247:16:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 234:14:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 1081:and adding a second link 915:-- Achidiac states that, 495:Now responded - see below 440:You have been accused of 221:08:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 207:23:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 197:17:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 158:23:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 77:14:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 43:10:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 2078:is visibly not breached. 1592:Knowledge:External links 789:-- Achidiac posts about 662:("AC") article. This is 274:Talk:Species integration 1590:relevant (according to 1328:, briefly Aug 21, then 1071:-- T3Smile reverts the 540:single purpose accounts 1978:Further comment by FT2 1097:Part 5 - legal threats 381:, has been listed for 374: 314:and please be sure to 260:nominated for deletion 240:User talk:Orderinchaos 1742:, has been listed at 1143:"defamation by proxy" 1107:-- Achidiac posts to 1034:Part 4 - other issues 450:notes for the suspect 373: 91:Hello, Achidiac, and 66:over raw numbers and 1399:, again Aug 9, then 1390:Interiot/Rdpaperclip 1955:no personal attacks 1853:Notability (people) 1814:7th November 2007: 1624:covers and includes 1053:no personal attacks 664:listed for deletion 587:Basics of Knowledge 270:Species integration 258:Species integration 194:(Let's Go Yankees!) 147:Knowledge:Questions 17:Re:The Ant Surfaces 1530:Knowledge:Userpage 799:policy on civility 797:, a breach of our 560:inquiry closed at 444:. Please refer to 375: 363:AfD nomination of 316:sign your comments 296:MfD nomination of 114:How to edit a page 97:your contributions 2031:user:Orderinchaos 1825:User:Orderinchaos 1746:. Please see the 1662:assume good faith 1505: 1504: 1319:Interiot/Achidiac 1010:user:Nick Dowling 578: 577: 438: 437: 389:. Thank you. -- 345:MfD Result Notice 195: 179: 137:your messages on 39: 2099: 2043:indefinite block 1886:the sockpuppetry 1870:reliable sources 1786: 1780: 1775: 1767: 1761: 1756: 1740:Image:O3 ph5.jpg 1493: 1387: 1360:deleted contribs 1316: 1289:deleted contribs 1250:Interiot/T3Smile 1247: 1220:deleted contribs 1134:that T3Smile is 779: 752:deleted contribs 718: 691:deleted contribs 657: 630:deleted contribs 524: 434: 427: 185: 173: 152: 139:discussion pages 40: 35: 27: 26:Angel Of Sadness 2107: 2106: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2098: 2097: 2096: 1980: 1921: 1919:Page Protection 1842: 1808: 1784: 1778: 1771: 1765: 1759: 1752: 1736: 1564: 1461:deletion review 1448:Anthony Chidiac 1440: 1397:July 18 - Aug 5 1345: 1326:July 19 - Aug 8 1274: 1257:July 17 - Aug 5 1205: 1200: 1099: 1036: 952: 866:Lebanese people 850: 821:July 24 (00.51) 737: 676: 660:Anthony Chidiac 615: 603: 598: 596:Dispute history 589: 509: 507:Recent disputes 476: 425: 401: 379:Anthony Chidiac 368: 365:Anthony Chidiac 347: 301: 262: 214: 193: 165: 150: 124:Manual of Style 84: 71: 68:reasoned debate 52: 34: 25: 19: 12: 11: 5: 2105: 2103: 2080: 2079: 2071: 2055: 2026: 2025: 2022: 2015: 2000: 1992: 1988: 1979: 1976: 1920: 1917: 1841: 1838: 1807: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1735: 1732: 1696: 1695: 1680: 1679: 1669: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1620: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1584: 1581: 1563: 1560: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1503: 1502: 1453:well respected 1439: 1436: 1413: 1411: 1410: 1340: 1339: 1269: 1268: 1199: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1183: 1170: 1157: 1150: 1139: 1132: 1125: 1116: 1115: 1098: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1066: 1035: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1019: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 993: 992: 979: 969: 951: 948: 947: 946: 945: 944: 922: 910: 894: 888: 849: 846: 845: 844: 843: 842: 830: 824: 818: 805: 784: 728: 667: 602: 599: 597: 594: 588: 585: 582: 580: 579: 576: 575: 571:unblock appeal 554: 553: 552: 551: 548: 545: 508: 505: 504: 503: 475: 472: 436: 435: 424: 418: 416: 400: 399:image and NDA? 397: 367: 361: 346: 343: 342: 341: 300: 294: 261: 255: 254: 253: 252: 251: 250: 249: 213: 210: 200: 199: 189: 164: 161: 127: 126: 121: 116: 111: 106: 83: 80: 53: 51: 46: 18: 15: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2104: 2095: 2094: 2091: 2087: 2086:Let me know. 2084: 2077: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2062: 2056: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2049: 2044: 2039: 2035: 2032: 2023: 2020: 2016: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1998: 1993: 1989: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1977: 1975: 1974: 1971: 1968: 1964: 1963:User:Achidiac 1960: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1937: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1925:legal threats 1918: 1916: 1915: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1894: 1890: 1887: 1881: 1879: 1873: 1871: 1867: 1862: 1861:Verifiability 1857: 1854: 1849: 1847: 1839: 1837: 1836: 1833: 1828: 1826: 1822: 1819: 1815: 1812: 1805: 1801: 1798: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1787: 1781: 1776: 1774: 1768: 1762: 1757: 1755: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1733: 1731: 1730: 1727: 1721: 1718: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1702: 1692: 1687: 1682: 1681: 1678: 1675: 1670: 1667: 1663: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1652: 1648: 1645: 1640: 1638: 1625: 1621: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1605: 1600: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1582: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1573: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1561: 1559: 1557: 1552: 1548: 1546: 1540: 1536: 1533: 1531: 1526: 1523: 1519: 1513: 1501: 1498: 1495: 1494: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1485: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1449: 1444: 1437: 1435: 1433: 1432:DVD authoring 1429: 1428:Internet cafe 1425: 1421: 1420:Pretty Poison 1417: 1414:Note that 1/ 1408: 1404: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1385: 1382: 1379: 1376: 1373: 1370: 1367: 1364: 1361: 1358: 1355: 1352: 1349: 1344: 1337: 1333: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1314: 1311: 1308: 1305: 1302: 1299: 1296: 1293: 1290: 1287: 1284: 1281: 1278: 1273: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1245: 1242: 1239: 1236: 1233: 1230: 1227: 1224: 1221: 1218: 1215: 1212: 1209: 1204: 1197: 1188: 1184: 1181: 1180:in such case" 1178: 1175: 1171: 1168: 1165: 1162: 1158: 1155: 1151: 1148: 1144: 1141:that this is 1140: 1137: 1133: 1130: 1126: 1123: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1113: 1110: 1106: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1096: 1089: 1087: 1083: 1080: 1078: 1077:Internet café 1074: 1070: 1067: 1064: 1060: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1047: 1043: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1033: 1027: 1024: 1020: 1018: 1015: 1011: 1008: 1007: 1001: 997: 996: 995: 994: 990: 987: 984: 980: 977: 975: 970: 967: 963: 959: 956: 955: 954: 953: 949: 942: 939: 935: 933: 929: 926: 923: 920: 918: 914: 911: 908: 905: 901: 898: 895: 892: 889: 886: 883: 880: 878: 875: 873: 872:DVD authoring 869: 867: 863: 861: 860:Internet cafe 857: 854: 853: 852: 851: 847: 840: 838: 834: 831: 828: 825: 822: 819: 816: 813: 809: 806: 803: 800: 796: 792: 788: 785: 782: 777: 774: 771: 768: 765: 762: 759: 756: 753: 750: 747: 744: 741: 736: 732: 729: 726: 723: 721: 716: 713: 710: 707: 704: 701: 698: 695: 692: 689: 686: 683: 680: 675: 671: 668: 665: 661: 655: 652: 649: 646: 643: 640: 637: 634: 631: 628: 625: 622: 619: 614: 610: 607: 606: 605: 604: 600: 595: 593: 586: 584: 574: 572: 567: 566: 563: 559: 549: 546: 544: 541: 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 529: 526: 525: 522: 521: 520: 516: 512: 506: 502: 499: 496: 493: 492: 491: 490: 487: 482: 479: 473: 471: 470: 467: 462: 461: 458: 455: 451: 447: 443: 433: 429: 428: 422: 419: 417: 414: 413: 410: 406: 398: 396: 395: 392: 388: 384: 380: 372: 366: 362: 360: 359: 356: 350: 344: 340: 337: 333: 332: 331: 330: 327: 326: 321: 320:User:Achidiac 317: 313: 309: 305: 304:User:Achidiac 299: 298:User:Achidiac 295: 293: 292: 289: 284: 282: 277: 275: 271: 267: 259: 256: 248: 245: 241: 237: 236: 235: 232: 227: 226: 225: 224: 223: 222: 219: 211: 209: 208: 205: 198: 192: 188: 184: 183: 177: 171: 167: 166: 160: 159: 156: 148: 144: 140: 136: 132: 125: 122: 120: 117: 115: 112: 110: 107: 105: 102: 101: 100: 98: 94: 89: 88: 81: 79: 78: 75: 69: 65: 61: 57: 50: 47: 45: 44: 41: 38: 31: 29: 28: 16: 2088: 2085: 2081: 2060: 2058: 2048:at a minimum 2047: 2040: 2036: 2027: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1996: 1981: 1935: 1922: 1906: 1895: 1891: 1882: 1874: 1865: 1858: 1850: 1846:encyclopedia 1845: 1843: 1829: 1823: 1816: 1813: 1809: 1772: 1753: 1737: 1722: 1716: 1713: 1709: 1705: 1700: 1697: 1690: 1685: 1674:Orderinchaos 1649: 1641: 1633: 1623: 1617:encyclopedia 1616: 1587: 1565: 1553: 1549: 1544: 1541: 1537: 1534: 1527: 1517: 1514: 1510: 1499: 1496: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1446:The article 1445: 1441: 1412: 1400: 1396: 1380: 1374: 1368: 1362: 1356: 1350: 1341: 1329: 1325: 1309: 1303: 1297: 1291: 1285: 1279: 1276: 1270: 1260: 1256: 1240: 1234: 1228: 1222: 1216: 1210: 1201: 1186: 1179: 1176: 1173: 1166: 1163: 1160: 1153: 1146: 1145:legally and 1142: 1135: 1128: 1121: 1104: 1085: 1068: 1056: 1041: 1022: 1013: 985: 982: 973: 957: 937: 931: 924: 916: 912: 903: 896: 890: 855: 836: 832: 826: 820: 811: 807: 794: 790: 786: 772: 766: 760: 754: 748: 742: 739: 730: 711: 705: 699: 693: 687: 681: 669: 650: 644: 638: 632: 626: 620: 608: 590: 581: 568: 555: 531: 527: 517: 513: 510: 494: 483: 480: 477: 474:Your request 463: 442:sockpuppetry 439: 421:Sockpuppetry 415: 402: 376: 351: 348: 324: 302: 285: 278: 263: 215: 212:Updated Page 201: 181: 128: 90: 86: 85: 72: 67: 63: 59: 36: 24: 20: 2008:as if it is 1642:Please see 1556:bright line 1416:Peter Andre 1343:Rdpaperclip 674:Rdpaperclip 141:using four 2061:in any way 1959:harassment 1905:policies, 1818:User:Sarah 1748:discussion 1562:Summing up 1378:block user 1372:filter log 1307:block user 1301:filter log 1238:block user 1232:filter log 770:block user 764:filter log 709:block user 703:filter log 648:block user 642:filter log 151:{{helpme}} 131:Wikipedian 1773:Jreferee 1754:Jreferee 1691:potential 1606:refers). 1384:block log 1313:block log 1244:block log 1185:and that 1159:and that 1046:Gnangarra 962:Gnangarra 776:block log 715:block log 654:block log 405:this link 176:Review Me 133:! Please 64:consensus 60:might not 1997:teachers 1939:contribs 1903:WP:LEGAL 1899:WP:BLOCK 1878:WP:LEGAL 1840:Response 1832:Achidiac 1797:Achidiac 1726:Achidiac 1666:WP:LEGAL 1604:WP:LEGAL 1424:Bundoora 1407:contribs 1354:contribs 1336:contribs 1283:contribs 1272:Achidiac 1265:contribs 1263:to date 1214:contribs 1109:user:FT2 1000:WP:LEGAL 746:contribs 735:Achidiac 685:contribs 624:contribs 383:deletion 308:deletion 288:Fred Hsu 286:Thanks. 204:Achidiac 187:Contribs 109:Tutorial 87:Welcome! 74:GreenJoe 2076:WP:SOCK 2019:WP:FREE 1613:WP:SOCK 1438:Opinion 1203:T3Smile 833:July 31 808:July 21 787:July 21 731:19 July 670:July 18 613:T3Smile 609:July 17 466:T3Smile 336:T3Smile 244:T3Smile 231:T3Smile 218:T3Smile 155:Bearian 93:welcome 82:Welcome 1637:WP:ANI 1588:highly 1580:times. 1572:WP:COI 1535:So... 1522:WP:SSP 1073:action 1049:posted 891:Oct 23 856:Oct 17 562:WP:SSP 528:Update 276:page. 170:WP:CHU 143:tildes 1970:garra 1911:Sarah 1152:that 1111:that 1105:Nov 5 1069:Nov 5 1042:Nov 5 958:Nov 4 925:Nov 5 913:Nov 3 897:Nov 1 457:garra 355:Xoloz 1967:Gnan 1951:here 1947:here 1943:diff 1933:talk 1901:and 1366:logs 1348:talk 1295:logs 1277:talk 1226:logs 1208:talk 793:and 758:logs 740:talk 697:logs 679:talk 636:logs 618:talk 558:SOCK 511:Hi, 478:Hi, 454:Gnan 423:case 349:Hi, 135:sign 2090:FT2 2041:An 1929:FT2 1651:FT2 1532:.) 1518:not 1405:. 1388:, 1334:. 1317:, 1248:, 1044:-- 938:low 733:-- 672:-- 611:-- 569:An 498:FT2 486:FT2 409:Ben 391:Ben 325:nat 2050:: 2004:is 1941:) 1909:. 1724:-- 1639:. 1430:, 1426:, 1422:, 1418:, 1065:). 1025:. 1016:. 988:" 870:, 864:, 556:A 542:. 530:: 283:. 1936:· 1931:( 1864:" 1785:c 1782:/ 1779:t 1766:c 1763:/ 1760:t 1686:I 1602:( 1409:. 1386:) 1381:· 1375:· 1369:· 1363:· 1357:· 1351:· 1346:( 1338:. 1315:) 1310:· 1304:· 1298:· 1292:· 1286:· 1280:· 1275:( 1267:. 1246:) 1241:· 1235:· 1229:· 1223:· 1217:· 1211:· 1206:( 1189:. 1182:, 1169:. 1167:" 1156:, 1149:, 1138:, 1131:, 1124:. 1114:: 1090:. 991:. 978:. 921:. 909:. 887:, 841:. 817:. 778:) 773:· 767:· 761:· 755:· 749:· 743:· 738:( 727:. 717:) 712:· 706:· 700:· 694:· 688:· 682:· 677:( 656:) 651:· 645:· 639:· 633:· 627:· 621:· 616:( 191:@ 182:R 178:) 174:( 37:C 32:/

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

Index