User talk:Lightbreather/Archive 15

4551:

this but really what will it prove? I know you don't want to admit it but you did a dishonest thing. Tough grits, I think we all do that from time to time though or have at some point. The fact that I answer the taunt of baiting says a lot about me, but can't we all agree to move on? Even if I dig up all the diffs does it change the fact you were blocked for two weeks? No. Does it change the fact that you thought it nec to use an ip. No. Was it inappropriate, you think no, the community thinks yes. Do you think that you can do what's best for the encylopedia and help build it and work with people? You have the opportunity to turn everything negative on it's head and be what your username implies and be a breather of light to the world. Find a different way to spread the message, it's a good message really it is, but the method you are using to try and change things is a problem. Don't dirty the message with underhanded methods, people will respect you and the message so much more with up front and unwavering integrity. If you do that even your opponents will have to admit even in disagreement that you handled yourself with dignity and deserve accolade. off my soapbox. I really hope you will take me up on the offer to just move on and not force me to dig up the diffs. I certainly will if you insist but I think you are smarter then that and your pride is hurting at the moment, help recover by moving on and improving. YOu don't have to disbelief or recant just send the message differently and you will see dividends.

1083:

with lots of experience with socking, but ALL of them failed to see User:Darkness Shines was a sock of User:Mark Nutley. I hope you see my point ? In light of that, can we take simplistic reliance on experience ( which is fallible, as evidenced ) and justify it with Occam's razor ? If that be the case, it means we behave as if there are no sophisticated joe jobbers, even after we were fooled by Darkness Shines for years, and sophisticated joe jobbers can continue framing innocent users unless they confess. This does not look like a good state of affairs to me. I also see no reason to think that there was any proxying by LB, and that LB could cover the distance between the two locations within 50-55 minutes. I certainly think that the unblock decline should be reconsidered.

991:

that it was a proxy service. If the CU says it is not a proxy, then, is it even possible for LB to have covered the geographical distance between the locations in the time difference of her edit preceding the edit in question, and the edit in question ? If that distance cannot be covered within the time, then it should clearly prove that it was not LB. Even if it was a proxy, someone doing a joe job can also use a proxy. Why overlook that ? You say that "Using multiple accounts to push a point of view in contentious areas is a serious problem here." That much is correct, except that the edit for which LB's block was extended does not seem to push any POV at all. If this

3553:@Chillum. We are basically an anonymous community and the right to anonymity is a vital part of our project. I suppose everyone here is familiar with the Essjay controversy. IIRC Essjay had pretended to be someone other than what he actually was, Jimbo was told about that, but Jimbo was OK with it because he rationalized that Essjay was fibbing about his identity in order to protect his anonymity. LB has also fibbed about the initial IP edits being hers in order to protect her anonymity. If it was OK for Essjay to fib in order to protect his anonymity, why is the same not OK for LB ? Why is her fib in order to protect her anonymity being held against her ? 2198:(some sort of edit conflict, not sure what is going on) Well, if that is me editing while logged out then I apologise, even though it makes no difference really. I'll dig around what was happening at that time. I can absolutely guarantee that it was not deliberate and I suspect a similar thing has happened inadvertently even on the arb's voting page. I'll let you know the cause if indeed there was a cause. Chances are, it relates to using my mobile phone while away from home. FWIW, I think my ISP should locate to Sheffield but it has changed recently (and bears no real similarity to my actual location, which is in Wales), so who knows? - 1108:

another" in edit summary. If we are going to take staked out positions, what good it is to discuss and try to convince each other ( as per Knowledge (XXG)'s traditions ). Are you sure that you have been able to explain/buttress your conclusion in any way except seeming non-arguments like appeal to experience, and "my point of view...". ( I am not trying to trivialize your arguments, and I have said this only because it is necessary to make my argument ) ? Yourself being a long-time Wikipedian, is it too much if I expect you to change your opinion when you do not seem to be showing substantial reasoning behind your opinion ?

1163:

and even things which seem to be simple, often turn out to be not so simple. Moreover, it is a criteria which will always favor joe jobbers because considering the possibility of a joe job is more complicated than ignoring that possibility. You seem to be saying that the reviewer should decline the request even though he himself has doubts about the block, and having once declined, should keep declining because he has made the decision once and for all, and thus cannot change his opinion, even if he has doubts. Oh joy. BTW, LB, I believe, if you want a re-review, you have to put up another notice using the review template.

1229:... But I digress, the first block, I can't really fight. The truth is that I was editing logged out, but the reason why, and whether or not it was block-worthy, is a judgement call. But the second block - the block extension? The truth is that it was not me. I was out to dinner with my husband when that IP editor did what he/she did. And it would have been stupid for me to do it because A) I, a regular editor, cannot revdel info, which is what I wanted (and eventually got, partially, through Oversight), and B) I would guess that such an edit, evading my block, would have resulted in another block or a longer block. 4431:. Can you explain how you weren't an involved party? You gave a massive wall of evidence, you participated in the discussion quite a bit, enough so we had behavioral evidence to tie you to the IP in addition to the location information. You edited as the IP and as yourself to make it look like another person that just couldn't handle the big bad eric corbett, you sacrificed your integrity and reputation because you thought you could get away with it and that more people wouldn't dismiss what you were saying because of your past antics and 31: 3303:

one edit, so there's nothing to it that can be compared to any "habitual characteristics" on my part. The edit that IP made, the info he/she deleted, was related to the info I asked to have revdeled, but I didn't delete it before my block, and I wouldn't have and didn't delete it after, either. It would have been pointless, and dangerous... as it ended up being for me even though I didn't do it. Duck also says:

3823: 3985: 647: 440: 302: 3376:

intricacies / simplicities of Occam's razor, and implement a block with an edit summary containing a link to a relevant page, all withing four minutes ? How does it look if the person who did all this within four minutes is running for an election in which he/she could not hope to get the blocked user's vote ? ( The block prevents the user from voting ) Does it all look appropriate, very OK ?

113: 3183: 211: 4303:: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Knowledge (XXG) identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Knowledge (XXG) actions in that area. 2476: 3284:

could still plausibly be you. CU for the most part is nothing but an IP check, plus a few bits of info from the browser (user agent, patch # etc). Its trivial to end up with a different CU, it only trips up prolific socks, because very few people have access to dozens/hundreds of machines/ips. But for a "one-time-sock" its easy to avoid.

3199:. The nomination period will close at 23:59 on December 15 (UTC), after which voting will commence until 23:59 on December 31, 2014. Self-nominations are welcomed. Please consider getting involved; it's your Guild and it won't coordinate itself, so if you'd like to help coordinate Guild activities we'd love to hear from you. 4423:

statement no other editor other then ORY has endorsed btw). You wanted to present evidence as two people, it had jack squat to do with privacy, that was your beard and you expected the people here who work with socks on a daily basis wouldn't see it. You were part of the declined civility case (remember your conflict with

3649:, who felt that the information should not have been presented publicly there (on the GGTF ArbCom PD talk page). Others who spoke up and possibly others who did not speak up. Could any of those editors have made that deletion, in a misguided attempt to help me get rid of the information that I had asked to have revdeled? 994:, is the edit in question, it is redacting some purported outing, rather that pushing any POV. Considering these, I request you to take a fresh look / reconsider the block decline and not to overlook the possibility of a joe job ( without having a concrete reason to overlook that possibility ). Thanks in advance. 4461:

before it was declined. It's three months old, and your name was the first given in the original complaint. Yes, my name was in the list of involved parties, but the case was declined. Why are you bringing it up? I didn't initiate it. Scalhotrod isn't named as an involved party in it (so I don't know

4022:

backlog. We copy edited 83 articles tagged in the target months; July, August, and September 2013. Together with tag removals from articles unsuitable for copy editing, we eliminated July 2013 from the backlog and reduced August and September's tags to 61 and 70 respectively. As of 01:01, 1 December

3704:

because I know enough to know that simple deletion would not have protected my personal information. There was no good reason for me to get sneaky and get myself into trouble to delete something when I know that deleting it would accomplish nothing positive for me. It wouldn't truly hide the personal

3517:

Okay well you are not going to get my agreement, at best you get my lack of objection. I discussed this with the blocking admin and we agree. I think it is a bit naive to believe the story given, however I am happy to have my sanity checked. That is why we have so many admins. Consider talking to the

3302:

I've seen references to "duck" many times, but never bothered to read it before. I just did. I can see how this essay might apply to my original block, especially since I have since admitted that I did edit logged out (IP 72-something) for privacy. But I did not do the IP 69 edit. Further, IP 69 made

2845:

When your block is up why not just focus on editing articles for a bit, you need to get this huge spotlight off of you and yourself out of the middle of the road so to speak. I am not saying to give up on your opinions but right now try to focus on content. Would you like to join a wikiproject or two

1122:

I don't think it is about who is right or wrong. You have recognized the possibility that this may be a joe job. That means there is room for doubt that LB has socked ? If yes, that, in itself should be reason enough to lift the block. If there is room for doubt, there is no need to wait to establish

990:

With due regards, I would like to say that I have seen too many joe jobs, deceitful acts aimed at undermining others to have faith in IP behavioral evidence of this sort. Behavior and spellings mistakes can be easily discerned and faked. Besides, if it was a proxying service, the CU should have known

890:

I am quite sorry, but as I said on my talk page, applying Occam's razor, my conclusion is that the IP was operated by you. Of course, I accept review of my actions and, so, if another administrator wants to revert my block extension, they can do so. Concerning your request for revdeletion, I can only

525:

Per the edit summary from my first/last request, I am begging a response from one of the emails I sent to functionaries yesterday - the first sent more than 24 hours ago now, and before this block was handed down. Personal information is involved so the evidence, if I'm allowed to present it, and the

4550:

Lightbreather do you really want me to go and dig up the evidence for you since July/August of this year so you can claim I"m not casting aspersions. Once I do can I get assurances you will not seek retribution? I actually think out of Neotarf and Carolmooredc, you were the more reasonable. I can do

4422:

and yet you want to do the same thing again? Face it you egged that situation on until you lost, you wanted to say as the IP I'm not involved, you can checkuser me, when I basically tell you ok put your money where your mouth is by using things you provided on wiki and all of a sudden it's outing (a

3922:

There are 10 bullets under NOTHERE. Which one do you think applies to me? I don't see one that says trying to clear one's name. I have given up on the original block, as I can see that others could look at it and call it "avoiding scrutiny," even if I say that I edited anonymously for privacy (which

3684:

question, rhetorical, involves the alleged idiosyncrasy of IP 69's behavior. Which behavior? I have already had to contribute to the outing of my personal information (real-life IP address) in order to present my argument for why I edited not-logged-in. My argument was not accepted as legitimate and

3283:

behavioral block. In those circumstances even a negative checkuser wouldn't mean anything. I am not accusing you of anything, I don't think the IP is you, but you could have been at a friends computer, or at work, or taken your laptop to starbucks, somewhere else that would not have the same CU but

3262:

To be clear, I am not talking about the original block, which has expired anyway. I am talking about the block extension that was placed on my account because IP user 69.16.147.185 deleted info from the GGTF ArbCom page, info that I did not delete. The only page that I have edited since my block was

2866:

At any rate, this is important to my peace of mind, and if it can't be corrected, then I'd just as soon wipe out any record that I've ever contributed here if it would mean revdeling Hell in a Bucket's and others' public speculation about where I live. I have been the victim of virtual and real-life

2137:

Lightbreather, this kind of tit-for-tat will get you nowhere. I have queried the necessity of your block on the SPI page. I hope you get unblocked, and make careful and thoughtful comments at WP:ARBGGTF/PD (talk) if you wish. If not, then a week goes by surprisingly fast, especially if you forget

1031:

I respect your quick agreeability to another admin doing a review. LB can put up a review request if she wants. However, you do not seem to have shown any concrete reasons for overlooking the possibility of a joe job, and do not seem to have directly dealt with any of the arguments I have put up. If

3749:

Within a couple of hours, the same person starts an SPI and publicly asks for a checkuser, too. You still believe that your reason for participating in the highly controversial discussion, in which you were not an involved party, was legitimate. How do you defend yourself - without outing yourself?

3666:

question goes to same set of comments. There were others in that discussion who had no problem with my username and IP address being connected publicly (against policy) and possibly others who felt the same way and did not speak up. (In other words, they were hoping that I would get blocked.) Could

3095:

Per Mike's response to my question yesterday, I have submitted a request through UTRS. The thing is, I would like to vote at ACE, and today is the last day to vote. If my 1-week block had not been extended by another week, it would have expired by now. As Salvio said above, he will accept a review.

1107:

Well, we are Wikipedians. As Wikipedians, we are supposed to discuss things and show good reasons for saying the things we say. You have been fending off what I have said by an appeal to experience, and seem to be taking a staked out position saying things like "my point of view, you are welcome to

548:

Procedural decline: this one-week block has expired, though the extension remains and is the subject of a second unblock request (below). The on-wiki evidence for this request doesn't support an unblock. I understand you may also have emailed evidence to a functionary, but as they haven't responded

4435:

in the same dispute. The funny thing is that even as you wrongly thought Echastain was a puppet of Sue Rangell misusing the clean start you were doing the exact same thing with the IP. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, your welcome to revert it but I'm going to link it into the conversation on

3596:

I am wondering what you make of the claims by Lightbreather that he/she was framed for the actions leading up to the block extension. A Joe job sort of thing. I don't think it is plausible. The behavior was so idiosyncratic and not the clumsy impersonation that normally comes along with a Joe job.

2885:

Well if you have no interest in the area that is fine but you really need to stop making waves, you right now are splashing in the water trying to stay afloat when a lifeboat is right in front of you of keeping calm and addressing your problems later. You aren't fixing things from what I am seeing

2721:

since you have a block active. Perhaps after your block expires though. You could also ask for your user page, but all of your various contribs in the rest of wiki would remain. (If you are allowed to vanish, they would get renamed, but your signature lines in various talk pages would remain) Per

1944:

Yes I do visit Manchester, it's still not a crime, but you can't seriously think that I would travel there to edit anonymously? I am perfectly capable of speaking my mind logged in. I don't know whether you can categorically deny you haven't edited while logged out but I can and I think you should

1162:

The unblock request was declined using Occam's razor, which is a faulty criteria because it assumes that simple things are more probable, as if sophisticated things don't exist, or are rare. If we look around at our world closely, we find that the world is full of sophisticated things and systems,

1082:

Thanks for recognizing the possibility. That all the joe jobs in your 8 years experience were clumsy affairs seems predictable because it is improbable that expert joe jobbers would be found out in the first place. So, your line of reasoning does not seem to be very strong ? We have lots of admins

591:

If there are privacy concerns that administrators may not be aware of, that's fine, but as such the unblock request will need to be evaluated by a functionary who can review the material in question. It should be noted that I consulted with GorillaWarfare yesterday before I posted my findings. She

3407:

The extension of this block seems silly to me. I disagree that this is an Occam's razor situation—we had many IPs editing the arbitration case, and it seems equally likely that this could be another person or a joe job. Lightbreather admitted the edits from the first IP were theirs; I don't think

1602:

Without evidence it should be ignored out of hand, the differences in blocks here and Lightbreathers is that there was more evidence other then just a location to indicate sockpuppetry. It will all be behavioral based and there really isn't a lot so unless it's completely telling it's an argument

819:

Yes, thanks, I saw that, but I'd still like another admin to consider my appeal. Of course I'd like personal info revdeled - and I've got outstanding Requests for that - but I wouldn't just try to delete it. That would be stupid, and it (simple deletion of a couple paragraphs) wouldn't do much to

179:

Unfortunately, in this day and age there are so many guys who don't like GGTF-type efforts who know how to fake the appearance of coming from an IP in a specific locality, not to mention fake a similar writing pattern. I've seen cases with much clearer evidence rejected. Just more dubious stuff

3605:

No, I agree with you and I don't see any merit in the claim. There is no gentle way of saying this, but, put simply, I don't believe her when she says she didn't do it; she has already lied before, when she denied operating the first IP (the one for which she was originally blocked), so I don't

3346:

As Gaijin42 said, CU will likely not tell us anything since we already have the geolocation of both IPs (perhaps your only defence is that they are different states (but that doesn't prove a lot). All I'd be able to tell with CU is whether you've edited on the 69.* IP with your account which is

137:

been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Knowledge (XXG) policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the

3063:

Thank you. On the Requests for unblock page, under "Unblock request time," mine is the only entry that shows "No timestamp found" instead of "x days ago" on all the others, so I guess I'll go back and add my sig/time stamp on my originals. If that doesn't help soon, I'll try the ticket system.

2547:

Lightbreather. Looking into the situation afresh (I've been away for a few days), I believe the functionaries have handled this correctly per their procedures. If you believe that additional information needs to be suppressed, perhaps discussing the matter with the WMF would not be a bad idea.

959:

Anyway, to reiterate, the first block was frustrating, but I don't deny that I edited logged out for those; I simply disagree that my reason for doing so was inappropriate. However, the block extension (from 1 week to 2) really upsets me - because I didn't do it nor do I know who did it. I was

3375:

OK. Let us consider a hypothetical case. How does one find out about an unexpected edit, read through it to understand what it is, from where it was made, find out some other user's location and correlate it with the new edit, calculate the distance between the two locations, work out all the

1729:

CU's won't publicly link the IPs with registered users like that - as was seen in the Lighbreather SPI case. It will come down to behavioural evidence, hence my request to Lightbreather to cite her behavioural evidence. In the Lightbreather SPI case, she was caught socking through behavioural

2282:. I can send a CU some stamped photos that would demonstrate why this might occur. I apologise for the misunderstanding. I've recently switched mobile phones and was at a relative's house at the time (a house that is approx 200 miles from Rochdale, but that's how geolocate works sometimes) 4389:

Q: Did I come back as an anonymous IP? A: Yes, and with the exception of one observation on the workshop talk page, I made no comments at the GGTF ArbCom case until a month after I quit. I didn't participate to vandalize or to disrupt, but to participate in good faith - anonymously.

2762:

I panicked, and I apologize. Not for bringing up the eight IP addresses that no-one put before SPI, but for bringing up names. However, I still think someone should investigate those IPs. In addition to my original focus (hatted/habbed above), I think these two look very suspicious:

834:

The info you want revdeled, is it the info in the diff I posted above that was used to extend your block? I'm not sure that is rev-del worthy, as it is just referring to information that you posted on wiki, but in any case you could request revdel directly from oversight by emailing

4308:

The real-world consequence of editing as Lightbreather in controversial areas is that I have been harassed on- and off-wiki. That is part of why I quit editing (along with, of course, not being called a "cunt," but being told that editors can act in ways deserving of being called a

4057:

to serve from 1 January to 30 June 2015 is now underway. Candidates can nominate themselves or others from December 01, 00:01 (UTC), until December 15, 23:59. The voting period will run from December 16, 00:01 (UTC), until December 31, 23:59. You can read about coordinators' duties

2952:

I asked to have my block extension reviewed because that IP action on the GGTF ArbCom page was not me. Plain and simple. The request is above, dated 15:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC), along with a comment from the admin who extended the block, who says he accepts review of his actions.

732:

About the block added last night. I swear the actions of IP address 69.16... were not mine. We do not use the ISP Highlands Network Group and I've never heard of Mudhook Marketing. I DO NOT LIVE IN PHOENIX. Since my block, any editing I've done has been here in my own user space.

4001: 2642:

Also, without any comment about the merit of your particular issue, I think people may be weary of the drama related to the case, and also wary of the newly placed Discretionary Sanctions in the area. I fear you may get thought of in a tit-for-tat scenario, especially when it

526:

discussion, if I'm allowed to have it, must be private. I understand Mike V's reasons for drawing his conclusion, but information, private information that I offered to other functionaries before I knew who Mike V was or what he was doing, was not factored into the decision.

2532:

Thank you, TP. I have contacted oversight again, and copied the drafting arbitrators of the GGTF ArbCom case. I have reiterated my request and given them lots of evidence (private). I hope this is taken care of today, and maybe I won't have to take a sleeping pill tonight.

3941:

The block is over now. So, the whole thing is moot. However, I have explained on this page, and some other places how the block extension was unjustified. So, you may take GoodDay's advice and drop the stick after all. You win some, you lose some. Not much to worry about

2331:

but, either way, it really makes no difference in the context of the diffs given. I have no opinion regarding your own SPI situation: I had a gut feeling but did not pursue it because, as I said at the SPI case page, I didn't think anything would come of it anyway. -

1032:

there are no real arguments which could discoult my arguments, then, perhaps, you yourself could could recognize that my arguments may have substance, recognize the possibility that the edit in question may not have been made by LB, and reconsider the block decline ?

4279:

An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate

3624:

question, before I even respond to the details, is how am I supposed to have a chance for a positive review outcome if the original blocker and the first reviewer (who ostensibly agreed to a second review) privately agree that there is no merit to the claim?

3995: 3978: 3176: 2820:

I'm the Stamford IP and I spend time reading Arbcom pages and the Drama pages to fill some blank time at work. I'm not related to anyone else. I've done some IP editing here and there as well. Sorry if you think that I'm related to a sockpuppet conspiracy.

4485:

That's not really a lie, but it's not really true, either. My complaint is with the incivility on Knowledge (XXG), of which EC is/was only a part. Not only the incivility, but the rancorous opposition that is rained down on those who complain about it.

3278:

Checkuser is not run "defensively", and they generally would not report information linking an IP to a named user in any case I don't think this request is going to get you anywhere. In any case, I am pretty sure the admins have said they were doing a

1148:. It's not. There's always "room for doubt" in SPIs without a CU. The reviewer has to make a judgment call on what's most likely. That's been done. Someone else might well make a different call and Chillum says he's happy for another admin to do that. 3485:

At first look I thought it was Orange/Yellow pinging me again. I see now it was GW. My mistake, apologies to all involved. I did not think it was you. GW being an admin is welcome to review this and find differently, or any admin for that matter.

4346:

Lightbreather didn't think she was an involved party, how in the blue hell was she not an involved party, she was involved in the case request, the first person filing evidence and then all of a sudden she retires and then comes back as an anon

3646: 2326:

I am happy to release that info to arbcom directly and I'm happy to absolve WMF to speak with arbs about it. Far too many people have absolutely no idea what has been going on and, alas, there is a limit to what can be said publicly. You either

1685:

You getting caught socking isn't a case of being "picked out" (picked on?) randomly. There was clear behavioural evidence that gave you away, not just location. State your behavioural evidence and I'm sure someone will transpose it to SPI.

2502:

I have not received recent threats of harm, but recent events here remind me of events leading up to past threats, which I cannot go into detail here. IS THERE NO-ONE PERSON OR SMALL TEAM (OF 2 OR 3) WHO CAN CONTACT ME PRIVATELY TO HEAR

3730:

must apply, because you see that at least eight other editors have chosen to participate anonymously, too. Near the end of the discussion, someone speculates that some of the IPs (plural) in the discussion might be "case parties logged

4341:, you keep claiming that I was an involved party in the GGTF ArbCom case. This allegation was part of your reasoning behind why my editing anonymously was inappropriate, leading to my block. Here is your latest iteration of the claim: 1054:

I don't think I am wrong, but I agree it is a possibility. I am open to review but in my 8 years experience as an admin joe jobs are more clumsy impersonations. This was an example of subconscious idiosyncratic behavior that passed to

4411:

If you are going to continue running your mouth about me then I am not going to stay off this page. I'm going to reply en-mass and you probably won't like a lot of it. We have called you a liar because you lied. Simple as that,

2167:

Re: the IP that was reverting your subpage (91.232.124.60), consider requesting a CU by email. Ditto with any of the other IPs if they were causing a problem. Posting a running analysis here is just going to cause more trouble.

2160:

Lightbreather, I think the section above is causing more of the same drama that we saw at GGTF and ought to be closed down. 90.213.181.169 and 2.125.151.139 are Sitush editing logged out (not socking, just not logged in – e.g.

3258:

my original block of 1 week was extended to 2 weeks for "block evasion," but that edit was not made by me or by anyone that I know. Chillum, who was last to review my block said that he is open to another admin reviewing it.

4436:

Salvio's page so even if you do people can see the baloney. You want to say that there was other parties editing logged out too, maybe there was but they at least had the good sense to limit those posts to limit suspicion.

867:

can you please at least undo the block extension while I'm waiting to here from someone privately about the first block. This was not me. I don't live in Phoenix, and I was out to dinner with my husband when that happened.

3439:

engaged in sock puppetry is a relevant fact when considering the credibility of your claims. I think the any further review should take into account the sections you collapsed as to allow focus on the current issue.

3429:

I am not changing my mind and I doubt the blocking admin will either. Please stop pinging me about this matter. I invite the scrutiny of the community as always. I welcome another admin to review this, but I am done

4180: 4040: 4030: 2598:

of my home or work location in relation to his speculating about my use of an alternate account. As I am still waiting to hear from someone privately regarding my block, how do I go about starting this process?

3423:

I have given this my time. I have discussed this with the blocking admin. It is clear to both of us that once discovered by a checkuser you resorted to using a proxy thinking that would fool us. We know about

2312:

Hope this helps. Please note that the ones that were me are now irrelevant due to a change of ISP that has been forced upon me by a situation that is far, far more severe personally than the stuff relating to

1670:, and in a way that suggested that scrutiny overides the legitimate use of alternate accounts for privacy. Why aren't these other editors held up to the same standards as the one? Is there a double standard? 4052: 3196: 965:

Nonetheless, I'm not asking for another review. I just wanted to point out that there were two separate IP addresses involved, and the second one, who used it, and why they used it, are a mystery to me.

1791:, since you claim to have some skill at sniffing out socks, I hope you don't let this drop. It won't help me, but it will take some of the sting out of being singled out as someone whose privacy means 4569:

My hope was that someone would unblock me for that unjust "block evasion" extension. That and maybe apologize for calling me a liar. That didn't happen. Now I am going to sleep on what to do next.

941:

when that edit was made. Even Gaijin42, whom I've had disputes with in the past, told Salvio that I'd been poked by IP addresses before, and that he (Gaijin) thought someone was "stirring the pot."

4244: 1859:

You make a lot of that general type of error, Carolmooredc, causing you to make fairly frequent apologies, retractions or amendments. An example would be your assumption that Montanabw was a man.

3700:(as there was between my 36 edits logged out to my other edits as Lightbreather). The information that IP 69 had deleted had never been deleted by IP 72 or Lightbreather. I had asked to have it 3017:

from Phoenix) with much more technical savvy than myself who knew that edit would be a surefire way to rub salt in the wound. Please lift my block; the original was set to expire today. Thanks.

755: 3781:

Anyone who is familiar with my editing knows that I have on numerous occasions shared my RL plans when in the middle of an important discussion... as have many other editors, for that matter.

1765:

I can unequivocally state that I have never commented on that case under anything but my own username. In fact, as far as I remember, I have never contributed to wikipedia as an anonymous IP.

4362: 4355: 4092: 4059: 3739: 3191: 2722:

vanish, you can ask for your user talk to be deleted, but such is the exception and not the rule. Also per vanish, due to licensing issues, it is not possible to actually delete an account.

2010:

Doubt I'll be adding evidence. I am once again briefly in Manchester but will soon be leaving and am thus spending my short bit of time here refuting errant claims etc in the Workshop phase.

1012:

Hello. I am familiar with the ideas and patterns of the joe job. I do not think this is the case here. However in deference to your concerns I am open to another admin reviewing this block.

133:, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Knowledge (XXG) administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you 2637:

templates to ask for it to be copied to ANI. This may get declined, as since you are currently blocked, and this is an appeal of your block or anything, some may think it is out of process.

760:

Using multiple accounts to push a point of view in contentious areas is a serious problem here. I am surprised you got such a short block, you can consider yourself to have gotten off easy.

4418:] From 10/26 until I called you out. Apparently privacy only matters when you are pretending to be another person and not presenting evidence o=under your account but I digress. Remember 3829: 4383: 3463:

did, who seems to be open to reviewing this. Therefore, I am thinking about making one more official "unblock" request, and hoping that others will allow GorillaWarfare to do the review.

2456:

Yes! They told me they could take no action, and to take it up with a clerk. I have emailed four separate admins, and I asked the clerk to ask one of them to contact me privately. Nada!

2180:

Thanks, SlimVirgin. I am just out the door to dinner with my husband. If I can't get back on tonight, I will be back tomorrow. I will think about what you and others have written here.

4379:

Q: Did I provide evidence in the case, just before I quit WP? A: Yes. Evidence was also provided by at least a dozen other editors who were not listed as involved parties in the case.

1895:

My gut tells me (as Hell in a Basket says) that this IP editor may be J3Mrs. Or, considering the "in hiding" remark and things Sitush said that are given in the next section - Sitush.

927:

was mine, which I used about 36 times on the ArbCom PD talk page for, IMO, the legitimate reason of privacy. (Others saw it as avoiding scrutiny, so I was blocked; I understand that.)

1573:- who have commented on the case have strong ties to Manchester. Therefore, I am concerned that at least three of the IPs given, the Manchester IPs - could be sock or meat puppets. 4039:, in recognition of this month's religious holidays in much of the English-speaking world. Awards will be given out to everyone who copy edits at least one of the target articles. 3859:

I've protected for 2 days (expires 22:53, 15 December 2014). By then your block will have expired, and if further protection is required, you can request it at WP:RFPP. Best, --

1415:(take your pick), especially in an ArbCom case, here are some IP addresses that have commented on the GGTF ArbCom talk pages that, for some reason, have not been "scrutinized." 3923:

obviously did not work). But the block extension was uncalled for. I did not make the IP 69 edit and have not behaved in way that supports branding me a block evader and liar.

233: 126: 3751: 158: 130: 2966:

The day before that, two days ago now, I begged to have the original block reviewed privately because there are things I cannot share without potentially outing myself.

592:

informed me that she was unaware of any privacy concerns through the functionary or arbitration avenues that would discourage me from posting the behavioral evidence.

2647:

appear you are doing it in response to your own block, and pinged numerous arbs and admins and not gotten anywhere. But in any case, that is what you would do to try.

2050:

When I became aware that this editor was going to just keep removing information that I had in my sandbox to study, I asked him/her to email me so we could discuss.

3732: 2015:

At this point, Sitush had already announced his "retirement," and in this post he says he doubts he'll be adding evidence. He also says that he is in Manchester.

1662:

IP users comment on the GGTF ArbCom page, but only one is picked out of the bunch to check as a sock/meat? More than one person there suggested that IP users may

2378:

I would prefer to discuss this with a single functionary who can make a decision, but I'd be happy to share with two or three, if necessary... and privately.

1186:

For the third time now, although I disagree with the reason for the first block, there was no getting around it because the charge and the evidence were made

794:

template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

583:

template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

431:

template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

3319:

If it will help an admin, I can get a copy of my receipt from the restaurant I was at on November 30 (blocked Dec. 1) when IP 69 made the edit he/she made.

125:

by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Knowledge (XXG) account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at

4023:

2014 (UTC), the backlog stood at 1,974 articles, dipping below 2,000 for the first time in the Guild's history (see graph at right). Well done everyone!

687: 480: 342: 1891:

I've seen this same sort of comment (sometimes playful, sometimes like a dissertation) over what a term means multiple times by Eric Corbett and Sitush.

1512:

The following IP editor found the above information so disturbing that he/she kept deleting it from my sandbox! (He/she has been banned for disruption.

960:

blocked and I concentrated on addressing that block as best I could from my talk page... the only place that I have edited since my block was started.

623:

is aware of who I have reached out to. Could you consult privately with him and see if one of those people is able to reply to the pleas that I sent?

758:

by the IP and you are clearly the same person. You exhibit identical personalities and focus on the same things and even the same spelling lessons.

3307:

The duck test does not apply in non-obvious cases. Unless there is such clear and convincing evidence, editors must assume good faith from others.

1549:

I don't know enough about all of the involved parties and others who are participating at the GGTF ArbCom, but I know that two involved parties -

4000:. Of the 43 people who signed up for this drive, 26 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available 1986:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=629780209

1981:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=629743261

1976:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=629742872

1833:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=629250227

4265: 3844:

Could I please get temporary semi-protection on this talk page so I don't have to put up with pokes from unregistered users right now? Thanks.

1232:

I don't like it, but I can live with that first block in my log, but the second one is harsh because it brands me for something I did not do.

779: 568: 416: 271: 4144: 3784:

And Hell in a Bucket - who publicly outed my real-life IP address, without repercussion - chimes in with an "the evasion was her" allegation.

1443: 3255:(or any other uninvolved checkuser reading this), could you please run a checkuser on IP address 69.16.147.185? Because of the person's edit 2737:

As you have attempted to tie my user name to a location all this seems somewhat, I can't decide what word to use here but you get the gist.

938:

but that edit was not made by me. As I've said, I've done stupid things in my life, but not that stupid. I was out to dinner with my husband

4107: 3229: 1477: 1433: 1419: 4069:

Thank you all once again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve anything without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators

4393:

I was not an involved party in the GGTF ArbCom, but I was very interested in it, just like dozens of other editors, including yourself.

4156: 3726:

There is a highly controversial discussion going on that you would like to participate in anonymously. You read WP:SOCK and decide that

2999: 1519: 1491: 1453: 682: 475: 337: 1285:

from a Phoenix IP, removing information about you. Presumed to be block evasion. I have posted a message to Salvio with some thoughts.

4174: 4162: 2766: 2363:

I have asked to have some personal info about me here on WP revdeled. I have asked privately and publicly. It still has not happened.

2119:

evidence that someone in Manchester really doesn't want to have IP editing in Manchester related to the GGTF ArbCom case scrutinized.

1467: 97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 4509:

My evidence was about 550 words - more than some posted but less than others posted, and no clerk threw it out as a "massive wall."

4150: 2928:. What I'd really like is a revdel of personal information - which I don't want to discuss publicly. It's like a frikking catch-22. 2822: 2776: 1501: 3328:

For Pete's sake, I'm not asking to have the original block removed, I'm just asking to have the extension removed. IT WAS NOT ME.

2886:

but only making them worse. I say these things because I don't want to see another editor go over something that can be helped. -

4168: 3125:

Snap! You can't link to YouTube, but if you go there and search "The Penguin Dilemma" it is worth the 2-minutes out of your day.

2074: 615:

Thank you. GW may very well be unaware, since I have not been able to share my concerns explicitly and privately with her. Clerk

952:

I knew simply deleting it wouldn't really help, and that's why I'd asked to have it revdeled (not just deleted) from the get-go.

4103: 3358: 3225: 2700:

if nothing is going to happen with this, is there a way to just close out my account and delete everything associated with it?

129:, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with 388: 4530:

You edited as the IP and as yourself to make it look like another person that just couldn't handle the big bad eric corbett.

3502:

I have reviewed this, and I do find differently, but I don't particularly want to overturn ban extension without agreement.

1996:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics&diff=prev&oldid=629759866

259: 402:

I don't see anything there which justifies your abuse of multiple accounts; perhaps you might clarify in a future request.

391:, which I found after following and reading the dozens of links one encounters when reading the guide to appealing blocks. 161:(linked to in notice above), I have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry. 4369:, by Carolmooredc. That's it. (Carol also thought 11 others should be added to the list; the only one added was Neotarf.) 4208: 1342:

could you please block Hell in a Bucket for a bit, or ban him from the GGTF ArbCom pages? And maybe PROTECT those pages?

4457:

You also mentioned this at the GGTF ArbCom. Why? And why both times without a link? I just went and dug around and found

3705:

information that I wanted to hide, and it would very likely cause me to be blocked again or for a longer period of time.

2372:

Will someone please take my concern seriously and advise me on who I can contact to get this taken care of immediately?

2956: 660: 453: 315: 219: 4220: 2002: 1641:

It looks like one editor will be banned for, among other things, making unsupported allegations and wild assumptions.

701: 494: 356: 654: 447: 309: 3745:

Six days later, the same person who had speculated before about IPs in the discussion being logged-out case parties

3032:

Your unblock request is still active above, so that has added you to a queue for your request to be evaluated. (See

2998:

Without commenting on the original, 1-week block of November 30, how can I go about getting a review of the second?

4556: 4441: 4259: 4238: 4226: 3435:

These blocks are not entirely separate issues as you insist in the collapse templates above. The fact that you had

2867:

harassment and anything else is just asking me to work in an environment that makes me open to further harassment.

2559: 1868: 1608: 659:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

452:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

314:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

147: 38: 4282:

Not one of these allegations was made with a diff or in an appropriate forum. That's called "casting aspersions."

242: 237: 229: 122: 4214: 4138: 4122: 3576: 2969:

Can this, as Mike V suggested, be evaluated by a functionary who can review the material in question (privately)?

2143: 1447: 1286: 899: 255: 4232: 3947: 3750:

Do you lie outright - say "I am not Salvio" - or do you dance around the problem as best you can after reading

3558: 3538: 3507: 3413: 3381: 3143:

People link to YouTube on their Knowledge (XXG) pages; I have. And I don't see anyone getting warned about it.

2891: 2861:

Anime and manga? Someone else once mentioned these might be subjects that interest me, though I don't know why.

2851: 2375:

I am pinging a boatload of admin types here in hopes that someone will actually help me instead of dismiss me.

1843:

If I could understand the scope of this case and wasn't in hiding, I might be tempted to list others where you

1437: 1168: 1128: 1113: 1088: 1037: 999: 4462:

why you're dragging his name into it). Let's leave the old, declined case out of this and focus on this case.

3642:

question goes to Chillum's first set of comments. The single edit by IP address 69.16.147.185 was the deletion

2846:

and help out? I know there are a-lot of anime and manga articles that need work done if you are interested. -

1912:

Your gut is 100% wrong. I don't even live in Manchester or even Greater Manchester. I suggest you retract it.

1744:

That's certainly the official line, but I think we all suspect that CUs are performed in secret all the time.

1588:

I'm not one of them. That is a pretty specious connection you are making and you may wish to reconsider it. -

1481: 1423: 944:

In cases like this, the opinion of an (often) opponent is worth considering. Gaijin knows me pretty darn well.

1495: 1457: 1380:

IP addresses that have commented on the GGTF ArbCom talk pages - plus one that has been banned for disruption

4574: 4537: 4514: 4491: 4467: 4401: 4320: 3928: 3878: 3849: 3804: 3764: 3710: 3672: 3654: 3630: 3584: 3468: 3333: 3268: 3133: 3105: 3097: 3069: 3022: 2978: 2933: 2872: 2793: 2705: 2674: 2667:, and your reply doesn't help. Sorry. I'm not saying you're trying to scare me, but I don't feel encouraged. 2607: 2538: 2511: 2461: 2430: 2387: 2185: 2124: 2085: 2026: 1935: 1902: 1804: 1675: 1603:

that doesn't hold water. If evidence can be given other then just a location then that's a different story.

1578: 1539: 1523: 1370: 1347: 1311: 1272: 1237: 971: 881: 825: 738: 628: 531: 166: 47: 17: 4274: 2057:

He/she replied, "I'll not be emailing you. Do not provoke EC and Sitush with this. It is EXTREMELY unwise."

2770: 2414: 2101: 1750: 1719: 1627: 1471: 754:

You must think we have never seen someone sock puppet before or that we are thick. The diffs presented at

187: 4552: 4437: 4336: 4255: 3899:

you've no intentions of contributing to the 'pedia, when your block expires & are gonna continue to

3362: 2826: 2780: 2589: 2549: 2399: 1604: 1505: 1337: 143: 4292: 3727: 3579:

that Chillum started on Salvio giuliano's talk page, since I cannot respond there, I am doing so here.

2520:

Oversight are the small team. If they can't help, your next steps would be to contact the WMF.--v/r -

1404: 804:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Salvio_giuliano&diff=636148503&oldid=636122559

4133: 3395: 2993: 2140: 2068: 1254: 894: 871: 3904: 2018:

All of this - Manchester, the GGTF ArbCom, India-related topics, the timing - suggest to me Sitush.

1412: 891:

say that it's being discussed on the dedicated mailing list and you should receive a response soon.

3943: 3554: 3534: 3503: 3458: 3409: 3377: 3354: 2887: 2847: 2804:

Thanks for acknowledging your error, attempted outing isn't acceptable whatever the circumstances.

2391: 1773: 1329: 1164: 1124: 1109: 1084: 1033: 995: 2718: 2595: 4570: 4533: 4510: 4487: 4463: 4397: 4316: 4016: 3924: 3874: 3845: 3800: 3760: 3706: 3668: 3650: 3626: 3580: 3464: 3329: 3289: 3264: 3129: 3101: 3065: 3018: 2974: 2929: 2909: 2868: 2789: 2727: 2701: 2670: 2652: 2631: 2603: 2534: 2507: 2457: 2445: 2426: 2181: 2120: 2081: 2022: 1931: 1898: 1873:

Don't forget when an editor disagreed with you on the GGTF page you accused her of being male....

1800: 1704: 1671: 1574: 1535: 1366: 1343: 1307: 1293: 1268: 1233: 967: 877: 843: 821: 810: 734: 665: 624: 554: 527: 458: 320: 162: 2262: 3667:

any of those editors have made that deletion, in a malicious attempt to get my block extended?

4428: 4202: 3912: 3864: 3519: 3487: 3441: 3148: 3086: 2258: 2251: 2096: 1745: 1735: 1714: 1691: 1622: 1552: 1153: 1064: 1013: 876:

I've done some stupid things in my life, but I wouldn't do anything that stupid. Please help.

764: 183: 3969: 3895:

Howdy LB, recommend that you drop your complaints as you're hours away from being unblocked.

3756:

I have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry.

3280: 3169: 3037: 1885:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Dougweller&diff=prev&oldid=629276476

1056: 3050: 2914: 2524: 2486: 2395: 2383: 2337: 2295: 2285: 2229: 2203: 2043: 1593: 1333: 1144: 788: 602: 577: 425: 284: 265: 258:. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may 4578: 4560: 4541: 4518: 4495: 4471: 4445: 4405: 4324: 4287:

Logging out to edit a controversial area is evasion of scrutiny, not protection of privacy,

4111: 3951: 3932: 3916: 3882: 3868: 3853: 3808: 3768: 3714: 3676: 3658: 3634: 3588: 3562: 3542: 3524: 3511: 3492: 3472: 3446: 3417: 3385: 3366: 3337: 3293: 3272: 3233: 3152: 3137: 3109: 3073: 3058: 3026: 2982: 2937: 2918: 2895: 2876: 2855: 2830: 2813: 2797: 2746: 2731: 2709: 2678: 2656: 2611: 2565: 2542: 2527: 2515: 2489: 2465: 2449: 2434: 2341: 2328: 2233: 2207: 2189: 2174: 2128: 2106: 2089: 2030: 1954: 1939: 1921: 1906: 1808: 1778: 1755: 1739: 1724: 1695: 1679: 1650: 1632: 1612: 1597: 1582: 1543: 1374: 1351: 1315: 1297: 1276: 1241: 1172: 1157: 1132: 1117: 1092: 1069: 1041: 1018: 1003: 975: 901: 885: 847: 829: 814: 769: 742: 632: 610: 558: 535: 406: 292: 251: 193: 170: 151: 4424: 3832:

has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the

3778:

Now DeCausa joins in with his "pre-arranged alibi makes her difficult to believe" comment?

2948:

Actually, I have two related questions. The first is the more straightforward of the two.

2809: 2742: 2691: 2621: 2418: 2403: 2169: 2064: 1950: 1917: 1646: 858: 618: 2925: 1306:

On my mother's ashes, it wasn't me. Also, could someone please revdel the location info?

4012:

The November Drive removed 26 requests from the Requests page and 509 articles from the

2788:

But to repeat, I apologize. If you've never been through an SPI - I hope you never are!

1060: 3349: 3250: 1767: 1568: 1206: 2586:

Without confirming or denying the accuracy of the information, I would like to charge

1263:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ALightbreather

4125:, I will respond here... since it's the only place I can respond for the time being. 3787:

He must believe that repeating an allegation makes it a fact. Well, it doesn't. Only

3285: 2723: 2648: 2441: 1289: 839: 806: 763:

We have heard about proxies before so using an IP out of state does not fool anyone.

550: 403: 3984: 1193:

BTW, does anyone remember that Hell in a Bucket originally said at the GGTF ArbCom,

4197: 3908: 3860: 3736:

If you've got evidence of that could you please email it to me or the clerks' list.

3402: 3144: 2924:

I haven't decided yet. I'm still reading about my options. The last one I read was

1786: 1731: 1687: 1149: 985: 915: 3175: 3838:

template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

3738:

This makes you a little nervous, so you go to the main case page and re-read the

3408:

it's unreasonable to extend good faith far enough to say that this edit was not.

3090: 3042: 2989: 2695: 2521: 2483: 2407: 2333: 2225: 2199: 1589: 1556: 862: 836: 594: 276: 46:

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

4483:

You started plastering your off wiki twitter site because of User:Eric Corbett.

3645:

of info that was related to me. There were others involved in that discussion,

3182: 2063:

This person deleted this information over 36 times, and was finally blocked by

1971:

Three to the GGTF ArbCom (for a total of about 2.5Kb added to case discussion)

1561:- are from or have recently been in Manchester, and that at least two others - 2805: 2757: 2738: 2669:

I have sent an emergency email to Wikimedia, as TP suggested earlier. Thanks.

2366:

MUST A GIVE EVIDENCE OF THREATS OF BODILY HARM TO GET ACTION ON THIS REQUEST?

1946: 1913: 1642: 1564: 1059:. If I hear hooves clacking on the ground behind me I think horse, not zebra. 1709:

So ask a CU to check out those IP addresses, but I absolutely guarantee that

1141:

You seem to be saying that the test the block reviewer should be applying is

3791:

person knows for sure who the IP 69 editor was: the IP 69 editor; and only

2254:

but there are obvious reasons why someone from Delhi might be contributing

1666:

participate in "discussions internal to the project." Others talked about

1190:, so I couldn't argue my defense without confirming what had been outed. 949:

I ended up taking care of the information (some of it, anyway) privately.

4091:

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from

2001:

All of these posts were on October 15, 2014. In an talk page discussion

1403:

Since some editors have expressed such concern about whether or not the

4077: 3211: 3122:

Just to drop a little laughter into an otherwise wearisome exchange...

3100:, and this one give my reasons for asking for an unblock. Please help. 3033: 802:

Salvio replied to my question regarding the block extension he placed.

210: 4062:. Please consider getting involved and remember to cast you vote—it's 3002:

is/was not me. I have done some stupid things in my life, but the edit

1799:

who are commenting anonymously, without scrutiny, on the GGTF ArbCom.

4035:

will run from December 14–20 and will focus on articles related to

3698:

There was no pattern of editing to compare to idiosyncratic behavior

3518:

blocking admin yourself about this if you have not already done so.

549:

here the request for review can only be considered on what we have.

4427:) and you started plastering your off wiki twitter site because of 4083: 3983: 3217: 3455:

Chillum, please note that I didn't ping you here, but that admin

3009:. I suspect that I either have a Phoenix area secret admirer or, 4071: 3205: 4123:

other editors are continuing to discuss me on another talk page

756:

Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather/Archive

250:, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans 3817: 2617:

I think the process would be to write a post here and use the

205: 25: 3181: 3174: 2044:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/91.232.124.60

645: 438: 300: 111: 931:- the one that led to the extension of my block - was used 1387:

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

776:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

565:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

413:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

4386:- even on the oddly named WikiProject Editor Retention. 2665:

I can't seem to get anyone to understand how scared I am

796:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

585:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

433:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

4458: 4419: 4413: 4349: 4310: 4289: 4269: 4250: 4192: 4190: 4188: 4186: 3785: 3779: 3758: 3643: 3616: 3608: 3599: 3256: 3003: 2967: 2290: 2279: 2274: 2268: 2221: 2162: 2058: 2051: 1995: 1985: 1980: 1975: 1884: 1875: 1832: 1513: 1363: 1361: 1283: 1262: 1216: 1201: 992: 953: 950: 942: 939: 936: 803: 715: 711: 705: 696: 692: 678: 674: 670: 508: 504: 498: 489: 485: 471: 467: 463: 370: 366: 360: 351: 347: 333: 329: 325: 234:

Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather

127:

Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather

4384:

Yes, I got fed up with the hostile editing environment

3903:? then you'll likely end up being blocked 'again' per 3799:: the IP 69 editor and I. I was not the IP 69 editor. 3597:

Just wanted to see if you saw any merit in the claim.

1287:

User_talk:Salvio_giuliano#Lightbreather_block_evasion

1199:

editing here are some of the case parties logged out.

4312:

and similar comments and actions by other editors).

4295:

in the sock puppetry policy says just the opposite:

3723:

question is for Salvio and involves a hypothetical.

3685:

for that I was blocked. And that block has expired.

2095:

In what sense is that "evidence"? Evidence of what?

1713:

of them will correlate with the users you've named.

838:

with the specific info you think should be removed.

653:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an

446:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an

308:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an

1991:And one to WT:Noticeboard for India-related topics 3614:I am glad we are on the same page then. Thank you. 2908:Re your requests above, do you want your userpage 2470:If you have received threats of harm, send it to 1965:Evidence for Manchester IP address 90.213.181.169 1847:apologise/retract but obviously should have done. 3747:PUBLICLY links your username to your IP address. 2036:Evidence for Manchester IP address 91.232.124.60 1822:Evidence for Manchester IP address 2.125.151.139 1621:That's a very serious allegation you're making. 935:to make a deletion from the ArbCom PD talk page, 254:. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to 1259:or some other functionary explain this to me? 121:Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into 4185:has called me a liar or fibber multiple times. 3907:. We at WP:RETENTION, don't wish to see that. 3533:That is precisely what I am attempting to do. 3195:to serve from January 1 to June 30, 2015, are 1839:There is an interesting comment in this post: 1871:discussion, especially the comment by J3Mrs, 923:IP addresses were looked at re this SPI. The 8: 4455:You were part of the declined civility case. 3036:.) Also, you could submit a request through 1817:Evidence re Manchester (possible) socks/meat 4416:yet you edited as this IP for your privacy 2957:Blocking policy#Other important information 1440:) Geolocates to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4372:Q: Was my name mentioned on the main case 3606:attach much credence to her protestations. 3098:Request to remove 1-week unblock extension 1392:The following discussion has been closed. 1383: 641:Request to remove 1-week unblock extension 131:the guide to responding to investigations 3118:Come for the drama, stay for the giggles 2224:you give above is me. I even said so. - 3994:Thanks to everyone who participated in 820:address my underlying concern/request. 4420:saying I was casting aspersions before 4382:Q: Did I retire "all of a sudden"? A: 4066:Guild and it doesn't organize itself! 2783:) Geolocates to Stamford, Connecticut. 1508:) Geolocates to Stamford, Connecticut. 1484:) Geolocates to Rochdale, UK (Greater 1460:) Geolocates to Rochdale, UK (Greater 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4361:Q: Was my name even mentioned on the 1218:Instead, the evidence was focused on 7: 4507:You gave a massive wall of evidence. 4249:has called me a liar multiple times. 3997:November's Backlog Elimination Drive 3830:request for help from administrators 2360:Ok, this is getting very stressful. 1411:) of an IP address is overridden by 270:below. However, you should read the 4414:you came out of retirement on 11/14 4330:Involved parties at the GGTF ArbCom 3203:Cheers from your GOCE coordinators 1730:evidence after the CU was declined. 4285:As for the claim by Chillum that, 3007:was not by me nor by anyone I know 2717:You may not currently qualify for 236:. Note that multiple accounts are 24: 3752:Defending yourself against claims 3038:the unblock ticket request system 2773:) Geolocates to Vestal, New York. 1474:) Geolocates to Vestal, New York. 159:Defending yourself against claims 3976: 3821: 3162: 2474: 1526:) Geolocates to United Kingdom ( 209: 29: 3005:that led to my block extension 1855:This immediately after saying: 3742:list. Your name is not there. 2265:) but, really, does it matter? 1930:Do you ever visit Manchester? 1365:Especially while I'm blocked? 1: 4579:02:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC) 4561:01:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC) 4542:22:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC) 4519:21:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC) 4496:22:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC) 4472:21:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC) 4446:20:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC) 4406:20:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC) 4325:19:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC) 4112:03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC) 3960:December 2014 GOCE newsletter 3952:01:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC) 3933:21:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC) 3917:21:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC) 3883:03:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC) 3869:22:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC) 3854:22:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC) 3809:00:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC) 3769:19:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC) 3715:18:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC) 3677:18:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC) 3659:18:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC) 3635:18:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC) 3589:18:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC) 3563:03:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC) 3543:20:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC) 3525:19:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC) 3512:18:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC) 3493:18:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC) 3473:18:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC) 3447:18:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC) 3418:04:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC) 3386:03:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC) 3367:02:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC) 3338:20:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC) 3294:19:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC) 3273:19:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC) 3234:22:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC) 2149:00:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC). 2107:23:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 2090:22:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 2031:22:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 1940:23:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 1922:23:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 1907:22:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 1779:23:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 1756:23:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 1740:22:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 1725:22:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 1696:22:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 1680:22:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 1651:22:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 1633:22:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 1613:22:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 1598:22:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 1583:22:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 1544:20:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 1242:23:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC) 1173:00:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC) 1158:16:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC) 1133:15:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC) 1118:14:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC) 1093:10:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC) 1070:08:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC) 1042:08:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC) 1019:08:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC) 1004:07:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC) 633:19:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 611:19:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 536:18:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 407:18:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 293:08:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 224:from editing for a period of 194:13:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 171:19:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC) 152:03:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC) 3263:placed is my own talk page. 3153:23:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC) 3138:17:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC) 3110:18:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC) 3074:23:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC) 3059:23:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC) 3027:21:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC) 2983:21:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC) 2938:23:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 2919:23:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 2896:01:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC) 2877:22:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 2856:22:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 2831:17:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC) 2814:11:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC) 2798:15:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC) 2747:10:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC) 2732:22:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 2710:22:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 2679:22:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 2657:21:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 2612:20:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 2566:11:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC) 2543:19:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 2528:19:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 2516:17:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 2490:16:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 2466:16:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 2450:16:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 2435:16:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 2342:01:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 2234:01:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 2208:00:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 2190:00:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 2175:00:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 2129:00:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 1955:00:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 1880:And one to a user talk page 1809:00:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 1375:00:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC) 1352:04:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 1316:04:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 1298:04:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 1277:04:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 1195:I'm inclined to believe the 976:19:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC) 902:00:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC) 886:23:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 848:16:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 830:16:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 815:15:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 770:17:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC) 743:15:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 559:12:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC) 4358:in the GGTF ArbCom? A: No. 4128:In just the last 24 hours: 1211:asking Hell in a Bucket to 657:, who declined the request. 450:, who declined the request. 312:, who declined the request. 138:Knowledge (XXG) community. 4597: 4354:Q: Was I listed among the 4104:MediaWiki message delivery 3226:MediaWiki message delivery 3189:Candidate nominations for 3159:GOCE coordinator elections 2944:Question for administrator 1867:Which reminded me of this 1658:Wait a minute... At least 252:may be reverted or deleted 232:per evidence presented at 3347:immaterial to the issue. 2475: 2440:Did you email oversight? 2329:accept that or you do not 2003:Party to Arbitration Case 1498:) Geolocates to Istanbul. 780:guide to appealing blocks 569:guide to appealing blocks 417:guide to appealing blocks 272:guide to appealing blocks 256:make useful contributions 4054:election of coordinators 3972:December 2014 Newsletter 3577:Lightbreather discussion 3000:IP address 69.16.147.185 2369:Should I go to the WMF? 2138:about WP. All the best: 1395:Please do not modify it. 268:|Your reason here ~~~~}} 106:Sockpuppet investigation 4532:This is simply untrue. 4268:) has called me a liar. 1828:One to the GGTF ArbCom 1450:) Gelocates to Ontario. 1426:) Geolocates to Delhi, 18:User talk:Lightbreather 3988: 3186: 3179: 2115:If nothing else, it's 650: 443: 305: 218:This account has been 116: 3987: 3970:Guild of Copy Editors 3185: 3178: 3170:Guild of Copy Editors 3013:, a critic (probably 2261:might be accidental ( 1123:who is right / wrong. 929:The second IP address 702:change block settings 649: 495:change block settings 442: 357:change block settings 304: 240:, but using them for 115: 42:of past discussions. 4049:Election time again: 3168:Greetings from the 1407:(say, perhaps, for 1360:And is this kosher? 262:by adding the text 4117:Casting aspersions 3989: 3774:Re contrary claims 3571:Joe job discussion 3197:currently underway 3192:Guild coordinators 3187: 3180: 2910:User:Lightbreather 2388:LilaTretikov (WMF) 1668:avoiding scruitiny 1413:inappropriate uses 651: 444: 306: 117: 4459:the last revision 4429:User:Eric Corbett 4101: 4100: 4096: 3842: 3841: 3734:A clerk replies, 3541: 3510: 3416: 3244:Checkuser, please 3241: 3240: 3236: 3096:That discussion, 2917: 2415:Materialscientist 2353: 2352: 2173: 2150: 1708: 298: 297: 260:appeal this block 192: 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4588: 4553:Hell in a Bucket 4438:Hell in a Bucket 4356:Involved parties 4340: 4337:Hell in a Bucket 4256:Hell in a Bucket 4248: 4184: 4093:our mailing list 4090: 4086: 4080: 4074: 4021: 4015: 4010:Progress report: 3980: 3979: 3974: 3964: 3963: 3836: 3825: 3824: 3818: 3740:Involved parties 3647:Question to Arbs 3537: 3506: 3462: 3412: 3406: 3399: 3254: 3224:Message sent by 3223: 3220: 3214: 3208: 3163: 3094: 3057: 3055: 3047: 2997: 2913: 2761: 2699: 2636: 2630: 2626: 2620: 2593: 2590:Hell in a Bucket 2582:Attempted outing 2562: 2556: 2481: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2422: 2411: 2400:Worm That Turned 2172: 2148: 2104: 2099: 1790: 1772: 1770: 1753: 1748: 1722: 1717: 1702: 1630: 1625: 1605:Hell in a Bucket 1572: 1560: 1397: 1384: 1341: 1338:Worm That Turned 1258: 1210: 1145:reasonable doubt 989: 919: 898: 875: 866: 793: 787: 721: 719: 708: 690: 688:deleted contribs 648: 622: 609: 607: 599: 582: 576: 514: 512: 501: 483: 481:deleted contribs 441: 430: 424: 376: 374: 363: 345: 343:deleted contribs 303: 291: 289: 281: 269: 213: 206: 181: 144:Hell in a Bucket 114: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4596: 4595: 4591: 4590: 4589: 4587: 4586: 4585: 4425:User:Scalhotrod 4334: 4332: 4200: 4136: 4134:Salvio giuliano 4119: 4097: 4082: 4076: 4070: 4019: 4013: 3981: 3977: 3967: 3962: 3893: 3834: 3822: 3816: 3776: 3573: 3456: 3400: 3396:Salvio giuliano 3393: 3248: 3246: 3237: 3216: 3210: 3204: 3173: 3161: 3120: 3084: 3051: 3043: 3041: 2994:Salvio giuliano 2987: 2960: 2946: 2906: 2843: 2755: 2689: 2634: 2628: 2624: 2618: 2594:with attempted 2587: 2584: 2560: 2550: 2473: 2471: 2412: 2381: 2358: 2257:I suspect that 2158: 2102: 2097: 2005:, Sitush said: 1784: 1768: 1766: 1751: 1746: 1720: 1715: 1628: 1623: 1562: 1550: 1444:204.101.237.139 1393: 1382: 1327: 1255:Salvio giuliano 1252: 1249: 1247:Block questions 1204: 983: 913: 892: 872:Salvio giuliano 869: 856: 799: 791: 785: 784:, then use the 773: 746: 709: 699: 685: 668: 661:blocking policy 646: 643: 616: 603: 595: 593: 588: 580: 574: 573:, then use the 562: 539: 502: 492: 478: 461: 454:blocking policy 439: 436: 428: 422: 421:, then use the 410: 393: 364: 354: 340: 323: 316:blocking policy 301: 285: 277: 275: 263: 204: 141: 140: 118: 112: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4594: 4592: 4584: 4583: 4582: 4581: 4564: 4563: 4547: 4546: 4545: 4544: 4524: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4501: 4500: 4499: 4498: 4477: 4476: 4475: 4474: 4449: 4448: 4363:main case page 4352: 4351: 4331: 4328: 4306: 4305: 4272: 4271: 4252: 4194: 4118: 4115: 4099: 4098: 4089: 4078:Baffle gab1978 4032:December Blitz 3982: 3975: 3961: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3944:OrangesRyellow 3936: 3935: 3892: 3891:Drop the stick 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3840: 3839: 3835:{{admin help}} 3826: 3815: 3812: 3775: 3772: 3719: 3688:But the block 3619: 3618: 3610: 3601: 3575:Regarding the 3572: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3555:OrangesRyellow 3548: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3535:GorillaWarfare 3528: 3527: 3504:GorillaWarfare 3500: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3459:GorillaWarfare 3450: 3449: 3432: 3431: 3426: 3425: 3410:GorillaWarfare 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3378:OrangesRyellow 3370: 3369: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3297: 3296: 3245: 3242: 3239: 3238: 3222: 3212:Baffle gab1978 3202: 3201: 3200: 3188: 3166: 3160: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3119: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 2971: 2970: 2963: 2962: 2954: 2945: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2905: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2888:Knowledgekid87 2880: 2879: 2863: 2862: 2848:Knowledgekid87 2842: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2774: 2750: 2749: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2660: 2659: 2639: 2638: 2583: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2504: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2453: 2452: 2392:GorillaWarfare 2357: 2354: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2293: 2288: 2283: 2277: 2272: 2269:No idea at all 2266: 2255: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2193: 2192: 2157: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2110: 2109: 2061: 2060: 2054: 2053: 2047: 2046: 2040: 2039: 2037: 2013: 2012: 1999: 1998: 1989: 1988: 1983: 1978: 1969: 1968: 1966: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1925: 1924: 1893: 1892: 1888: 1887: 1878: 1877: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1836: 1835: 1826: 1825: 1823: 1819: 1818: 1813: 1795:than at least 1783: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1699: 1698: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1636: 1635: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1548: 1532: 1531: 1530:ISP M247 Ltd). 1510: 1509: 1499: 1489: 1478:90.213.181.169 1475: 1465: 1451: 1441: 1434:12.249.243.118 1431: 1420:122.177.11.190 1405:legitimate use 1399: 1398: 1389: 1388: 1381: 1378: 1359: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1330:GorillaWarfare 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1301: 1300: 1248: 1245: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1165:OrangesRyellow 1136: 1135: 1125:OrangesRyellow 1120: 1110:OrangesRyellow 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1085:OrangesRyellow 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1034:OrangesRyellow 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1007: 1006: 996:OrangesRyellow 979: 978: 962: 961: 956: 955: 946: 945: 909: 907: 906: 905: 904: 854: 853: 852: 851: 850: 774: 753: 749:Decline reason 730: 726:Request reason 723: 644: 642: 639: 638: 637: 636: 635: 563: 546: 542:Decline reason 523: 519:Request reason 516: 437: 411: 400: 396:Decline reason 385: 381:Request reason 378: 299: 296: 295: 214: 203: 200: 199: 198: 197: 196: 174: 173: 119: 110: 109: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4593: 4580: 4576: 4572: 4571:Lightbreather 4568: 4567: 4566: 4565: 4562: 4558: 4554: 4549: 4548: 4543: 4539: 4535: 4534:Lightbreather 4531: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4525: 4520: 4516: 4512: 4511:Lightbreather 4508: 4505: 4504: 4503: 4502: 4497: 4493: 4489: 4488:Lightbreather 4484: 4481: 4480: 4479: 4478: 4473: 4469: 4465: 4464:Lightbreather 4460: 4456: 4453: 4452: 4451: 4450: 4447: 4443: 4439: 4434: 4430: 4426: 4421: 4417: 4415: 4410: 4409: 4408: 4407: 4403: 4399: 4398:Lightbreather 4394: 4391: 4387: 4385: 4380: 4377: 4376:page? A: No. 4375: 4370: 4368: 4364: 4359: 4357: 4350: 4348: 4344: 4343: 4342: 4338: 4329: 4327: 4326: 4322: 4318: 4317:Lightbreather 4313: 4311: 4304: 4302: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4294: 4290: 4288: 4283: 4281: 4276: 4275:WP:ASPERSIONS 4270: 4267: 4264: 4261: 4257: 4253: 4251: 4246: 4243: 4240: 4237: 4234: 4231: 4228: 4225: 4222: 4219: 4216: 4213: 4210: 4207: 4204: 4199: 4195: 4193: 4191: 4189: 4187: 4182: 4179: 4176: 4173: 4170: 4167: 4164: 4161: 4158: 4155: 4152: 4149: 4146: 4143: 4140: 4135: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4126: 4124: 4116: 4114: 4113: 4109: 4105: 4094: 4088: 4085: 4079: 4073: 4067: 4065: 4061: 4056: 4055: 4050: 4046: 4044: 4043: 4038: 4034: 4033: 4028: 4024: 4018: 4011: 4007: 4005: 4004: 3999: 3998: 3993: 3986: 3973: 3971: 3966: 3965: 3959: 3953: 3949: 3945: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3934: 3930: 3926: 3925:Lightbreather 3921: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3914: 3910: 3906: 3902: 3898: 3890: 3884: 3880: 3876: 3875:Lightbreather 3872: 3871: 3870: 3866: 3862: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3851: 3847: 3846:Lightbreather 3837: 3831: 3827: 3820: 3819: 3813: 3811: 3810: 3806: 3802: 3801:Lightbreather 3798: 3795:know who was 3794: 3790: 3786: 3782: 3780: 3773: 3771: 3770: 3766: 3762: 3761:Lightbreather 3759: 3757: 3753: 3748: 3743: 3741: 3737: 3733: 3729: 3724: 3722: 3717: 3716: 3712: 3708: 3707:Lightbreather 3703: 3699: 3695: 3692:was based on 3691: 3686: 3683: 3679: 3678: 3674: 3670: 3669:Lightbreather 3665: 3661: 3660: 3656: 3652: 3651:Lightbreather 3648: 3644: 3641: 3637: 3636: 3632: 3628: 3627:Lightbreather 3623: 3617: 3615: 3611: 3609: 3607: 3602: 3600: 3598: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3586: 3582: 3581:Lightbreather 3578: 3570: 3564: 3560: 3556: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3544: 3540: 3536: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3526: 3523: 3522: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3509: 3505: 3494: 3491: 3490: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3474: 3470: 3466: 3465:Lightbreather 3460: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3448: 3445: 3444: 3438: 3434: 3433: 3428: 3427: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3415: 3411: 3404: 3397: 3387: 3383: 3379: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3368: 3364: 3360: 3356: 3352: 3351: 3345: 3344: 3339: 3335: 3331: 3330:Lightbreather 3327: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3308: 3305: 3304: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3282: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3270: 3266: 3265:Lightbreather 3260: 3257: 3252: 3243: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3219: 3213: 3207: 3198: 3194: 3193: 3184: 3177: 3172: 3171: 3165: 3164: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3135: 3131: 3130:Lightbreather 3126: 3123: 3117: 3111: 3107: 3103: 3102:Lightbreather 3099: 3092: 3088: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3075: 3071: 3067: 3066:Lightbreather 3062: 3061: 3060: 3056: 3054: 3048: 3046: 3039: 3035: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3024: 3020: 3019:Lightbreather 3016: 3012: 3008: 3004: 3001: 2995: 2991: 2985: 2984: 2980: 2976: 2975:Lightbreather 2968: 2965: 2964: 2958: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2943: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2930:Lightbreather 2927: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2916: 2911: 2903: 2897: 2893: 2889: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2878: 2874: 2870: 2869:Lightbreather 2865: 2864: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2840: 2832: 2828: 2824: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2807: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2795: 2791: 2790:Lightbreather 2787: 2782: 2778: 2775: 2772: 2768: 2765: 2764: 2759: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2720: 2711: 2707: 2703: 2702:Lightbreather 2697: 2693: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2671:Lightbreather 2668: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2641: 2640: 2633: 2623: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2604:Lightbreather 2600: 2597: 2591: 2581: 2567: 2563: 2557: 2555: 2554: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2535:Lightbreather 2531: 2530: 2529: 2526: 2523: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2513: 2509: 2508:Lightbreather 2505: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2491: 2488: 2485: 2480:wikimedia.org 2469: 2468: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2458:Lightbreather 2455: 2454: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2427:Lightbreather 2423: 2420: 2416: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2379: 2376: 2373: 2370: 2367: 2364: 2361: 2355: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2330: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2297: 2294: 2292: 2289: 2287: 2284: 2281: 2278: 2276: 2273: 2270: 2267: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2253: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2182:Lightbreather 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2171: 2165: 2163: 2155: 2146: 2145: 2142: 2136: 2135: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2121:Lightbreather 2118: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2108: 2105: 2100: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2082:Lightbreather 2078: 2076: 2073: 2070: 2066: 2059: 2056: 2055: 2052: 2049: 2048: 2045: 2042: 2041: 2038: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2023:Lightbreather 2019: 2016: 2011: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2004: 1997: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1987: 1984: 1982: 1979: 1977: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1967: 1964: 1963: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1937: 1933: 1932:Lightbreather 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1899:Lightbreather 1896: 1890: 1889: 1886: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1876: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1865: 1860: 1857: 1856: 1854: 1853: 1848: 1844: 1841: 1840: 1838: 1837: 1834: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1824: 1821: 1820: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1811: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1801:Lightbreather 1798: 1794: 1788: 1781: 1780: 1777: 1776: 1771: 1757: 1754: 1749: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1723: 1718: 1712: 1706: 1705:edit conflict 1701: 1700: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1672:Lightbreather 1669: 1665: 1661: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1634: 1631: 1626: 1620: 1619: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1575:Lightbreather 1570: 1566: 1558: 1554: 1546: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1536:Lightbreather 1529: 1525: 1521: 1520:91.232.124.60 1518: 1517: 1516: 1514: 1507: 1503: 1500: 1497: 1493: 1492:94.54.249.249 1490: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1476: 1473: 1469: 1466: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1454:2.125.151.139 1452: 1449: 1445: 1442: 1439: 1435: 1432: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1401: 1400: 1396: 1391: 1390: 1386: 1385: 1379: 1377: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1367:Lightbreather 1364: 1362: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1344:Lightbreather 1339: 1335: 1331: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1308:Lightbreather 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1288: 1284: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1269:Lightbreather 1265: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1246: 1244: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1234:Lightbreather 1230: 1227: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1215:his evidence? 1214: 1208: 1202: 1200: 1196: 1191: 1189: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1146: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1121: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1071: 1068: 1067: 1062: 1061:Occam's razor 1058: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1020: 1017: 1016: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1005: 1001: 997: 993: 987: 981: 980: 977: 973: 969: 968:Lightbreather 964: 963: 958: 957: 954: 951: 948: 947: 943: 940: 937: 934: 930: 926: 922: 917: 912: 911: 910: 903: 900: 897: 896: 889: 888: 887: 883: 879: 878:Lightbreather 873: 864: 860: 855: 849: 845: 841: 837: 833: 832: 831: 827: 823: 822:Lightbreather 818: 817: 816: 812: 808: 805: 801: 800: 798: 797: 790: 783: 781: 772: 771: 768: 767: 761: 757: 752: 750: 745: 744: 740: 736: 735:Lightbreather 729: 727: 722: 717: 713: 707: 703: 698: 694: 689: 684: 680: 679:global blocks 676: 675:active blocks 672: 667: 666:Lightbreather 662: 658: 656: 655:administrator 640: 634: 630: 626: 625:Lightbreather 620: 614: 613: 612: 608: 606: 600: 598: 590: 589: 587: 586: 579: 572: 570: 561: 560: 556: 552: 545: 543: 538: 537: 533: 529: 528:Lightbreather 522: 520: 515: 510: 506: 500: 496: 491: 487: 482: 477: 473: 472:global blocks 469: 468:active blocks 465: 460: 459:Lightbreather 455: 451: 449: 448:administrator 435: 434: 427: 420: 418: 409: 408: 405: 399: 397: 392: 390: 384: 382: 377: 372: 368: 362: 358: 353: 349: 344: 339: 335: 334:global blocks 331: 330:active blocks 327: 322: 321:Lightbreather 317: 313: 311: 310:administrator 294: 290: 288: 282: 280: 273: 267: 261: 257: 253: 249: 245: 244: 239: 235: 231: 230:sock puppetry 227: 223: 222: 221: 215: 212: 208: 207: 201: 195: 191: 189: 188:Talkie-Talkie 185: 178: 177: 176: 175: 172: 168: 164: 163:Lightbreather 160: 156: 155: 154: 153: 149: 145: 139: 136: 132: 128: 124: 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4529: 4506: 4482: 4454: 4432: 4395: 4392: 4388: 4381: 4378: 4373: 4371: 4366: 4360: 4353: 4345: 4333: 4314: 4307: 4300: 4299: 4286: 4284: 4278: 4273: 4262: 4241: 4235: 4229: 4223: 4217: 4211: 4205: 4177: 4171: 4165: 4159: 4153: 4147: 4141: 4127: 4120: 4102: 4068: 4063: 4053: 4048: 4047: 4042:Sign up here 4041: 4036: 4031: 4026: 4025: 4009: 4008: 4002: 3996: 3991: 3990: 3968: 3900: 3896: 3894: 3843: 3833: 3796: 3792: 3788: 3783: 3777: 3755: 3746: 3744: 3735: 3725: 3720: 3718: 3701: 3697: 3693: 3689: 3687: 3681: 3680: 3663: 3662: 3639: 3638: 3621: 3620: 3613: 3604: 3595: 3574: 3520: 3501: 3488: 3442: 3436: 3392: 3348: 3306: 3261: 3247: 3190: 3167: 3127: 3124: 3121: 3087:QuiteUnusual 3052: 3044: 3014: 3010: 3006: 2986: 2972: 2947: 2926:WP:UP#DELETE 2907: 2844: 2767:67.255.123.1 2716: 2666: 2644: 2601: 2585: 2552: 2551: 2424: 2380: 2377: 2374: 2371: 2368: 2365: 2362: 2359: 2291:Also no idea 2166: 2159: 2139: 2116: 2079: 2071: 2062: 2020: 2017: 2014: 2009: 2000: 1990: 1970: 1897: 1894: 1879: 1872: 1858: 1846: 1842: 1827: 1812: 1797:eight others 1796: 1792: 1782: 1774: 1764: 1710: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1657: 1553:Eric Corbett 1547: 1533: 1527: 1511: 1485: 1468:67.255.123.1 1461: 1427: 1408: 1402: 1394: 1358: 1266: 1261: 1250: 1231: 1228: 1223: 1219: 1212: 1203:Or remember 1198: 1194: 1192: 1187: 1185: 1142: 1065: 1014: 932: 928: 924: 920: 908: 893: 795: 777: 775: 765: 762: 759: 748: 747: 731: 725: 724: 697:creation log 664: 652: 604: 596: 584: 566: 564: 547: 541: 540: 524: 518: 517: 490:creation log 457: 445: 432: 414: 412: 401: 395: 394: 386: 380: 379: 352:creation log 319: 307: 286: 278: 247: 243:illegitimate 241: 225: 217: 216: 202:Block notice 184:Carolmooredc 182: 180:going on... 142: 134: 123:sockpuppetry 120: 78: 43: 37: 4433:involvement 4293:WP:VALIDALT 4221:protections 4157:protections 3873:Thank you. 3754:, and say, 3011:more likely 2823:71.11.1.204 2777:71.11.1.204 2396:Newyorkbrad 2384:Jimbo Wales 2252:who this is 1945:apologise. 1869:Blame game? 1502:71.11.1.204 1334:Newyorkbrad 389:this reason 36:This is an 4365:? A: Yes, 4233:page moves 4169:page moves 4084:Miniapolis 3905:WP:NOTHERE 3218:Miniapolis 2692:SlimVirgin 2419:Rschen7754 2404:SlimVirgin 2280:This is me 2271:but not me 2170:SlimVirgin 2144:Farmbrough 2065:Samwalton9 1528:Manchester 1486:Manchester 1462:Manchester 1282:This edit 859:SlimVirgin 693:filter log 619:Rschen7754 486:filter log 404:--jpgordon 348:filter log 98:Archive 20 90:Archive 17 85:Archive 16 79:Archive 15 73:Archive 14 68:Archive 13 60:Archive 10 4227:deletions 4163:deletions 4072:Jonesey95 4017:copy edit 3690:extension 3612:Chillum: 3594:Chillum: 3350:Callanecc 3251:Callanecc 3206:Jonesey95 2912:deleted? 2904:User page 2719:WP:VANISH 2632:adminhelp 2596:WP:OUTING 2482:.--v/r - 2472:emergency 2220:Yes, the 1769:Richerman 1569:Richerman 1207:Callanecc 1057:duck test 778:read the 712:checkuser 671:block log 567:read the 505:checkuser 464:block log 415:read the 367:checkuser 326:block log 4266:contribs 4209:contribs 4145:contribs 4037:Religion 3702:revdeled 3603:Salvio: 3424:proxies. 3359:contribs 3286:Gaijin42 2724:Gaijin42 2649:Gaijin42 2442:Gaijin42 2263:WP:BEANS 2259:this one 2250:No idea 2117:at least 2075:contribs 1290:Gaijin42 1224:publicly 1222:IP, and 1188:publicly 840:Gaijin42 807:Gaijin42 683:contribs 551:Euryalus 476:contribs 338:contribs 246:reasons 4309:"cunt," 4301:Privacy 4280:forums. 4254:Editor 4198:Chillum 3909:GoodDay 3901:protest 3861:Diannaa 3728:Privacy 3521:Chillum 3489:Chillum 3443:Chillum 3403:Chillum 3281:WP:DUCK 3145:Flyer22 2406:, and 2286:No idea 2156:Request 2103:Corbett 1787:Flyer22 1752:Corbett 1732:DeCausa 1721:Corbett 1688:DeCausa 1629:Corbett 1409:privacy 1336:, and 1150:DeCausa 1143:beyond 1066:Chillum 1015:Chillum 986:Chillum 916:Chillum 789:unblock 766:Chillum 706:unblock 578:unblock 499:unblock 426:unblock 361:unblock 274:first. 266:unblock 238:allowed 220:blocked 39:archive 4277:says, 4239:rights 4215:blocks 4196:Admin 4175:rights 4151:blocks 4132:Admin 4121:Since 4081:, and 4029:: The 3992:Drive: 3942:there. 3696:edit. 3682:Fourth 3640:Second 3539:(talk) 3508:(talk) 3414:(talk) 3215:, and 3091:Mike V 3045:Mike V 2990:Mike V 2915:NE Ent 2696:TParis 2622:helpme 2408:TParis 2356:S.O.S. 2334:Sitush 2226:Sitush 2200:Sitush 1845:didn't 1775:(talk) 1590:Sitush 1557:Sitush 1326:Also, 895:Salvio 863:TParis 597:Mike V 279:Mike V 248:is not 226:1 week 4027:Blitz 3828:This 3731:out." 3721:Fifth 3664:Third 3622:First 3430:here. 2955:(Per 2806:J3Mrs 2758:J3Mrs 2739:J3Mrs 2313:GGTF. 2296:Ditto 2275:Ditto 1947:J3Mrs 1914:J3Mrs 1643:J3Mrs 1565:J3Mrs 1428:India 1213:EMAIL 925:first 782:first 571:first 419:first 16:< 4575:talk 4557:talk 4538:talk 4515:talk 4492:talk 4468:talk 4442:talk 4402:talk 4374:talk 4367:once 4321:talk 4260:talk 4203:talk 4139:talk 4108:talk 4064:your 4060:here 4051:The 4003:here 3948:talk 3929:talk 3913:talk 3879:talk 3865:talk 3850:talk 3814:RFPP 3805:talk 3765:talk 3711:talk 3673:talk 3655:talk 3631:talk 3585:talk 3559:talk 3469:talk 3437:just 3382:talk 3363:logs 3355:talk 3334:talk 3290:talk 3269:talk 3230:talk 3149:talk 3134:talk 3106:talk 3089:and 3070:talk 3053:Talk 3034:here 3023:talk 2992:and 2979:talk 2934:talk 2892:talk 2873:talk 2852:talk 2827:talk 2810:talk 2794:talk 2781:talk 2771:talk 2743:talk 2728:talk 2706:talk 2694:and 2675:talk 2653:talk 2608:talk 2561:talk 2553:Worm 2539:talk 2512:talk 2462:talk 2446:talk 2431:talk 2417:and 2338:talk 2230:talk 2222:diff 2204:talk 2186:talk 2141:Rich 2125:talk 2098:Eric 2086:talk 2069:talk 2027:talk 1951:talk 1936:talk 1918:talk 1903:talk 1805:talk 1793:less 1747:Eric 1736:talk 1716:Eric 1711:none 1692:talk 1676:talk 1660:nine 1647:talk 1624:Eric 1609:talk 1594:talk 1579:talk 1567:and 1555:and 1540:talk 1524:talk 1506:talk 1496:talk 1482:talk 1472:talk 1458:talk 1448:talk 1438:talk 1424:talk 1371:talk 1348:talk 1312:talk 1294:talk 1273:talk 1251:Can 1238:talk 1197:IPs 1169:talk 1154:talk 1129:talk 1114:talk 1089:talk 1038:talk 1000:talk 972:talk 933:once 882:talk 861:and 844:talk 826:talk 811:talk 739:talk 629:talk 605:Talk 555:talk 532:talk 387:Per 287:Talk 228:for 167:talk 157:Per 148:talk 135:have 4347:Ip. 4245:RfA 4181:RfA 3797:not 3793:two 3789:one 3694:one 3015:not 2841:Hey 2645:may 2627:or 2503:ME? 2164:). 2077:). 1664:not 1220:one 982:Hi 921:two 716:log 663:). 509:log 456:). 371:log 318:). 4577:) 4559:) 4540:) 4517:) 4494:) 4470:) 4444:) 4404:) 4396:-- 4323:) 4315:-- 4291:- 4110:) 4087:. 4075:, 4045:! 4020:}} 4014:{{ 4006:. 3950:) 3931:) 3915:) 3897:If 3881:) 3867:) 3852:) 3807:) 3767:) 3713:) 3675:) 3657:) 3633:) 3587:) 3561:) 3471:) 3384:) 3365:) 3361:• 3357:• 3336:) 3292:) 3271:) 3232:) 3209:, 3151:) 3136:) 3128:-- 3108:) 3072:) 3049:• 3040:. 3025:) 2981:) 2973:-- 2936:) 2894:) 2875:) 2854:) 2829:) 2812:) 2796:) 2745:) 2730:) 2708:) 2677:) 2655:) 2635:}} 2629:{{ 2625:}} 2619:{{ 2610:) 2602:-- 2564:) 2541:) 2514:) 2506:-- 2464:) 2448:) 2433:) 2425:-- 2402:, 2398:, 2394:, 2390:, 2386:, 2340:) 2232:) 2206:) 2188:) 2147:, 2127:) 2088:) 2080:-- 2029:) 2021:-- 1953:) 1938:) 1920:) 1905:) 1807:) 1738:) 1694:) 1678:) 1649:) 1611:) 1596:) 1581:) 1542:) 1534:-- 1515:) 1373:) 1350:) 1332:, 1314:) 1296:) 1275:) 1267:-- 1240:) 1226:. 1171:) 1156:) 1131:) 1116:) 1091:) 1063:. 1040:) 1002:) 974:) 884:) 846:) 828:) 813:) 792:}} 786:{{ 751:: 741:) 728:: 710:• 704:• 700:• 695:• 691:• 686:• 681:• 677:• 673:• 631:) 601:• 581:}} 575:{{ 557:) 544:: 534:) 521:: 503:• 497:• 493:• 488:• 484:• 479:• 474:• 470:• 466:• 429:}} 423:{{ 398:: 383:: 365:• 359:• 355:• 350:• 346:• 341:• 336:• 332:• 328:• 283:• 264:{{ 169:) 150:) 94:→ 64:← 4573:( 4555:( 4536:( 4513:( 4490:( 4466:( 4440:( 4400:( 4339:: 4335:@ 4319:( 4263:· 4258:( 4247:) 4242:· 4236:· 4230:· 4224:· 4218:· 4212:· 4206:· 4201:( 4183:) 4178:· 4172:· 4166:· 4160:· 4154:· 4148:· 4142:· 4137:( 4106:( 4095:. 3946:( 3927:( 3911:( 3877:( 3863:( 3848:( 3803:( 3763:( 3709:( 3671:( 3653:( 3629:( 3583:( 3557:( 3467:( 3461:: 3457:@ 3405:: 3401:@ 3398:: 3394:@ 3380:( 3353:( 3332:( 3288:( 3267:( 3253:: 3249:@ 3228:( 3221:. 3147:( 3132:( 3104:( 3093:: 3085:@ 3068:( 3021:( 2996:: 2988:@ 2977:( 2961:. 2959:) 2932:( 2890:( 2871:( 2850:( 2825:( 2808:( 2792:( 2779:( 2769:( 2760:: 2756:@ 2741:( 2726:( 2704:( 2698:: 2690:@ 2673:( 2651:( 2606:( 2592:: 2588:@ 2558:( 2537:( 2525:P 2522:T 2510:( 2487:P 2484:T 2460:( 2444:( 2429:( 2421:: 2413:@ 2410:: 2382:@ 2336:( 2228:( 2202:( 2184:( 2123:( 2084:( 2072:· 2067:( 2025:( 1949:( 1934:( 1916:( 1901:( 1803:( 1789:: 1785:@ 1734:( 1707:) 1703:( 1690:( 1674:( 1645:( 1607:( 1592:( 1577:( 1571:: 1563:@ 1559:: 1551:@ 1538:( 1522:( 1504:( 1494:( 1488:) 1480:( 1470:( 1464:) 1456:( 1446:( 1436:( 1430:. 1422:( 1369:( 1346:( 1340:: 1328:@ 1310:( 1292:( 1271:( 1257:: 1253:@ 1236:( 1209:: 1205:@ 1167:( 1152:( 1127:( 1112:( 1087:( 1036:( 998:( 988:: 984:@ 970:( 918:: 914:@ 880:( 874:: 870:@ 865:: 857:@ 842:( 824:( 809:( 737:( 720:) 718:) 714:( 669:( 627:( 621:: 617:@ 553:( 530:( 513:) 511:) 507:( 462:( 375:) 373:) 369:( 324:( 190:) 186:( 165:( 146:( 50:.

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

Index