Knowledge (XXG) talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 14

1621:

person pronouns. Again, the sheer number of rhetorical gambits proffered by Jfd has been staggering. Jfd has expressed great annoyance whenever such, uh, fishing expeditions haven't elicited response(s). When the unrelenting rabble reaches a crescendo and a restrained response designed to pierce the intellectual barriers is offered, Jfd seems anxious to jump all over it as if it were red meat, perhaps overly eager to find a morsel that might easily be misconstrued for Wikipoliticking. This behavior pattern has changed little since the time Jfd removed a series of Whale.to links with scathing edit summaries questioning the sanity of the site's webmaster. While Jfd appears to have been a prolific contributor to the Wiki, and that is to be commended, the crux of the matter boils down to a simple question about deletionist tactics, including entire article deletions: In Jfd's ongoing efforts, apparently to ensure deletion of invaluable content and links essential to assuring npov articles, should Jfd be allowed to continue distracting so much attention from building an encyclopedia through methods such as hijacking certain Wikiprocesses (which are often used in a manner akin to

1467:

recently, but the rabblerousing hasn't abated with Midgley taking over much of the duty. There is a certain amount of speculation that perhaps one or both of these editors are actually being paid by corporate or other special interests to be disruptive, though the form that such influence might take in manifesting itself within the Wiki is not yet clear, regardless of the behavior of these two. The sheer number of antagonizing edits and edit summaries by these two editors alone has been staggering, though Jfd was almost at the point where it was time to express appreciation for toning down the rhetoric. It would be appreciated if these editors and their allies would try a little harder to concentrate more on actually building the encyclopedia, rather than on engaging in what equates with the hazing that goes on in medical schools.

5282:

and what you did provide was not only inaccurate but entirely cryptic to me, it took me some time to understand why my comments were immediately censored, based on a login technicality referencing one of my IP addresses and a user I know nothing about, but whom perhaps I should now get to know. I've reposted the comments to the DU page with my correct login, which Wiki sometimes fails to keep. I will now repost to the Gulf War page, being careful my login is maintained. Barring a timely response, I plan to contact some type of Wiki "ArbCom" about the wrong assumption you apparantly have made about my identity, and what I think is overstepping whatever authority you seem to have within Wiki, though I know nothing about that process and no information seems to be provided by you or Wiki in that regard.

1405:

continuing problem for some time. However if you inhibit solely the POV-tagging aspect, he can just continue by constantly reverting content, merely omitting the tag. I understand your guidelines, but if anybody with extreme viewpoints can roam about Knowledge (XXG) under the protection of "mere content dispute", stuffing those viewpoints into as many articles as possible, that damages Knowledge (XXG)'s credibility as an unbiased reference. A determined individual can do a lot of damage that way. Eventually he finds articles where editors aren't watchful or get tired of fighting him and leave. Content then essentially becomes a web-based soapbox masquerading as an article. You could argue there are other mechanisms to stop that, but they haven't worked or we wouldn't be here.

1690:

doesn't want to read about it, then perhaps a little less marching to the beat of big pharma is in order. It wouldn't hurt, and it would greatly be appreciated, if Jfd's ways would lighten up a bit on the politicking while concentrating more on being resonable about npoving content and being more tolerant of content critical of big pharma and the medical establishment. Above, Jfd attempts to soften the notion of deletions by describing them merely as 'edits'. Similarly, Jfd has rushed into procedural snarls with abandon, then decried the procedings as a platform for vilification. Jfd wants it both ways; there is more than one logical fallacy at work on that matter alone. Jfd's deletionism first popped up on the radar

2103:

personal essay in a list of official arbcom links is inappropriate, and may create the wrong impression that ArbCom favors particular users. Since many editors feel that it's inappropriate to edit other users' pages, especially if it's an essay and you disagree on a point, that is not a true community page; neither is it controlled by the ArbCom. Therefore, I propose that the page be moved to Knowledge (XXG): namespace, under either community or ArbCom control. Failing that, the link to the personal essay should be moved to a more appropriate place.

5267:. The reason given was inaccurate and seemed to be based solely on mistaken identity. It had nothing to do with the content from what I can tell. I reposted some large edits to DU which are still there. My posts were critical, but also not conclusive, and I did not delete opposing information. I also offered references and links to sources, though I intended to add more later. Well, now no one is interested in arbitratrion or learning the facts of their mistake. Even a comment I left for DU was deleted. Following are the related comments. 1753:

member of ArbCom. He appears to admit above that the suggestion either or both of us had been paid is made up entirely by him, and without either evidence or external suggestion. His withdrawal of it above seems to me to be insufficiently definite, particularly when taken with the tirade around it and assorted other attacks. As to uncertainty about medicine and science, Dr Woolf and I both handle this a dozen times a day, and Ombudsman's efforts are generally POV, commonly disruptive, poorly cited, poorly sourced and unencyclopaedic.

4762:, I didn't think it would be beneficial for either us or the project for me to go through the same routine I had done with him previously (explain an error he made in one or more of his edits, direct him to the appropriate project pages, look through some of his previous contributions and correct them if need be) without informing him that there are consequences for ignoring policies, guidelines and messages from other editors. I'd already notified him that this behaviour could lead to a second RFC on him being filed 1386:- thanks to Jfd for the link). These facts indicate that medical authorities have completely lost sight of what many still consider the first priority of medicine, not harming the patient. In order to safeguard the credibility of the Wiki's medical articles, it would seem, reflecting knowledge relevant to the protection of the well being of patients (and informed consent for that matter) is just as important as espousing the purported benefits of mass vaccination campaigns and mass 31: 1974:

to prove it), I haven't broke any further 3RR restrictions which that case was centered around, this was around the time that the RfC was passed up on (I seem to remember you didnd't comment on it either), because those issues were rejected here, and I was serving ban time already... also try to assume good faith there is nothing "innapropriate" about me arguing this case based on clearly mark out Knowledge (XXG) policy's...

1732:

matters of great interest to him. It is this position - one that is alleged to be against the spirit, if not the letter, of NPOV editing policy - that a number of other editors wish ArbCom to comment on, not any specific disagreement about content. I'm not sure continuing the debate above will achieve much, perhaps having made our own statements, we would all be better to wait for ArbCom's decision before further comment.

1841:: "a very pov interpretation of npov guidelines" says Ombudsman overleaf. Ombudsman is in the habit of posting greetings to new or newly identifiable wiki users, including the suggestion that they have a "unique perspsective on neutrality". This seems on the one hand a very pov interpretation of npov, and on the other liable to confuse new users or subvert the intention of the standard welcome message. An edit to 1681:

special interests can be redefined that way, then consider big pharma's enormous impact, stemming from trillion dollar plus annual cash flow, upon media pov and upon the very nature of modern scientific research. Under the circumstances, npov guidelines assuring incorporation of significant contrarian povs is invaluable, especially with regard to enhancing the public's right to

2274:

resolution and from window size to window size. On my own browser on its normal resolution and with a full-screenwidth window, the effect of the inserted HTML is to cause the table of contents, instead of appearing to the left of the open arbitration tasks template, to appear beneath it and to the left, leaving a large whitespace area to the left of the open tasks list.

2499:(However, this does not mean we will accept the case, nor does it guarentee that if we do accept the case, our decision will address FM's actions. In other words, to my mind, the list of involved parties is a suggestion. We base our decision on the facts in the case, and I consider the list of involved parties to be more of a suggestion than some kind of restriction). 2609:, arbitration is only supposed to happen if no other form of dispute resolution will work. If mediation is still in progress, an arbitration case is premature. When an arbitration case is accepted, the arbcom member opening it creates the evidence page, after which users fill it in. In the proposal for the case only link a few well-chosen pieces of sample evidence.-- 1664:

editors who seemingly reflect corporate influences upon the Wiki. The clause regarding what form corporate influence might take was meant to indicate an expression of doubt. Far less subtle mechanisms for corporations to wield influence may be in the offing, such as the legislation being drafted (or perhaps has already introduced), that would give corporate

1378:, in order to expand their markets for palliative neurotoxins. Such disingenuous marketing ploys, which are leveraged by the rigidly hierarchical medical community, are aided by a code of silence in the mainstream media, where reporting on certain medical controversies can equate with career suicide (as intimated in a recent report in the 1636:

identify with the "medical establishment", if you read for that "a medical profession that aims to use scientific knowledge to improve health". I'd have thought that after I'd asked you a few times to stop, you'd actually cease taking pot shots at some ill-defined "medical establishment". It doesn't resolve edit disputes and just

5396:

Um- excuse me conspiracists, I hate to break the news, but that is my IP and no one else's, and certainly not the person you seem to suspect. It is a hard IP I have had for 4 years. And you certainly cannot justify blocking it based on anything I have ever done or posted at Wiki. You have banned this

4658:

What I'd like to see from the ArbCom is actual diffs, like the ones above, to support Raul's accusation that I've violated the ruling. I have absolutely no idea what they could find. There are some arguable cases from several months past, but none within any kind of recent timespan. Really, this case

4552:

Sorry, I was trying to make things more obvious. The chronology I saw was some anonymous IP made a comment and it was titled "comment from non involved party" or something, then I see it's changed to "comment by PaulWicks" when in fact I was just responding to their comment with a question related to

3553:

Is there a certain appropriate place to mention our concerns with the process? I don't believe this would necessarily fit until our own statement section, since it is not a commentary on the case, but on the way the case is being handled. I will gladly move my comments to the right place, when I know

2850:

My RfA case opened and I see some things on several of the associated pages that need to be changed. Since the same text is used for all opened cases, shouldn't there be a template for it? For example, "After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and

2594:

Also, the mediator doesn't like the idea of bringing this to arbitration, but there have been frequent exchanges totaling about 200K of text, and some complications, so I figured I should look into arbitration. I could summarize things in the space that some statements on the requests for arbitration

2220:

It would be helpful if more of these disputes went to article RFC. (It would also be helpful if anyone actually commented on article RFC). However, when it's about user conduct shouldn't there be a little more willingness on the part of admins to maybe recognize "the last step of dispute resolution"

2102:

The list of links on top of the page includes a bunch of pages owned by arbcom (as I was told that this project page is), and a single page in an editor's personal space. I have no doubts that the link is useful and I'm told that it's valued by some ArbCom members. However, I believe that including a

1958:

It also states that in case of more complex problems, or where the mediation process has been tried before and has not worked out (We tried discussing it with you and putting out a RFC, both of which you shunned), that an RFA can then be authored, bypassing the normal mediation process. If your going

1680:

betwixt and between mere carbon based life forms are mere toys compared to the frightful arsenal at the disposal of pharmaceutical behemoths. Jfd often redefines, as personal attacks, any comments relating to such inanimate entities. So be it. But if the mere mention of remuneration from corporate

1620:

Jfd's unfortunate tendency to identify with the medical establishment is so strong that, seemingly every time the establishment is mentioned, the depiction is described by Jfd as a personal attack. Perhaps there is something about the Queen's English that infers, to Jfd, a certain plurality of first

1291:

Too often, thanks to certain of the Wiki's more relentless editors, the opinions of mainstream medical authorities are presented as incontrovertible facts, while hard evidence to the contrary is marginalized or simply deleted wholesale. One of the Wiki's ongoing, unmitigated problems revolves around

593:

The RfA on the user Terryeo was accepted on April 3. I've never been involved in one of these before, and I'm curious when active discussion by the arbitrators is likely to begin, and roughly when a decision can be expected. I hope it isn't a breach of protocol to be asking. The user's behavior has

4768:

I explained this situation to Everyking, directed him to the rest of Tcatron's talk page, said that other users had been blocked in the past for this sort of behaviour, and noted that because I had previous disagreements with Tcatron I would not be the admin enforcing a block if worst came to worst.

4743:

This explanation is quite lengthy, so I apologise in advance: My (and other editors') problems with Tcatron go back to August last year, at least, and so much as a cursory glance at his talk page will show that while he appears to be editing in good faith, he has repeatedly violated the policies and

3436:

Indeed, I don't think we have by any means exhausted other dispute resolution steps. While Jakew appears to have abandoned his RfC attempt some months ago, the one by David Bailey is still fresh. With all due respect, Tony's conclusion that I am "inveterate" is something we should put to the test,

1973:

Umm no, try again. That was from a case that was REJECTED by ArbCom over a month ago. (Something you don't seem to comprehend).. Those issues have already passed, as I have served ban time (and the fact that I was working with you only yesterday on an article we were disputing back then goes further

594:

not moderated (indeed, he is currently subject to a 24 hour block from an admin due to his disruptive actions yesterday), and it is my belief that his continued agressive policy violations and "wikilawyering" are draining the good will of the Knowledge (XXG) community in the areas in which he edits.

5530:

This seems like selective enforcement based on a technicality to me, because the link to the author, source and publisher was also clearly provided. In the future, it would be a lot less hassle for both of us if you just post a "source required" note (or heaven forbid write me a note) as opposed to

4659:

has nothing to it. There was a spat over deletionism on some pop music articles, which has now settled down, and there was a complaint from me about an admin being unnecessarily harsh with a young but good faith user, which was a complaint I made deliberately within the confines of the ruling. What

4129:

Only Jayjg has recused. Fred Bauder has simply changed his opinion in favor of mediation. There are four acceptance votes on the application now and, if that doesn't change, the case will be opened after 0835 tomorrow. Any of the eleven non-recused active arbitrators will be free to consider the

3770:

I would ask the Committee not to accept the case at this time. ChrisO and I have been in touch by e-mail since just before the RfAr was posted, exchanging ideas for a solution, and we are making some progress. The situation was started a few weeks by a series of apartheid-related articles, not just

3423:

notes, there are two RFC's already being prepared, and I think those efforts should be combined and allowed to run their course. Skipping directly to RFA only furthers the impression that Al is being fast tracked. If Al does not adjust his behaviour after that, it only adds strength to a future RFA

3330:

Actually I think you can open a case you have recused from. I used to open cases I had recused from. That assumes there is no discretion involved like extensive refractoring of the request. But I will open Alienus on the 6th. I am afraid I haven't closed one for quite a while, probably do it wrong.

1718:

That sort of uncertainty about medical science can and should be reflected in the Wiki's medical articles, and when orthodox medical views are presented without a critical perspective, Jfd and his allies should try to work out their differences in a collegial manner before removing pov tags, rather

1689:

of the Wiki. Such influences must be discussed in an open and honest manner, because they have turned the business of science upside down, eliminating much at the pure research end of the spectrum, while leveraging most practical scientific research funding for strictly marketing purposes. If Jfd

1635:

It's very simple, Ombudsman. (1) I make an edit, (2) you revert, attacking an anonymous "medical establishment" in your edit summary. You know I'm a doctor, because that's what I've put on my userpage. It takes minimal thinking to understand that these attacks are obviously aimed at me. I do indeed

5281:

You seem to be making friends. I have no idea who you are, but upon seeing the clearly incomplete pages on DU and the Gulf War, I decided to offer a small portion of the large amount of information I have collected about DU. Since you provided almost no information about your subsequent reversion,

4466:

That's irrelevant to this discussion. The complaint is not on the wiki. Can anyone name a case where the ArbCom has initiated action against someone as an accuser, without any other (public) accuser outside of itself—and if such a case exists, can they then explain how on earth a person can expect

3967:

It's because there are so many opinions and a large number of editors involved (and there are others not mentioned here), that it would be particularly helpful if we could find a good mediator, so I'm going to start looking for one. I hope the Committee won't feel it's inappropriate to do that now

3656:

John, the poll is around 70 per cent in favor of the move, and only (as I recall) 60 per cent is needed, so that particular part of the situation seems to have resolved itself. What's left is to look at all the other issues: there are numerous title disputes and various content issues that I'm not

3597:

It seems to me that no matter what Alienus wants, going through with either of the RfCs, or starting a new one, is just not going to happen. Unless I'm mistaken, this RfA is alrealy underway. I was only wondering (as I believe James was as well) why it had already started, as it is normally a last

2990:

I was just told I cannot add new users to a case unless I am the initiator. As my case is mainly a conflict between Zer0faults and me and he already got a RFC while I do not and he left out that step of dispute resolution I would like to add his name to the case to show this is not about me solely

2076:

Second, the proper action wasn't taken, you are refering to the already rejected case from over a month ago, that is what the RfC was in relation to (something which you didn't comment in either)...that was the case that was rejected, a MONTH AGO. Comprehend?... There was no attempt at discussion,

1752:

that he has received more than one complaint about both or each of us. Despite his user name there is no particualr reason why remarks made to him should be regarded as complaints rather than gossip, but in any case it would be reasonable for him to be asked to show these to either all of us or a

1731:

I think its clear, in an attempt to bring this section back to its point, that this is not a simple content dispute. Ombudsman has (very helpfully) noted here that his agenda is to counter the medical establishment's position (for that read ' the opinion of the mainstream scientific community') on

1404:

While the normal dispute resolution path is RfC, mediation, then arbitration, Ombudsman did not respond to requests for mediation. At that point, I don't know what other option exists besides arbitration. As Jfdwolff said, he's repeatedly and disruptively POV-tagged other articles. This has been a

5558:

The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Knowledge (XXG) has already been published by a reliable source, because Knowledge (XXG) does not publish original thought or

2954:

step in dispute resolution. It is reasonable for a party to a dispute to argue that another party acted unreasonably in failing to make obvious attempts at avoiding a dispute. The primary method listed in that section is: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. UCRGrad claims "In most cases,

2152:

Agree with Zocky on this. It is particularly important for Arb Com related matters that there is an appearance of impartiality since by the time disputes get to the Arb Com they are highly acrimonious and many people are willing to see favoritism and conspiracies where none may exist. There is no

1531:

by suggesting that I (or any editor) am paid to edit. Whatever his feelings, I regard his rhetoric against medical editors of minimally the same severity as that ever has been leveled against himself. All this talk of conspiracy, hazing or whatever actually distracts from the issues, and this has

1307:

Vaccines and neuroleptics, in many if not most instances, are marketed on the basis of protecting the community, and the profit driven marketing of such programs rarely bothers to weigh the costs and benefits to individual patients. Such marketing falls well short anything approaching a rational

514:

Last year we started thinking about the elections in October, and we ended up with was a huge mess in December. An open voting system, postponement until January, candidates dropping out mid-race. So, I think we should start thinking about what we'll do now (not even full-blast, maybe just slight

4370:

Do you think I'm crazy? Why on earth would I participate in opening a case that would get restrictions imposed on me? I would like a case opened only on condition that it reviews the correctness of any of my past arbitration rulings. Now, of course I would also like to reply to these whisperings

3239:

Since the clerks do nothing that a normal editor cannot, we should simply expand the powers to open and close the cases to any editor. Any funny business would be quickly spotted, and it would remove an unnecessary level of bureaucracy. We'd also be spared people telling us they are recused. -

2216:

ArbCom is the last step in the dispute resolution process. As someone who's been through this twice now with Instantnood, I've mostly found other ways to engage him. For other users who end up confronting his tactics I find it particularly unhelpful for admins to come along to intervene in the

1809:

who wrote the article, and against me - I was not involved in the slightest. The article pointed _at_ as replacing it has a different title, and as declared by that group a different subject, was originated by a different initial author, after a distinct gap when neither article existed, and is

1538:

As for lecturing about building an encyclopedia, I am sure that most of my edits fall into that category (a look at the list on my userpage will suffice). But an encyclopedia should not be used to relentlessly push views that are fringe, unproved (and unprovable), of limited notability or simply

1486:

Ombudsman does not point to an instance of that "certain amount of speculation" and should be asked to, or else retract that suggestion. Given that he says the form it might take is not yet clear, is one to assume he means he is suggesting something that has actually had no expression in WP? I

5124:

Well the process says it can take up to 2 months. That may allow for a month of arbcom members actually deciding on the issue. Just feel better in knowing as time passes he continues to burry himself and if his behaviour continues he'll likely just end up permanently banned before the end of it

4990:

As for the RfC, I think you have the wrong idea of what its for. An RfC is not a means of punishment, its for users to express their opinions and hopefully, contructively, come to a conclusion or concensus with the user or issue in question. As for RFAr's I would give it time, takes a while for

4685:

What you've proposed is vastly more extensive than anything that would be necessary to keep me from making a comment like that, Raul. In fact, no ruling at all is needed to keep me from making a comment like that. You people use a couple whole bottles of vinegar where a few drops of honey would

4481:

Yes Raul could have made it up. But he didn't and you know he didn't. We discuss matters like this on the arbitration mailing list and on our private irc channel. That is what it is for. I am a rather reluctant prosecutor in your case, but you are rapidly convincing me that you are incapable of

3795:

as the biggest stumbling block, and with multiple polls on several pages until everyone's head was spinning. What is needed is some coordination of the dispute and some sensible proposals, and I think we're about to get those organized. I was also planning today to discuss with ChrisO whether a

3779:

3613:

Fred, in this case there are a few controversial blocks, some of which were eventually overturned, hence the heated AN/I discussions. I do think an RFC is in order, as there are some legitimate concerns that need to be worked out. As a few users have noted, Alienus has been getting better as an

2697:

He is removing my addition, claiming it is "out of scope", while its purpose is to counter the inevitable "SPUI's fucking up the articles". From a purely bureaucratic standpoint, this seems wrong - surely he can't just decide what to remove? From a common sense standpoint it also seems lacking.

2273:

I cannot tell what effect the HTML tag has on the appearance of the page in Oleg's browser, I can only speak for the effect it has in my own browser. It's in the nature of HTML that the precise appearance of a page will vary from browser to browser and, for the same browser, from resolution to

2039:

If anybody "personally attacked" anybody on the Incidents board, it was you attacking me, claiming ridiculous things that had nothing at all to do with what I was reporting (a suspected sock), the message you left was "uncivil" and if it wasn't your good buddy Sceptre who replied to it, I would

1891:

I was not even approached to discuss any issues beforehand, no effort was made on Sceptre's part to do so (any old issues were rejected and resolved over a month ago) it was just brought directly to ArbCon with no attempt to take it down any other avenues first neither any form of Meditation or

1783:

As for the deletion of the Whale.to links, I have never directly called John insane. But I have referred to the collection of material on his website as such. If Ombudsman is allowed to call pharmaceutical companies "behemoths", then I am allowed to refer to the content of whale.to as "loonie",

1663:

There was no attempt to vilify contributing Wiki editors; like many of Jfd's relentless assertions, the above appears to lack any pretense of assumed good faith. The simple point was to share information from complaints received, some specifically mentioning Jfd and Midgley as examples of Wiki

1063:

I'd changed what is clearly a personal opinion under the heading "Clerk notes" to reflect that it was a statement without official credence. It's not a summary of anything other parties have said, and clerks aren't Junior ArbCom. Statements like Tony Sidaway's here are only one step short of

4970:

There seems to be a battle mentality here that isnt appropriate. I remember this users name from the massive MfD that was attempted to have their user pages removed from the wiki. I am surprised to see some of the same users appearing on their RfC and now RFAr. I guess the TV station group on

4388:

And I have another question. Surely arbitrators can't act as both judges and prosecutors, can they? Doesn't somebody have to bring a complaint against me to the ArbCom before they can consider taking action? Yet nobody has done this. It would appear that the ArbCom is looking towards taking a

3679:

I believe it was 16-13, and I don't know what percentage that is, but it's around the 60 per cent mark. The point is that the move is now confirmed, so unless we're wikilawyering, that particular issue is resolved, which only leaves all the other pages to consider and, indeed, whether all the

3449:

I'm not a clerk in this case so I won't go around editing stuff, but I think the arbitrators would appreciate it if you could observe the conventions and move your respective comments to separate sections. I in my turn will alter the statement to "Tony Sidaway's opinion, disputed by Alienus,

3020:

One clarification to make here is that this is an already-accepted case, I don't believe ANYONE can be added when it's already accepted (not sure about that, though). Although, AFAIK out of courtesy, only the initiator (who normally seeks permission to add someone to a case), or an individual

2883:

Is it too late to retract the ArbCom request? I think there's a solution to this mess. Please check the talk page. I think Chiang Kai-shek will agree with the solution. I'm off to bed now, will check on the results six hours from now. If the ArbCom request can be retracted, could you do so if

2201:

I propose that the case above be renamed "Biological psychiatry". The current name is too long and confusing, and cases involving multiple editors on one specific page (or one specific subject area) are often named by the name of the page or subject area (e.g. Winter Soldier, Neuro-linguistic

1466:

Right, because your 'requests' appeared to be deliberately annoying at best, and exceedingly relentless at the very least. Some editors appear to spend far more time agitating animosity than even bothering with the pretense of collaboration. Jfd's behavior has not been so overtly bothersome

3786:

16:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC) I would ask the Committee not to accept the case at this time. ChrisO and I have been in touch by e-mail since just before the RfAr was posted, exchanging ideas for a solution, and we are making some progress. The situation was started a few weeks by a series of

722:

Arbitration is described as "the last step in the dispute resolution process", but I see that the arbitration archives contain no content dispute cases; rather, they contain only "criminal trials", resulting in users being banned from editing on account of their inappropriate conduct. I was

604:

You can typically reckon on an arbitration case taking two months or so from start to finish. Some are much shorter, some are longer. In the meantime if a user's activities, say on Scientology-related articles, shows a pattern of disruption, you could propose a temporary injunction in the

4163:. Please be aware that both parties are much less tolerant of wikilawyering and general whinging than either the ArbCom or the denizens of the Administrators' Noticeboard. You would also have to demonstrate that Fred's recusal would have had a material effect on the outcome of your case. 5158:

Just noting here, for the record, that I'm doing a bit of cleanup in the Requests for clarification section, since there are a number of old/stale posts. I'm archiving each to the talk page of the original request page, just so they aren't lost (couldn't find any better place to put it).

2664:"Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content. Arbitration Committee decisions are generally about behavior, not content. Very few editors have content dispute prohibitions. Requests for Comments is still the best place to hash out content disputes." 2595:

page take if I have to, despite the numerous content disputes and violations of Knowledge (XXG) rules I'd be accusing several editors of. Any comments on whether it's time to bring the case? Should I wait until the mediator closes the case or should I quit now after 200K of arguments?

4009:

Homey, I don't think your proposal that JayG recuse himself from all arbcom cases is workable. First, it would let people swing existing arbitrations by bringing arbcom cases in disputes involving arbitrators. Second, any conflict that does exist can only be cured by Jay resigning

1476:

It seems a bit of a stretch to imply that JFW or Midgley are receiving money from special interest groups! Applying similar logic, perhaps the same could be said of edits from the opposing side, knowing the close connection (and obvious financial interest) between trial lawyers and

2362:- not for a new hearing, but reopening of a prior RfAr (the user's fourth) in light of new activity in violation of standing remedies. Please advise if the manner or substance of my request is not appropriate here, or should be better performed via another process. Thank you. -- 3125:

There are a number of past cases that only name one party but end up sanctioning another. I understand that it is annoying and even somewhat hurtful but in the long run, the name is not really important; its the outcome that matters, and that won't be influenced by the name.

5010:

I was speaking in terms of his "me against the world" mentality. You can scan my edit history; all I've done is note some of his actions in places I feel appropriate. The user in question apparently exhausted the community's patience before I had ever even heard of him.

3210:

I would suggest that there be a lot more clerks (preferably chosen with some community participation), and that those clerks stay out of arbitration cases whenever possible, or otherwise the clerking be scrapped altogether. I'd prefer the second option. Comments?

1747:

Ombudsman has made what may seem to him to be an apology or backtracking with regard to J Woolf, but it is barely possible to perceive that he has altered his assertion that I have been paid to corrupt Knowledge (XXG). I have not. He specifically asserts above

3645:

Note: Some edit warring is still going on in the article, the out-of-policy move is still in effect, and the text of the article is being edited to be consistent with the out-of-policy move. Some protection until arbitration is concluded may be appropriate.

2636:"This is a message board for coordinating and discussing enforcement of Arbitration Committee decisions. Administrators are needed to help enforce ArbCom decisions. Any user is welcome to request help here if it involves the violation of an ArbCom decision." 2072:

Firstly, please provide diffs of where there was a possible case for a permanent ban against myself... there wasn't. There was an ArbCom case but that did not state any possibility of permanent ban, perhaps you and you're buddy are confused on the matter?

1828:

I think this is relevant, apart from being untrue and a nuisance, as I submit that a contributor persistently repeating throughout the WP - even on talk pages - what has been demonstrated to be false is not compatible with writing encyclopaedic articles.

723:

considering going through the entire dispute resolution process to end a certain content dispute, because I'm pretty sure the parties will never reach a consensus unless a binding decision is imposed. I would like to know if this is actually possible. --

4695:

In any case, the comment in question was somewhat uncivil and I apologize for the tone (but not the point—his warning was certainly too harsh). It should be viewed in light of the trouble the two of us were having with each other at that time, however.

2645:

I read somewhere that administrators don't have to enforce ArbCom decisions, so people might want to seek out administrators who might be willing to enforce one. I'll have to keep that page in mind in case I'm in such a situation, unless I'd be told of

1977:

This is a new issue, (read what Sceptre wrote on the ArbCom page) to do with me reporting suspected socks, which Sceptre claims was "uncivil".. no attempt was made on his part to discuss that with me and no attempt was made at meditation... which is in

1896:

be done before coming here as a last resort) or even discussing with me why he thinks reporting sock puppets is a violation of anything (which it isn't of course), thus making the case nul and void, acording to the official Knowledge (XXG) policies -

2425:, which shows that Crotalus horridus, sometimes using role accounts for the purpose, created functional replacements in userspace for userboxes that had been deleted by administrators under T1. These included the anti-UN and anti-ACLU templates. -- 4810:

No response? Please don't try to shove this through without giving me due process. If you don't want to have to consider evidence, you should drop the case altogether. I would also like to have a discussion with the arbitrators in IRC if possible.

4830:

on July 13, there have been four other cases opened after this one, three of which have recieved at least one vote by an arbitrator. The CoolKatt RfA has recieved none as of this writing. What is the cause for the delay in regards to this one?

1804:

is that " the vaccine critics (note that it is never bracketted) article was hijacked and replaced with an extraordinarily pov article". It isn't true, but despite that being pointed out on various occasions, it is still repeated (most often by

4643:: James found EM's warning overly harsh and criticized him for it on his talk page. "s a block warning really appropriate for this user? Think for a minute. This is obviously a constructive, good faith user with enthusiasm about the project." 4708:

It was never the basis for your remarks that was the question, it is making them without explaining the basis for them. Here you make an effort to explain your criticism. But in the incident complained of you did not. You just blasted away.

3571:

I guess this is the right place to mention concerns with the process itself, so I moved it here. Generally arbitration applications shouldn't involve threaded dialog, mostly because it has a tendency to grow to massive size very quickly.

2061:

Thirdly, if you thought i was being uncivil, then i apologise, as that wasnt my intention. However i would like you to provide a diff, quote what part was uncivil and ive reason as to how it was uncivil, so i dont repeat my mistake again.

2028:

Masking as good faith "offering advice" while littering your post with subtle little stabs, doesn't really cut the crust with me. Though atleast you admit the proper actions were not followed, which in turn shows that the case is still in

3614:

editor, not getting worse. As such, I think it's premature to go straight into RFA. Al has indicated that he is willing to abide by the outcome of an RFC. I'd like to see that he is given that opportunity before resorting to arbitration.

2729:

that content matters such as the one my proposed principle addresses are out of scope for the arbitration case, so I would therefore like to withdraw it, which I assumed to be my right as the submitter. If I am wrong, I'm happy to let it

1593:

and more are aimed at a large group of editors and are actually highly insulting for professionals who aim to rely on scientific judgement rather than the occasional sales pitch from drug company representatives. Again, this is rooted in

1090:

I think the principle that we should separate editors from their hats is a good one. I'm sure Tony meant well, but agree that this should have been put under his name rather than the Clerk's office. Probably it was just force of habit.

2622:

Ok, back to mediation then. I added information on the RFA page so people will know that they'll be able to add more information if their case is accepted. I was also wondering whether people who've been through arbitration told about

733:

The ArbCom traditionally rejects content disputes, but accepts issues where editors need a binding resolution to interpersonal conflicts. I would suggest making the request for arbitration - after all, the worst they can do is reject.

4419:

Shouldn't there still be some complaint raised if the case is going to be re-opened? For the ArbCom to do it on its own definitely indicates a prosecutorial role. There is no complaint except the one the ArbCom itself apparently has.

3586:

If Alienus wants to take the allegations in the proposed RfC's seriously and undertake to reform himself, that would be a legitimate response we might consider. Just going through the motions makes no sense. An awful lot of blocks.

1283:

have witnessed their credibility plummet in the wake of revelations about their reckless publication of fraudulent clinical trial research studies, which have rightly been described, in many instances, as little more than marketing

2055:

The proper actions were also followed. You refused to partake in discussion and refused to partake in RFC. After experience of you refusing before, the Policy explicittly states that both can be bypassed and RFA can be explicittly

1996:

No, but he could of outright blocked you for being Uncivil which DOES violate a Knowledge (XXG) policy. Actually, i think it violates two. Considering your on a basis for a permenant ban, your 'skating thin ice' the same way as i

5213:

Because nobody from the Committee had responded, and they weren't included in the list of "Yeah, go ahead and archive, but leave ." If you feel they are still in need of an answer, please feel free to restore them, it is a wiki.

1359:, provides another egregious example of the abuse of power that now defines an undeniably greedy industry engorged with a trillion dollar annual cash flow. When asked point blank, at recent legislative hearings, whether or not 5246:

Though I have made small comments on wiki for years from my small range of hard IP addresses, I recently registered a user to make specific comments on DU, considering the controversial nature of it. I have casually researched

5520:

Actually, the vast majority of Wiki content is precisely ANONYMOUS, and the two policy pages you quote unfortunately never reference anonymity in any context. I will conclude that you misunderstood the policy, so I will just

5020:

And CoolKatt continues to use RfC as a threat method and they end up being frivolous and dumb. His subpages are also a problem, as they show up on Google and are unfactual and just a bunch of fantasies made up one day. The

2168:

In meatspace judiciaries, there's a saying that runs along the lines of "Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done". I agree with moving it to project space; it's a really splendid piece of work otherwise.

4929:

Well, Katt's doing his best to get himself permabanned on his own, so it may shortly be moot. Note he's still making threats, while banned, on his Talk page - against a user who's done far less against him than any of us.

1885:

policies.. it states that Arbitration is the last course of action... his current problem seems to be that I've reported suspected sockpuppets (something which numerous users other than myself have suspected recently too)

2117:

It should be noted that the page is also not under anyone's actual userspace, as that is no longer my account. Also that, upon writing it, I invited arbitrators to edit the page so as to get it accurate, and they did so.

1153:

Unless I've developed some new onanistic wrinkle on a military term, it's impossible to have an "edit war" by myself. Thus you've blocked, without warning, someone whom you considered yourself to be in a content dispute

3808:

I'd like to second SlimVirgin's request. IMO, her latest suggestions could provide a basis for moving forward on this issue. (SlimVirgin, I owe you a reply - I'll drop you a line tomorrow when I'm a bit less tired!). --

3206:

This is by no means a personal critique of Tony, please don't interpret it that way. What I am aiming at is the clerk concept. It looks to me that whatever was meant to be accomplished by having clerks is not working.

4855:

I as well. His legal threats and dozens of personal attacks were ignored by the administrators, his RfC was a dead end where nothing happened, and now this sits here unaddressed. In the interim his behaviour continues

1719:

than rushing into processes while crying foul every step of the way. It would be much appreciated if Jfd, et al, would stick to the policy of assuming that efforts to keep articles npov are being made in good faith.

1714:

a conduct RfC was filed by Jfd, who later admitted it should have been a content RfC regarding Whale.to links. Interestingly, the very uncertain science surrounding Shaken Baby Syndrome have again made headlines this

2975:

It seems to me that a few of links I've assembled in support of this assertion are not the best ones to support my argument that the UCRGrad case merits an immediate hearing. OK to include better and more thorough

2006:

this case, your doing nothing to support your own claims. I will offer you advice as a fellow Wikipedian, even though i have no personal taste for you: Sit this case out, dont break policys, and dont Wikilawyer.

1073:"The Clerks assist the Arbitration Committee by reviewing and summarizing evidence submitted on evidence pages; helping write the decisions; and opening and closing cases which have the required number of votes." 4047:

Other arbitrators have also been the subject of arbitration during their terms, and Jayjg himself has also been admonished in one case. This isn't a big deal and no reason to require an arbitrator to step down.

3691:

ok, 0.551724138%, clear short of 60%. The basic problem is the continued violation of policies and guidelines by a large percentage of all editors involved, and as such, this is highly relevant for the case. --

2217:

revert wars and say "if there is a problem with his editing, use dispute resolution." As if the existence of two ArbCom cases and dozens of article bans given out to 'nood have no value to those other editors.

1943:

And how does that alter the fact that the case is still a violation of official Knowledge (XXG) dispute policies? The fact stands that no effort was made to discuss your issue with myself or Meditate, which it

1542:

For all intents and purposes there has been almost non-stop trouble, frequently involving Ombudsman, for the last few months. RFC and RFM have not had the desired results. I think time is ripe for arbitration.

941:

IIRC Fred Bauder edited the clerks' procedural page to discourage the usage of such templates. I also think usage of the templates messes up the timestamping in HTML comments for temp injunctions and the like.

467: 3983:

of the moves in question in your additional information above. This RFA is about the current spate of moves, not about month old actions. Changing the paramaters so that you can make a point isn't acceptable.

2202:

programming, Webcomics, Lyndon LaRouche, etc.). The current case involves multiple parties (with no single "defendant") and only the "Biological psychiatry" article, so I think it should be renamed as such. --

1017:

has the extra templates intact. I'm still working on the HTML comment issue Johnleemk mentioned above, but if that's not a show stopper for the arbitrators I think the templates should be ready to use now. =)

5422:

You have not only blatantly violated and abused Wiki policy, which you seem to have little regard for by doing this, you also seem to be behaving in a juvenile, vindictive fashion, contrary the spirit of the

3796:

Request for Mediation would be appropriate. It would therefore be helpful if the Committee could either reject this request, or put it on ice for a few days to allow these other avenues to be explored first.

3780:

2269:

The page in question has a very long name and it is an important part of the mechanism by which arbitration remedies are enforced; the shortcut is in practise the name by which it is most commonly accessed.

2624: 1780:. That is not deletionism. The external links I removed were the ones that in my assertion did not give the topic a fair treatment, which is a matter of editorial judgement and not of deletionism in itself. 2311: 2253: 4198:

I thought about suggesting that, but I wasn't sure if the ArbCom had the power to compel one of its members to recuse...? Out of curiosity, does anyone know how this sort of thing handled in real life?

4014:

from the arbcom, and I don't think that's worth the cost. Third, from what I've seen, the ArbCom members don't pull any punches with each other, so I'm not sure how much actual conflict really exists.

4140:

How can one challege Fred's non-recusal? Can we ask ArbComm members to rule on the issue? It seems rather bizarre to have an Arbitrator be the final authority on whether or not s/he is in a conflict of

3263:

The RFAr page says "This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment." I wouldn't want all editors to be able to refactor things.

543: 2805:

says "blocked "Zen-master (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 year (Arbcom ban)" - which confuses the hell out of me. Is this a block or a ban?? I suspect it is a ban being enforced with a block. It

1487:

suspect he cannot. If he could, it is unfounded specualtion and is inaccurate as far as I am concerned. "Hazing" is an Americanism I think, we don't have it as far as I know in UK medical schools.

3478:

Please add that SOPHIA also disagrees with your characterization Tony. Let's have this RfC and see publicly who the groups of editors are that have an issue with Al. It should get quite interesting.

3295:, and currently the Highways arbitration needs to be closed and the alienus arbitration will need to be opened around 1810 UTC on the 5th or some time after. I can do neither because I'm recused. -- 1821:

which followed many suggestions that if someone thought there ought to be they should write one. It is an attempt at definition rather than a list of people who are asserted to be penumbral to the

4246:

Can any arbs tell me whether now would be a favorable time for me to put forward an appeal request? Today marks the eighth month anniversary of my ruling. Therefore it is two-thirds finished now.

1647:

and was rather hoping you'd apologise for that. It's a rather poor show if you use this request for arbitration (against you, I note) as a further platform for the villification of other editors.

1766:

Subtle and confusing apology accepted. Apparently the hatred of pharmaceutical companies (just look at the invective) goes so deep that it makes one make strange accusations at bona fide editors.

1010: 3057:

Anoranza wants to add someone to the case, so that they can have a complaint filed against them. The user is not looking for that person to support them, but is looking to attack that user. --

4482:

avoiding harassment of other administrators. It would be different if you would take the time to carefully explain what is bothering you, but you would rather get off an inexplicable zinger.

3747:

No mediation was tried by an independent party, and that's what's needed now. You sound as though you actually want arbitration, instead of resolving the dispute. I hope that's not the case.

2960:

I won't argue the merits of UCRGrad's case (the Committee is supposed to do that). However he has apparently made a good faith effort to argue a case according to Knowledge (XXG) policy. --

2422: 2184: 4772:

Everyking expressed his doubts in my understanding of Knowledge (XXG) policies related to this matter, but at the same time his response indicated that he had not read Tcatron's talk page.

493: 4089:, which is reasonable since both have had other involvement with the article. That closes the recusal issue. The problem now is finding enough uninvolved arbitrators to do the job. -- 3273:

Easy enough to take that line out, but I'm happy to trust my fellow editors with moving comments to the talk page. I've done it one the arbitration page before, what's the big deal? -

2875:. Further attempts at dispute resolution are being attempted, but he's not sure if it's alright to simply remove the request or whether to ask an arbitrator to do so (see discussion at 406: 296: 291: 4765:(to no avail), so I hardly feel I was being "unnecessarily harsh"; I would have said the same thing if I hadn't been appointed an admin, and I think I would have been careless not to. 4438:

I don't believe that counts. A) You could have just made that up, and B) as a matter of precedure things need to be done on-wiki. All this secretive backchannel stuff is meaningless.

1693:

with an edit summary that was not quite polite. Months later, Jfd really got things off on the wrong foot by repeatedly and abrasively qustioning the sanity of the Whale.to webmaster

5397:

IP I believe because you believe me to be someone else. If you bothered to check the IP of that person, chances are he has never posted from anywhere around Olympia, Washington, USA.

2690: 635:

The arbitrators usually discuss cases privately through email, not on the wiki. The most you'll typically see is some brief comments from them during the workshop and voting phases.

681:

article that he is, in fact, Jason Gastrich. His edit essentially consisted of an unexplained deletion/blanking, so I'm not sure. I believe we should look into this matter further.

606: 2901:

Well it seems as if those involved want the request to continue, as both parties have responded and comments have already been added. I guess ignore what was stated above, then.

3705:

The poll was roughly even when the out-of-policy moves started. On July 5, there was a big influx of "Agree" votes in a short period. Let's leave this to ArbComm to sort out. --

233: 228: 223: 218: 213: 208: 203: 198: 193: 183: 178: 173: 168: 97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 5296:

This is James, same editing style, trying to push the same information. A Check user request will determine nothing because records are not kept that long. Please Dont buy it.

5043:

should be using an RFC as a threat, its not a punishment method, its a conflict resolution step. The RfC is suppose to be used to show an issue or user the communities view. --

4939:

This quote "against a user who's done far less against him than any of us" is quite funny, its almost like an admission of guilt. So what have you done "against this user"? --

4635:, it's a direct violation of Knowledge (XXG)'s copyrights policy. ... f you continue editing as you have been doing, you may find yourself blocked from editing for a period." 3292: 2131:

Fair enough. I have no reason to suspect that there's anything wrong with the page's content or the way it's written. But this is a question of appearances, not of substance.

163: 158: 153: 148: 143: 138: 133: 128: 123: 2726: 1182: 3030:

So shall I start a new case then? Calling this "Añoranza" is misleading and denying me the same right to add more users while allowing the other side to do so is not fair.

2936:. (Since when was "avoidance" an avenue of dispute resolution?) So I'm wondering if a clerk or another uninvolved party can remove the section, or refactor it in some way. 2050:

First off, Sceptre has already said both on the ANI board and in his ArmCom statement that you were eligable for a permenant ban, thus i am repeating what Sceptre has said.

2021:", that is a total lie on your part and you know so... I have never been "considered for permenant ban", but I see what you're doing. Again claiming I'm "Wikilawyering"... 4026: 2580: 3994:

I am all for showing the dates. Homey statement above seems to be another attempt to evade responsibility for his "month old actions" as if they are somehow expired. Å©

3718:

Note: A request for mediation on broader content issues has been made by some of the parties. That mediation request should not preempt this request for arbitration. --

397: 392: 387: 382: 377: 372: 367: 362: 357: 327: 5369:

Wow, you heroes are really burying yourselves here. Be my guest, just remember caution, respect and the benefit of a doubt at all times in dealing with strangers, OK?

3001:

I am already on the case. The RFC is also listed in the case. And as NSLE told you, only the initiator can add them or if the other person decides to add themself. --

2824: 462: 352: 347: 342: 337: 332: 322: 317: 312: 3048:

I think you can ask the ArbCom to add someone as an involved party, no? (I've seen such motions before, but I have no idea if they've ever been used in practice.)

2735:

However, I have also tried to comment that several other proposed principles/findings of fact are also clearly out of scope, and SPUI has removed my comments twice.

2579:, but if it's accepted, do I have to create an evidence page? Do I have to create one before I list the request for arbitration? There are already mediation pages 1578:

rv: the objective is to build a comprehensive encyclopedia, not to obscure knowledge that is inconvenient to Big Pharma, corporate special interests and their ilk

882: 4333:

This is not a favorable time for an appeal. In fact, due to your continued harassment of other administrators, further restrictions on you are being considered.

2532: 1871: 1833: 1723: 1629: 1394: 1249: 5062:

What they meant was simply that the request for comments regarding him lead to little constructive discussion, not that it should have lead to some punishment.

963:

right? Do you happen to know what it was that he had to fix by hand? And ewh, I just noticed the HTML comment thing.. I'll see if I can find a workaround. =) —

763:

I've created the following templates for opening new arbitration cases (based in part on Tony Sidaway's work) that I'd like the arbitrators to consider using:

4519:

I've semiprotected this page briefly to stop a particular remove vandal. Protection should be lifted as soon as possible, perhaps in three or four hours. --

2490:

To the people currently edit warring on this page - kindly stop. It is my considered opinion that Mike can list Feloniousmonk in the request if he wants to.

2088:

Third, your apology for the personal attacks/incivilties are accepted... I only hope you stick by your words and don't "repeat your mistake" again, thanks -

4781:

from the same period, and you can understand why I might feel he was more concerned with antagonising me through harassment than making a case for Tcatron.

4361:

Fair enough. Let's get this out in the open so you can respond. Perhaps filing an appeal as a request for arbitration would accomplish that. Please do so.

3386:

I second the concerns expressed by James. Is it not policy to conduct RFCs before resorting to RFAs? Or are we mistaken? Explanation would be appreciated.

4553:

my stupidity re: IP blocks. When I saw your comment after that I assumed it was you that made the first comment. So, confusion all round. My apologies. --

3867:

In case it's helpful, here is the information from the move log about how many times this page was moved between May 29 (when it was created) and July 4.

1236: 4278:

I'm a little nervous about doing that. I wanted to get some kind of green light here that it would be OK for me to make a request before doing anything.

920:, parameters). If the arbitrators do use these, I strongly urge redirecting/deleting the old templates to avoid confusion when updates need to be made. 47: 17: 2813:

would help if the block log would give a link to the actual Arbcom case. I hate having to trawl through the archives to try and find individual cases.

873: 3226:

We have other active clerks, but I do think it's long past time the arbitrators appointed a second tranche to replace the dropouts from the first. --

2588: 1049: 274: 269: 264: 259: 5571:

The content you deleted meets this requirement. In the absence of any other justification or comments, you have left me no choice but to repost it.

4663:

there to accuse me of? All there are so far are generalities; there's nothing specific, which I assume is because I haven't actually done anything.

4145: 4093: 4019: 479: 2575:

I followed a bunch of related links, and I saw "evidence page" mentioned, and I wasn't sure what that was. I know that first I have to list a case

1356: 2797:

show the differences between the terms, but I also see people using the terms interchangeably. This is confusing, especially when people invoke

1108:

and pertain solely to the applicability of the request in the context of the dispute resolution framework. My notes on this as an editor are on

284: 279: 254: 249: 3096:

Zer0 is a party to the case, and therefore subject to any ArbCom ruling, but Añoranza wants the name changed to include both him/her and Zer0.

2301:

template takes more than half of the width of the page. That makes the TOC hard to read. But you are right, things depend on individual browser.

1112:

and give my personal opinion on the proposed mentorship. Note the marked difference in nature and tone. Do not interfere with clerk notes. --

1590:(in this RFAr nota bene). References to "big pharma", "conflict of interest", "mainstream medical dogma", "pseudoscience & expert worship" 457: 1416:

I requested mediation with Ombudsman, specifically with respect to his repeated incivility and reluctance to openly discuss contentious edits

847: 812: 515:

suggestions) so that we don't have the disendorsements disaster of 2004 or the open voting mess of 2005/06. What does everyone else think? —

4113: 3838:

As a party to the mediation request (but not this arbitration), I prefer the mediation route as well as it would be more productive, imo. --

3200: 2933: 2576: 1363:

is actually a disease (or not, as the evidence overwhelmingly indicates), big pharma apologists could not come up with any response at all.

1105: 2835:

I would recommend that people correct those that use the terms incorrectly, as otherwise this incorrect usage could spiral out of control.

1858:

thus giving him the opportunity to argue that policy is different. Since then Ombudsman has continued to advocate or proselytise as before

452: 2833:"Confusion between the two terms arises as many users, including some administrators, say "ban" when they mean "block", and vice versa." 2591:

page, and of course the applicable parts of the talk page for the article in question. Would I need to create a separate evidence page?

4536:. All I did was add a comment replying to his apparent confusion about range blocks. In retrospect, the comment was actually made by 1842: 1292:

the fact that certain editors tend to gang up to ensure the Wiki is basically immune to the questioning of mainstream medical industry

673:, right? Well, the bad news is that he just might be back. While I cannot immediately discern the validity of this assertion, the user 2393:

Findings of fact said that Crotalus horridus had re-created three specific userboxen. I could only find evidence of one re-creation

4082: 3282:

It changes visibility and context, and I think refactoring also includes more serious editing than moving things to the talk page.

1585:

it is the credibility of medical authorities that is, at best, questionable, and increasingly so due to the influence of big pharma

1312:, presenting a huge void that the Wiki could and certainly should help fill. While it is widely and justifiably accepted that the 712: 687: 486: 5448:

You have left me no choice but to escalate the incident, as this type of behavior could threaten the integrity of the Wiki itself.

5022: 916:. The Proposed decision template has the added ability of automatically calculating the majority (if you provide some additional, 890: 4038: 2446: 1677: 1328:

in recent decades. Single minded profiteering and propagandistic marketing of vaccines, courtesy of big pharma, has resulted an

1121:

To my knowledge Knowledge (XXG):Blocking Policy has not yet been amended to allow blocking for "interfering" with clerk notes. -

1027: 1014: 972: 932: 838: 803: 4429:

The complaint was sent to me privately, directing me towards the ANI thread describing your harassment of ExtraordinaryMachine.

4343:

I wouldn't mind seeing an appeal. It would give us a convenient place to collect those ongoing harassments for consideration.

2460: 5103:

Give it a few more days before we get our feather's in a bunch. The more time that passes the more that piles up against CK.--

4293:

Motions in prior cases can only be started by arbitrators. I'll make sure that all arbitrators are aware of your question. --

2947: 2606: 2375:

Thatcher - you may want to trim your post - I'm getting a word count of 700 words on what should be a 500-word-limit post. --

2034: 1983: 1882: 4614:

The move was clearly wrong both technically and stylistically but also clearly made in good faith. The user is 11 years old.

1296:. The first priority of medicine, in stark contrast to the dubious premises underlying the propagandistic mass marketing of 428: 3199:, and Tony is rather often involved in arbitration cases (with a "Statement by Tony Sidaway" in three of the six cases at 2929: 2333: 4676:

Although not a violation of hte ruling (in the strictest sense of the word) it clearly shows the ruling's shortcomings.

2748: 777: 678: 3360: 2790: 4371:

about me that are apparently going on, but to do so through an arbitration case would obviously be suicide. I want to

4068: 1209:

I moved this threaded discussion here. If you want your point to appear on the main application, please make it as a

1195: 1161: 1127: 1082: 855: 820: 3738:

Mediation was tried. See Kim's note above. Also, please don't post in the statement area of another party. Thanks. --

2828: 2794: 2721:, so I submit that I'm the best person in the entire world to consult on what its "purpose" is. I removed it because 1948:

be done before any case comes to ArbCom... as an admin you should know these kind of things and be following them. -

3291:

Any editor can already open or close an arbitration case (as long as he does it properly). The instructions are at

674: 5203: 4901: 4892: 4874: 4827: 4789: 4621: 2852: 2772: 2707: 1811: 1380: 536: 38: 1814: 5112:

I'm getting sort of impatient, other ArbCom potential cases have got more attention, even if it's a down vote. --

4882:

Its neither. Stop trying to invent things. I can't even begin to list all the polices and guidelines you break.--

3274: 3241: 3216: 2406: 2341: 2319: 2136: 2108: 5348: 5327: 5300: 5233: 5207: 5182: 5141: 5129: 5119: 5107: 5097: 5066: 5057: 5032: 5015: 5005: 4985: 4965: 4958:

I think he's refferring to reverting certain questionable edits of CoolKatt, warning him, that sort of thing. --

4953: 4934: 4923: 4904: 4895: 4886: 4877: 4860: 4848: 4835: 4815: 4804: 4792: 4744:

guidelines. Despite what the above diffs may imply, I have tried being friendly to him in my previous messages (

4734: 4723: 4713: 4700: 4680: 4667: 4653: 4587: 4570: 4557: 4546: 4523: 4509: 4496: 4486: 4471: 4461: 4442: 4433: 4424: 4414: 4393: 4365: 4356: 4347: 4337: 4323: 4306: 4297: 4282: 4273: 4260: 4250: 4229: 4208: 4185: 4172: 4134: 4120: 4103: 4052: 4042: 3998: 3988: 3974: 3853: 3831: 3822: 3813: 3802: 3753: 3742: 3733: 3722: 3709: 3696: 3686: 3674: 3663: 3650: 3629: 3618: 3606: 3591: 3576: 3558: 3536: 3511: 3486: 3464: 3454: 3443: 3428: 3410: 3377: 3351: 3335: 3312: 3299: 3286: 3277: 3268: 3250: 3230: 3220: 3182: 3170: 3158: 3130: 3100: 3071: 3052: 3043: 3034: 3025: 3015: 2995: 2980: 2964: 2940: 2907: 2895: 2858: 2839: 2817: 2776: 2754: 2711: 2677: 2613: 2599: 2565: 2556: 2542: 2516: 2503: 2494: 2480: 2429: 2382: 2369: 2345: 2323: 2284: 2225: 2206: 2191: 2177: 2157: 2139: 2122: 2111: 2092: 2066: 2044: 2011: 1990: 1967: 1952: 1937: 1901: 1794: 1757: 1736: 1657: 1608: 1553: 1506: 1491: 1481: 1471: 1453: 1429: 1409: 1263: 1197: 1163: 1148: 1129: 1116: 1095: 1084: 1075:

The section created by Tony Sidaway is not any of these things, and thus is by definition not a clerk's action.

1030: 992: 975: 950: 935: 753: 743: 727: 697: 656: 643: 626: 613: 598: 580: 550: 436: 414: 4583:

I'm not offended or anything. I just wanted to correct the page without it looking like I was messing around.

4204: 4168: 2295: 1144:

All things being equal, it probably isn't a good idea to engage in edit warring on the arbcom-related pages. --

3392: 2932:), the respondent in the case, has added an irrelevant, inflammatory section to the top of the RFAR section 2610: 2379: 2366: 1673: 1496:

I'm not sure of the kind of "hazing" that Ombudsman is referring to...certainly he is not talking about the

1276: 988:

I have had to add extra templates in each section. The method was producing only one template per section.

768: 4719:

Yes, this is true; however, it seemed obvious at the time, and I did explain later if there was any doubt.

4567: 4520: 4458: 4303: 4294: 4131: 4049: 3573: 3533: 3461: 3451: 3348: 3296: 3227: 2961: 2539: 2513: 2426: 2423:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_arbitration/Tony_Sidaway/Evidence#Crotalus.27_recreation_of_deleted_templates

2281: 2188: 1145: 1113: 785: 610: 565: 521: 3727:

Mediation should usually come before arbitration, if it can be arranged. You beat me to it by a day. :-)

2584: 2454: 1920: 1668:

ample control over access to information on the internet. Editors who make no bones about their obvious

113: 4270: 4076: 2827:. So you just use the user name to find the sub-page? That was easy. Still, I agree with the comment at 2476: 1535:

A request for mediation is a request for mediation. Its removal without comment was an act of bad faith.

750: 724: 5510:(→Health concerns - a letter in a magazine from an anonymous person does not conform to WP:RS and WP:V) 4916:

This is getting to be a tad ridiculous...only one vote by an arbitrator....will this one be ignored? --

4537: 2955:

editors made blanket reverts or edits without any justification" so he goes to the heart of that point.

2307: 2249: 4627:

He then issued a warning to Tcatron565 on his talk page. "Not only is this out of compliance with the

2203: 709: 684: 5324: 5053: 5001: 4981: 4949: 4160: 4034: 3972: 3906: 3800: 3784: 3751: 3731: 3693: 3684: 3671: 3661: 3212: 3067: 3011: 2440: 2403: 2337: 2315: 1669: 1275:, then adherence to npov policies should take precedence over the disruptive hounding, badgering and 1190: 1156: 1122: 1077: 1023: 1019: 968: 964: 928: 924: 694: 2450: 2314:

for which it is a shortcut. There is no need in my view to put it on the main arbitration page, no?

1254:

That RFC doesn't appear to be related to this dispute, though. I'd recommend taking it there first.

4200: 4164: 3049: 2876: 2552:

Hi can we have some movement on this arbitration case, all the evidence has been presented thanks

2473: 2222: 2174: 1822: 1224: 947: 670: 640: 4352:

Where are these further restrictions being considered? I'd like the opportunity to defend myself.

4265:

You could file it as a 'motion in a prior case' on the main RFAr page. That said, I'd assume that

3626: 3615: 3425: 3374: 3309: 3175:

Thank you - I should have thought of checking the template. It must be time for me to go to bed.

2798: 2003: 1960: 1806: 4492:

I don't think this is at all an adequate response to the very important points I've been making.

3995: 3924: 3918: 3828: 3810: 3602:

options really been exhausted? I am just trying to figure out how the policy works here. Thanks,

2971:

Ok to clarify how earlier steps in dispute resolution process could not be taken in UCRGrad case?

2376: 2363: 2119: 1789: 1652: 1637: 1603: 1548: 1448: 1424: 1244: 5134:

Part of it got cut off with no one noticing. Shows how much the ArbCom cares about this case. --

4866: 2468: 913: 4142: 3985: 3912: 3788: 3772: 3437:

not accept at face value. I propose that we put this RfAr on ice so that the RfC can proceed.

3203:

which were not yet accepted/rejected, and in 3 of the 12 cases which are already accepted).

5160: 4086: 3792: 3776: 3407: 3196: 2923: 2510: 1930: 575: 531: 4751:, among others), despite some incivility and unwillingness to correspond with me on his part 4628: 2872: 1908: 1777: 1340:

of big pharma endorsed 'destigmatization' campaigns, designed to reduce social resistance to

1109: 418: 5497: 5314: 5256: 5248: 5223: 5172: 4832: 4731: 4710: 4584: 4543: 4483: 4411: 4362: 4334: 4226: 4182: 4156: 4100: 4072: 3588: 3420: 3332: 3127: 3031: 2992: 2722: 2562: 2561:

Hi can we please move on to the next stage and have the jury decide on the verdict . thanks

2553: 2089: 2041: 1987: 1949: 1898: 1716: 1682: 1625:), portraying sources in such unflattering terms, or by filibustering article discussions? 1325: 1309: 1259: 1203:

Threaded discussion moved from 'Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others re Biological psychiatry'

989: 739: 623: 438: 416: 4870: 4503: 3370: 2359: 1644: 1595: 1528: 1183:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request for review of "clerk" actions

5321: 5260: 5045: 5012: 4993: 4973: 4941: 4931: 4759: 4606: 4062: 4030: 3969: 3954: 3861: 3797: 3781: 3748: 3728: 3681: 3658: 3059: 3003: 2836: 2814: 2436: 2132: 2104: 1733: 1329: 1280: 1220: 5540:

Your requirement, that sources not be anonymous, is never mentioned in the Wiki policies.

4632: 4256:

Do any arbs read this page? Does anyone know a place they do read where I can post this?

2934:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration#List of Dispute Resolution Avenues NOT attempted

2528: 2471:

I gathered. I suspect davenbelle is continuing to stalk me using a sockpuppet account. --

2354:

Request to reopen prior hearing in light of sockpuppet violations of permanent ban remedy

1573: 1232: 1572:

I wish to also draw attention to Ombudsman's frequent incivil and unnecessarily charged

442: 420: 5199: 5138: 5116: 5094: 5029: 4962: 4920: 4845: 4812: 4801: 4784:

Not that I feel Tcatron's age has much relevance to this, but from August last year to

4720: 4697: 4664: 4554: 4493: 4468: 4439: 4421: 4390: 4353: 4344: 4279: 4257: 4247: 3040: 3022: 2902: 2890: 2768: 2703: 2170: 1852: 1818: 1720: 1643:

And I regard your suggestions above that I am paid by the pharmaceutical industry as a

1626: 1468: 1391: 1371: 1333: 1092: 1068:

and are exactly why there was such strenous objection to the creation of the office.

943: 636: 440: 5551: 4457:

If you harassed ExtraordinaryMachine on the wiki, the evidence will be on the wiki. --

4225:

Make a motion on the /Workshop page after the case is opened. And we will vote on it.

5572: 5474: 5370: 4800:

Will the ArbCom agree to read and consider evidence about this case if I present it?

4650: 3936: 3424:

case. I also note that this RFA was filed just as a recent block was being resolved.

2977: 2801:

G5. The particular case I would like clarification on involves Zen-master, where the

1848:

was improved, generalised, and had the Karmafist judgement added to it as a reference

1785: 1705: 1672:

issues are relatively inconsequential in the grand scheme of corporate hegemony over

1648: 1622: 1599: 1544: 1503: 1478: 1444: 1420: 1387: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1240: 653: 595: 5126: 5104: 5063: 4883: 4857: 4677: 4542:. Whether anons can comment is up to someone else but its not my comment. Thanks. 4506: 4430: 4320: 4016: 3603: 3555: 3438: 3401: 3387: 3283: 3265: 3176: 3167: 3152: 3097: 3039:

Go ahead and start it, it just wouldn't get accepted, or even reverted by a clerk.

2937: 2919: 2855: 2740:

Are editors allowed to remove comments made by other editors in arbitration cases?

2674: 2596: 2500: 2491: 2291:

tag the table of contents appears like a very long very narrow column, because the

2154: 1913: 1868: 1830: 1770: 1754: 1498: 1488: 1341: 570: 560: 526: 516: 1355:, corruption and dangerous deceptions, orchestrated by big pharma to promote the 1231:

and numerous others. In fact, an RFC against Ombudsman dealing specifically with

5216: 5165: 3839: 3791:. Since then, there have been disagreements on various pages about titles, with 3775:. Since then, there have been disagreements on various pages about titles, with 3504: 3479: 2991:

and I would like to add another user who joins the personal attacks against me.

2868: 2789:

Can I ask for a clarification here on "block" and "ban" terminology? I see that

2743: 2686: 2063: 2008: 1964: 1384: 1367: 1337: 1297: 1272: 1255: 735: 46:

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

1851:, it remains there and could be taken to be in accordance with the concensus. 4117: 4090: 4058: 3948: 3819: 3739: 3719: 3706: 3647: 2266:

I have reverted these well-intended format changes for the following reasons:

1665: 1406: 1345: 1285: 1228: 4598:

Everyking, Extraordinary Machine, Tcatron565 - summary of incident with diffs

2918:

As a party in the case, I don't want to touch another person's comments. But

2290:

Thanks for the explanation. In my browser without the <br clear="all": -->

5195: 5135: 5113: 5091: 5026: 4959: 4917: 4842: 4116:. Let's give arbitration a try. We need one more uninvolved arbitrator. -- 3942: 3930: 3450:^^^James^^^ and Romarin, is that Alienus is an..." and the existing text. -- 2764: 2699: 1704:. After the third such unwelcome commentary on November 2nd, the day after 1701: 547: 3968:

that an RfAr has been posted. If you do, please let me know and I'll stop.

2238:

Oleg Alexandrov edited the project page with the intention of improving it

1911:, you should've read that I consulted a few people on IRC before doing so 1784:"outrageous", "bizarre", "ridiculous", "nutty", "off-topic" and all more. 1344:

interventions, provides further evidence of the manipulative marketing of

1202: 908:

All of these accept the case name as the first parameter, and all of them

5345: 5297: 5264: 5252: 3960: 1810:

long. The former was a short list of people. The latter survived an AfD

1375: 1352: 1271:

If the primary concern at issue here pertains to safeguarding the Wiki's

4533:

It appears PaulWicks took his own name off the Tojo case and added mine

706:

Sorry if I didn't do something right, I'm semi-new to editing and such.

5320:

Yes, it is a violation of his ArbCom ban, and I´ve blocked him for it.

1301: 693:

Or we could just indefinitely block him. In fact, Curps already did. --

4375:

anything being done against me through arbitration, not facilitate it.

2914:

Could a clerk please remove or refactor a section in the UCRGrad RFAR?

2871:

has asked me if it's possible to retract his request for arbitration

2411: 1750:"..complaints received, some specifically mentioning Jfd and Midgley" 4504:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Everyking

4099:

I have no reason to recuse. I just want to give mediation a chance.

3369:

I take issue with this. I think the next appropriate step would be

2312:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested

2254:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested

2277:

This surely cannot have been the intended effect of Oleg's change.

2263:

to make the TOC show up nicely, and rm a not-so relevant shortcut"

1370:

willfully vilify enormous swaths of the population as sufferers of

1279:

mindset that has plagued the Wiki's medical articles. A number of

4730:

I often agree with the criticisms you make, but not the blasting.

1686: 1293: 544:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Arbitration Committee/Elections/December 2006

5159:

Additionally, for the record, I cleared doing so with the lovely

4788:

the following December, his userpage stated he was born in 1987.

4319:

Didn't you do this in March EK? And several times before that? --

4114:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_KimvdLinde

2414: 2310:, it may be important, but I would think it belongs in the page 2258:

Insert a HTML 'br clear="all"' tag before the table of contents.

1360: 1213:

non-discursive statement, and provide whatever evidence you can.

5287: 4389:

prosecutorial role, if it is doing this on its own initiative.

3623:

Tony has suggested he won't stand in the way of this proposal.

3151:

Why are there two sickle and hammer flags on the Project Page?

3359:

Inveterate edit warrior prone to making personal attacks. See

2763:

My bad - I thought you were removing my proposed principle. --

2185:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/How to present a case

443: 421: 25: 3021:

voluntarily doing so can add someone/themselves to the case.

4502:

I have opened a request for clarification on this subject -

3636:

Material (with context) removed by clerk from apartheid RfAr

2825:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master#Remedies

2040:

suspect you would have been told not to be "uncivil" too. -

3657:

familiar with. That's why mediation would be very helpful.

2262:

Oleg explains his purpose as follows: "put in a <br: -->

1440:

To be sure, the request was removed without further comment

5344:

Thank you, but is a dynamic IP, so it wont last too long.

4085:) both seem to feel that they shouldn't be arbitrators on 3787:

apartheid-related articles, not just this one, started by

2691:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Highways/Workshop

2531:

with a view to invoking the General Probation in the case

5243:

Wow. I am amazed at this. This bodes badly for the wiki.

3347:

Moved here because it was taking over the arbitration. --

3503:

It's OK I've done it myself - this is a wiki after all.

2153:

need to give fertile imaginations additional nutrients.

5192: 5189: 4785: 4779: 4776: 4773: 4770: 4763: 4756: 4754: 4752: 4749: 4747: 4745: 4674: 4646: 4644: 4636: 4625: 4612: 4610: 4540: 4534: 3895: 3889: 3883: 3877: 3871: 3670:

The page was moved at 14-12, which is 0.538461538%. --

3624: 3305: 3293:

Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures

3247: 3164: 2802: 2738: 2736: 2718: 2536: 2398: 2394: 2239: 2081:

issues Sceptre had or the current case. Thus making the

1892:

discussion was attempted (which official policy states

1865: 1862: 1859: 1856: 1849: 1846: 1774: 1712: 1709: 1698: 1696: 1694: 1691: 1591: 1588: 1581: 1441: 1417: 1056: 960: 898: 894: 886: 878: 863: 859: 851: 843: 828: 824: 816: 808: 793: 789: 781: 773: 4181:

Homey can also make a motion in the arbitration case.

2334:

Template_talk:ArbComOpenTasks#This_template_is_too_fat

1324:

hardly justifies the mind bendingly vast expansion of

5194:

had outstanding questions; why were they archived? --

4027:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark

3195:

As far as I can tell, we have only one active clerk,

4269:

of the Arbcom members have this page watchlisted. --

4025:

Note that Raul654 was just explicitly admonished in

3818:

I third SV's idea, which sounds far more practical.

2884:

possible? Thanks. — Nrtm81 20:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

1887: 4467:fair process if their accuser is also their judge? 2197:

Naming of "Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others" case

2025:, the points I brought up are entirely apropriate. 1877:

Case for Arbitration against Knowledge (XXG) policy

5039:I am not attempting to take sides, simply stating 4566:I added the wrong name in error. My apologies. -- 1685:, and is vitally important to the credibility and 1304:, is to avoid perpetrating harm upon the patient. 1050:Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Tasks 4410:We have continuing jurisdiction over past cases. 4004: 2533:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby 2467:I'd like the arbitration comitee to consider the 1802:A recurring trope among a small group of editors 1477:"vaccination-causes-autism" activist interests! 3341:Discussion on summary in the Alienus arbitration 1881:Sceptre's current triad against myself violates 1219:This behaviour spans multiple articles, such as 4971:Knowledge (XXG) is a pretty small community. -- 3308:should probably be removed from the main page. 2719:added the proposed principle in the first place 2019:Considering your on a basis for a permenant ban 1963:, please read the policy pages in more detail. 1320:, a few instances of real benefits accrued via 2889:Is there any procedure for retracting a rfar? 2085:case a violation of Knowledge (XXG) policies. 4841:I was also wondering the exact same thing. -- 1374:, often portraying their victims as prone to 487: 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Requests for arbitration 8: 1189:I've started an area for discussion here. - 4891:Just leave me alone, and all will be good. 2280:Accordingly, I have reverted the change. -- 1708:, a restrained response was gently provided 5025:is especially ridiculous and worthless. -- 4112:Mediation has been tried and failed. See 1043:Something a clerk writes != Clerk writings 494: 480: 104: 4873:. Why won't you all just leave me alone? 4005:Homey's proposal for JayG general recusal 3884:Moves of Allegations of Israeli apartheid 874:Template:ArbComOpenCase/Proposed decision 5163:so as not to run afoul of any policies. 3979:It would be helpful if you included the 3201:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration 2673:And my case includes a content dispute. 1106:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration 1104:My notes on this case as a clerk are on 4624:reverted Tcatron565's misguided move. 1773:, I expanded that article significantly 1357:New Freedom Commission on Mental Health 703:Oh. Well then, that problem is solved. 669:I believe that everyone here remembers 427: 405: 304: 241: 112: 107: 2486:A note to WCityMike, Slimvirgin, et al 2077:meditation or RfC, in relation to the 1843:Knowledge (XXG):Standard user greeting 1527:I am very disappointed at Ombudsman's 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2535:and banning him from Knowledge (XXG) 1316:helped eradicate a serious threat to 7: 5090:Still only one vote...what gives? -- 3890:Moves of Israeli apartheid (epithet) 3680:separate pages should exist at all. 1817:). There is in fact now an article 652:Thanks to all of you for this info. 468:Clarification and amendment requests 5239:Administrator abuse, false identity 3878:Moves of Israeli apartheid (phrase) 2248:Remove a reference to the shortcut 2031:violation of Knowledge (XXG) policy 1980:violation of Knowledge (XXG) policy 923:Questions/suggestions welcome. =) — 511:Hey. Just throwing this out there: 5496:== Your revision of my content in 5154:Requests for clarification section 4900:And I will not do any more wrong. 4758:. After the cut-and-paste move at 2607:Knowledge (XXG):Dispute resolution 2035:Knowledge (XXG):Resolving disputes 1984:Knowledge (XXG):Resolving disputes 1883:Knowledge (XXG):Resolving disputes 24: 5251:for years. I posted additions to 4826:Since I opened up an RfA against 3896:Moves of Israeli apartheid (term) 3361:User:Tony Sidaway/Sandbox/Alienus 2877:User_talk:Cowman109#Portal:Taiwan 2785:Block and ban terminology mangled 1855:'s attention has been drawn to it 559:Hmmm looks like I missed that. — 4155:appeal any and all decisions to 3902:And number of moves per editor: 1678:politics of personal destruction 1066:"Reject - Not an arbcom concern" 839:Template:ArbComOpenCase/Workshop 804:Template:ArbComOpenCase/Evidence 677:has claimed in his edits to the 664: 29: 5473:Simply put, this is just LAME. 4673:This was was the final straw - 2879:). Here is the quote exactly: 2791:Knowledge (XXG):Blocking_policy 2527:I have started a discussion on 305:Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009–) 5259:, which were both reverted by 2829:Knowledge (XXG):Banning_policy 2795:Knowledge (XXG):Banning_policy 2693:to remove a proposed principle 749:Thanks for the explanation. -- 675:User:MiddletonPriorsShropshire 542:Already started some time ago; 108:Arbitration talk page archives 1: 2244:The changes were as follows: 1907:If you took the time to read 1009:Hi Fred; yeah, it looks like 589:Timetable for arb com action? 5346:Torturous Devastating Cudgel 5298:Torturous Devastating Cudgel 5265:Torturous Devastating Cudgel 4991:everything to go through. -- 3860:Additional information from 1529:failure to assume good faith 1308:discourse that would assure 1013:literally omitted them. The 679:Louisiana Baptist University 429:Archive of prior proceedings 242:Various archives (2004–2011) 4609:made a cut-and-paste move. 3641:Percentage in favor of move 2854:is an incomplete sentence. 2401:seem Croatalus free zones. 1332:and millions of additional 5591: 4622:User:Extraordinary Machine 3872:Moves of Israeli apartheid 2846:Template for standard text 2523:KDRGibby General Probation 2389:Query in Tony Sidaway case 1953:21:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 1938:21:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 1902:20:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 1872:22:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 1834:07:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 1795:22:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 1758:21:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 1737:21:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 1724:04:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 1658:20:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 1630:17:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 1609:15:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 1554:14:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 1532:been happening for months. 1507:23:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 1492:23:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 1482:21:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 1472:21:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 1454:21:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 1430:21:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 1410:13:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 1395:18:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 1381:Columbia Journalism Review 1264:12:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 1250:21:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1198:07:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 1164:23:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 1149:06:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 1130:06:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 1117:06:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 1096:04:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 1085:03:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 1031:08:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 993:07:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 976:06:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 951:04:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 936:22:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 744:13:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC) 728:19:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 713:20:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 698:17:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 688:17:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 657:14:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 644:14:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 627:14:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 614:05:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 599:21:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 581:21:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 551:02:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 537:21:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC) 5349:16:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 5328:15:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 5301:23:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 5234:04:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 5208:21:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC) 5183:01:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) 5142:03:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 5130:16:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC) 5120:13:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC) 5108:21:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) 5098:20:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC) 5067:02:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC) 5058:15:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 5033:15:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 5023:Louisville, Whore subpage 5016:14:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 5006:14:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 4986:14:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 4966:14:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 4954:14:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 4935:13:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 4924:13:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 4905:04:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC) 4896:04:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC) 4887:03:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC) 4878:03:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC) 4861:16:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC) 4849:14:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC) 4836:06:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC) 4822:RfA/CoolKatt number 99999 4816:03:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC) 4805:02:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC) 4793:22:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC) 4735:16:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC) 4724:15:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC) 4714:12:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC) 4701:04:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC) 4681:04:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC) 4668:03:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC) 4654:17:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC) 4588:00:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC) 4571:21:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC) 4558:21:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC) 4547:20:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC) 4524:20:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC) 4510:22:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 4497:13:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 4487:12:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 4472:07:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 4462:06:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 4443:04:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 4434:04:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 4425:04:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 4415:04:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 4394:03:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 4366:19:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 4357:18:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 4348:13:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 4338:13:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 4324:12:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 4307:12:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 4298:12:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 4283:12:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 4274:11:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 4261:08:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 4251:06:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC) 3183:04:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC) 3171:04:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC) 3159:04:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC) 3101:18:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 3072:18:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 3053:16:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 3044:12:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 3035:12:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 3026:12:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 3016:12:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 2996:12:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 2981:22:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2965:23:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2941:04:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2908:01:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2896:20:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 2859:19:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 1235:has already taken place ( 904:— /Proposed decision page 605:appropriate place on the 507:AC Elections December '06 5373:17:59 24 July 2006 (PDT) 4230:03:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC) 4209:23:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC) 4186:23:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC) 4173:23:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC) 4159:and to the Board of the 4146:22:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC) 4135:11:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC) 4121:02:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC) 4104:02:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC) 4094:02:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC) 4053:21:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 4043:20:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 4020:14:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 3999:01:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 3989:01:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 3975:00:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 3854:03:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 3832:00:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 3823:23:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 3814:22:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 3803:16:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 3754:03:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 3743:03:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 3734:02:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 3723:02:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 3710:03:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 3697:04:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 3687:03:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 3675:02:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 3664:02:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 3651:17:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 3630:20:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 3619:19:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 3607:03:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 3592:03:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 3577:02:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 3559:22:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 3537:13:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 3512:06:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 3487:06:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 3465:02:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 3455:22:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 3444:20:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 3429:19:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 3411:19:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 3378:18:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 3352:02:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 3336:03:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 3313:03:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 3300:02:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 3287:05:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 3278:04:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 3269:04:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 3251:04:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 3231:02:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 3221:02:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 3131:16:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 2840:14:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 2818:14:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 2777:18:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 2755:18:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 2712:17:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 2678:17:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 2614:06:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 2600:00:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 2566:10:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 2557:16:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 2543:15:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC) 2517:21:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC) 2504:04:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC) 2495:04:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC) 2481:17:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC) 2430:02:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC) 2002:Also with you trying to 4865:This is a violation of 2864:Retraction of a request 2383:16:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC) 2370:23:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC) 2346:16:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC) 2324:16:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC) 2306:As far as the shortcut 2285:23:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC) 2226:01:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC) 2207:20:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 2192:12:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 2178:08:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 2158:07:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 2140:03:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 2123:03:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 2112:03:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 2093:12:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 2067:07:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 2045:05:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 2012:04:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 1991:04:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 1968:03:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 1674:institutional knowledge 1596:assumption of bad faith 1277:character assassination 1057:Reversion of subsection 1011:Tony Sidaway's template 769:Template:ArbComOpenCase 754:17:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC) 3554:what that is. Thanks, 2358:Hi folks. I entered a 1813:, the former did not ( 1598:and non-constructive. 759:Case opening templates 463:Declined case requests 4902:CoolKatt number 99999 4893:CoolKatt number 99999 4875:CoolKatt number 99999 4828:CoolKatt number 99999 4790:Extraordinary Machine 3771:this one, started by 2986:Adding a user to case 2234:Explanation of revert 1390:screening programs. 1366:In effect, the licit 1071:The Clerks page says 665:He's back, evidently. 622:Sorry for the delay. 42:of past discussions. 5271:== Making friends == 4161:Wikimedia Foundation 3766:SlimVirgin statement 1823:anti-vaccinationists 1670:conflict of interest 116:archives (2004–2009) 4631:guidelines and the 2950:. Avoidance is the 2717:I'm the person who 2655:Well, it also says: 2571:How does this work? 2098:Recommended reading 1815:AfD:vaccine critics 1711:. 25 minutes later 1225:anti-vaccinationist 671:User:Jason_Gastrich 5559:original research. 5531:censoring content. 4633:naming conventions 4529:Who added my name? 2948:Resolving disputes 2689:revert warring on 2611:Christopher Thomas 2377:User:RyanFreisling 2364:User:RyanFreisling 1935: 1015:template I created 5228: 5177: 4538:User:69.117.4.237 4242:A favorable time? 4087:Israeli apartheid 3793:Israeli apartheid 3777:Israeli apartheid 3694:Kim van der Linde 3672:Kim van der Linde 3409: 3147:Communist symbols 2627:page, which says: 2479: 2023:assume good faith 1929: 1839:NPOV and welcomes 1792: 1655: 1606: 1551: 1451: 1427: 1326:vaccine schedules 1247: 504: 503: 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5582: 5498:Depleted Uranium 5315:Depleted uranium 5257:depleted uranium 5232: 5230: 5226: 5221: 5181: 5179: 5175: 5170: 5052: 5050: 5000: 4998: 4980: 4978: 4948: 4946: 3851: 3848: 3845: 3842: 3509: 3484: 3441: 3406: 3399: 3304:If this is true 3249: 3244: 3066: 3064: 3010: 3008: 2905: 2893: 2753: 2723:User:Jdforrester 2472: 2300: 2294: 2221:for what it is? 1933: 1925: 1916: 1790: 1683:informed consent 1676:. However, the 1653: 1638:poisons the well 1604: 1549: 1449: 1425: 1310:informed consent 1281:medical journals 1245: 1193: 1159: 1125: 1080: 903: 902: 869:— /Workshop page 868: 867: 834:— /Evidence page 833: 832: 799:— Main case page 798: 797: 578: 573: 568: 563: 534: 529: 524: 519: 506: 496: 489: 482: 444: 422: 407:WT:RFAR subpages 105: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5590: 5589: 5585: 5584: 5583: 5581: 5580: 5579: 5276:Herr Physchim62 5241: 5224: 5217: 5215: 5173: 5166: 5164: 5156: 5046: 5044: 4994: 4992: 4974: 4972: 4942: 4940: 4824: 4760:Chemicals React 4607:User:Tcatron565 4600: 4531: 4517: 4244: 4007: 3865: 3849: 3846: 3843: 3840: 3768: 3643: 3638: 3505: 3480: 3439: 3393: 3343: 3246: 3242: 3213:Oleg Alexandrov 3193: 3149: 3060: 3058: 3004: 3002: 2988: 2973: 2916: 2903: 2891: 2866: 2848: 2787: 2751: 2741: 2695: 2587:, as well as a 2573: 2550: 2525: 2488: 2465: 2391: 2356: 2338:Oleg Alexandrov 2316:Oleg Alexandrov 2298: 2296:ArbComOpenTasks 2292: 2245: 2236: 2214: 2199: 2100: 1931: 1924: 1921: 1914: 1879: 1645:personal attack 1330:autism epidemic 1221:anti-psychiatry 1205: 1191: 1178: 1157: 1123: 1078: 1045: 959:Yeah, you mean 876: 872: 841: 837: 806: 802: 771: 767: 761: 720: 667: 591: 576: 571: 566: 561: 532: 527: 522: 517: 509: 500: 445: 439: 423: 417: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5588: 5586: 5578: 5577: 5576: 5575: 5566: 5565: 5564: 5563: 5562: 5561: 5555: 5544: 5543: 5542: 5541: 5535: 5534: 5533: 5532: 5525: 5524: 5523: 5522: 5515: 5514: 5513: 5512: 5504: 5503: 5502: 5501: 5490: 5488: 5487: 5486: 5485: 5484: 5483: 5482: 5481: 5480: 5479: 5478: 5477: 5460: 5459: 5458: 5457: 5456: 5455: 5454: 5453: 5452: 5451: 5450: 5449: 5435: 5434: 5433: 5432: 5431: 5430: 5429: 5428: 5427: 5426: 5425: 5424: 5409: 5408: 5407: 5406: 5405: 5404: 5403: 5402: 5401: 5400: 5399: 5398: 5383: 5382: 5381: 5380: 5379: 5378: 5377: 5376: 5375: 5374: 5358: 5357: 5356: 5355: 5354: 5353: 5352: 5351: 5335: 5334: 5333: 5332: 5331: 5330: 5318: 5306: 5305: 5304: 5303: 5291: 5290: 5284: 5283: 5278: 5277: 5273: 5272: 5240: 5237: 5211: 5210: 5155: 5152: 5151: 5150: 5149: 5148: 5147: 5146: 5145: 5144: 5088: 5087: 5086: 5085: 5084: 5083: 5082: 5081: 5080: 5079: 5078: 5077: 5076: 5075: 5074: 5073: 5072: 5071: 5070: 5069: 4914: 4913: 4912: 4911: 4910: 4909: 4908: 4907: 4898: 4852: 4851: 4823: 4820: 4819: 4818: 4798: 4797: 4796: 4795: 4782: 4766: 4738: 4737: 4727: 4726: 4706: 4705: 4704: 4703: 4690: 4689: 4688: 4687: 4599: 4596: 4595: 4594: 4593: 4592: 4591: 4590: 4576: 4575: 4574: 4573: 4561: 4560: 4530: 4527: 4516: 4515:Semiprotection 4513: 4500: 4499: 4479: 4478: 4477: 4476: 4475: 4474: 4455: 4454: 4453: 4452: 4451: 4450: 4449: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4445: 4401: 4400: 4399: 4398: 4397: 4396: 4381: 4380: 4379: 4378: 4377: 4376: 4350: 4331: 4330: 4329: 4328: 4327: 4326: 4312: 4311: 4310: 4309: 4290: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4286: 4285: 4243: 4240: 4239: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4235: 4234: 4233: 4232: 4216: 4215: 4214: 4213: 4212: 4211: 4201:TenOfAllTrades 4191: 4190: 4189: 4188: 4176: 4175: 4165:TenOfAllTrades 4138: 4137: 4126: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4107: 4106: 4056: 4055: 4045: 4006: 4003: 4002: 4001: 3965: 3964: 3958: 3952: 3946: 3940: 3934: 3928: 3922: 3916: 3910: 3900: 3899: 3893: 3887: 3881: 3875: 3864: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3816: 3767: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3756: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3700: 3699: 3642: 3639: 3637: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3621: 3610: 3609: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3532:No worries. -- 3521: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3460:I did this. -- 3434: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3381: 3380: 3364: 3363: 3356: 3355: 3342: 3339: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3234: 3233: 3192: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3148: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3050:Kirill Lokshin 2987: 2984: 2972: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2957: 2956: 2915: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2865: 2862: 2847: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2786: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2758: 2757: 2747: 2732: 2731: 2725:made it clear 2694: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2617: 2616: 2572: 2569: 2549: 2546: 2524: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2514:(spill yours?) 2487: 2484: 2464: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2390: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2355: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2327: 2326: 2303: 2302: 2260: 2259: 2256: 2243: 2235: 2232: 2230: 2223:SchmuckyTheCat 2213: 2210: 2198: 2195: 2181: 2180: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2137:picture popups 2126: 2125: 2109:picture popups 2099: 2096: 2070: 2069: 2058: 2057: 2052: 2051: 2015: 2014: 1999: 1998: 1971: 1970: 1941: 1940: 1936: 1922: 1878: 1875: 1853:User:Ombudsman 1819:vaccine critic 1800: 1798: 1797: 1781: 1767: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1661: 1660: 1641: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1574:edit summaries 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1540: 1536: 1533: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1484: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1372:mental illness 1334:vaccine injury 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1233:external links 1216: 1215: 1204: 1201: 1187: 1186: 1177: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1155: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1099: 1098: 1076: 1061: 1060: 1053: 1044: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 996: 995: 981: 980: 979: 978: 954: 953: 906: 905: 870: 835: 800: 760: 757: 747: 746: 719: 716: 701: 700: 666: 663: 662: 661: 660: 659: 647: 646: 632: 631: 630: 629: 617: 616: 590: 587: 586: 585: 584: 583: 554: 553: 508: 505: 502: 501: 499: 498: 491: 484: 476: 473: 472: 471: 470: 465: 460: 455: 447: 446: 441: 437: 435: 432: 431: 425: 424: 419: 415: 413: 410: 409: 403: 402: 401: 400: 395: 390: 385: 380: 375: 370: 365: 360: 355: 350: 345: 340: 335: 330: 325: 320: 315: 307: 306: 302: 301: 300: 299: 294: 288: 287: 282: 277: 272: 267: 262: 257: 252: 244: 243: 239: 238: 237: 236: 231: 226: 221: 216: 211: 206: 201: 196: 191: 186: 181: 176: 171: 166: 161: 156: 151: 146: 141: 136: 131: 126: 118: 117: 110: 109: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5587: 5574: 5570: 5569: 5568: 5567: 5560: 5556: 5553: 5550: 5549: 5548: 5547: 5546: 5545: 5539: 5538: 5537: 5536: 5529: 5528: 5527: 5526: 5519: 5518: 5517: 5516: 5511: 5508: 5507: 5506: 5505: 5499: 5495: 5494: 5493: 5492: 5491: 5476: 5472: 5471: 5470: 5469: 5468: 5467: 5466: 5465: 5464: 5463: 5462: 5461: 5447: 5446: 5445: 5444: 5443: 5442: 5441: 5440: 5439: 5438: 5437: 5436: 5421: 5420: 5419: 5418: 5417: 5416: 5415: 5414: 5413: 5412: 5411: 5410: 5395: 5394: 5393: 5392: 5391: 5390: 5389: 5388: 5387: 5386: 5385: 5384: 5372: 5368: 5367: 5366: 5365: 5364: 5363: 5362: 5361: 5360: 5359: 5350: 5347: 5343: 5342: 5341: 5340: 5339: 5338: 5337: 5336: 5329: 5326: 5323: 5319: 5316: 5312: 5311: 5310: 5309: 5308: 5307: 5302: 5299: 5295: 5294: 5293: 5292: 5289: 5286: 5285: 5280: 5279: 5275: 5274: 5270: 5269: 5268: 5266: 5262: 5258: 5254: 5250: 5244: 5238: 5236: 5235: 5231: 5222: 5220: 5209: 5205: 5201: 5197: 5193: 5190: 5187: 5186: 5185: 5184: 5180: 5171: 5169: 5162: 5153: 5143: 5140: 5137: 5133: 5132: 5131: 5128: 5123: 5122: 5121: 5118: 5115: 5111: 5110: 5109: 5106: 5102: 5101: 5100: 5099: 5096: 5093: 5068: 5065: 5061: 5060: 5059: 5056: 5055: 5051: 5049: 5042: 5038: 5037: 5036: 5035: 5034: 5031: 5028: 5024: 5019: 5018: 5017: 5014: 5009: 5008: 5007: 5004: 5003: 4999: 4997: 4989: 4988: 4987: 4984: 4983: 4979: 4977: 4969: 4968: 4967: 4964: 4961: 4957: 4956: 4955: 4952: 4951: 4947: 4945: 4938: 4937: 4936: 4933: 4928: 4927: 4926: 4925: 4922: 4919: 4906: 4903: 4899: 4897: 4894: 4890: 4889: 4888: 4885: 4881: 4880: 4879: 4876: 4872: 4868: 4864: 4863: 4862: 4859: 4854: 4853: 4850: 4847: 4844: 4840: 4839: 4838: 4837: 4834: 4829: 4821: 4817: 4814: 4809: 4808: 4807: 4806: 4803: 4794: 4791: 4787: 4783: 4780: 4777: 4774: 4771: 4767: 4764: 4761: 4757: 4755: 4753: 4750: 4748: 4746: 4742: 4741: 4740: 4739: 4736: 4733: 4729: 4728: 4725: 4722: 4718: 4717: 4716: 4715: 4712: 4702: 4699: 4694: 4693: 4692: 4691: 4684: 4683: 4682: 4679: 4675: 4672: 4671: 4670: 4669: 4666: 4662: 4656: 4655: 4652: 4648: 4647: 4645: 4642: 4638: 4637: 4634: 4630: 4626: 4623: 4619: 4615: 4613: 4611: 4608: 4604: 4597: 4589: 4586: 4582: 4581: 4580: 4579: 4578: 4577: 4572: 4569: 4565: 4564: 4563: 4562: 4559: 4556: 4551: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4545: 4541: 4539: 4535: 4528: 4526: 4525: 4522: 4514: 4512: 4511: 4508: 4505: 4498: 4495: 4491: 4490: 4489: 4488: 4485: 4473: 4470: 4465: 4464: 4463: 4460: 4456: 4444: 4441: 4437: 4436: 4435: 4432: 4428: 4427: 4426: 4423: 4418: 4417: 4416: 4413: 4409: 4408: 4407: 4406: 4405: 4404: 4403: 4402: 4395: 4392: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4384: 4383: 4382: 4374: 4369: 4368: 4367: 4364: 4360: 4359: 4358: 4355: 4351: 4349: 4346: 4342: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4336: 4325: 4322: 4318: 4317: 4316: 4315: 4314: 4313: 4308: 4305: 4301: 4300: 4299: 4296: 4292: 4291: 4284: 4281: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4272: 4268: 4264: 4263: 4262: 4259: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4252: 4249: 4241: 4231: 4228: 4224: 4223: 4222: 4221: 4220: 4219: 4218: 4217: 4210: 4206: 4202: 4197: 4196: 4195: 4194: 4193: 4192: 4187: 4184: 4180: 4179: 4178: 4177: 4174: 4170: 4166: 4162: 4158: 4154: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4144: 4136: 4133: 4128: 4127: 4122: 4119: 4115: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4108: 4105: 4102: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4095: 4092: 4088: 4084: 4081: 4078: 4074: 4070: 4067: 4064: 4060: 4054: 4051: 4046: 4044: 4040: 4036: 4032: 4028: 4024: 4023: 4022: 4021: 4018: 4013: 4000: 3997: 3996:Humus sapiens 3993: 3992: 3991: 3990: 3987: 3982: 3977: 3976: 3973: 3971: 3962: 3959: 3956: 3953: 3950: 3947: 3944: 3941: 3938: 3935: 3932: 3929: 3926: 3925:Humus sapiens 3923: 3920: 3917: 3914: 3911: 3908: 3905: 3904: 3903: 3897: 3894: 3892:: three times 3891: 3888: 3886:: three times 3885: 3882: 3879: 3876: 3873: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3863: 3859: 3855: 3852: 3837: 3833: 3830: 3829:Humus sapiens 3826: 3825: 3824: 3821: 3817: 3815: 3812: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3804: 3801: 3799: 3794: 3790: 3785: 3783: 3778: 3774: 3765: 3755: 3752: 3750: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3741: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3732: 3730: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3721: 3717: 3711: 3708: 3704: 3698: 3695: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3685: 3683: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3673: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3662: 3660: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3649: 3640: 3635: 3631: 3628: 3625: 3622: 3620: 3617: 3612: 3611: 3608: 3605: 3601: 3598:resort. Have 3596: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3590: 3578: 3575: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3560: 3557: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3538: 3535: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3513: 3510: 3508: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3488: 3485: 3483: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3467: 3466: 3463: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3453: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3442: 3430: 3427: 3422: 3418: 3417: 3412: 3408: 3405: 3404: 3400: 3398: 3397: 3391: 3390: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3379: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3362: 3358: 3357: 3354: 3353: 3350: 3345: 3344: 3340: 3338: 3337: 3334: 3314: 3311: 3307: 3306:this sentence 3303: 3302: 3301: 3298: 3294: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3285: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3276: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3267: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3252: 3248: 3245: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3232: 3229: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3218: 3214: 3208: 3204: 3202: 3198: 3190: 3184: 3180: 3179: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3169: 3166: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3156: 3155: 3146: 3132: 3129: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3102: 3099: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3073: 3070: 3069: 3065: 3063: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3051: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3042: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3033: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3024: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3014: 3013: 3009: 3007: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2994: 2985: 2983: 2982: 2979: 2970: 2966: 2963: 2959: 2958: 2953: 2949: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2928: 2925: 2921: 2913: 2909: 2906: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2894: 2887: 2885: 2880: 2878: 2874: 2870: 2863: 2861: 2860: 2857: 2853: 2845: 2841: 2838: 2834: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2792: 2784: 2778: 2774: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2756: 2750: 2745: 2739: 2737: 2734: 2733: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2692: 2688: 2685: 2679: 2676: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2626: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2615: 2612: 2608: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2598: 2592: 2590: 2586: 2582: 2578: 2570: 2568: 2567: 2564: 2559: 2558: 2555: 2547: 2545: 2544: 2541: 2537: 2534: 2530: 2522: 2518: 2515: 2512: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2502: 2497: 2496: 2493: 2485: 2483: 2482: 2478: 2475: 2470: 2462: 2459: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2445: 2442: 2438: 2435: 2431: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2416: 2413: 2409: 2408: 2405: 2400: 2396: 2388: 2384: 2381: 2378: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2368: 2365: 2361: 2353: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2332:Continued at 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2325: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2304: 2297: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2283: 2278: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2264: 2257: 2255: 2252:for the page 2251: 2247: 2246: 2242: 2240: 2233: 2231: 2228: 2227: 2224: 2218: 2211: 2209: 2208: 2205: 2196: 2194: 2193: 2190: 2186: 2179: 2176: 2172: 2167: 2166: 2159: 2156: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2141: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2124: 2121: 2120:Phil Sandifer 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2110: 2106: 2097: 2095: 2094: 2091: 2086: 2084: 2080: 2074: 2068: 2065: 2060: 2059: 2054: 2053: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2043: 2037: 2036: 2032: 2026: 2024: 2020: 2013: 2010: 2005: 2001: 2000: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1975: 1969: 1966: 1962: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1951: 1947: 1939: 1934: 1928: 1926: 1918: 1917: 1910: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1900: 1895: 1889: 1888: 1884: 1876: 1874: 1873: 1870: 1866: 1863: 1860: 1857: 1854: 1850: 1847: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1835: 1832: 1826: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1803: 1796: 1793: 1787: 1782: 1779: 1775: 1772: 1768: 1765: 1764: 1759: 1756: 1751: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1738: 1735: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1722: 1717: 1713: 1710: 1707: 1706:All Souls Day 1703: 1699: 1697: 1695: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1659: 1656: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1639: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1628: 1624: 1623:public stocks 1610: 1607: 1601: 1597: 1592: 1589: 1586: 1582: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1555: 1552: 1546: 1541: 1537: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1508: 1505: 1501: 1500: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1490: 1485: 1483: 1480: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1470: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1455: 1452: 1446: 1442: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1431: 1428: 1422: 1418: 1415: 1411: 1408: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1393: 1389: 1388:mental health 1385: 1383: 1382: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1364: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1349: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1322:herd immunity 1319: 1318:public health 1315: 1314:polio vaccine 1311: 1305: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1289: 1287: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1248: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1217: 1214: 1210: 1207: 1206: 1200: 1199: 1196: 1194: 1185: 1184: 1180: 1179: 1175: 1165: 1162: 1160: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1147: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1131: 1128: 1126: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1097: 1094: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1083: 1081: 1074: 1069: 1067: 1059: 1058: 1054: 1052: 1051: 1047: 1046: 1042: 1032: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 994: 991: 987: 986: 985: 984: 983: 982: 977: 974: 970: 966: 962: 958: 957: 956: 955: 952: 949: 945: 940: 939: 938: 937: 934: 930: 926: 921: 919: 915: 911: 900: 896: 892: 888: 884: 880: 875: 871: 865: 861: 857: 853: 849: 845: 840: 836: 830: 826: 822: 818: 814: 810: 805: 801: 795: 791: 787: 783: 779: 775: 770: 766: 765: 764: 758: 756: 755: 752: 751:85.187.44.131 745: 741: 737: 732: 731: 730: 729: 726: 725:85.187.44.131 717: 715: 714: 711: 710:Mister Mister 707: 704: 699: 696: 692: 691: 690: 689: 686: 685:Mister Mister 682: 680: 676: 672: 658: 655: 651: 650: 649: 648: 645: 642: 638: 634: 633: 628: 625: 621: 620: 619: 618: 615: 612: 608: 607:Workshop page 603: 602: 601: 600: 597: 588: 582: 579: 574: 569: 564: 558: 557: 556: 555: 552: 549: 545: 541: 540: 539: 538: 535: 530: 525: 520: 512: 497: 492: 490: 485: 483: 478: 477: 475: 474: 469: 466: 464: 461: 459: 456: 454: 451: 450: 449: 448: 434: 433: 430: 426: 412: 411: 408: 404: 399: 396: 394: 391: 389: 386: 384: 381: 379: 376: 374: 371: 369: 366: 364: 361: 359: 356: 354: 351: 349: 346: 344: 341: 339: 336: 334: 331: 329: 326: 324: 321: 319: 316: 314: 311: 310: 309: 308: 303: 298: 295: 293: 290: 289: 286: 283: 281: 278: 276: 273: 271: 268: 266: 263: 261: 258: 256: 253: 251: 248: 247: 246: 245: 240: 235: 232: 230: 227: 225: 222: 220: 217: 215: 212: 210: 207: 205: 202: 200: 197: 195: 192: 190: 187: 185: 182: 180: 177: 175: 172: 170: 167: 165: 162: 160: 157: 155: 152: 150: 147: 145: 142: 140: 137: 135: 132: 130: 127: 125: 122: 121: 120: 119: 115: 111: 106: 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: 5557: 5509: 5489: 5245: 5242: 5218: 5212: 5167: 5161:Mindspillage 5157: 5139:(talk to me) 5117:(talk to me) 5095:(talk to me) 5089: 5054: 5047: 5040: 5030:(talk to me) 5002: 4995: 4982: 4975: 4963:(talk to me) 4950: 4943: 4921:(talk to me) 4915: 4856:unchecked.-- 4846:(talk to me) 4825: 4799: 4707: 4660: 4657: 4649: 4640: 4639: 4617: 4616: 4602: 4601: 4568:Tony Sidaway 4532: 4521:Tony Sidaway 4518: 4501: 4480: 4459:Tony Sidaway 4372: 4332: 4304:Tony Sidaway 4295:Tony Sidaway 4266: 4245: 4152: 4139: 4132:Tony Sidaway 4079: 4065: 4057: 4050:Tony Sidaway 4011: 4008: 3980: 3978: 3966: 3909:: four moves 3901: 3880:: five times 3874:: nine times 3866: 3827:I concur. Å© 3769: 3644: 3599: 3585: 3574:Tony Sidaway 3534:Tony Sidaway 3506: 3481: 3462:Tony Sidaway 3459: 3452:Tony Sidaway 3435: 3402: 3395: 3394: 3388: 3349:Tony Sidaway 3346: 3329: 3297:Tony Sidaway 3228:Tony Sidaway 3209: 3205: 3197:Tony Sidaway 3194: 3177: 3153: 3150: 3068: 3061: 3012: 3005: 2989: 2974: 2962:Tony Sidaway 2951: 2946:Please read 2926: 2917: 2888: 2882: 2881: 2867: 2849: 2832: 2810: 2806: 2788: 2696: 2593: 2574: 2560: 2551: 2540:Tony Sidaway 2526: 2511:Mindspillage 2498: 2489: 2466: 2457: 2443: 2427:Tony Sidaway 2402: 2392: 2357: 2282:Tony Sidaway 2279: 2276: 2272: 2268: 2265: 2261: 2237: 2229: 2219: 2215: 2200: 2189:Tony Sidaway 2182: 2101: 2087: 2082: 2078: 2075: 2071: 2038: 2030: 2027: 2022: 2018: 2016: 1979: 1976: 1972: 1945: 1942: 1912: 1893: 1890: 1880: 1867:unchanged. 1838: 1837: 1827: 1807:User:Whaleto 1801: 1799: 1776:, and added 1771:polypharmacy 1749: 1662: 1619: 1584: 1577: 1499:Animal House 1497: 1379: 1368:drug cartels 1365: 1350: 1342:psychotropic 1336:cases. The 1306: 1290: 1270: 1212: 1208: 1188: 1181: 1146:Tony Sidaway 1114:Tony Sidaway 1072: 1070: 1065: 1062: 1055: 1048: 922: 917: 909: 907: 762: 748: 721: 708: 705: 702: 695:Sam Blanning 683: 668: 611:Tony Sidaway 592: 513: 510: 188: 78: 43: 37: 5048:zero faults 4996:zero faults 4976:zero faults 4944:zero faults 4833:Rollosmokes 4732:Fred Bauder 4711:Fred Bauder 4585:Thatcher131 4544:Thatcher131 4484:Fred Bauder 4412:Fred Bauder 4363:Fred Bauder 4335:Fred Bauder 4227:Fred Bauder 4183:Fred Bauder 4101:Fred Bauder 4073:Fred Bauder 4012:permanently 3589:Fred Bauder 3421:Will Beback 3333:Fred Bauder 3128:Thatcher131 3062:zero faults 3006:zero faults 2976:evidence?-- 2851:remedies." 2563:Saladin1970 2554:Saladin1970 2548:saladin1970 2360:new request 2308:WP:RFAr/AER 2250:WP:RFAr/AER 2204:69.117.7.33 2090:Deathrocker 2042:Deathrocker 1988:Deathrocker 1950:Deathrocker 1899:Deathrocker 1666:gatekeepers 1576:. I quote " 1346:neurotoxins 1338:doublespeak 1298:neuroleptic 1273:credibility 990:Fred Bauder 624:Fred Bauder 36:This is an 5322:Physchim62 5261:Physchim62 5013:Lambertman 4932:Lambertman 4345:➥the Epopt 4118:John Nagle 4091:John Nagle 4031:Simetrical 3970:SlimVirgin 3955:SlimVirgin 3907:KimvdLinde 3862:SlimVirgin 3798:SlimVirgin 3782:SlimVirgin 3749:SlimVirgin 3740:John Nagle 3729:SlimVirgin 3720:John Nagle 3707:John Nagle 3682:SlimVirgin 3659:SlimVirgin 3648:John Nagle 2837:Carcharoth 2823:Found it. 2815:Carcharoth 2437:Davenbelle 2407:Farmbrough 2004:Wikilawyer 1961:Wikilawyer 1959:to try to 1778:references 1734:Rockpocket 1502:variety. 1300:drugs and 1286:propaganda 1229:psychiatry 1176:Ani thread 1020:Locke Cole 965:Locke Cole 925:Locke Cole 98:Archive 20 90:Archive 16 85:Archive 15 79:Archive 14 73:Archive 13 68:Archive 12 60:Archive 10 5125:anyway.-- 4813:Everyking 4802:Everyking 4786:this edit 4775:Consider 4721:Everyking 4698:Everyking 4665:Everyking 4555:PaulWicks 4494:Everyking 4469:Everyking 4440:Everyking 4422:Everyking 4391:Everyking 4354:Everyking 4280:Everyking 4258:Everyking 4248:Everyking 4141:interest. 3789:User:HOTR 3773:User:HOTR 3627:^^James^^ 3616:^^James^^ 3426:^^James^^ 3375:^^James^^ 3275:brenneman 3243:brenneman 3191:On clerks 2904:Cowman109 2892:Cowman109 2803:block log 2799:WP:SPEEDY 2451:Moby Dick 2212:Last step 2183:Moved to 2171:Johnleemk 2064:Ley Shade 2009:Ley Shade 1965:Ley Shade 1721:Ombudsman 1702:Halloween 1627:Ombudsman 1469:Ombudsman 1392:Ombudsman 1192:brenneman 1158:brenneman 1124:brenneman 1093:Nandesuka 1079:brenneman 961:this edit 944:Johnleemk 637:Johnleemk 5573:Fieldlab 5475:Fieldlab 5371:Fieldlab 5288:Fieldlab 5253:Gulf War 4867:WP:STALK 4686:suffice. 4302:Done. -- 4130:case. -- 4083:contribs 4069:contribs 4039:contribs 3937:FayssalF 3032:Añoranza 2993:Añoranza 2978:Amerique 2930:contribs 2509:Concur. 2469:evidence 2461:contribs 2447:contribs 2033:as per ; 1982:as per ; 1504:Andrew73 1479:Andrew73 1376:violence 1353:lobbying 1302:vaccines 918:optional 718:Question 654:BTfromLA 596:BTfromLA 5521:repost. 5127:Crossmr 5105:Crossmr 5064:Circeus 4884:Crossmr 4858:Crossmr 4678:Raul654 4629:WP:SONG 4507:Raul654 4431:Raul654 4373:prevent 4321:Spartaz 4017:TheronJ 3933:: three 3927:: three 3921:: three 3915:: three 3604:Romarin 3556:Romarin 3310:Kotepho 3284:-Barry- 3266:-Barry- 3178:Johntex 3168:Raul654 3154:Johntex 3098:TheronJ 2938:Szyslak 2920:UCRGrad 2856:-Barry- 2675:-Barry- 2597:-Barry- 2501:Raul654 2492:Raul654 2417:(UTC). 2412:10 May 2155:JoshuaZ 2083:current 2079:current 1869:Midgley 1831:Midgley 1769:As for 1755:Midgley 1489:Midgley 1110:WP:AN/I 887:history 852:history 817:history 782:history 458:Motions 114:WT:RFAR 39:archive 5325:(talk) 5219:Essjay 5168:Essjay 4871:WP:NPA 4651:Haukur 4641:6 July 4618:5 July 4603:4 July 4071:) and 3919:ChrisO 3898:: once 3820:Jayjg 3811:ChrisO 3507:Sophia 3482:Sophia 3371:WP:RFC 2869:Nrtm81 2811:really 2807:really 2730:stand. 2687:PHenry 2410:22:02 1944:states 1845:I made 1539:wrong. 1256:Stifle 914:substd 736:Stifle 577:(Talk) 533:(Talk) 5423:Wiki. 5188:Both 5041:noone 4157:Jimbo 4143:Homey 4059:Jayjg 3986:Homey 3981:dates 3957:: one 3951:: one 3949:Jayjg 3945:: one 3939:: one 3165:Fixed 2952:first 2538:. -- 2529:WP:AN 2404:Rich 2133:Zocky 2105:Zocky 2056:made. 1715:week. 1700:last 1687:ethos 1583:and " 1407:Joema 1294:dogma 1211:brief 1154:with. 895:watch 891:links 860:watch 856:links 825:watch 821:links 790:watch 786:links 562:Ilyan 518:Ilyan 453:Cases 16:< 5552:wp:v 5263:and 5255:and 5227:Talk 5196:SPUI 5191:and 5176:Talk 5136:CFIF 5114:CFIF 5092:CFIF 5027:CFIF 4960:CFIF 4918:CFIF 4869:and 4843:CFIF 4778:and 4205:talk 4169:talk 4151:You 4077:talk 4063:talk 4035:talk 3963::one 3943:IZAK 3931:6SJ7 3913:HOTR 3217:talk 3041:NSLE 3023:NSLE 2924:talk 2873:here 2793:and 2765:SPUI 2727:here 2700:SPUI 2625:this 2605:Per 2585:here 2583:and 2581:here 2577:here 2455:talk 2449:) - 2441:talk 2421:See 2415:2006 2399:this 2397:and 2395:this 2342:talk 2320:talk 2187:. -- 2175:Talk 1986:. - 1946:must 1915:Will 1894:must 1825:. 1791:T@lk 1654:T@lk 1605:T@lk 1550:T@lk 1450:T@lk 1426:T@lk 1361:ADHD 1351:The 1260:talk 1246:T@lk 1237:here 948:Talk 910:must 899:logs 883:talk 879:edit 864:logs 848:talk 844:edit 829:logs 813:talk 809:edit 794:logs 778:talk 774:edit 740:talk 641:Talk 609:. -- 548:Geni 297:ARM2 292:ARM1 5313:== 4271:CBD 4267:all 4153:can 4029:. — 3961:Zeq 3850:el 3600:all 3419:As 3403:rin 3389:rom 2886:. 2744:phh 2646:it. 2589:RFC 2477:out 2474:Cat 2241:. 1997:am. 1909:ANI 1786:JFW 1649:JFW 1600:JFW 1545:JFW 1445:JFW 1421:JFW 1241:JFW 1239:). 912:be 275:2.4 270:2.3 265:2.2 260:2.1 5500:== 5317:== 5249:DU 5206:) 5202:- 4661:is 4620:: 4605:: 4207:) 4171:) 4048:-- 4041:) 4037:• 3847:er 3646:-- 3572:-- 3440:Al 3373:. 3219:) 3181:\ 3157:\ 2831:: 2809:, 2775:) 2771:- 2746:(/ 2710:) 2706:- 2698:-- 2344:) 2336:. 2322:) 2299:}} 2293:{{ 2173:| 2135:| 2107:| 1927:) 1788:| 1651:| 1602:| 1547:| 1447:| 1443:. 1423:| 1419:. 1348:. 1288:. 1262:) 1243:| 1227:, 1223:, 1026:• 1022:• 971:• 967:• 946:| 931:• 927:• 897:| 893:| 889:| 885:| 881:| 862:| 858:| 854:| 850:| 846:| 827:| 823:| 819:| 815:| 811:| 792:| 788:| 784:| 780:| 776:| 742:) 639:| 398:18 393:17 388:16 383:15 378:14 373:13 368:12 363:11 358:10 328:3A 234:23 229:22 224:21 219:20 214:19 209:18 204:17 199:16 194:15 189:14 184:13 179:12 174:11 169:10 94:→ 64:← 5554:- 5229:) 5225:( 5204:C 5200:T 5198:( 5178:) 5174:( 4203:( 4167:( 4080:· 4075:( 4066:· 4061:( 4033:( 3844:P 3841:M 3396:a 3215:( 2927:· 2922:( 2773:C 2769:T 2767:( 2752:) 2749:c 2742:— 2708:C 2704:T 2702:( 2463:) 2458:· 2453:( 2444:· 2439:( 2380:@ 2367:@ 2340:( 2318:( 2017:" 1932:T 1923:@ 1919:( 1864:, 1861:, 1640:. 1587:" 1580:" 1258:( 1028:c 1024:t 1018:— 973:c 969:t 933:c 929:t 901:) 877:( 866:) 842:( 831:) 807:( 796:) 772:( 738:( 572:p 567:e 546:. 528:p 523:e 495:e 488:t 481:v 353:9 348:8 343:7 338:5 333:4 323:3 318:2 313:1 285:4 280:3 255:2 250:1 164:9 159:8 154:7 149:6 144:5 139:4 134:3 129:2 124:1 50:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 14 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index