Knowledge (XXG) talk:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch

466:

at the point of time when it was posted, the RfA was as good as dead, and minimal attempts had been made to contact me privately about it, rather than posting it smack-bang on the top of RfA, for a great big lynch-mob to see). I think that the whole controversy could have been avoided had Konstable waited two more hours for my response on IRC or via email. Nor do I think it was necessary to get into a revert war over it, especially without waiting to see my own reaction first. For the record, I'm embarrassed by what I said in the log, and I think it's worth noting that it was a long time ago, at a point when I was exceptionally disillusioned with Knowledge (XXG), that I told a great number of lies and partial truths in there, and that I said what I said in there under the understanding that those who would be offended by it would not see it. Most of the nasty or controversial stuff that I said in there was specifically tailored to the people I was speaking to, much of it wasn't meant, and much of it wasn't true either. —

70:. I received no reply. (Update, 06:34, 5 February 2007: Philwelch has explained that he did not reply because he was blocked at the time.) I believe that Philwelch's use of rollback, his threat of a block, and his carrying out of that threat on David Levy constitute abuse of administrator privilege. I also believe that his decision to edit war was unbecoming of an admin. In the interest of fairness, I wish to note that David Levy also edit warred, as Dmcdevit has observed 279:

the "block" button and to make fewer uncivil remarks along the way. I was particularly unhappy after a long-time user left the project permanently, apparently in reaction to one of these blocks. I do not and cannot fault Philwelch for the departure, which no one anticipated, but his subsequent comment to the effect that Knowledge (XXG) was better off without the user in question, in effect taking credit for causing a contributor's departure, struck me as unbecoming.

295:

as resigning in the midst of a controversy, and that the bureaucrats would not grant resysopping in those circumstances without a new RfA. However, another user on another page has disagreed and thinks that the situation is not as clear as I suggest. In lieu of a full-fledged arbitration case, or a potential dispute later as badlydrawnjeff says he fears, a comment from a couple of arbs confirming (or disagreeing with) my understanding might be helpful.

424:

my decision not to open an RfC was heavily influenced by Philwelch's past behaviour: (a) I was concerned that he might (even if unjustifiably) try and accuse people of wikistalking him; (b) I was concerned that he might lash out with a block; (c) I was concerned that he would try and end the dispute with aggressive demands to "just drop it". I fear I was influenced by Philwelch's behaviour to "let the matter drop", when it shouldn't have been.

98:

one's actions under scrutiny, especially if the users simply walk away and dont come back. Blocking admins makes lot more noise. In both the scenarios, if blocking is done wrongly, it causes much harm to the encyclopedia. Unlike many other RFARs, I dont see shades of gray here. The actions look wrong to me whichever way one looks at them. I'd urge the arbcom to take this case to prevent further harm to the encyclopedia.

283:

sufficient cause and in instances where he was engaged in content or other disputes with the other editor. Even after I saw this case filed, I was hoping that it would be accepted, but that the final remedy could include some sort of restriction on use of the block function, and that a sanction short of desysopping could be explored as an outcome as Philwelch did some good admin work in other areas.

548:, "If an action really needs reverting that much, somebody else will probably do it – and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which course of action is preferable." Another user performed the same reversion after I'd reverted only once. When Phil reverted for the third time, I'd still only reverted once. My third reversion undid his 497: 287:

way to resolve the issue, but I don't believe that anyone's behavior in that controversy, in and of itself, comes close to meriting an arbitration case. Nor would Philwelch's behavior potentially warrant any sanction other than removal or restriction of his administrator privileges, which he has now given up voluntarily. Accordingly I agree with Thatcher131 that the case is moot.

428:

to 'just move on', despite showing no signs of understanding what he did wrong), are acceptable. I would also like the ArbCom to address the possibly widely-felt feeling that RfC doesn't have teeth, and can just prolong discord (see especially UninvitedCompany's comment that this should have gone through an RfC first).

374:"Together with Philwelch's block log where he blocks himself several times, this is not the sort of behaviour I'd expect to see in an admin. Do I really want to think, if I happen to run into Philwelch on a random talk page at some point in the future, that he is someone who could block me for no apparent reason?" 740:

should not have blocked you, you probably should not have restored the material Phil was removing, Konstable probably should not have asked a question like that to begin with, Werdna probably should not have submitted his (actually fourth) RFA, and I definitely should not have gotten involved. Goodnight, David. —

609:

4. You mentioned in the diff above, and in several others, that you had never been blocked before. If this was not your way of implying that participants' prior block records (or lack thereof) should be a factor in the new, unrelated dispute, I'm not sure what it was or why it was mentioned, though I

601:

2. Phil reverted five times and you reverted three times. You'll let no one make a mistake of that fact. Maybe if you had reverted twelve times, Phil would have reverted fourteen times. Or maybe if you had stayed out of the mess, Phil would have only reverted twice, and everybody would be as happy as

465:

I am disappointed that posting a log had to come to what it did. I don't think it was necessary for somebody to post a six-month-old log of off-wiki actions, out-of-context, obviously found in a google "dirt-digging" search on my Request for Adminship on English Knowledge (XXG) (especially seeing as,

294:

With regard to the possibility of resysopping, the precedent from the so-called "Giano" case is that someone who gives up admin status "under controversial circumstances" must go through a new RfA to regain adminship. I think it clear that resigning during the pendency of an arbitration filing counts

286:

The most recent events, this week's controversy concerning Werdna's RfA, involved a disputable issue as to how the question at issue should be dealt with. (I personally supported Werdna's RfA, for what it's worth, and would not have asked the question as it was posed.) Blocking was definitely not the

427:

In conclusion, while passing no comment on Philwelch's editing contributions (I have not looked at them) I would like to ask ArbCom to rule on whether his use of admin tools (blocking those he was in dispute with) and his response to criticism of said actions (accusations of wikistalking and demands

423:

I then recently discovered that this had all blown up again, and that an admin that I respect and have interacted with before (David Levy) was controversially blocked by Philwelch. I now regret not having taken the previous matters further before. I will be brutally frank on myself here and say that

792:

want to know what you really believe. It isn't often that anyone (let alone someone whose actions I've defended) inexplicably attributes comments to me that are the exact opposite of what I actually wrote. (I repeatedly said that Phil shouldn't be blocked punitively and that your unblocks of Phil

739:

You probably think I'm trying to be a dick, but having spoken with you on a number of occasions, I know that conversations between us tend to slowly degenerate into the lowest possible form of discourse, and I don't have the patience for six more rounds of it, so let me just say this: Phil probably

555:

3. When did I "howl for punitive blood"?! In the edit that you cited, I explicitly suggested that Phil's block be extended "not as a punitive measure, but to prevent him from causing further disruption at the RfA before it closes." This was before he promised not to edit the RfA page. When I saw

520:

First, it was clear to me that both he and David Levy were behaving rather poorly: Phil for his excessive reverts and for blocking Mr. Levy with whom he was in a dispute, and David for restoring inflammatory content written by a user whose recent contributions have consisted mostly of disruption at

290:

It should be emphasized that Philwelch's user account is in good standing and that he is welcome to contribute as an editor. Philwelch has self-blocked before when he thought he was leaving and has always returned, and self-blocks to enforce a departure are deprecated. Freak's action in undoing the

180:

799:

5. No, case open. You were concerned about Werdna's reputation being adversely affected by Konstable's question (which, as it turned out, Werdna had already answered by confirming that the log was authentic). Now you've posted false statements about me in a high-profile forum. I assume that you

446:

Phil Welch has resigned his sysop bit and he has done so "under a cloud" as it were (to use the ArbCom's own rather imprecise language). Thus, if he wanted to regain his bit, he would have to go through RFA again, and I'm sure all of this would be brought up there. I don't think there's anything

278:

Over the past few months, Philwelch made several highly problematic blocks, as discussed above. I was involved in the ANI discussion of three of them, and opined (I was not yet an administrator) that the users should be unblocked immediately and that Philwelch needed to be much less quick to press

655:

have reverted twelve times because I don't violate the three-revert rule. I'm not claiming that edit-warring is ever a good thing (and I seldom reach three reversions), but we have a numerical limit for a reason. Nonetheless, my point wasn't that reverting three times is fine and reverting five

97:

when Aksi mentioned him in the answer to Q3. After that I noticed him when he blocked John Reid during his RFarb nomination (which I opposed). Thereafter Centrx and now David Levy. Throw in the other blocks mentioned and there is a clear pattern here. Blocking new users and non admins doesn't get

506:

included claims about me that are 100% false. I do not ascribe this to malice, but I believe that he misread/misconstrued several of my comments. I explained this to him and requested that he retract these claims, and he responded by placing a wikibreak notice on his talk page. Therefore, I'm

573:

Some four hours before being desysopped, Mr. Welch blocked himself indefinitely, with the rationale "no longer welcome in the community". Disagreeing with his assessment of the situation, and seeing that this RFAR had been filed and that his self-block would render him unable to participate, I

224:

854:

I thought about this myself, but it's probably harmless for the notice to be there on his page, and this way he will have notice of the case if he chooses to read his userpage (there is evidence he does do that once in a blue moon). Plus, as it happens, he left the project very soon after the

534:

1. Obviously, I disagree with your assessment of the question (and believe that it was inappropriate for a third party to remove it instead of permitting the community to assess its relevance). As you've acknowledged that I was acting in good faith (whether I was right or wrong), how is this

282:

In two of these instances, it was proposed that the matter of Philwelch's blocks be taken to arbitration. I urged the blocked users not to pursue arbitration and desysopping at that point, hoping that Philwelch would take to heart the strongly expressed sentiment that he was blocking without

420:, including my concerns about the accusations of wiki-stalking. Centrx pointed out that Philwelch had been removing his (Centrx's) comment from the ANI thread, and being incivil (see the link I provided above). Centrx suggested an RfC, but I eventually decided to let the matter drop. 896:

Nick listed John because he was the subject of an allegedly bad block, and I think leaving him listed as a party is the more conservative approach. Better to perform a pointless notification than to not notify and later find out that John would have wanted a chance to participate.

605:

3. You were still, and possibly are still, convinced that his actions were disruptive and yours weren't. I would ask why you are refuting my rationale for unblocking by pointing to things you said after the unblock, but after careful consideration, David, I really don't want to

855:

controversial block that Philwelch placed on him expired. Finally, no one is going to want to be making the decisions who's been gone for too long to be named or not. It's not as if John Reid is at any risk in this case or anyone is proposing sanctions against him.

597:

1. People acting in good faith can and do behave poorly. If I say you were behaving poorly, please understand that this is not a personal attack or an assumption of bad faith, but rather that I am confidant you could do a lot better. Edit warring is poor behavior,

396:

I was taken aback by this, as had not been following his edits, but had been pointing out a consistent pattern of behaviour based on incidents reported at WP:AN and WP:ANI. After responding with a strong rejection of his accusation, I let the matter

807:

No, I don't think that you're trying to be a dick, but you certainly aren't making much of an effort to address my concerns in a polite or constructive manner. I'm not trying to be a pest, but I don't believe that you're treating me fairly.

338:

With respect for the concern that it might be unclear whether and how Philwelch might request re-adminship in the future, I ask him to confirm that he understands that he can seek to become an admin again only through the RfA process.

334:

The introspective statement just posted by Philwelch, although there is much in it I do not agree with, confirms my strong impression that no useful purpose would now be served by proceeding with this matter as an arbitration case.

613:

5. Shit happens. Get over it. Some people are just lucky that way I guess. I've never been blocked. That doesn't make me a better editor or admin. If you can understand this point you can safely ignore everything else I've

800:

did so accidentally (after misreading/misinterpreting some of my comments), but you should be acting to correct your errors by retracting the claims in question. (I'm referring strictly to the ones of a factual nature,

411:

It proved difficult to read Philwelch's talk page, as he frequently archives his talk page to page history (by blanking the page) when he thinks a thread has ended. The example I found on this occassion was

648:

claiming that Phil was vandalizing the page (as I agree that he was acting in good faith), but I view (and continue to view) the removal of another editor's good-faith question as equivalent in effect.

693:

with both of your unblocks. I defended your actions (clearly indicating that "blocks should not be punitive"), and you responded by accusing me of "howl for punitive blood." How can you say that?!

401: 386: 220:

I believe that admins blocking admins make baby Jesus cry, particularly if it results in otherwise decent administrators quitting the project, which may be the action that Phil is now taking.

525:

rule as an entitlement, his howl for punitive blood, and his well-poisoning allusions to Phil's prior block log, and his "I've never been blocked before" hubris, all found in this one

185:

rule as an entitlement, his howl for punitive blood, and his well-poisoning allusions to Phil's prior block log, and his "I've never been blocked before" hubris, all found in this one

252:

Mostly due to the clerk statement below that existed as of my signing this statement, any removal of this case would be helpful if it included whether the action taken at

203:

as he felt these guidelines pertained to the poorly-sourced negative material (pertaining to the non-pseudonymous editor and MediaWiki developer Andrew Garrett a.k.a.

393:. I responded to point out that the problem might be that there was a negative pattern in Phil's behaviour, and Phil responded by accusing me in turn of wikistalking. 832: 228:

If other participants feel that I should be named as an involved party on account of my actions, or (as I more cynically suspect) on account my words, so be it.

94: 576:

If other participants feel that I should be named as an involved party on account of my actions, or (as I more cynically suspect) on account my words, so be it.

67:, even though he knew two other established users (David Levy and Majorly) disagreed with this. I questioned what policy would make such an action appropriate. 793:

were appropriate, and you've accused me of "howl for punitive blood" and "refuting rationale for unblocking.") I'm truly baffled as to why to feel this way.

671:

3. I do believe that I was right and Phil was wrong (just as you believe that Phil was right and I was wrong). I am, however, well aware of the fact that

44: 617:

No need to reply here. Try the workshop page if/when the RFAR is opened. If it's rejected, please, be a good sport, drop the issue, and move on. Regards. —

408:. I didn't voice my concerns in that thread, but tried to gain an understanding of the background from the talk pages of the users involved in the dispute. 594:

I'm going to reply here. Having endured many a discussion with you, I now know that if I reply anywhere else I know you'll just paste it back here anyway.

253: 64:. Shortly before his second rollback and subequent block of David Levy, he unilaterally threatened to block any user who restored Konstable's question 17: 796:

4. No, I won't be starting over with a new account. (Is that a joke?) Yes, my conversational style is distinctive (and I'm sorry that it annoys you).

878: 362: 151:

Thank you. I just saw it. What rule would apply to him getting the bit back? I am not sure if this is the place to be having this discussion. —

733:

4. You could always start over with a new account, however I think it would probably be easily recognizable based on your talk page mannerisms.

743: 620: 291:

self-block now to give Philwelch the option of returning again now was clearly correct and I would have done the same had I seen it first.

234: 207:, who, additionally, is legally a minor) which he felt was intended primarily to sink an RFA. I agree with the majority of this assessment. 200: 406:"I would like to take this opportunity to again point out that Dionyseus has wikistalked me, both here and on AFD, for some months now." 136: 678:

But again, when did I "howl for punitive blood"? You claimed that I did so via an edit in which I explicitly stated that Phil should

724:

1. If you believed his edits were tantamount to vandalism, you probably would have felt yourself entitled to more than three reverts.

568:

5. How was it inappropriate to note that I'd never been blocked before? I'm still upset that my block log is permanently blemished.

447:

left to arbitrate over, and so in the interest of saving everyone some time, I would recommend the ArbCom to reject this case. --

391:"It appears I have a stalker. Whatever the Knowledge (XXG) equivalent of a retraining order is, I want one placed on this clown." 522: 256:

case apply here, namely Phil voluntarily requesting desysopping "under a cloud." Might save a good deal of hassle later. --

182: 835:

as a party? He left Knowledge (XXG) months ago. I think he should be removed unless he returns to participate in the case.

361:'s talk page, and finding that it had been protected. That resulted in the WP:AN thread that Centrx linked to above, from 195:

I believed Phil was acting in good faith, and under a broader-than-usual interpretation of (the spirit, not the letter of)

324:

This section was written after Philwelch made his initial statement below and before he added his "follow-up statement."

143: 111:. I hope that will not let the case to be rejected as he still has access to the buttons that can cause further harm. — 776:

believe that they were tantamount to vandalism (because he was acting in good faith). I also realize that Phil viewed

192:

I felt it less than ideal that the third involved admin unblocked one disputant two minutes after blocking the other.

696:

4. In no way was I alluding to Phil's block record (which I haven’t even examined closely). My only point was that

61:

had also reverted Philwelch's edits, including in the edit summary advice to use the talk page and not use rollback

51:'s summary, of the situation, I would like to add the following: He used admin rollback to undo David Levy's edits 417: 404:. I didn't get involved in that discussion, but I did notice Philwelch again accusing Dionyseus of wikistalking: 901: 885: 868: 859: 849: 839: 812: 707: 644:

1. When someone vandalizes a page multiple times, reverting multiple times isn't considered edit-warring. I'm

585: 511: 477: 455: 436: 343: 328: 312: 299: 265: 161: 146: 131: 121: 80: 261: 389:. In that thread, Dionyseus raised the previous incidents again, and Phil accused Dionyseus of wikistalking: 836: 159: 140: 119: 217:

I believed that blocking either party rather than discussion the points above would do more harm than good.

257: 898: 687:

On a related note, what do you mean by "refuting rationale for unblocking"?! I plainly stated that I

372:

My conclusions at the time (in that thread), from looking at the dispute Dionyseus pointed out, were:

385:

The next time I noticed Philwelch was when a block of his (of ThuranX) came up again at WP:ANI. See

503: 196: 152: 112: 87: 559:. I later defended your decision to unblock Phil, noting that "blocks should not be punitive" 700:

block log was forever blemished. This bothers me, and I feel that I have a right to say that.

602:

they were at the end of January. There is no creation of goodwill anymore, only loss control.

211: 882: 856: 473: 340: 325: 309: 296: 272: 545: 369:

mentioned a past dispute and provided links. I didn't like what I saw, so I looked further.

865: 846: 809: 704: 582: 508: 433: 350: 48: 864:

Good points. I'm curious as to what this "once in a blue moon" evidence is though... :-)

366: 358: 308:: I endorse the presentation of the history contained in Carcharoth's statement below. 101: 77: 40: 33: 432:

Apologies for the length of this statement. I can provide detailed diffs if needed.

128: 58: 544:

view the three-revert rule as an entitlement, but it exists for a reason. Quoth

400:

The next time I noticed Philwelch was when his block of Centrx came up at WP:ANI

468: 214:, and a willingness to stop editing Werdna's RFA. He's made good on both counts. 204: 780:

edits as harmful (though I don't understand why he accused me of "trolling").

357:

I first became aware of Philwelch's blocks when trying to leave a message on

448: 845:

Good point. I saw that as well, and was surprised no-one picked up on it.

662:

B. Phil's block was especially inappropriate considering the fact that

772:

1. I believed that Phil's edits were as harmful as vandalism. I did

507:

quoting our discussion below. I do so purely to defend myself. —

378:

I also noticed that Phil seems to be in the habit of periodically

581:

In my opinion, both of your unblocks of Phil were appropriate. —

127:

According to his talk page he had surrendered his adminship. --

659:

A. I had no intention of reverting again when Phil blocked me.

565:

4. What "well-poisoning allusions to Phil's prior block log"?!

491: 641:

I'm sorry, but I do feel that it's necessary for me to reply.

210:

Phil expressed a desire to participate in the discussion at

703:

5. I never claimed that I was better than anyone else. —

874: 747: 624: 560: 557: 526: 413: 379: 238: 186: 109: 74: 71: 68: 65: 62: 55: 52: 804:

the opinions with which I've expressed disagreement.)

730:3. You don't want to know what I really believe. 521:RFA, for his self-serving interpretation of the 181:RFA, for his self-serving interpretation of the 45:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Werdna 2 254:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Giano 57:. The second of these rollbacks occured after 535:evidence that I was "behaving rather poorly"? 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Requests for arbitration 8: 556:that he'd done so, I withdrew my 3RR report 416:. I then discussed my concerns with Centrx 176:I unblocked Philwelch for several reasons. 382:, which seemed fairly idiosyncratic to me. 93:I first came to know of Philwelch during 879:Special:Contributions/Aqui venho de novo 380:deleting and restoring his own user page 43:'s handling of the contested comment at 741: 618: 232: 201:Knowledge (XXG):Remove personal attacks 610:have thought long and hard about this. 248:Statement by uninvolved badlydrawnjeff 675:back-and-forth editing is disruptive. 7: 552:(which never should have occurred). 319:Supplemental comment by Newyorkbrad 225:unblocked Philwelch a second time. 827:Composition of the list of parties 574:unblocked Philwelch a second time. 108:after being informed of this case 24: 684:be blocked as a punitive measure. 656:times is horrible; it was that: 495: 783:2. Could you please elaborate? 1: 902:03:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 886:01:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 869:01:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 860:01:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 850:01:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 727:2. Circular reasoning, see 1. 875:the entry for January 1 here 840:20:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 813:02:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 708:01:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 586:22:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 512:17:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 478:05:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 456:04:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 437:01:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 344:05:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 329:06:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 313:01:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 300:21:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 266:20:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 162:17:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 147:16:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 132:15:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 122:10:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 81:06:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 172:Statement by freakofnurture 918: 244:20:30, Feb. 4, 2007 (UTC) 753:01:42, Feb. 5, 2007 (UTC) 630:00:01, Feb. 5, 2007 (UTC) 27:Statements by non-parties 502:In his above statement, 86:Statement by uninvolved 666:had violated a policy. 365:. During that thread, 736:5. So... case closed. 483:Replies to statements 442:Comment by Cyde Weys 461:Statement by Werdna 141:Christopher Parham 831:Why is John Reid 523:three-revert rule 517: 516: 331: 264: 183:three-revert rule 137:Indeed (meta log) 47:. In addition to 909: 499: 498: 492: 453: 323: 260: 157: 117: 95:Aksi Great's RFA 78:Heimstern Läufer 917: 916: 912: 911: 910: 908: 907: 906: 829: 496: 490: 485: 463: 449: 444: 354: 321: 276: 250: 174: 153: 113: 91: 37: 29: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 915: 913: 905: 904: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 828: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 805: 797: 794: 784: 781: 761: 760: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 754: 752: 737: 734: 731: 728: 725: 715: 714: 713: 712: 711: 710: 701: 694: 685: 676: 669: 668: 667: 660: 649: 642: 634: 633: 632: 631: 629: 615: 611: 607: 603: 599: 595: 589: 588: 575: 570: 569: 566: 563: 553: 536: 515: 514: 504:Freakofnurture 500: 489: 486: 484: 481: 462: 459: 443: 440: 430: 429: 425: 421: 409: 398: 394: 383: 376: 370: 353: 347: 320: 317: 316: 315: 275: 269: 258:badlydrawnjeff 249: 246: 243: 222: 221: 218: 215: 208: 193: 190: 173: 170: 169: 168: 167: 166: 165: 164: 102:User:Philwelch 90: 84: 36: 34:User:Heimstern 30: 28: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 914: 903: 900: 895: 887: 884: 880: 876: 872: 871: 870: 867: 863: 862: 861: 858: 853: 852: 851: 848: 844: 843: 842: 841: 838: 834: 826: 814: 811: 806: 803: 798: 795: 791: 790: 785: 782: 779: 775: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 751: 749: 745: 738: 735: 732: 729: 726: 723: 722: 721: 720: 719: 718: 717: 716: 709: 706: 702: 699: 695: 692: 691: 686: 683: 682: 677: 674: 670: 665: 661: 658: 657: 654: 650: 647: 643: 640: 639: 638: 637: 636: 635: 628: 626: 622: 616: 612: 608: 604: 600: 596: 593: 592: 591: 590: 587: 584: 580: 579: 578: 577: 567: 564: 561: 558: 554: 551: 547: 543: 542: 537: 533: 532: 531: 530: 528: 524: 513: 510: 505: 501: 494: 493: 487: 482: 480: 479: 476: 475: 471: 470: 460: 458: 457: 454: 452: 441: 439: 438: 435: 426: 422: 419: 415: 410: 407: 403: 399: 395: 392: 388: 384: 381: 377: 375: 371: 368: 364: 363:November 2006 360: 356: 355: 352: 349:Statement by 348: 346: 345: 342: 336: 332: 330: 327: 318: 314: 311: 307: 304: 303: 302: 301: 298: 292: 288: 284: 280: 274: 271:Statement by 270: 268: 267: 263: 259: 255: 247: 245: 242: 240: 236: 229: 226: 219: 216: 213: 209: 206: 202: 198: 194: 191: 188: 184: 179: 178: 177: 171: 163: 160: 158: 156: 150: 149: 148: 145: 142: 138: 135: 134: 133: 130: 126: 125: 124: 123: 120: 118: 116: 110: 107: 103: 99: 96: 89: 88:Lostintherush 85: 83: 82: 79: 75: 72: 69: 66: 63: 60: 56: 53: 50: 46: 42: 35: 32:Statement by 31: 26: 19: 830: 801: 788: 787: 777: 773: 742: 697: 689: 688: 680: 679: 672: 663: 652: 645: 619: 572: 571: 549: 540: 539: 519: 518: 472: 467: 464: 450: 445: 431: 405: 390: 373: 337: 333: 322: 305: 293: 289: 285: 281: 277: 251: 233: 230: 227: 223: 175: 154: 114: 105: 100: 92: 38: 899:Thatcher131 883:Newyorkbrad 857:Newyorkbrad 651:2. I would 341:Newyorkbrad 326:Newyorkbrad 310:Newyorkbrad 297:Newyorkbrad 273:Newyorkbrad 205:User:Werdna 39:I observed 866:Carcharoth 847:Carcharoth 810:David Levy 786:3. Yes, I 705:David Levy 583:David Levy 509:David Levy 488:David Levy 434:Carcharoth 351:Carcharoth 49:David Levy 451:Cyde Weys 367:Dionyseus 359:John Reid 197:WP:LIVING 41:Philwelch 837:Picaroon 538:2. I do 306:Addendum 598:period. 212:WP:AN/I 129:Spartaz 59:Majorly 833:listed 550:fourth 546:WP:3RR 469:Werdna 144:(talk) 744:freak 690:agree 621:freak 614:said. 606:know. 397:drop. 235:freak 16:< 877:and 873:See 748:talk 625:talk 527:diff 474:talk 418:here 414:this 402:here 387:here 262:talk 239:talk 199:and 187:diff 155:Lost 115:Lost 106:gone 104:has 802:not 774:not 681:not 673:any 653:not 646:not 541:not 73:, 881:. 789:do 778:my 698:my 664:he 139:. 76:. 54:, 808:— 750:) 746:( 627:) 623:( 562:. 529:. 241:) 237:( 231:— 189:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch - Knowledge (XXG)

Index