901:(although from what I saw in the evidence, Slim Virgin wasn't really involved). I note that your stated reason for the block is that Poetlister is a sock puppet of RachelBrown, however RachelBrown has not logged in for a period of time. They apparently live near to each other and talk on the phone. There should be no suggestion of sock puppetry as 1) they were both logged on at the same time on many occasions and edited at the same time and 2) RachelBrown has ceased editing as at about 3 weeks ago, while Poetlister is continuing. I respectfully ask you to remove the block so as to facilitate in an appropriate mediation, and to allow due process. From what I can gather of the evidence, it seems that Lulu of the Lotus Eaters is primarily at fault, and a Request for Comment would seem to be the logical next step up from here. I can see many breaks of the 3RR rule for one thing. Please can you remove the block so that things can be sorted out. Thank you.
1208:
on 1 or 2 of the same AFDs as each other, which made no difference to the result. It seems quite bizarre that a block could be justified when there is no evidence of any "vote stacking" or any other undue interference. If the CheckUser is true, a likely explanation is that they all use the same
Internet Service Provider. ISPs often cater for thousands of users, and in some places are region based. In the absence of evidence of any actual wrongdoing or any consistency of their actions, it seems quite a ludicruous decision. So we've got a poet, a historian, a geographer, an S&M fashion person and a religious zealot yet we are saying that the 5 of them are the same person? Seems quite bizarre to me. Are such conclusions normal practise?
1352:
to give you everyone's phone numbers, including her own, and you can talk to them each on the phone to verify who they are. Note that it has been explained many times previously how it is theoretically impossible for them to be sock puppets. However, Poetlister did visit RachelBrown's house regularly. I don't believe that there is a rule prohibiting 2 friends who are both
Knowledge editors, from visiting each other from time to time, or even using each other's computers when doing so. Is there such a rule? I understand that Londoneye once visited Rachel Brown's house as well, as they are first cousins. The other 2 apparently did not.
1263:
whether or not they are flatmates, but they might be. Is there a rule prohibiting 2 people contributing from the same house? I didn't think that there was. If there is, it should be listed somewhere. But the other 3 weren't friends. One was a cousin, and the other 2 used to go to school together but have nothing to do with each other now. It just seems bizarre. Not only that, but all of these users had talked on the phone to other
Wikipedians, proving that they are all different people to each other. They even gave their real names and put their real photos on to Knowledge. And I am sorry, but someone explain to me how
1311:
talkpage for the user in question. Please do so. Not providing evidence in either place leads one to believe that you have come to the conclusion off your own bat, and that's not really fair on the user concerned. I've removed the sockpuppet tag, because I think we should not permit unsubstantiated accusations. I am also making this request because I'm sure you acted in good faith and that you can provide substantial evidence that the users are one and the same. Thanks. -- Grace Note.
769:
1632:
1338:
RachelBrown (which is not blocked) either protesting this or attempting to provide explanation. The indefinite block is justified for a sockpuppet being used to reinforce one's own position in debate. If they are separate and I have placed the block in error I will apologize for having done so, but currently the evidence suggests otherwise and I cannot justify lifting it without hearing a good explanation to the contrary.
1572:
with Bush's decision to take the United States into a war of choice in Iraq." The reason I disagreed with the endorsement was that the allegation had been framed in a way to suggest that the edit was something no one is allowed to do. Since
Knowledge is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit," I figured that it was a reasonable edit, and having it be part of an RFar was out of place
1271:? They had ZERO in common. There's thin links and then there's thin links. Maybe there is a case for investigating whether Poetlister and RachelBrown were the same person, but the other 3 are so far removed from it that it is a joke. And besides which, why ban Poetlister for supposed impersonation of Rachel Brown 3 weeks after Rachel Brown left? That's just absurd.
1086:, although since one has quit for good and the other has been permanently banned, that seems somewhat ridiculous. Thus I will simply acknowledge lack of process here. If in the end there is no attempt to follow process, and no effort to fix this problem, then I guess I will leave it. It seems that I have inherited a second Wikistalker from this, in Lulu. LOL.
239:...The North Carolina Vandal is upset I blocked him again (63.19.*.*); interesting; I didn't know he was active on meta as well. That's the same one that called me an "uneducated loser". (It might be a good idea to look for new pages from any 63.19 address there.) Sometimes I do RC patrol for ten minutes when I'm at work ... it's fun to have a T1 line ... :-)
1934:
The
Arbitration Committee voted for decissions that were not discussed in the Worshop. And if any of them were discussed, the discussion has been ignored. As the result, the decissions contradict each other. The proposed enforcement #1 refers to Russian names, while #2 refers to Ukrainian names. What
1760:
Thanks for your suggestions. I had already considered Barber's Adagio and Pärt's
Fratres (superb recordings by Kronos Quartet on one and the same CD, IIRC) and Mozart is another obvious choice, and I agree with "the whole thing" (but my personal favorite is the opening bars of the "Lacrimosa"). Will
1576:
was that the edit had been used in an extra-policy manner. After all, Snowspinner has been quite a busy beaver on policy in the past, and he has frequently edited policies as they were being exercised, so it seems to me that that, by itself, is either all in or all out of arbitration evidence. (The
925:
Hi
Zordrac and Mindspillage, there is no ongoing RfM. RachelBrown made a request for mediation some weeks ago and Lulu of the Lotus Eaters turned it down. There are no outstanding issues, and RachelBrown has stopped editing, so the matter is over. The issue at the time was that Rachel Brown would not
1594:
My RFA(dminship) voting style is accused of being
Boothyesque. (First of all this is of course a personal attack against Boothy...) Not only is this mysterious to me (no one has provided any reasonable diffs or any particular RFAs and I have been repeatedly accused of voting against LifeisUnfair and
1351:
You can contact her, and she will talk to you on the phone, as will Rachel Brown. She is not particularly technically savvy (nor are any of these girls) and hence likely didn't realise what they were supposed to do. Now that you've explained what needs to be done, I am sure that she would be happy
1337:
There were several IP matches in close temporal proximity on several distinct occasions between
Poetlister, RachelBrown, and the other involved usernames in a manner that makes it unlikely that they are separate people, and I have received no correspondence from any of the blocked usernames nor from
1207:
Seriously? Is that the policy? Can you show to me this policy? I have never seen it anywhere else. Also what is the definition of "conclusively"? These 5 users all had vastly different editing patterns and contributed to totally different articles, the only similarity being that 2 of them voted
1005:
It is a RfC issue actually now that mediation has been refused. I see evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Lulu of the Lotus Eaters requiring a RfC and possibly ArbCom. If this blocking is being used in any way to cover this up, then it is very much out of order. There was no rational reason for
1930:
The group of users that has been squeezing
Ukrainian editors out of the Community by persisting and scoffing trolling, insulting and personal attacks now is about to succseed to use the Arbitration Committee for this purpose. I called this group "Russian Mafia". It was not a personal attack. It was
1905:
policy about Ukrainian geografic names do not address the question of names associated with the Kievan Rus. How could I know it? There is no any restrictions to particular historical period in the policy about Ukrainian names. How could I know that spelling of Ukrainian names in Knowledge should be
1897:
forbidden by any rules (creating artificial histories of redirect pages). I did it to prevent disrupting Knowledge and violating the Policies. Why not simply to say "do not do it anymore" instead of punish me for something which is not forbidden? How could I know that I was not allowed to do it if
1166:
I feel I should join in here, I have been having conversations with these people separately and there is no way that Poetlister, RachelBrown or Londoneye are the same person. While it may be true that they support each other in disputes (Rachel's flatmate did revert on the British jewish page, once
1046:
RachelBrown account is not blocked.) If you have an RfAr to bring, Zordrac, then bring one, and when that happens the appropriate action can be taken; however, the block stands until there is sufficient justification to remove it. THe blocking is to stop the sockpuppets being used to stack debates.
931:
For reasons known only to herself, Poetlister keeps posting in various places that she is in mediation regarding what she calls a "complex issue," sometimes including me in the list of people who are opposing her, sometimes not. We've asked her what she believes the issues are, and Lulu has made it
1577:
aghast tone of Tony and Snowspinner's "he edited the deletion policy!" is bewildering, in other words, given who it is who's speaking.) I remain convinced that it was a poorly licenced RFar, of course, but I've said my peace there. Anyway, I didn't want you to read my disagreement as criticism.
1571:
In case you saw my comment to Aaron on my talk page, I should clarify. When I said that I disagreed with your endorsement of the "edited deletion policy," I meant that along the lines of "I disagree with my girlfriend that Sun Kil Moon's new album is as good as the first," rather than "I disagree
1552:
within the the accordance established by Knowledge (source and licence) and someone put it up for deletion because "it is unencyclopedic". The image is of good taste and just because it is a wallpaper image I don't think it should be deleted. Please view and if you can, express your opinion.
1262:
Oh. Are there worse examples than this one? I am still quite dumbfounded by this. I didn't believe it at first, but yeah. I did ask Poetlister directly if they were the same person, and she said that RachelBrown and her are bestest best friends and visit each other regularly. She didn't say
362:
I withheld a comment on the workshop page. I'm sure that you know it already, but in the section where Tony mentions a "history of assuming bad faith" for Aaron, I thought it rather odd that this charge had been effectively added and wondered whether it was within bounds or not to mention, in a
1310:
Hi, you're usually a pretty reasonable person, and not an admin who generally throws their weight around. You have banned Poetlister as a sock of RachelBrown. However, you don't seem to have presented any evidence in an accessible place, such as in the place provided on the template or on the
1045:
There was a rational reason for the block. Evidence was presented to the arbcom, a checkuser was done, it was found that there was likely sockpuppeting used against policy. There does not seem to be a mediation taking place -- nor is there currently an RfC taking place. (Note that the main
65:
See what I mean? He doesn't respect the arbcom enough to see the rfar(where the evidence is), but he's more than happy to hound me. Please, something has to be done here, and I do not want to be the one who has to do it, but if someone does not, I will. This cannot continue.
614:. Both sides appear to have at least accepted the idea in principle, but have become stalled. The Arbitration Committee giving them a little encouragement, and perhaps a tiny push to get them over the initial hump and into the process of actually working, might help.
1516:
Also note that all of the 5 supposed "sock puppets" have their own phone numbers, their own voices, their own addresses, their own photos and so forth, that prove indisputably that they are 5 completely different people. If you like, you can call them to confirm this.
363:
neutral way (as I'm not making an accusation of malice) that Aaron had prosecuted an RfC against Tony before, that the two have had bad relations for a while. Indeed, I would mention at the same time that I have had bad relations with Tony in the past, too.
981:
and that was probably the third or fourth time he said it. Whether she needs to be unblocked is a separate issue, but if you're saying she should be unblocked to engage in mediation, it's important to know that there is no mediation for her to engage in.
926:
supply sources for her edits when Lulu asked; then she did and Lulu wasn't happy with the particular source; then Rachel agreed to provide sources in future, and Lulu accepted the particular source she had offered. That was the end of it.
41:
Can you or one of the other arbitrators do something about this? Like I said time and time again at the rfar, he'll keep on going with this trolling(of me or something else)until he's forcibly stopped, and i'm trying to stay out of this.
412:, and I'll be around for a little while longer to check for any further comment. There is also some discussion there as to whether or not there is a parole in effect on Karmafist, I would welcome your input on that. Best regards,
1599:) but I hardly see how it violates any policy. Wasnt Boothy brought to an RFC/RFA(rbitration) for this? Didn't nothing happen? Have I somehow done something different than Radiant and Zordrac have been doing for quite some time?
796:
I'd like to thank you, first and foremost; if you're receiving this message, it's because I think you were one of the people I adopted as a personal mentor, and who helped to make the whole Knowledge experience more enjoyable.
1938:
Nearly all my statements, comments, evidence, proposal were ignored. It would be OK if the Arbitration Committee would discuss them and then reject. At least I would see a fair procedure. But I did not see anything but silent
609:
appears to have stalled. In the meantime, wholly independently, and coming upon this dispute by another route entirely, I have proposed a solution to the perennial neutrality dispute that appears to underpin this conflict on
804:
and my appalling conduct in that showed me that I have not the calibre required to maintain good relations with users on the wiki. Worse still, I violated almost all of the principles I swore to uphold when I first arrived.
1460:
also went to university with Rachel Brown, although they were never friends and have nothing in common with each other. Newport apparently called Taxwoman up on the phone at one stage to talk about what they had in
345:
If the parties could make neutral statements and avoid loaded language on this page as much as possible, it would more useful for the AC as well as helping to keep the acrimony from spreading further than it already
1465:
Now, since Rachel Brown has stopped using Knowledge, and Poetlister doesn't have Rachel Brown's password etc and has no desire to log in pretending to be Rachel Brown, I suggest the following temporary compromise:
1136:
That's correct. You refused the mediation, thus leading to an escalation of the problem to an RfC, which was to be filed an hour later, which was why I was contacted. Yet, just minutes before it was to be filed,
1441:
are best friends, and likely used the same computer from time to time. There may be a very thin link towards them being "meat puppets" because of this. I understand that they visited each other virtually every
393:
I wanted to thank you for your support regarding my RfA. Regardless of outcome, I appreciate your trust! You also went out of your way to comment on the main idea of my request. That is outstanding in my book!!!
562:
808:
I've now been desysopped, and I plan on devoting a little more time to what I am good at, which is developing. I don't fit in on this side of the servers, but perhaps I can still be of use to the project.
1848:
Well I hope you are enjoying the holiday season. And I hope ArbCom is not getting you down. Here's a little poem (Sung, more or less, to the tune of '"The Shadow of Your Smile"), my holiday gift to you.
440:
Thanks a ton for voting on my rfa, the final tally was 50-0-0. You voted support with the comment "Looks like an all-around good user." I hope to grow into an all-around good admin as well. Thanks again.
1617:(ISBN 705408558). I assumed the poster was a government publication, but I was probably too hasty in uploading it. It probably ought to be deleted, and I'm sorry for any trouble I've caused here.
161:
501:
781:
O.K. Kat, so you don't believe in Santa, but I still want to wish you and your loved ones all the happiness in the world and the best new year ever (Especially in Virginia). Your friend,
1591:
I tried to get Theresa Knott to answer my question, but she responded angrily and lectured me without actually answering me. There are a few complaints against me that I find...insane.
1078:
No, I think that it would be inappropriate for me to bring an RfAr as I am a neutral party and have no personal knowledge of the dispute. I think that it would be more appropriate if
551:
79:
Even I have never had an idea this bad, and that's saying something. If no one else will, that almost certainly means you shouldn't. Ok, shutting up, getting back in my box now. -
427:
1935:
have I to do with Russian names? I did not change a single Russian name since I am here. What is the reason for this strange decision about Russian names? Can somebody explain me?
1883:
138:
1973:
want to make it a big project right now - it's just a whim after all), so if you know of another one or two Wikipedians with some expertise... Thanks again and a happy new year,
153:
1706:
1454:
went to university with Rachel Brown, and when they found out that they both used Knowledge, they called each other up on the phone to talk about it, and catch up on old times.
434:
1830:
Hah! It would be awfully hypocritical of me to mind, now, wouldn't it? And now we're categorymates, too. (You can keep your color scheme, though; I look awful in yellow...)
169:
1951:
1920:
It's very surprising if I will be forbidden to correct Ukrainian names and those who were distorting them and ignoring the naming convention are allowed to do it further.
623:
1448:
was Rachel Brown's first cousin, and came over to visit once or twice, over a month apart from each other. Being cousins, they called each other from time to time.
1554:
1159:
874:
1243:
Yes, I'm afraid they are. If a certain group of editors want someone banned, they're going to be banned. If it wasn't this, it'd be something else. -- Grace Note.
1171:
651:
706:
1837:
1733:
1724:
723:
1790:
Just spotted this, from a Google search for something else. Thank you, I'm flattered — but am quite happy to stay very much in the background at Knowledge.
89:
1824:
854:
1694:
59:
662:
457:
Thank you, Mindspillage, for spilling your mind in my RfA - I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality of Knowledge rise to the level of the dream.
270:
1419:
1128:
222:
1480:
If you are right, that they are all sock puppets and all the same person, it should make no difference which is the account that is allowed to remain.
1370:
1104:
1053:
328:
295:
1927:
edist of my opponents that disrupted Knowledge: broken links, sneaky vandalism, POV-pushing etc. were completely ignored by the Arbitration Committee.
1765:
753:
311:
1603:
1226:
1024:
988:
965:
938:
210:
1798:
1194:
1345:
516:
485:
478:
125:
It was autoblocked as I noticed after I went and indef blocked the account. That guy moves fast. Has anyone ever tried (dumb question) checkuser?--
1621:
1289:
380:
367:
851:
585:
856:
1780:? He isn't an admin but he has a lot of edits and I'm just seeing if anyone has encountered him before I ask him if he'd like to be nominated.
606:
1987:
Hello, I wish you and your family a prosperous and happy New Year 2006! We shall surely remain actively involved in the Project Knowledge. --
129:
1878:
1736:
1727:
38:
1683:
894:
229:
1493:
As Londoneye and Newport had minimal involvement in Knowledge, I don't really think it makes any difference if their bans remain or not.
1124:
participating in any mediation with Poetlister (nor with anyone else); any such alleged mediation should not affect a blocking decision.
1804:
1581:
398:
1784:
919:
445:
701:
691:
574:
785:
618:
596:
834:
1713:
1613:
Sorry about the delay of my reply (I have been on holiday in New Zealand), but the source of the poster is a Time-Life book called
1608:
830:
have not been determined! I am posting this to all the judges listed there. Maybe it would be a good idea to get this done soon? --
661:
Oh my word! I almost fell with laughter when I saw your comment there. Thanks for the barnstar and the kind words. By the way, I'm
687:
I just wanted to let someone know that we are all done posting evidence. No one has posted anything for about three days. Thanks!
1906:
different from Britannica and other English language encyclopedias? Which policy says it? It seem the policy states the opposite.
979:
677:
451:
416:
55:. With regard to the above; if you're not prepared or able to back up your allegations with evidence, don't make them, either.
1917:
I will get the same punishment ("Warning") as Ghirlandago will get for multiple insultigs and personal attack made on purpose!
1535:
1511:
1167:
logged in on Rachel's account, but otherwise correctly logged out showing as an ip) I don't feel a block is justified at all.
1991:
1977:
1332:
839:
816:
545:
496:
472:
87:
1399:
1561:
746:
I always manage to smash at least one finger and hurt my back ... take care, hope you're not doing everything yourselves!
356:
70:
46:
1120:
I have no knowledge about the block on Poetlister, and will not comment on whether it is proper or justified. However, I
280:
246:
119:
1754:
1586:
740:
1966:
348:
If you consider any of my contributions to be loaded language, please let me know and I will look at moderating them.
1732:
Yeah I figured there must be more than two atheists in DeadLand....I just can't think of any off the top of my head.
1483:
Since it is the ban on Poetlister that is the most controversial one, I suggest that this be the one that is lifted.
287:
827:
216:
697:
i wanted to apologize for prematurely requesting arbitration. i am now doing the right thing in the right order.
1771:
1566:
186:
1943:
Even a serial killer has a right to be heard in the court. You deprive me of this right just for the attempt to
846:
I noticed from Category:Wikipedians in Florida that you are a floridian and I have created a state wikiproject,
611:
589:
1843:
850:. So far is it very small but it could be expanded later. Join it if you want and help set tasks etc. Thanks --
190:
144:
1525:
1501:
1360:
1279:
1216:
1149:
1094:
1014:
955:
932:
very clear he will not go into mediation with her, but she doesn't respond. The whole thing is decidedly odd.
909:
1180:
If CheckUser shows conclusively that they are sockpuppets, then the sock accounts should be blocked. Thanks!
1125:
890:
861:
847:
840:
388:
206:
1962:
1747:
421:
717:
682:
601:
1323:
are sockpuppets of each other. Further, an indefinite block appears to be unjustified even if true. --
1821:
1718:
1626:
202:
85:
947:
The issue at hand is the block. This needs to be reverted. Other things can be dealt with later.
556:
1809:
Dear Mindspillage: I've stolen your user page theme, which, amusingly, you originally stole from
1700:
1303:
450:
1834:
1342:
1050:
821:
760:
477:
143:
Please note that the Arbitration Committee appears to have failed to follow standard procedure
27:
17:
1875:
1814:
656:
1680:
1600:
1425:
1411:
1391:
1186:
986:
936:
525:
80:
8:
1982:
750:
737:
673:
409:
308:
292:
264:
243:
180:
718:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005
1430:
I have just received an e-mail from Poetlister, which states the situation as follows:
377:
353:
110:
56:
1893:
The Arbitration Committee is going to punish me for something what was (and stil is!)
408:
Thanks for your note on my Talk page. I have responded to Karmafists's comment on his
1956:
1831:
1558:
1521:
1497:
1356:
1339:
1275:
1212:
1145:
1090:
1047:
1010:
951:
905:
791:
782:
403:
198:
1872:
1795:
1777:
1470:
1438:
1405:
Thanks for the reply! I've emailed you back. And it was pretty chilly today... :-)
1320:
1268:
1083:
886:
873:
asking for me advice for how to present the case with regards to the mediation for
831:
801:
571:
467:
413:
338:
1931:
merely a stating of the fact. Is there a more appropriate name? I do not think so.
1791:
733:
Hope all goes well with the move! What, there's life outside of Knowledge? :-)
26:
This is an archive of my talk page from December 2005. Please add new messages to
1750:. Am currently looking through Arvo Pärt and Leonard Cohen; suggestions welcome.
1474:
1434:
1406:
1386:
1380:
1316:
1304:
1181:
1138:
1079:
983:
933:
898:
878:
870:
862:
593:
442:
325:
277:
166:
33:
1531:
1528:
1507:
1504:
1366:
1363:
1285:
1282:
1222:
1219:
1155:
1152:
1100:
1097:
1020:
1017:
961:
958:
915:
912:
1974:
1762:
1751:
1710:
1445:
813:
747:
734:
669:
493:
305:
289:
240:
234:
176:
67:
43:
286:
Aha, I knew you'd go over to the dark side sooner or later! bwahaha. (j/k)
1741:
1618:
1487:
1457:
1328:
1264:
698:
688:
395:
373:
349:
251:
800:
The fact is, I've got no choice but to leave. The recent sordid affair with
1988:
1948:
1885:
1810:
1691:
1543:
1518:
1494:
1451:
1353:
1272:
1209:
1142:
1087:
1007:
948:
902:
728:
615:
260:
226:
194:
148:
115:
WoW hit you and a bunch of other stuff...want me to block Westwax indef?--
1578:
1490:'s links are the thinnest, and request that her ban be lifted as well.
1168:
648:
458:
364:
162:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone/Evidence
1781:
1549:
882:
126:
116:
1690:
I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. --
768:
720:
489:
426:
1631:
1324:
519:. I shall strive to make sure you never regret your support vote.
1947:
against pushing of Russian POV and distorting Ukrainian names!--
304:
Why, thank you! LOL. I wish he had recorded the vintage. :-)
154:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone
502:
Yet Another RFA Thank You Note to clutter up your talk page...
223:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard#Another_Wonderfool_alias
433:
1813:
to begin with - I do hope you don't mind :) All the best, --
826:
This is a friendly reminder that apparently, the winners of
1723:
I'll bet the atheist population of DeLand has been halved.
1969:). I would be grateful for a handful more opinions (but I
1477:
so that Poetlister can contribute to the ongoing debates.
139:
Re Arbitration Committee procedure re request by RedWolf
1794:
is responsible, actually, keeping me quite busy! Best,
1709:, please have a look if you have the interest. Cheers,
1679:, Mindspillage/2005archive11! A well deserved pressy!--
895:
Knowledge:Requests_for_mediation#List_of_Jewish_jurists
533:
526:
978:
Regarding the RfM, here is Lulu's very clear response
509:
Just wanted to drop you a note to thank you for your
1761:
look into your other suggestions, and again thanks.
1746:
Quite offtopic, but just in case you're interested:
711:I refer you to my response of a few moments ago at
263:was briefly accused of being a sock pup of yours.
175:Forgive me for jumping in here, but don't you mean
1707:my final statement in regards to Nobs01 and others
165:." Please ensure this is corrected. Thank you. -
1385:Mindspillage, are you getting my emails? Thanks!
624:Striding through the snow/ Russian soul depressed
561:Durin has this nice list of potential admins up,
372:Personally, I think this would be valid comment.
543:
538:
1315:I concur. Please explain why you believe that
707:EffK is forced to Abandon a Corrupted Knowledge
586:Knowledge:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct
1555:Images and media for deletion/2005 December 24
607:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine
889:were involved in an edit war with primarily
1901:In view of the Arbitration Committee, the
1082:brought it to RfAr, or, alternately, for
324:Middle of last week. A very good week.
1853:The spillage of your mind I find refined
1630:
893:and had filed a mediation request here:
767:
590:User talk:Jimbo Wales#A sincere question
1856:The hat upon your head is black not red
540:
14:
1963:User:Kosebamse/stuff#Weep_o_mine_eyes
1748:User:Kosebamse/stuff#Weep_o_mine_eyes
568:Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
273:has been dealt with, so just FYI.
39:POTW is trying to rile me up again.
23:
432:
425:
24:
2003:
1267:can possibly be a sock puppet of
612:Talk:Criticisms of communism#NPOV
584:Do you support the creation of a
1898:none of the policies forbids it?
1862:Spills forth the thoughts of Kat
1805:I've nicked your user page theme
1609:Image:Brazilianethanolposter.JPG
869:Hi there. I got an e-mail from
828:Knowledge:Article rescue contest
588:as I have just now suggested at
1913:revert of copivio article made
189:), and he appears to have been
13:
1:
1992:16:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
1978:10:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
1952:21:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
1879:20:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
1838:18:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
1825:16:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
1785:16:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
1766:20:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
1755:13:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
1737:18:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
1728:19:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
1714:07:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
1695:14:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
1684:22:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
1672:
1666:
1660:
1654:
1648:
1642:
1636:
1622:00:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
1604:19:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
1582:15:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
1562:04:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
1536:08:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
1512:08:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
1420:22:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
1400:16:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
1371:08:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
1346:06:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
1333:03:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
1290:09:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
1227:21:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
1195:16:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
1172:01:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
1160:12:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
1129:22:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
1105:21:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
1054:22:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
1025:22:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
989:22:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
966:22:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
939:22:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
920:22:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
891:User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters
857:06:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
848:Knowledge:WikiProject Florida
841:Knowledge:WikiProject Florida
835:03:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
817:02:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
786:04:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
754:06:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
741:06:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
724:03:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
702:21:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
692:02:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
678:19:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
652:18:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
619:04:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
597:18:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
575:05:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
53:Cease making personal attacks
552:14:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
497:12:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
473:02:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
446:11:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
417:05:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
399:15:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
381:09:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
368:01:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
357:14:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
329:09:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
312:04:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
296:17:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
281:03:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
247:17:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
230:16:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
211:22:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
170:22:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
130:11:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
120:11:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
90:03:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
77:If someone does not, I will.
71:03:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
60:00:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
47:00:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
7:
1909:It's very funny that for a
1675:
1669:
1663:
1657:
1651:
1645:
1639:
1587:Query - Freestylefrappe RFA
1548:Hi, I uploaded an image of
10:
2008:
1888:concerning the arbitration
1615:Library of Nations: Brazil
1486:I would also suggest that
259:You may already know, but
1868:The spillage of your mind
1859:The head beneath your hat
488:- what is going on here?
160:Please place evidence at
1961:...for your suggestions
1126:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
644:She's gone and writ one!
217:Another Wonderfool alias
1923:It's very strange that
1799:18:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
1772:do you know Bill Thayer
1567:Clarified (like butter)
641:And therebefore my eyes
512:EXTREME UNCTION SUPPORT
1884:Several comments from
1844:Are we having fun yet?
1776:Are you familiar with
1686:
875:List of Jewish jurists
777:
632:And seriously impress.
437:
430:
18:User talk:Mindspillage
1634:
771:
668:Thanks Mindspillage!
579:wait, silly question!
436:
429:
389:Awolf002 RfA comments
1865:Never to be maligned
1574:when the implication
1473:and lift the ban on
665:. *NUDGE NUDGE* ;-)
683:Arbitration Johnski
602:Stalled arbitration
1995:
1719:DeadLand Departure
1687:
897:, also mentioning
778:
776:
763:
635:Never heard before
438:
431:
422:I'm an admin now!!
269:It seems that the
1945:protect Knowledge
1627:Merry Christmas!!
1534:
1510:
1418:
1398:
1369:
1350:<redacted: -->
1288:
1225:
1193:
1158:
1103:
1023:
964:
918:
772:
766:
761:
629:Making sonnets go
581:
156:has been accepted
1999:
1778:user:Bill Thayer
1677:
1674:
1671:
1668:
1665:
1662:
1659:
1656:
1653:
1650:
1647:
1644:
1641:
1638:
1524:
1500:
1471:User:RachelBrown
1439:User:RachelBrown
1415:
1409:
1395:
1389:
1359:
1321:User:RachelBrown
1278:
1269:User:RachelBrown
1215:
1190:
1184:
1148:
1093:
1084:User:RachelBrown
1013:
954:
908:
887:User:RachelBrown
802:User:Deeceevoice
577:
557:Nomination Theft
549:
542:
539:
535:
532:
465:
158:" and that he "
83:
2007:
2006:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1985:
1959:
1890:
1846:
1807:
1774:
1744:
1734:Yeltensic42.618
1725:Yeltensic42.618
1721:
1705:I have revised
1703:
1701:Final statement
1681:Santa on Sleigh
1629:
1611:
1601:freestylefrappe
1597:which I did not
1589:
1569:
1559:Tony the Marine
1546:
1475:User:Poetlister
1435:User:Poetlister
1428:
1413:
1393:
1383:
1317:User:Poetlister
1308:
1305:User:Poetlister
1188:
1139:User:Poetlister
1080:User:Poetlister
899:User:SlimVirgin
879:User:Poetlister
871:User:Poetlister
867:
863:User:Poetlister
844:
824:
794:
783:Tony the Marine
774:Tony the Marine
765:
731:
709:
685:
659:
626:
604:
559:
548:
504:
484:Take a look at
482:
459:
455:
424:
406:
391:
378:The kettle's on
354:The kettle's on
341:
254:
237:
219:
141:
113:
95:Machine parts.
81:
36:
28:my current page
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2005:
1984:
1981:
1958:
1955:
1941:
1940:
1936:
1932:
1928:
1921:
1918:
1907:
1899:
1889:
1882:
1870:
1869:
1866:
1863:
1860:
1857:
1854:
1845:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1835:(spill yours?)
1806:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1773:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1743:
1740:
1720:
1717:
1702:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1628:
1625:
1610:
1607:
1588:
1585:
1568:
1565:
1545:
1542:
1540:
1463:
1462:
1455:
1449:
1446:User:Londoneye
1443:
1427:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1382:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1343:(spill yours?)
1307:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1175:
1174:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1051:(spill yours?)
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
991:
971:
970:
969:
968:
942:
941:
928:
927:
866:
860:
843:
838:
823:
822:Did we forget?
820:
793:
790:
764:
762:Happy Holidays
759:
758:
757:
756:
730:
727:
708:
705:
695:
684:
681:
658:
655:
646:
645:
642:
639:
636:
633:
630:
625:
622:
603:
600:
558:
555:
544:
523:
506:Mindspillage:
503:
500:
486:User:Solcutter
481:
479:User:Solcutter
476:
454:
449:
423:
420:
405:
402:
390:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
340:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
317:
316:
315:
314:
299:
298:
271:guilty account
253:
250:
236:
233:
218:
215:
214:
213:
140:
137:
135:
133:
132:
112:
109:
93:
92:
63:
62:
35:
32:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2004:
1994:
1993:
1990:
1980:
1979:
1976:
1972:
1968:
1964:
1954:
1953:
1950:
1946:
1937:
1933:
1929:
1926:
1922:
1919:
1916:
1912:
1908:
1904:
1900:
1896:
1892:
1891:
1887:
1881:
1880:
1877:
1874:
1867:
1864:
1861:
1858:
1855:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1839:
1836:
1833:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1823:
1819:
1818:
1812:
1800:
1797:
1793:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1783:
1779:
1767:
1764:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1753:
1749:
1739:
1738:
1735:
1730:
1729:
1726:
1716:
1715:
1712:
1708:
1696:
1693:
1689:
1688:
1685:
1682:
1678:
1633:
1624:
1623:
1620:
1616:
1606:
1605:
1602:
1598:
1592:
1584:
1583:
1580:
1575:
1564:
1563:
1560:
1556:
1551:
1541:
1538:
1537:
1533:
1530:
1527:
1523:
1520:
1514:
1513:
1509:
1506:
1503:
1499:
1496:
1491:
1489:
1488:User:Taxwoman
1484:
1481:
1478:
1476:
1472:
1467:
1459:
1458:User:Taxwoman
1456:
1453:
1450:
1447:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1421:
1416:
1408:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1396:
1388:
1372:
1368:
1365:
1362:
1358:
1355:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1344:
1341:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1306:
1291:
1287:
1284:
1281:
1277:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1265:User:Taxwoman
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1228:
1224:
1221:
1218:
1214:
1211:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1196:
1191:
1183:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1173:
1170:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1154:
1151:
1147:
1144:
1140:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1127:
1123:
1106:
1102:
1099:
1096:
1092:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1055:
1052:
1049:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1026:
1022:
1019:
1016:
1012:
1009:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
990:
987:
985:
980:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
967:
963:
960:
957:
953:
950:
946:
945:
944:
943:
940:
937:
935:
930:
929:
924:
923:
922:
921:
917:
914:
911:
907:
904:
900:
896:
892:
888:
884:
880:
876:
872:
864:
859:
858:
855:
853:
849:
842:
837:
836:
833:
829:
819:
818:
815:
810:
806:
803:
798:
789:
788:
787:
784:
775:
770:
755:
752:
749:
745:
744:
743:
742:
739:
736:
726:
725:
722:
719:
715:
714:
704:
703:
700:
694:
693:
690:
680:
679:
675:
671:
666:
664:
657:Re: My letter
654:
653:
650:
643:
640:
637:
634:
631:
628:
627:
621:
620:
617:
613:
608:
599:
598:
595:
591:
587:
582:
580:
576:
573:
569:
566:
564:
554:
553:
547:
536:
531:
530:
522:All the best.
520:
518:
517:my recent RFA
514:
513:
507:
499:
498:
495:
491:
487:
480:
475:
474:
471:
470:
466:
464:
463:
453:
448:
447:
444:
435:
428:
419:
418:
415:
411:
401:
400:
397:
382:
379:
375:
371:
370:
369:
366:
361:
360:
359:
358:
355:
351:
347:
330:
327:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
313:
310:
307:
303:
302:
301:
300:
297:
294:
291:
288:
285:
284:
283:
282:
279:
274:
272:
267:
265:
262:
257:
249:
248:
245:
242:
232:
231:
228:
224:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
185:
182:
178:
174:
173:
172:
171:
168:
164:
163:
157:
155:
150:
146:
136:
131:
128:
124:
123:
122:
121:
118:
108:
105:
102:
99:
96:
91:
88:
86:
84:
78:
75:
74:
73:
72:
69:
61:
58:
54:
51:
50:
49:
48:
45:
40:
31:
29:
19:
1986:
1970:
1960:
1944:
1942:
1924:
1914:
1910:
1902:
1894:
1871:
1847:
1832:Mindspillage
1816:
1808:
1775:
1745:
1731:
1722:
1704:
1635:
1614:
1612:
1596:
1595:WikiFanatic
1593:
1590:
1573:
1570:
1547:
1539:
1515:
1492:
1485:
1482:
1479:
1468:
1464:
1452:User:Newport
1429:
1426:A compromise
1384:
1340:Mindspillage
1309:
1141:was banned.
1121:
1119:
1048:Mindspillage
868:
845:
825:
811:
807:
799:
795:
780:
779:
773:
732:
712:
710:
696:
686:
670:Alex Schenck
667:
660:
647:
638:Of an Onegin
605:
583:
578:
570:
567:
560:
528:
527:
521:
511:
510:
508:
505:
483:
468:
461:
460:
456:
452:BD2412's RFA
439:
407:
392:
344:
342:
275:
268:
261:User:Striver
258:
255:
238:
221:Please read
220:
183:
159:
152:
149:User:RedWolf
145:as seen here
142:
134:
114:
106:
103:
100:
98:Fishsticks.
97:
94:
76:
64:
57:Andy Mabbett
52:
37:
25:
1983:More wishes
1873:Paul August
1792:My own site
1557:Thank you,
1532:Eventualist
1529:Darwikinian
1526:Wishy Washy
1508:Eventualist
1505:Darwikinian
1502:Wishy Washy
1367:Eventualist
1364:Darwikinian
1361:Wishy Washy
1286:Eventualist
1283:Darwikinian
1280:Wishy Washy
1223:Eventualist
1220:Darwikinian
1217:Wishy Washy
1156:Eventualist
1153:Darwikinian
1150:Wishy Washy
1101:Eventualist
1098:Darwikinian
1095:Wishy Washy
1021:Eventualist
1018:Darwikinian
1015:Wishy Washy
1006:the block.
962:Eventualist
959:Darwikinian
956:Wishy Washy
916:Eventualist
913:Darwikinian
910:Wishy Washy
832:HappyCamper
812:Thank you.
713:15 December
572:Kim Bruning
414:Ëvilphoenix
326:Ben Aveling
278:Ben Aveling
147:and notify
1965:(comments
1915:by mistake
1550:Ari Meyers
1407:Flcelloguy
1387:Flcelloguy
1182:Flcelloguy
984:SlimVirgin
934:SlimVirgin
883:User:Jayjg
814:Rob Church
748:Antandrus
735:Antandrus
663:up for RfB
594:Ted Wilkes
443:Gurubrahma
343:You wrote
306:Antandrus
290:Antandrus
241:Antandrus
167:Ted Wilkes
151:that his "
111:WoW vandal
1975:Kosebamse
1957:Thanks...
1763:Kosebamse
1752:Kosebamse
1711:Sam Spade
792:Thank you
674:Linuxbeak
410:Talk page
404:Karmafist
276:Regards,
177:Redwolf24
101:Bathtub?
82:brenneman
68:karmafist
44:karmafist
1925:multiple
1903:existing
1817:Turnbull
1815:Nicholas
1619:—DO'Neil
1442:weekend.
699:Marshill
689:Davidpdx
676:to you)
672:(that's
396:Awolf002
374:Filiocht
350:Filiocht
339:WebComix
191:notified
187:contribs
104:HeAvEn.
1989:Bhadani
1949:AndriyK
1939:voting.
1886:AndriyK
1811:Talrias
1692:Bhadani
1519:Zordrac
1495:Zordrac
1461:common.
1381:Emails?
1354:Zordrac
1273:Zordrac
1210:Zordrac
1143:Zordrac
1088:Zordrac
1008:Zordrac
949:Zordrac
903:Zordrac
852:Jaranda
616:Uncle G
534:Unction
529:Ξxtreme
227:Uncle G
195:Talrias
34:Sigh...
1911:single
1822:(talk)
1579:Geogre
1522:(talk)
1498:(talk)
1357:(talk)
1276:(talk)
1213:(talk)
1169:Arniep
1146:(talk)
1122:am not
1091:(talk)
1011:(talk)
952:(talk)
906:(talk)
877:where
751:(talk)
738:(talk)
649:Geogre
462:BD2412
365:Geogre
309:(talk)
293:(talk)
244:(talk)
235:Ah yes
107:DRUT!
1971:don't
1782:RJFJR
1742:Tears
1414:note?
1394:note?
1189:note?
865:block
252:Socks
127:MONGO
117:MONGO
16:<
1967:here
1796:Bill
1544:Help
1469:Ban
1437:and
1329:talk
1319:and
885:and
729:move
721:EffK
592:? -
563:here
546:blah
494:talk
490:Thue
346:has.
266::-(
256:Hi,
181:talk
1895:not
1325:Nlu
515:on
1820:|
1412:A
1392:A
1331:)
1187:A
881:,
716:],
565:.
550:}
524:→
492:|
441:--
376:|
352:|
225:.
209:)
205:|
201:|
193:?
30:.
1876:☎
1676:S
1673:A
1670:M
1667:T
1664:S
1661:I
1658:R
1655:H
1652:C
1649:Y
1646:R
1643:R
1640:E
1637:M
1417:)
1410:(
1397:)
1390:(
1327:(
1192:)
1185:(
541:ł
537:{
469:T
207:c
203:e
199:t
197:(
184:·
179:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.