| Revision as of 02:47, 18 March 2008 editJohn Vandenberg (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users68,507 edits arbcom case Prem Rawat opened← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:08, 18 March 2008 edit undoMaelefique (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,654 edits →just a note...: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 02:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC) | On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 02:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == just a note... == | |||
| Hey where are all the flames on this page? I expected there to more here! :) Anyways, I just wanted to say, regardless of it's acceptability/appropriateness/whatever on the PR discussion page, that as a historian I found your related experiences that you recently posted to be quite interesting and somewhat enlightening. Generally speaking, I see problems with any group who uses secrecy as a primary tool against scrutiny. Thanks again.-- ] <small>]</sup></small> 15:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:08, 18 March 2008
Request for Arbitration
You have been named as a party at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Prem Rawat ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
just a note...
Hey where are all the flames on this page? I expected there to more here! :) Anyways, I just wanted to say, regardless of it's acceptability/appropriateness/whatever on the PR discussion page, that as a historian I found your related experiences that you recently posted to be quite interesting and somewhat enlightening. Generally speaking, I see problems with any group who uses secrecy as a primary tool against scrutiny. Thanks again.-- Maelefique 15:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)