Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:26, 2 January 2006

Peak oil theory

I saw your change to peak oil theory, and while, as you say, "Peak oil is the general theory - Hubbert's theory is his own work", I don't understand why you copied the contents of Hubbert peak theory into the article. I have restored the redirect. If you want to contribute a new article on peak oil theory that is different from Hubbert peak theory, I'm all for it, but I don't find the duplication really useful. --timc | Talk 03:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that the current article contains both the general and the specific theory - My intent would have been to excise the Hubbert specific paragraphs - but see Talk:Hubberts peak oil theres a consensus afoot to accomplish this, so 'i've let that run its course - let's see where we are in a few. Benjamin Gatti

Hi Benjamin. I felt I should drop you a note personality to explain why I reverted your edit to Hubbert peak theory; I see you've been through a similar discussion before. I understand where you're coming from; when I first got here, the article was just called "Hubbert peak"—I really wanted to restrict it to just Hubbert's work and make a new page for "Peak oil". A arguably disruptive user preventive any move at the time, and since then the compromise of "Hubbert peak theory" has been reached. As Timc says above, there's no problem with splitting the article into two, but it's such a heavily edited article that it might be best to find a consensus on the talk page before going ahead with it.

On a different note, I noticed on your user page that you're interested in renewable technologies. One of my pet projects of late has been working on launching a sustainable technologies wikiproject. I've yet to get enough support to make it worthwhile, but check it out if you think you might be interested.—Jwanders 21:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush

I'd be surprised if the most notable thing about him was 'he enjoys golf'. That edit was highly POV as you probably know, and please don't repeat it :) Thanks. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It does appear to be his strong suit, and he appears to prefer playing golf to leading the nation in times of crisis - his other job. I think the Edit is accurate, factual and neutral. His commitment to golf is second to nothing - including his county in its time of need. Benjamin Gatti

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox--Rogerd 04:40, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Facts are not soap. Benjamin Gatti

Opinions don't become facts just because you label them that way. DreamGuy 08:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

you need to stop vandalising the George W. Bush article. wikipedia is not a soapbox. your edits are clearly POV and youredits have been reverted.167.206.128.33

Michael Chertoff

Yeah, he's an incompetent fucker. But show that with facts, not POV statements. I've reverted your edits. Please read Misplaced Pages:NPOV. Thank you. Postdlf 04:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Joe Scarborough quote on George W. Bush

Hi Benjamin. I believe that the quote by Joe Scarborough would be much more appropriate on a Hurricane Katrina article. At a minimum, it isn't appropriate for the introduction of the Bush article since it's such a specific detail. Carbonite | Talk 17:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

POV hurts

Please stop vandalising the articles for Michael D. Brown and FEMA. The truth is the worst thing you could say about that guy and putting in blatant POV just wastes other editors' time. Eliot 21:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Given that the english language lacks perjoratives capable of adequately describing Michael D. Brown, I can hardly see how vandalism could occur on that page. Even blanking could be described as an oriental form of appropriate sanctions. You are eroding the term vandalism by applying it to the expression of fact-based convictions. Benjamin Gatti

Please stop polluting Misplaced Pages with POV

You have done serious damage to the Looting article by rewriting it according to your POV. While I can sympathize with it and while there were interesting observations that can somehow find a place in the article, you can't pollute a technical encyclopaedia article with (partially right IMHO, but that's not the point) propaganda. Thank you. Cyclopia 12:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The prior state in which "looting" is renamed "stealing" with images of Africans distributing stores of food to starving villagers was perverse and a POV shared only by the most ignorant, self-righteous, and ironcally members of groups which have most benefitted by the "looting" of Africa for free labor. If you wish to engage in a dialogue to find a workable neutral ground - you would do more good to edit first and criticize last. Benjamin Gatti

I edit first because one of Misplaced Pages main strengths is its struggle for NPOV. Your statements can contain useful informations, but they're a quite particular POV. What it should be done is to present facts according to common definitions (and by common definitions, looting is technically theft, somehow). If you feel there's another POV worth to be presented, you can add a section of the article and expose this POV by writing "By some looting is considered..." with clear external references and so on, and stating cleary this is just a (respectable) POV, not dogma.

If you don't agree with Misplaced Pages NPOV policy, you can consider joining Wikinfo. Wikinfo's policy on point of view is different from Misplaced Pages: rather than adopting a neutral point of view, the set of articles about a particular topic are split into a number of articles with a specified point of view—thus it tries to have several points of view on each topic. The main article is written from a sympathetic point of view which is described as "a way of encouraging a pluralism of content, rather than limiting content to an unattainable encyclopedic goal."

Cyclopia 13:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe you are simply out of touch with reality. MSNBC has gathered a plurality of experts on ethics to discuss this issue, and not one of them has asserted that "looting" is one and the same as theft. It is always the suspension of commerce denominated in liquid currency, it can be done morally or immorally - and in this respect has much in common with other forms of redistribution. capitalism, communism, and totalitarianism all have a range of moral implications - and should probably be judged on a case-by-case basis where a moral determination is to be made. Theft is no such animal. theft is a perjorative term exclusively used to prejudice a transaction as violate. Benjamin Gatti

Looting

Benjamin, I've reported you for a violation of 3RR. Not only have you violated 3RR, but your additions have been rejected by three editors (so far), meaning you're also violating consensus. Please stop. · Katefan0 20:53, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if I violated 3RR - but if i did , then i deserve the consequences. In the meantime consensus, when it rejects cited alternative facts which are relevent without discussion is not inspiring. I wish the other editors would back up the baloney they are protecting with citations. To the extent that has not happened, editing has not been in good faith. IMO. good luck on your 3RR. Benjamin Gatti

I reviewed it and it doesn't look like you have violated 3RR... the report was rather confusing as Katefan0 listed on of his/her reverts as one towards your 3RR... anyways, just saying that you haven't done anything wrong though try not to engage in edit wars... as a general rule of thumb, use the one revert rule. Sasquatcht|c

POV

I've blocked you for 24 hours for persistently inserting non-neutral language into articles. Please use this time off to read WP:NPOV; you're welcome to continue editing after the block expires provided you abide by the NPOV policy. --fvw* 04:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Price-Anderson Mediation

Thanks for your request for mediation. I will be taking the case. See Talk:Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act. Ral315 W_S 03:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Accidents and Chernobyl

Hey there - on Sept 3 you placed a paragraph on the Accident article essentially arguing that Chernobyl wasn't an accident (but an 'incident'). I have removed this paragraph as I think it is very clear that Chernobyl was an accident as defined in the article. I felt it fair to let you know about that. Now I have just noticed in the Nuclear Power article that you refer on Sept 1 to "a sever nuclear accident such as occurred at Chernobyl." Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? Two days and an accident becomes a non-accident "incident"? Ppe42 05:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I would argue that what occurred at Chernobyl was not an accident - as in an unforeseeable result driven by random inconsistency between engineering expectations and reality. It was in fact the predicted result of the actions taken, which is why the rules specifically indicated that those actions were impermissible. Benjamin Gatti

An accident is defined as something going wrong unexpectedly, where the event was unforeseeable or very unlikely. Given perfect information, the Chernobyl operators might have foreseen or expected things to go terribly wrong. However, they lacked engineering knowledge of the reactor's design flaws (possibly because said flaws were covered up). There are several reasons why everything went wrong; but the sum total is that the experiment was designed to increase the safety of the reactor (by improving the safety systems). The operators did not expect things to go wrong in the way they did, and therefore it was an accident. This is consensus: the article is labelled Chernobyl Accident and described as the most important example of a nuclear accident. Ppe42 02:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As if by an overwhelming majority, the editors of wikipedia could declare that the moon is made of cheese. Consensus - in itself - is unpersuasive. The facts uncontested are that the rules required a given number of control rods remain out at all times, and in short that while they did not foresee the effect of breaking the rules, they did in fact foresee that their actions were a violation of the rules. Further that had they followed the rules (as they both knew and understood them), the incident would not have happened. Anyone who builds a nuclear reactor must understand that everything can go very wrong. A nuclear reactor is an atom bomb balanced precariously between doing nothing, and taking out an entire city. Children at age 8 understand this. The idea that reactor operators are unaware of the game they are playing is fanciful at best. In reality, Chernobyl was the intrusion of the politically powerful into the sanctity of the scientifically informed. The Operators were aware of the danger, but overruled by ambitious political superiors. Such is not an accident. Benjamin Gatti

I think you overstate the case, my friend. The vast majority of nuclear reactor designs are utterly incapable of producing a thermonuclear explosion; at most, a core meltdown and steam explosion could cause the leakage of some radioactive material. The idea of nuclear reactors suddenly, disastrously exploding and "taking out an entire city" may indeed be believable to an eight year old, but you are a grown man. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about what constitutes an accident. Ppe42 04:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

in 1987, 1200 people lived in Chernobyl, today all residents have been evacuated. Just explain this. Why is in impossible for all the insurance companies in the world to privately insure even a single nuclear plant? - That is the argument behind the Price Anderson suspension of liability protections. If you really believe tat nuclear energy is safe - tell me were I can purchase adequate private insurance to operate a nuclear plant. I'll wait. My children will wait, and their great grandchildren will wait ...

Benjamin Gatti

Insurance costs is (cost of accident)*(possibility of accident). The reason for insurance is that the insurance is affordable while the accident, would it happen immediately, is not. At the time, insurance companies wouldn't be able to cover these costs either, thus they were legally prohibited to insure the accident. Another reason could be they were not competent to evaluate neither possibility or cost of extreme accidents. Thus the state took responsibility for the insurance costs. The insurance fee would actually be very low, had the US chosen to collect it. In other countries, the state DO require insurance payment.--Sinus 10:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The State doesn't "take" responsibility - it "transfers" responsibility to the taxpayers. - that is a mandated imposition of risk. I'm not sure the state has any business imposing the risk of bad actors on the general public. the risk of individual - profit-motivated corporations should be borne by the profiteers. Benjamin Gatti

Bad writing of mine. What I intended to write was "Thus the state assumed the responsibility to insure for the utilities regarding accident costs above ~$10 billion". The remainder stays the same. The state insures the company, because the insurance companies cannot. My own country, Sweden, imposes a nuclear tax as payment for this service, and so could (should) the USA.--Sinus 21:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The meaning is the same. If we have the state insuring everything - then we have taxpayers paying for all sorts of risk, and in the end, we really have nothing more complicated than communism. Benjamin Gatti 22:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The RfC about you

Please wait until it goes live. And the filings of 2 RfCs by you is going to be used as evidence of disruptive behavior. You aren't helping yourself here. --Woohookitty 07:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not an official RfC though. Doesn't matter. We're going to develop it behind the scenes (and there is no policy against it) and then post it. That's how most people do it. So vandalize away. You are just hurting yourself. --Woohookitty 08:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Any page which the public can view which incorporates my name personally is open for rebuttal. The right to defend's one's name when referred to by name is absolute. Good luck defending an alternative. Benjamin Gatti

Zen master

Ben, zen is on probation from arbcom (plus he was banished for a week from the same case). He got nearly blocked for good a couple fo weeks ago for disruption. Dmc and I are just trying to remind him to get up to speed and not to edit war or else he's going to be blocked permanently per the arbcom. That's all it was. --Woohookitty 09:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Arb

Really Benjamin, it's best that you withdraw your request. It's not the proper venue, I can guarantee you that the arbitrators will reject the request and likely be testy while doing it. · Katefan0/mrp 23:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the best thing for you to do would have been to raise the question on RFPP. You can still do that. And we can have one of the uninvolved admins there like Jossifresco, Tony Sidaway, or Thryduulf look at it. What I don't get is that even if it was an honest misunderstanding on my part, nad there shouldn't have been protection, the answer is to fix that, not arbitration. I'm perplexed by your actions, because I'd like to think that if you had asked me I would have been able to explain myself to your satisfaction. Dmcdevit·t 23:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

This is far more about the idea of Protecting an article in order to effect censorship than it is about any one individuals actions or behavior. This is not the first time the Page was protected without just or given cause, and the issue has already been mediated twice. There really being no further venue, RfArb appears appropriate. Benjamin Gatti 00:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You said in the arbitration that I knew you disagreed. But, honestly, I didn't and I wonder why you feel that way. If you had left me a note, I would have looked at it again. If you had made a request for unprotection, someone else would have looked at it again. I'm still not clear as to what your objection is. I think it's either that the page was protected on one version and not the other (it is policy to make no preference but to leave it where it was at protection time), that you think there wasn't an edit war going on or not one severe enough to warrant protection, or whether you disagree with the principle of protecting during edit wars? The fact is that page protection is one of the processes I'm most intimately involved in here on Misplaced Pages, and I take it very seriously. I reject probably 80% of the requests of RFPP, and believe very strongly that protection is harmful. Please help me understand your position. Dmcdevit·t 05:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Dmcdevit, I wonder if you paged through the fifteen edits by six different people on Dec 5 before jumping to the conclusion that an unreasonable edit-war was going on? I wonder if you realize that the only editor involved in unexplained reverts was the same Woohoo who requested the censorship? I wonder if you care about the edit war policy which clearly separates interested parties from users and states only that the later may request protection? There wasn't an edit-war at all, there was a community process of editing an divisive issue. I would suggest that you could name the issues which the Supreme Court has disagreed with the appellate courts on a single hand - this is one of them, and it is unreasonable to presume stability as normative. There are no personal attacks, the debate is wide open and yet both respectful and productive (mediation has not helped much). The arguments are heavily sourced. This is a work in progress, and you have poured cold water on it - at the behest of one of the more opinionated and less informed editors. Benjamin Gatti 05:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunatley, I think you misread the protection policy. It doesn't matter who requests protection, and in fact there doesn't even need to be a request in practice, just admin discretion. It could be a party or an anon, because, the truth is, other than a little background, I don't much care what the requester says, but I go look at the article's recent history myself. This is not "censorship" and that kind of language is just inflammatory. This is just a temporary cool-down, while saying "censorship" implies malice (and asumes bad faith). I did nothing at the behest of anyone, but because of my own determination of edit warring. I counted 15 reverts, not just edits (>20 edits) in 24 hours. I consider that serious enough to warrant protection. If you disagree, please make a ]]WP:RFPP#Current_requests_for_unprotection|request for unprotection]] so we can get a neutral admin to look at it. Dmcdevit·t 06:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ben, that is not the appropriate place for what you are asking for no matter what you say. --Woohookitty 07:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

And btw

The place to ask for unprotection is Misplaced Pages:Requests for protection. It's not the arbcom page. "Mike, because I am arguing that interested parties should not initiate page protection". Um Ben? That's how almost all requests for protection work. It's almost always someone working on the article who is asking for protection to stop an edit war or vandalism or whatever. I used the correct process to a T. I'm an admin, but instead of protecting it myself, I asked for protection on the requests for protection page. The admins who patrol that page actually turn down more than 50% of the requests. Dmcdevit turns down probably 80%. But he saw a major revert war going on and decided to stop it via protection. What you did was against policy because it belongs on RfP or ANI NOT Arbcom. And I think you knew that but you wanted to stir the pot. --Woohookitty 09:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

RfAr against Ben is live

Just letting you know that I opened the RfAr on you. Please comment so we can get this case opened ASAP. Comment here. Just so you know Ben, we were planning on doing this on Friday. The only reason I opened it now is because of this request you made on Wednesday. We were going to open it several other times, but we kept trying to work this out, but it's not going to happen. --Woohookitty 12:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is the arbcom policy on content disputes. --Woohookitty 00:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

And btw Ben, I retitled the case again. It is NOT about Price-Anderson. We're not going to call your views on Price-Anderson wrong or incorrect or anything else. That's not the issue here. You're the issue. --Woohookitty 01:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps "we're" the issue? There's only one editor insisting on the ad hominem. Perhaps in zeal the willing victimize the weak. Benjamin Gatti 01:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Kate just put up her arguments. This isn't just me Ben. And. It doesn't matter if I invoked Price-Anderson or not. I also invoked Looting and nuclear power and criminalization of politics. This is about you. I'm retitling it to just you one more time. the policy is to name cases by user. Look at the open cases. I think only Regarding Ted Kennedy and a couple of others has an article name in it and those are still user disputes, not content disputes. --Woohookitty 01:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to know

please tell me that your "Arbcom can't hear this because they don't have original jurisdiction" post was a joke. Thanks. Nandesuka 13:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Btw

4 votes is what is needed to make a case "live" (and we have 4 votes now). It sometimes takes the arbys a couple of days to create the necessary pages. --Woohookitty 23:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Benjamin Gatti

And it's going to be named Benjamin Gatti. --Woohookitty 00:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti has been accepted. Please place evidence on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti/Workshop. Fred Bauder 04:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Congressman mel price

File:Congressman mel price.jpg The image that you uploaded of Mel Price...can you tell me where you got it from? You listed it as "PD-self", but that would only apply if you took the photo yourself. Ral315 (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a derivitave of File:Congressman mel price.gif which I have hand painted and composited in Photoshop to an extent which I believe justifyies the PD-self label. Any better ideas? I would have overloaded the original but the extentions don't allow this. Benjamin Gatti 21:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ho Ho Ho to you too

Merry Christmas! --Woohookitty 07:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Um Ben

I suggest you remove the latest piece of "evidence" you put up. I reverted it. Btw, "rolled back undiscussed edits". You put 2 words back in. Give me a break. --Woohookitty 22:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we both reverted at the same time - I agree with you here. I'll make a note of it. Benjamin Gatti 22:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh and you cannot mention an edit of Sandpipers as "complainants are inserting factual errors in Misplaced Pages" on the arbcom case. He's not a complainant. He's not listed as one. He has absolutely 0 connection to Simesa, katefan0 and I. I'm not sure I've even put a message on his talkpage. Maybe I did once. He's independent. Always has been. So. You can't mention an edit of his as a "complainant". --Woohookitty 17:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

And actually, I'm not trying to speak for him but I don't think he thinks we should've brought this case in the first place. --Woohookitty 17:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I do hear you on that - and yes - I believe that she is far more neutral on this - especially when it comes to skipping RfC and RfM and intruding on the ArbCom. (However there are hundreds of edits made by all preserving the points I contest) Benjamin Gatti 18:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

For the comments on User:Fluterst. As I've said before, what amuses me is that I have a liberal type (you) telling me how pro-nuclear I'm making P-A but at the same time I have these conservatives (Fluterst is the latest in a long line that includes BigDaddy777 and Rex) who are convinced that I am part of this liberal cabal trying to "rule" Misplaced Pages. I'm actually neither. Anyway, this website he sites is full of crap. Completely full of crap. Misplaced Pages is a completely non profit company (even Jimbo takes no salary) which actually does a good job of keeping crap off of the site given it's open nature. A lawsuit would be pointless. Wikimedia's budget for this year is all of 700 grand and literally all of it goes into infrastructure. It would just be pointless to sue Misplaced Pages or Wikimedia. Anyway, thanks for the comments. At the moment, I'm trying to avoid all NPOV stuff, so I'm going to leave him alone for now but I have a feeling we'll cross paths soon. --Woohookitty 23:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that Misplaced Pages is as worthless as you propose, though in no way does an increase in worth significantly increase its culpability - unless and this is probably where you're going - WP directly benefits from the publishing of BS, and therefore is motivated to encourage its users to contribute BS - neither of which is even remotely the case so far as I know. I hardly think of myself as a liberal - which in the end suggests that such terms may have outlived their utility. Best. Benjamin Gatti

Advocacy

Sorry, but I don't think I'm qualified for that. --Phroziac _. o º 14:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello

There are no reactions to other people's evidence allowed on the evidence page. I'd suggest that you move your comments to the evidence analysis section of the Workshop. It's what it's for. --Woohookitty 06:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I see several places where you did this. You mention DeeCeeVoice's case, where they did similar things. It doesn't matter. If someone complained about it, the comments would be removed. If you want me to take this up with one of the arbcom members, I will. --Woohookitty 06:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This is right from the evidence page: "If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user." The only reason why it was allowed for DeeCeeVoice is because his arbcom went so fast (less than a week) that no one had time to correct it. --Woohookitty 07:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Using the example of the DCvoice, I contributed in good faith; I will respect your request by not commenting further in that manner, and if you choose to revert claiming the "rulz" - I will let that stand. How about we call a draw, and strike up a friendship instead - I would imagine we agree on more than we disagree? Benjamin Gatti 07:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I discussed this with arby User:Raul654 on IRC and he said I can move the comments to your section, so that's what I am doing. It's very clear on the evidence page. --Woohookitty 07:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Everything has been moved. I didn't change anything...just moved things around. I have to pass on the friendship offer. --Woohookitty 07:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Advocacy

I am willing to help you in your Arb Case if you wish. Just leave me message in my talk space. --Chazz88 14:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC) AMA member.

You got e-mail or an IM? I'm going to ask to postpone decision so I can read through all the information put forward. --Chazz88 16:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Also have you been through negotiation or mentorship to solve these problems and if not were these options ever offered to you? Please leave comments on User talk:Chazz88/Benjamin Gatti --Chazz88 17:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

What about woohookitty? He/she seems to be the main complainant. --Chazz88 17:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

variant

User Bill of Rights/Radiant! Variant was in the wrong namespace. I have moved it to User:Benjamin Gatti/Variant.

Holiday wishes

Thank you for your gracious good wishes on my talk page. I'm sorry I was tardy in returning the sentiment, but I hope that your holidays were as joyous and fulfilling as mine. · Katefan0/mrp 16:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom evidence pages

Re: this edit - as it says, clearly and (literally) bolded at the top of the page -- If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user. This is to prevent edit warring and long back-and-forth discussions which produce unreadable, useless evidence pages. Please respect the rules. Raul654 17:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Look at the DeeCeeVoice case - you'll see it can work. There are better ways to avoid edit wars (like growing up for example) than trying to respond to personal attacks in a parallel universe. The Long established practice for such is to respond to each witness at the end of their evidence. I haven't see a good reason for that recommendation. I think it defies logic and creates an atmosphere in which ridiculous accusations go unanswered - in fact, I reject that format out of hand. (speaking of rules - what about the rule that says one should file an RfC and an RfM before filing an RfArb? - ah I see, shoe on other foot, now rules are made to be broken. We play Nomic here, we make joke. Benjamin Gatti 19:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the purpose of my comment. This is not a debate, nor am I asking for your input as to how we should format arbcom evidence pages. I am telling you that if you want that evidence introduced, you will follow the format as we have layed it out, or the evidence you have introduced will be summarily deleted without being considered. Raul654 21:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)