Three revert rule  FYI the three revert rule starts with This guideline applies to each person See WikipediaThree revert rule    FYI it further states A growing consensus is that since the mere incidental fact of one side outnumbering the other does not alone make the majority right each side of an argument should be limited to  reverts per day    Hang on Where did you get that from It doesnt say that at all Instead it says the exact opposite RR specifically does not apply to groups   If it does not say that now then someone has been changing the policy to suit their POV it was there last week    So when will an admin block cheese so that we can go back to editing an encyclopedia   Arb Com election   So when will an admin ban Sam Spade so we can go back to editing an NPOV encyclopedia    I cant seem to find a version of the article that says that Please point it out to me as I would find it interesting to know who included it      Please dont delete or edit other peoples comments   CheeseDreams please dont delete or edit other peoples comments on the Talk pages Youve done it to me personally twice now that Ive noticed once in the talk page of the Cultural and Historical Jesus and at least once before on the WikiprojectJesus discussion page when you made most of the discussion of Christology in the strikethrough font You seem to be relatively new to Wikipedia so Im asking nicely Say what you need to say but let others say what they say and let their words stand on their own Thank you   If you mean a comment in the summary that is because I summarised the text Your comments can be viewed at archives   And on WikiprojectJesus I struckthrough but did not delete items which had been actioned This is the standard practice for todo lists is it not     I meant the comment on the summary itself encouraging people to read those archives instead of relying on someones summary On WikiprojectJesus the text you marked as strikethrough were not part of a todo list it was a discussion of whether to do anything with Christology at all In both cases it appears that you were trying to delete or conceal my objections to your proposals rather than actually respond to them Maybe that wasnt your intention but it certainly had that appearance   It already says that the full text is in the archive and that the summary is by me and disputed by you Wrt the wikiproject if you note the talk page you will see that I struck through everywhere that there was discussion which I had actioned If I had intended to delete or conceal your objections I would merely have deleted the text or put    tags round it     Also regarding your summary of Slrubensteins comments yanking someones chain doesnt have anything to do with masturbation in the US at least when used in the context Slrubenstein used it It just means he wondered if FT were saying things just to get a reaction from him Thats probably an honest misunderstanding between the two of you but it might be helpful if you acknowledged it and corrected that part of your summary Thanks     If Slrubenstein agrees to retract his uncivility toward FT such as charicature of a nut ar eyanking my chain your reasoning is specious and ignorant and apologise for them then I am perfectly willing to remove the comments from the summary Until that time they remain since this is how I and other nonUS remember that the majority of english speakers are not in the US readers read the text  I have also just looked the phrase up in a slang dictionary and cannot find an alternative meaning to the phrase     I agree most English speakers are outside the US so its a very understandable misunderstanding Here are links to a couple of definitions that I think are better than the one I gave and probably closer to what SLR meant httpwwwurbandictionarycomdefinephptermyankoneschain and httpwwwozyvoyuercomaussieslangdictionaryhtmlY The second looks Australian so its not a strictly UScentric usage     Arbitration  Thanks for pointing me in the direction of the RfA A lot of familiar names in that crew I dont know that Id call them a cabal but I know what you mean Theyve learned that the best way to push a POV is to gather a small gang The way Wikipedia is structured its easy to subvert consensus by doing so Ill try to have a look at whats passed and if I can comment constructively Ill do that    Regarding arbitration CheeseDreams I was not implying at all that I didnt agree that I should recuse myself  I did so as I hope you noticed  I was noting that it is Arbitration Committee practice for someone involved peripherally in a dispute or directly of course to recuse themselves and that in the past no one has needed to prompt arbitrators to do this  Were intelligent were committed to fairness and we police ourselves pretty effectively in this regard  I was just wishing youd have given me the courtesy of waiting to see if I would recuse myself from the case rather than assuming I wouldnt  I will note though that the standard you suggest is generally considered too high for arbitration here  In a case like yours its obvious that with so many involved parties in a relatively small community all of those people will know at least one arbitrator  mere acquaintance does not require an arbitrator to recuse  We recuse when were involved in the case itself or when one of the involved parties is either a long time enemy or close friend  If arbitrators could only hear cases involving users they had never before encountered we couldnt arbitrate any case effectively  Just thought Id offer my thoughts and let you take them as you please  On another note I am not sure if it was you who wrote the phrase cabal of fundamentalists in your arbitration request but if you did Id suggest to you that it might be wise not to use that phrase  The list of users who oppose you includes at least one very dedicated atheist and at least one other person who is openly hostile to Christianity  characterizing the list as fundamentalist will be seen as a blanket generalization  Obviously you can do as you please but I think other users will notice the word and the users as I did and be confused or else draw negative assumptions ie characterizing atheists as fundamentalists might be seen as an indication that one is hasty to judgment etc  Now Im sure you dont much like getting a note from me so Ill disappear but if you ever do feel like talking I want you to know that Id be happy to  As I hope you can see above Im not out to get you  Id like to understand you a little better and Id like to be able to work with you productively if I can  If youd like to talk about it drop me a   Thanks    Unlike most of the arbitration committee as far as I am aware you have actually engaged in debate over controversial issues with me I regard that as being an involved party    No I wrote the phrase cabal of fundamentalists please note the quotes around the word fundamentalist I have absolutely no issue with getting a note from you   Im glad  heres another note then  You seem to misunderstand me perhaps Im not communicating well  I have agreed with you on two separate pages already that I most certainly am an involved party  I dont want to sound at all rude but I have to admit that your continued responses to me are making me wonder if you understand what I mean when I say that I have recused myself from the case  If I am wrong please forgive my suggestion  But if you are unclear on what it means it means that I have openly declared that I am an involved party and that I will not offer any arbitrator opinions or any votes on your case should it be accepted  I apologize if it is unclear  I had thought that recuse was common in the English court system as well but I confess I do not know it well and perhaps that is the source of the confusion  As far as the quotation marks around fundamentalistwell as I said its your choice  I cant claim that I understand what difference in meaning is implied by the quotes but I dont suppose its important for me to understand  Thanks for replying nicely  I apprecia