`== Three revert rule==  FYI, the three revert rule starts with ``This guideline applies to each person``. See Wikipedia:Three 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 3 reverts per day``    ::Hang on. Where did you get that from. It doesn't say that at all. Instead, it says the exact opposite: ``3RR 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 can't 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 don't delete or edit other people's comments ==  CheeseDreams, please don't delete or edit other people's comments on the Talk pages. You've done it to me personally twice now (that I've noticed), once in the talk page of the Cultural and Historical Jesus, and (at least) once before on the Wikiproject:Jesus discussion page, when you made most of the discussion of Christology in the strikethrough font. You seem to be relatively new to Wikipedia, so I'm 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 2-5.  :And on Wikiproject:Jesus, 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 someone's summary. On Wikiproject:Jesus, 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 wasn't 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. :::W.r.t. 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 Slrubenstein's comments, ``yanking someone's chain`` doesn't have anything to do with masturbation in the U.S., at least when used in the context Slrubenstein used it. It just means he wondered if FT2 were saying things just to get a reaction from him. That's 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 FT2 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 non-US (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 it's 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: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=yank+one's+chain and http://www.ozyvoyuer.com/aussieslangdictionary.html#Y. (The second looks Australian, so it's not a strictly US-centric usage.)     ==Arbitration==  Thanks for pointing me in the direction of the RfA. A lot of familiar names in that crew! I don't know that I'd call them a cabal but I know what you mean. They've learned that the best way to push a POV is to gather a small gang. The way Wikipedia is structured it's easy to subvert consensus by doing so. I'll try to have a look at what's passed and if I can comment constructively, I'll do that.    Regarding arbitration, CheeseDreams, I was not implying at all that I didn't 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.  We're intelligent, we're committed to fairness, and we police ourselves pretty effectively in this regard.  I was just wishing you'd have given me the courtesy of waiting to see if I would recuse myself from the case, rather than assuming I wouldn't.  I will note, though, that the standard you suggest is generally considered too high for arbitration here.  In a case like yours, it's 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 we're 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 couldn't arbitrate any case effectively.  Just thought I'd 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, I'd 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 (i.e., characterizing atheists as ``fundamentalists`` might be seen as an indication that one is hasty to judgment, etc.).  Now, I'm sure you don't much like getting a note from me, so I'll disappear, but if you ever do feel like talking, I want you to know that I'd be happy to.  As I hope you can see above, I'm not ``out to get you``.  I'd like to understand you a little better, and I'd like to be able to work with you productively if I can.  If you'd 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.   ::I'm glad  here's another note then.  You seem to misunderstand me (perhaps I'm not communicating well).  I have agreed with you on two separate pages already that I most certainly am an involved party.  I don't 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 ``fundamentalist``...well, as I said, it's your choice.  I can't claim that I understand what difference in meaning is implied by the quotes, but I don't suppose it's important for me to understand.  Thanks for replying nicely  I apprecia