User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 15

CheckUser

Looks like Gibraltarian has slipped by the semi-protection again with this sockpuppet: GBZ (talk · contribs). Could you follow up again and see if he has more out there? Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 07:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, he is now sending me SIXTY emails a day with the message "UNBLOCK ME NOW!!!". He somehow thinks he's not in violation of any Wikipedia policies, despite the fact that he refers to Ecemaml as a "racist" and a "vandal" every time he posts. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: G thinks that it's perfectly okay to call someone a troll/racist/vandal/etc. if the statement is true. I get "mood sick" everytime I see his disturbing remarks, so I do not want to be heavily involved in this. --TML1988 00:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Mr Bauder, I aopogise in advance for posting on this page but I wondered if I might ask you a question. I made formal complaints and asked for arbitration against what I saw as the deliberate vandalism by Users CJCurry and his confederate HotR to articles I had written or contributed to. To the best of my knowledge those complaints and requests of mine have vanished into thin air. However, they have now requested arbitration against me (!) on fairly spurious reasons (sockpuppets) rather than on fundamental substance. Yet their requests have been met. Is this an example of clear and absolute Wikipedia bias? Robert I 08:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned arbitration?

Hello Mr. Bauder, I am interested what happened with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Proposed decision, it seemed to run out of gas and stop completely. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts.Travb 09:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irismeister's back :-)

Hello Mr. Bauder! Irismeister's back. Hang on :-)

help

Hi Fred, sorry to bother you, but... I saw that you checked the person named at User:Dijxtra/Sock. Is there any way to get relief from this person? I have reported him on vandalism in progress, on the Admin notice board... trying to track and repair this user is very time-consuming and frustrating for me. One of his names was blocked, but he could care less. Is there any way to just block his IP range for a good long period? I have not stepped through Mediation to Arbitration and so forth, must I do that, considering that the user is either demented or a clever troll? Thanks. Herostratus 03:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is difficult, several others are using his ip range. No point in mediation or arbitration, just have to keep blocking him for short periods. Fred Bauder 03:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

But tracking him is too-time consuming. (BTW I saw that he recently put the "indefinite block" templatate on Jimbo's user page, several times.) I guess in that case, my inclination is to call the Chicago Public Library and give them times and IP's and try to get his library card revoked... which I hate to do because for all I know its all he has. Still, I can't really tolerate this guy anymore. Is there any Wikipedia policy or anything that I shouldn't do that, do you think? Herostratus 04:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get the folks at the Chicago Public Library to cooperate. I would be happy to help. Often there is just no response to inquiries like this. Fred Bauder 15:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I warned the user without effect and just sent an email to the CPL. As you say they're probably too busy or unwilling to bother with it, we'll see. If they can't help, I can't believe there's nothing to be done. The user has frequently stated his intention to continue his vandalism "forever". Perhaps a week or two block of the range, unfortunate for our useful CPL contributors or not, might drive him off? Surely that's possible, I hope. Well let's wait and see if its necessary. Herostratus 10:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siddiqui

Siddiqui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Eliezer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Dominion of Melchizedek

Fred, the DOM article is once again being reverted by Johnski and his marry band of twits. I know right now that the arbitration committee is in flux, but is it possible to ask for a temporary injunction? These individuals will no longer respect the process. I would appreciate it if you could let me know. Thanks.. Davidpdx 08:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cartesian materialism

The arbitration for Cartesian materialism was really requested by me because Alienus and I are locked in a dispute and there are only the two of us involved. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Deadlock_with_two_contributors_-_response_to_preliminary_arbitration . Requests for comment and third party input have been unsuccessful. I would like to be shot of this matter and move on to other things (I think Alienus would as well) but we both believe that the other is wrong. For me it is a matter of principle about the structure of articles. Please save us from this deadly embrace! loxley 14:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my mind about this dispute, at first I thought that the other party had a genuine interest in the subject but it is now clear that something else is happening, I added this to the arbitration request:

Arbitration on Cartesian materialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Not_a_content_dispute.2C_just_straightforward_bullying

This is not a content dispute, just straightforward bullying see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/06_12_2005_Alienus_and_Loxley_edit_war_over_Dennett_and_Philosophy_of_the_Mind#Final_mediator_recommendations_by_Nicholas_Turnbull

I would like to reinstate this request.

1. I have added all the content for this article. It cannot be a content dispute.

2. Alienus refuses to talk specifically about any point, including the new data that obviates his objections.

3. The mediation concluded that the dispute involved bullying.

4. The article is the victim of an evil troll who is simply teasing me.

Please do something. loxley 09:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug/Workshop

I've added some proposals to the workshop on the RJII arbitration. You might want to check them out; I'd be interested to hear your comments on them. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:robertjkoenig

Robertjkoenig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Zorro_redux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) KK_Utah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Template:Gibraltarian

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian

As per the request at Wikipedia:Bot requests, Uncle G's 'bot is ready to prepend this template to the talk pages for all IP addresses in 212.120.224.0/21. Just say the word. Uncle G 18:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EffK request to Fred Bauder

Hi Fred, please help per this request to Arbcom. I cannot load my Evidence page, for some while now (seriously it won't load), so could you please see that this is taken into consideration as per my request for substitution of the diff presented instead on the Evidence/talk page -ready to paste.I ask you as an Arbitrator in good standing to effect my substitution of one diff, somehow. Refers to my recent diff of : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=36111579,[[1]] into my Evidence/Talk. I do hope that you can advise such that this be achieved.The browser fails currently at 1.38 Megs. Since this is an open admission that user:Str1977 is actively guarding the WP from me, it is highly relevant. If you cannot substitute this diff as an outside Arb, I ask you yourself to present it as relevant evidence, in neutral terms you chose. otherwise could you simply remove the very last EffK diff, leaving the short accompanying text surrounding that diff.Alternatively place it at the beginning of my evidence, and the last 100 diff would become defunct,no? If there is some reason you cannot do this, or make a substitution at my request to you as Arb, would you please let me know -Thankyou. EffK 19:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denver

Can you vote for John Denver on the Article Collaboration Drive? Thanks. Carolaman 19:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerking

I've posted comments on talk pages before, but I got the feeling that I was tossing them down a black hole. Since many of the edits I made were purely aesthetic anyway, I just went ahead and made them. A good example was the RFAr where, in the section for confirmation that all parties were aware of the dispute, a lazy petitioner said "I posted to their talk pages". Since some of the talk pages were extremely long, I went and found the diffs and added them. Anyway, I don't particularly care who does this work, just as long as someone is doing it. It seems like it ought to be done. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 21:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copperchair is back

I've added to the evidence on the RfAr. It seems that 196.40.38.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and Copperchair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are either the same person, or the new anon is a meatpuppet (both Costa Rican, both Star Wars fanatics, etc.).--chris.lawson 22:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Arab-Israeli War

Your views on the ongoing deletion of good sourced content, references and footnotes and the addition of dubious material and original research to this article would be much appreciated if you have time. --Ian Pitchford 22:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Ayers

Jonah_Ayers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jonah_Ayers Sock_check_request_-_User:Jonah_Ayers Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment_-_Jonah_Ayers.2FBiff_Rose

Congratulations (or condolences?) on your re-election/re-appointment

We don't always see eye to eye but here's wishing you all the best of luck in carrying out your duties. ++Lar: t/c 21:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from me as well, and you'll be sure to hear from your local Signpost reporter soon... ;-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much deserved congratulations! And thank you for all your amazing hard work to date. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Fred! You'll be great for the job (again). --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Owl.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Owl.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

dbenbenn | talk 01:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Roles

Hello Fred. Thank you for leaving comments about ArbCom on my user page. I appreciate the work you do for ArbCom. I would still strongly suggest separating the police/investigator functions away from those who have the duty to adjudicate. Couldn’t the investigation (deletions, checkuser, etc) be done by some of the 800 admins? They could then participate in the arbitration as witnesses, sharing the results of their investigation. This would protect the independence of the arbitrator.

Best of luck with your work on ArbCom. If I can help in any way let me know.

Edivorce 01:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred says:

"You take the common law position. I take the civil law position which I consider more likely to do justice, remembering that we do not do justice, per se, but attempt to craft whatever decision advances the progress of the project."

- I think that is right(civil/common). Many European civil law, maybe Islamic law too, do combine investigation with adjudication. Sometimes it slips into common law jurisdictions too, as in special masters or some administrative hearings. I remember I once represented a guy in a Michigan unemployment hearing. I called a witness and and hearing officer said "I don't need to hear it, I know all about it." I was lost. I didn't know what else he knew or didn't know. My subjective experience of the event was that it was oppressive--and we won the case. I sincerely think the common law has the best of it in this matter. --Edivorce 02:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltarian

He just used a sock to try to introduce a RfAr case against me. I removed it. If you don't want me doing that, let me know. The part that continues to slay me with him is that he's still acting like this is me versus him when he's now been blocked by I think 6 or 7 different admins. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I suggest that you look over item #8 of the "Finds of Fact" section on this case (Misuse of Arbitration-Only Pages) and cast your vote on that one. --TML1988 23:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting!

Hello there! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my arbitration commitee nomination. Although it was not successful, I appreciate the time you spent to read my statement and questions and for then voting, either positively or negativly. Again, thank you! Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 22:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin and Hitler

In my own family both death and disability struck at the hands of Hitler rather than Stalin. Obviously you have encountered the folks most people have never heard of attitude I was reacting against in your own life. Living in Honduras has somewhat modified my own former more anglo-firstworld view, where indeed the deaths of unknown peoples can be frighteningly easily dismissed, SqueakBox 00:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

For fixing the links. Hope you read them as well:-) Zeq 15:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freestylefrappe ArbCom Inaccuracy

Hi Fred,

I noted this on the workshop page, but I'm not sure if you saw it. In the finding-of-fact on the Stephenj block, the sentence "Karmafist had posted a warning [14], but no repetition of the offense had occurred" is not accurate. Karmafist actually posted that warning after the block, as the timestamps show. -- SCZenz 23:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Proposed Decision

I'm not sure in what cases parties can edit the proposed decision pages (if at all), so I figured I'd make a note here that I added a header that you missed when creating the Proposed Decision page on Freestylefrappe's arbitration case. The diff is here: [2], and if this is not allowed, I apologize- feel free to revert me or change the header as necessary. Ral315 (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred.

I don't know if it would interest you but there is a vote to delete a template called Defban which is used to deal with vandals who post defamation on the site. Splash doesn't seem to grasp that it is not a breach of no legal threats but a template created after consultation with some arbcom members to protect WP from defamation postings and to make sure those posting such stuff know they are leaving themselves legally at risk of being sued. I'd be interested to hear your opinion. It is on WP:TFD. Merci, FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Practical Editing Question

I'm working on significant edits of the Mediation article. I've begun by posting comments on the talk page signaling my intention to make changes. My question is: What is an appropriate period time to wait for responses? I would appreciate your advice. --Edivorce 14:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Thanks, Fred --Edivorce 16:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser

Hi, I don't know how many hopes I have to go through to get this, but you are listed on the CheckUser_policy#English_Wikipedia as having authority to check a user.

Could you check and see if TDC and CJK are the same users?

They currently have a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez outstanding for Ruy and are both against him.

I would like to request that you please keep your comments on my request to this page, as both users monitor my talk page.

I don't care if they find out, but it would save me hassle if they didn't know yet.Travb 22:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too late. CJK 22:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time Fred. I guess the cat is out of the bag.Travb 23:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost interview

Hello, Fred Bauder/Archive 15. I hope you don't mind taking a few minutes out of your busy Arbitration schedule to answer a few questions for the Wikipedia Signpost.

How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?

I take the role seriously. We are apparently destined to become a major human institution and our decisions should be made with a awareness that "The whole World is watching." Fred Bauder 15:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?

I was pleased with it. I was quite liberal in supporting candidates, which I felt free to do as I could vote as many times as I wanted. This included the chance to support users who had a statement I liked or thought might make a good arbitrator despite having no chance at being elected or selected. Fred Bauder 15:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?

I am thankful for the appreciation for my efforts expressed by supporters and will take seriously the criticisms expressed by those who opposed me. Fred Bauder 15:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?

With one exception I supported all of them for the role and I'm not sure that one won't make a fine arbitrator. Right now I am just observing their behavior and comments. Our new crew is rather untried. After a few hard, and perhaps contested cases I'll have a much more informed opinion. I may not candidly share all aspects of that opinion with the community. We need to maintain good relationships between us, not form permanent factions based on disputes on how to handle a particular matter. Fred Bauder 15:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of Jimbo's decision to re-appoint yourself, JamesF., and Jayjg? What would you say to those who opposed this decision?

The appointed members have done good work. His appointment is based on that. I would say we need some continuity and experience. Fred Bauder 15:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After a week on the job, what are your initial thoughts?

It's interesting to see arbitrating personalities emerging. Fred Bauder 15:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?

Most of our disputes are over how to do things in the most common sense way. That goal, doing what serves Wikipedia's needs and purposes, is a strength. Meandering off into collateral issues, which I may do myself from time to time, is a temptation which weakens our efforts. Fred Bauder 15:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?

I would change our procedures to require arbitrators "sign up" for those cases they intend to work on. And calculate votes from that total rather than from the whole committee. Although we do not know who at this point, a certain number of the arbitrators always turn out to be more or less not involved. This results in a lot of begging them to look at cases and vote. Much better if unless they signaled participation they were just not considered involved. Fred Bauder 15:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts on the clerk's office? Do you support it? Why or why not?

I have always supported anyone presenting evidence and making proposals on the workshop page. This is only a slight extension. I have opposed any internal proposal that the work of our clerks would not be out in the open for folks to see and comment on. Opening and closing cases is just paperwork. Fred Bauder 15:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?

I will probably finish. Might run again. I feel I am contributing to a significant project.

If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why?

Please consider negotiation and mediation. Fred Bauder 15:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything else you would like to mention?

Gotcha is a dirty game. Don't play it. Fred Bauder 15:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your recent selection. By no means feel obligated to answer all (or any) of the questions; though we'd appreciate it if you did. An article featuring your responses will be published on Monday. Thanks a lot, and don't hesistate to ask me if you have any questions at all! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If some of the questions look familiar, feel free to skip them; I reused some questions from last time. Thanks!

?

What does the Arbitration Com. do? Wiki eZach 03:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Public Library vandal

Hi, just to update you on the George Reeves vandal front, since you investigated this user... George Reeves and 1998-99 NBA season (recent target) recently had to be protected, by Curps and GregAsche respectively. I have just appealed to Curps, GregAsche, and AJR for a long-term IP-range block, and I repeat that appeal to you. I have written to the library but, as you say, I'm not optomistic... I'm not super pleased that I had to spend time on all this tonight, I had hoped to make some edits instead... Herostratus 08:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Public Library vandal

Hi Fred, just to update you on the George Reeves vandal front, since you investigated this user... George Reeves and 1998-99 NBA season (recent target) recently had to be protected, by Curps and GregAsche respectively. I have just appealed to Curps, GregAsche, and AJR for a long-term IP-range block, and I repeat that appeal to you. I have written to the library but, as you say, I'm not optomistic... I'm not super pleased that I had to spend time on all this tonight, I had hoped to make some edits instead... Herostratus 08:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to also be using a large Illinois internet provider. I think permanent semi-protection may be the only practical solution. Fred Bauder 16:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK, I didn't know that. I'm not certain that permanent semi-protections is a good idea, because he goes after articles pretty much at random... witness his vociferous attack on 1998-99 NBA season, of all things. At least if George Reeves and his other favorites are unprotected, I can pick him up there and then follow him to his other targets. This is not good. I'm surprised that there is no solution. This guy enjoys jeering that he cannot be be stopped... its disappointing to find that that is true. Surely this sort of thing has come up before? Are we really hostage to people like this? I believe him when he says that he will never stop, because he's obsessive. Can we not block that ISP? Or are they likely to be unresponsive to a request for action against him? I will try at any rate. Dknights had to suffer a reprimand for "edit warring" with this guy and which is so unfair... enh. Herostratus 17:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnski Arbitration Case

I wanted to take a minute to comment on your vote on the Johnski arbitration case. First of all, it appears there probably are now enough votes to close the case. That case (along with many others) has been stalled for a month now because of the arbitration elections. Meanwhile, Johnski has been aggressively editing the article, with little or no consequence. I was able to get an administrator to block him, although that likely will only been a week at the most.

Second, I think the suggestion that semi-protection not be indefinite is limiting at best. So far, the arbitration committee, has not (in my opinion) given any deterrent to those editors who constantly whitewash the article to stop. Mind you, these same editors are probably DOM agents (although this is not completely verifiable) pushing what is essentially is scam. This means, the problem will continue to be an ongoing issue which possibly will have to be revisited by the arbitration committee in the future.

Personally, I think the integrity of Wikipedia has to be taken in to account. There are at least nine other people who jointly filed this RFA (complainants) which agree that these editors are posing a problem to the community. If an arbitration committee sits idling by and gives the appearance of not giving a damn, then we as editors have to wonder why we are wasting our time fixing the articles where an editor is aggressively POV pushing.

These comments aren't meant to be an attack, but a wake up call. All I'm asking if for arbitration committee members to look at the history of the dispute and take it seriously. I'm very leery whether this arbitration decision will do anything to help the decision. Maybe I wasted my time filing it. If anything, I think the decision that is being made needs to be strengthened, not made weaker as you are suggesting. I've made some suggestions as to what can be done on various pages for this arbitration case and for the most part they have been ignored. It is disheartening to spend so much time trying to fix something and be told my suggestions don't matter. Thank for hearing me out. Davidpdx 14:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KnessetP.R.Guy

KnessetP.R.Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Problems with Eliezer & OpenInfo

Fred, I have tried editing the article and these two guys have an absolute strangle hold on the article. They do not allow dissenting views. I assure you, they will only revert my edits to their anti-Messianic propoganda as they have done in the past. Ultimately, they will only block me permenantly and continue strangling the article. If I knew I would have a fair chance at editing the article, I would be very happy to make it neutral.KnessetP.R.Guy 20:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is entirely untrue. This article has been edited by numerous people, from both sides.

However, when a Messianic supporter comes on, and claims to be representing the Jewish point of view, his edits will be watched carefully.

The fact is, that based on KPRG's edits, he is definitely not neutral. In fact, he simply uses force and the Wikipedia equivalent of yelling to get his points across, by erasing other people's edits, and putting his points on top.

Yes, KPRG is Israel. However, he does not accurately reflect the Jewish point of view. I have been researching Messianicism since 1990, so that is over 15 years.

I have talked with Jews from all over, and other than Israelis, have not met ANY Jews who agree with Messianicism, or legitimize it. This includes Jews who are self-proclaimed AGNOSTICS, who get very upset when they hear about organizations trying to convert Jews. OpenInfo 01:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Ril-

Some months ago you moved to lift the community imposed ban of -Ril- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In the months since that decision he has made virtually no useful contributions to Wikipedia, and has instead spent almost all his time persecuting a small group of editors and their contributions, myself included. This user is doing nothing to help improve the encyclopedia, and is also likely banned user CheeseDreams. Can someone simply ban this fellow, or do we have to go through another arbitration round? - SimonP 21:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, further to your question to Simon, my old name was User:-Ril-.

In response to Simon's statement above,

I lecture and perform research at and for a university. During term time I am unavailable for much in the way of substantive edits, for obvious reasons, and this is why "in the months since the decision" I have not been available to write or contribute to articles substantively - the months "since the decision" are also the months "where I have to spend a lot of time dealing with students as well as my own research (in historical linguistics)" and the month "where I go and visit my parents due to it being christmas".
I can only be said to have "persecuted" (as Simon calls it):
- Mellisadolbeer, who is obsessed with her own, unique, and totally original research, theory about the origin of the Gospel of Matthew, that she expounded at Authentic Matthew.
- Kar