User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 31

Email

Tried to send you email, don't know if it got through. If it didn't, please send me email. --Ideogram 13:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise proposal

Hi, Fred. I note that the vote is deadlocked on the arbcom proposal for probation re:

disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, edits against consensus, and POV forking.

I think I've done pretty well on my self-imposed 40-day "no edit-warring" period. I've only rarely made a 1RR or 2RR edit in the last 6 to 8 weeks.

How about putting me under Mentorship instead of probation? If an experienced user could guide me when I lapse into OR or "POV forking", that would help me a lot more than be slapped with a block. I need to understand why a particular edit is Wikipedia:Original research, and coaching would help me here. Also, I'm really unclear on what the criteria are for Wikipedia:POV forks. Surely it's more than an overwhelming majority vote. If someone could point out why a particular article is evading NPOV or otherwise violating the "no POV forks" rule, that would be a big help too.

Anyway, whatever the committee decides is fine with me. I just thought I'd make a suggestion. Thanks for listening. --Uncle Ed 15:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find Ed's above comment to be interesting since he seems to continue with his earlier behavior, including [1] which seems to be more of the same tendentious editing, in this case either a major misunderstanding or deliberate misinterpretation of what another editor said on the Global warming talk page. He also seems to be continuing to involve himself in pretty much anything related to FM to the point that might constitute wikistalking. See most recently this JoshuaZ 17:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And is now trying to get the same RfC deleted after it has been endorsed by multiple users: See [2]. JoshuaZ 17:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed has arrived at Talk:Paul Weyrich and has engaged FM. I would appreciate it if an admin kept a close watch on their interaction. --Ideogram 19:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fez

Well, Fred, we've had a spirited workshop and I hope some good can come out of it. There's really very little I can do except stir the pot but I did see one place where a technical solution may address some concerns. With this in mind, I've created {{fez}}, {{User wikipedia/Clerk}}, and of course the fez itself. I'm sure it all seems a bit silly but in some way a silly fez has been required of minor functionaries down through the ages; it's how we know they're minor functionaries. I think it's way out of range for the RfArb itself but you might sort of slip it to Clerks, if not outright require its use to avoid any possibility of confusion. Perhaps they will themselves edit it a little to suit their taste but there doesn't seem to be much occasion for a personal custom note. Don't you agree?

You'll recognize another user's comment that prompted this petty effort of mine; he's against the very notion of Clerks but then, we have always had petty officers wearing fezzes of one sort or another. May as well accept it. Good luck with the RfArb. John Reid 09:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a simple "Tony Sidaway, clerk of the Arbitration Committee" would serve. Fred Bauder 10:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, the fez is important. People live for symbols. Have Clerks wear the fez and you'll see: much less annoyance directed at them just for doing their official duties. Trust me on this one. John Reid 11:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honda S2000 ArbCom case

Any chance of getting other arbitrators to contribute? This case really ought to be sorted out asap, and it's been almost a month since it opened, AND no other arbitrators have even left a comment on the page. I hope you can help move this case forward to a conclusion asap, thanks!! Jsw663 17:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin

SlimVirgin is apparently so upset with my comments on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Proposed decision that he chose to revert them off the page rather than responding or simply ignoring them. I ask all interested parties to advise him to stop this unproductive behaviour. --Ideogram 04:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sussexman, User:Robert I et al

Now that the Gregory Lauder-Frost page has been deleted will the numerous Users who supported his position be unblocked? I mean, they cannot all be accused of sending the same letter can they? From what I can see their "legal threats" amounted to what they saw as firm advice. Has any clear evidence been provided showing they sent letters to anyone at all? But anyway, given that the GLF article has now vanished presumably they could be placed upon probation again? 81.131.14.8 08:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a list of blocked users? Fred Bauder 11:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka

Nandesuka is now reverting my comments off the page. --Ideogram 17:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Harrassment, talk page vandalism, and non-consensus changes to guideline"

I wish to point out that the issue specified in this arb case (the proposal Wikipedia:Non-notability) has been resolved about a week ago through a straw poll which found 71% in opposition to the proposal. It has been marked as 'rejected' by an uninvolved party, and debate has died down and moved to some essays on the matter. >Radiant< 18:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Development

Sorry is posting here is improper, but I just wanted to make sure you noticed this post from today (now reverted) [3]. I've presented it as new evidence of a continued problem [4]. It supplements evidence already submitted [5]. I make no further comment. --Doc 01:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether it is ethical to engage into personal communication with the arbitrators on the issues of the ongoing case. There are reasons why the public pages of the case are there and the reason is that all comments and rebuttals are highly visible to all parties. Therefore, I refrained from contacting the arbitrators directly like Doc just did above. But if I was wrong and such contacts are allowed, I will then follow up with my thoughts. Thanks, --Irpen 02:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You, or anyone else, is free to contact the arbitration committee. The wholesale way is to mail to the arbcom-l list, arbcom-l@Wikipedia.org Fred Bauder 11:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, thanks for response. IMO, sending a private communication to the arbitrators is only appropriate in few exceptional cases such as submitting the evidence whose nature does not allow to make it public. Otherwise, I would consider such communication unfair as private statements related to a specific case cannot be rebutted by the other side. You may remember that I expressed support earlier towards the greater transparency on how ArbCom cases are decided, such as making the recusals meaningful (currently recused arbitrators privately discuss the case with the non-recuses ones at arbcom-l). Because of my view that secret communications with the arbcom members are unfair, I will not follow on your suggestion of contacting the arbitrators by email about the ongoing case. The only time I emailed to all arbitrators was when I was trying to implement a sensible, IMO, ammendment to ArbPolicy on the very same issue (meaningful removal of recused Arbs from the case).

Anyway, since contacting itself is not a problem, as I thought, here is one of my conserns. I am expressing it publicly at your talk, so anyone can see. IMO, there is a certain inconsistensy in the current version of the final page of the case. The "Finding of fact" section contains a statement related with InkSplotch's being or not being a sockpuppet. However, it is unclear from the decision page why her being a sock or not (and of Kelly or not) is at all so important as to warrant a special clause in the finding of fact section. There was a proposal at the work shop on the principle about using socks for ArbCom matters. This proposal did not make it to the final version of proposed decision. However, without something said on the matter in the principles section, there is a confusion of what this "finding of fact" doing there in the firs place. Thanks, --Irpen 17:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My post here is hardly a private communication. However, since it has attracted criticism, next time I'll use e-mail, for which I will not be criticised.--Doc 13:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I prefer open transparent discussion, that is fine. Fred Bauder 13:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, I totally agree with you regarding the preference for transparent discussion. This is exactly why I think that communication to arbitrators in relation to the ongoing cases has to take place at the case page and its subpages rather than by trying to contact arbitrators directly, either by email or at their talk pages. Emailing, IMO, is only appropriate when submitting the private evidence. Here Doc posted something at the page and to add weight to his statement chose to attract the Arb's attention to it by contacting him directly. I saw that an attempt to give an opinion an undue weight. In real courts no party of the case are allowed to talk to jurors or judges in private, except in very limited circumstances. I've read of several mistrials declared when such communication was discovered. --Irpen 03:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naked short selling - authoritative reference

It's long, but it is the position of all fifty state securities regulators on the matter. If you have an interest in a full and honest treatment of the topic, this letter from the North American Securities Administrators Association is worth reading. Thank you for your time.

http://sec.gov/comments/s7-12-06/jpborg7410.pdf

72.192.56.93 05:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)securities professional[reply]

Thanking Kelly

Fred, Am I right in thinking that thanking Kelly specifically for her positive contributions is a way of not saying anything about her other contributions? Regards, Ben Aveling 05:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an in depth analysis of her role in the Userbox war would result in an expression of gratitude. Fred Bauder 12:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't remember thanking Everyking during desysopping despite the unquestionable multitude of positive contribution. --Irpen 06:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I generally supported him, voted for him to be an arbitrator in the last election, but no we did not properly thank him. This had to do with what he did though; attack sites are not real popular. Fred Bauder 12:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you handle disagreement by affiliating with those who are trying to harm Wikipedia, it is to be expected that Wikipedia will withdraw trust. Fred Bauder 12:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that his affiliation with an attack site was totally inapropriate. In deciding to desysop him, the ArbCom saw no need to "thank" him for his great work around here (the fact that he did a whole lot of great work as well is unquestionable). We have a very symmetrical case here. Multitude of Kelly's actions were highly inappropriate as well. At the same time ArbCom unprecedently makes a separate statement of thanking her. This simply seems strange. She is not the first user who has both good and bad sides. She is the first one who, while punished for the bad sides, is also thanked for the good ones. Isn't it a strange action? --Irpen 03:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, she was an arbitrator. Fred Bauder 12:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't see how this makes a difference. --Irpen 19:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone understand the machinations of the reigning Arbcom? Giano 19:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not machinations, genuine gratitude. Fred Bauder 19:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I understand correctly, Everyking deserves less gratitude, and that's why the kick in the ass he got did not have to be sugar-coated, unlike the Kelly's one. --Irpen 19:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know to what extent, if any, the /Proposed Decision is based on any user-proposed language in the /Workshop, but I will take the credit and/or blame for being the first one to propose thanking Kelly Martin for her service here - which I proposed to do in the context of and secondary to a sentence taking note of her departure. It frankly didn't strike me as being something controversial (though of course I don't claim familiarity with everything she ever said or did here or elsewhere). Net net, the current /Proposed Decision is more strongly directed against Kelly Martin than my proposal, by making express that she left amidst controversy and may not regain her admin status on WP:EN without going through a new RfA. In the current draft, the "thank you" stands out a bit because it's isolated in a separate paragraph, rather than being combined with the substantive remedy, which I think is a result of drafting by committee (literally) more than anything else, but I still don't think it's intended as a controversial part of the decision (as opposed to the one-week ban of John Reid, which still troubles me enormously and which I may bring before Jimbo). Newyorkbrad 19:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Stalin_exile_1915.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Stalin_exile_1915.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of it. --Irpen 19:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Ellis blocked

I have blocked Arthur Ellis for making personal attacks on the Rachel MArsden arbitration case; most specifically reverting this edit [6] after TheronJ removed it and warned him. (There are other attacks in the recent history of the page, I believe). The block is for 24 hours, but feel free to release it early if you wish to allow him to continue to particpate on the workshop page. Thatcher131 16:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't take it well. [7]. Thatcher131 16:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

For offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rachel Marsden

Thank you for your comment. I have already been much more careful about blocks since then (the Ellis block was actually just in my first week as an admin and I was perhaps too quick on the block button in some instances).--Konst.able^Talk 23:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFAr GreekWarrior

Hello :-) Does the GreekWarrior case need Proposed enforcement to log the ban if it becomes necessary? [8] FloNight 23:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ED Links

So this link [9] in that context is a bannable offense? Humbug. SchmuckyTheCat 18:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link deletions

Thanks, Fred. Much reduction in controversy if someone far uninvolved from the original fracas makes the link changes. Georgewilliamherbert 08:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have duplicated the whole page. Software bug? I've tried to fix it, but you might just take a look to check that what I did was what you intended. I removed the second half, in the assumption that it was identical to the first half, but of course I didn't do a word-by-word comparison. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 09:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted a page doubling on my talk page as well, this seemed to happen on a few places. Also, what's the point in removing a letter from "ED", rather than simply delinking everything? I sure hope we're all still allowed to write it? --Conti|✉ 14:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, if you want to disable links to ED from my talk page, super. If you want to go through my talk page and insert a bunch of spelling errors, not so super. I'm fixing the spelling back up, and I'll be sure not to leave any live links. Please let me know if this is a problem, thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my talk page has all the correct spellings back now, and no links to ED; all it took was a couple of "nowiki" tags. Thanks for pointing out those links; I had forgotten all about them. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Dramatica links

Why are you modifying dozens of pages that aren't even in article space to invalidate links to this website? I understand the efforts to avoid importing ED problems over to here, but you're modifying archived discussions, which has no effect but to break things for people reading them later. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went and found the RFAr after I made that comment -- you might want to make a more explicit note somewhere of the justification for your actions--I was tempted to call the misdirection of dozens of links to invalid pages vandalism. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination) is in pretty messed up shape after your edit; the page got duplicated and filled with misspellings. Could you run your filter so it only affects links instead of every mention of the site? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

asking for you opinion

As this diff [10] shows, user:Jayjg actually reverted a post I made to WP:AMA member user:Amerique. He also reverted a communication attempt I made on his own talk page [11]. While he may claim that "blocked users are not allowed to edit", I believe that just deleting sincere and civil attempts to communicate from his own and especially on any other user's talk page is extremely rude and very dubious, taking into account the nature of my message to Amerique. I'd appreciate your comment. blocked user:Subversive_element, editing from IP address: 84.44.175.97 15:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I off base here?

I trust your opinion, in particular on this matter. Have I been stalking or harrassing Mongo? He is claiming so and threatening to do something about it. [12]

I think I'm on the "attemptedly constructive and legitimate criticism" side of the line, but I'd like a third party opinion. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 22:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links to ED

Instead of linking to encyclopediadamatica.com, which is a parked ad site, could you remove the links altogether? I ask particularly regarding the Wikipedia Signpost pages you changed, but also all pages that link (used to link) to ED. Ral315 (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also looking over the changes... whatever you used to make them also changed the word "dramatic" to "damatic" in a bunch of unrelated text in some of those articles. That would appear to be a potential oops... Georgewilliamherbert 22:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the actual changes to the phrase "Encyclopedia Dramatica", I mean accidental catching variations on the word "dramatic" elsewhere in articles.

Look at (for first example on my open taskbar...) [13]

The changes for ED proper further down are all as expected, but the first change listed was an unrelated instance of the word "dramatically", which also got changed. I spot-checked a bunch of things, and found a bunch of instances of this. Whatever your algorithm was reached a bit too far... Georgewilliamherbert 22:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of IP address 193.253.29.71

I noticed that you blocked that IP address for a month, over a single edit to Bogdanov Affair. According to the decision regarding that article, a first offence shouldn't result in a block longer than a week.

Please reconsider the length of the block to the IP address. Eli Falk 17:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homey

He was not allowed to edit using additional sockpuppets (sockpuppets that used open proxies) and IPs, was he? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, Fred, believe me. I'll try to think of a more rational way of working this out. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he doesn't have a formal status, it's difficult to prevent Homey from causing disruption. I guess we could respond to any actual disruption just as we would with any other user, but do we really want to sit back and hope that it doesn't happen? Just as a suggestion: maybe formally putting Homey on probation or banning him from a few articles would be a good compromise between a community ban and no ban. Kla'quot 01:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could stop looking for excuses to punish him for non-offenses. Just a thought. CJCurrie 04:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could stop looking for excuses for him, period, CJ.

Fred, HotR promised a number of people, including you and Jimbo I believe, that he'd edit in a non-controversial way from now on and would stick to one account. That was how he managed to avoid a community ban, which many editors were in favor of. Jimbo deleted the HotR user page, per HotR's request, with the words "courtesy delete based on promise of good behavior going forward." [14]

Even as that promise was being made, HotR was already breaking it; he edited uninterrupted with sockpuppets with a view to causing disruption — e.g. at animal rights articles with User:Farnsworth J and User:Farnsworth J., where he tried for several weeks to insert that animal rights activists are anti-Semitic fascists. He did this only because he knows I edit animal rights articles. He then tried to add the same material to New antisemitism, again because he knows that Jay and I, and some other editors he targets, edit there.

Jimbo deleted HotR's user page on August 19, so the promise of good behavior was presumably made to Jimbo on or around that day, yet Farnsworth J. (with a period) edited from August 13-18 and Farnsworth J (no period) from August 22 to September 18. I suspected Farnsworth J was HotR as soon as he started editing, because of the disruption and the reverting (and because of some other distinctive HotR trademarks), and I asked him on his talk page if he had edited with any other accounts; [15] he replied that he had edited as Farnsworth J. (with a period), but he did not say he was HotR. [16] This suggests that his intention was to be deceptive, which is a violation of WP:SOCK.

HotR wrote about the Farnsworth accounts in a post to your page (that he subsequently removed [17]) as though there was nothing disruptive about them; but anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that the animal rights movement is not a bunch of anti-Semitic fascists — if they had to be categorized, they would mostly be left-wing anarchists. As Farnsworth J he spent his time reverting against multiple editors; disrupted Animal rights and New anti-Semitism; had to be warned about 3RR; [18] and threatened to take me to the ArbCom because I removed from New antisemitism (with the agreement of all the other editors on the page, from all POVs) that European bans on halal and kosher meat were motivated by anti-Semitism (which was part of his "animal rights activists are anti-Semites" thing). [19] This is what passes for good behavior from HotR.

He uses each IP and account for only a small number of edits so that it's difficult to trace his overall contributions. This is also a violation of WP:SOCK, which says: "Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail ... it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions." [20]

He has now turned up again as at least three IPs, and possibly one account, and is trying to restart the whole Apartheid outside South Africa dispute — which he was responsible for in the first place — by anonymously undoing merges that were agreed upon. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. He seems to think there's a group of editors who want to stop him from editing completely, but there really isn't. People simply want him to edit non-disruptively and with one account. What's the best way to propose such a motion? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean about the best way to do it is: would it have to be a full RfAr, or could it be filed on the RfAr page under Requests for Clarification, given that the last RfAr against HotR was put on hold because he had supposedly left? My thinking is that HotR would turn a full ArbCom case into a circus, so it would be good to avoid that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be enough that he be asked to edit logged in from one account, and be placed on probation so that admin action can easily be taken if he doesn't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last RFA case against HotR was specifically and explictly in regards to Admin powers only. Therefore there are no grounds for the course of action Slim suggests as there is no question of admin powers here. I would be more than happy to login to an account if the practice of declaring such accounts "sockpuppets" were to cease. SV is trying to exact punishment for content disputes. This isn't on. There is not a single edit I made yesterday which is in violation of any rules. If I am wrong, Fred, please specify the edit in question and indeed the only problem SlimVirgin had with the Farnsworth account was a content dispute, if there was another problem she would have launched and RFA but it was only when she suspected the account was run by me that she took action, through an Checkuser request that was immediately fulfilled by her friend despite the fact that there was only one account in use. There are grounds for an RFA case into CheckUser abuse but nothing beyond that. If Fred follows the course SV suggests it should not be of the limited and self-serving scope SV suggests but a full fledged case that looks into CheckUser abuse by Jayjg and SV (by proxy).74.98.234.104 12:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, as you know, Jimmy's correspondence with me *yesterday* made no mention of probation or any administrative sanctions against me. SV is overreaching and overextending. 74.98.234.104 12:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#The_user_known_as_Homey Fred Bauder 12:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fred. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, SlimVirgin omitted to tell you that the prior ArbComm case dealt *only* with Administrative powers and this was explicitly stated at the time. Therefore it is completely out of process to move a motion on a "previous case" in this manner. There therefore must be a full ArbComm hearing or none at all and that full hearing must deal with Jayjg and SlimVirgin's behaviour as well as my own. 74.98.232.108 12:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would work out very well for anyone. Fred Bauder 13:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the only course possible if you believe in due process. You can't put someone on probation when they haven't even been convicted, particularly not over a case that dealt with a completely different range.

And I see SlimVirgin is at it again [21] any IP address I use is a "sockpuppet" and if I opened a new account that would be declared a sockpuppet as well. Fred, explain to me why, under these circumstances, I should ever create an account again? 74.98.232.108 13:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply keeping a list of the IPs you use so that people can track your contributions, and so that anyone requesting a check user will know which IPs to compare any future accounts to. If you start editing with one account and stay logged in, there'll be no need for it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You and Jayjg have created a catch-22 situation where I cannot use the HotR account because it's anonymity has been compromised on Stormfront and elsewhere and because I do not have the password but where if I log into a single dedicated account it's declared a "sockpuppet" and banned. You've thus made it impossible for me to edit from a logged in account but that's not enough, if I edit without logging in the IP address is edit from is also declared a "sockpuppet" and added to the sockpuppet page. Congratulations, you've got me coming and going and all despite the fact that I am not a banned user. 74.98.232.18 13:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And by opting for an a la carte process with no risk of her or her friend's actions being put under scrutiny Slim is acting in a highly self-serving manner. You should not be enabling her to do this but rather acting as a neutral adjudicator. You know the use of CheckUser by Jayjg is probllmatic and questionable and that SlimVirgin's use of CheckUser by proxy is as well. She and Jayjg should not be shielded from scrutiny, particularly not as a means of giving them an advantage in a content dispute. 74.98.232.108 13:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "use of checkuser by proxy." There are certain distinctive features that occur in your editing, and that's how I know it's you. I usually know it's you within the first couple of posts, HotR, whether or not I say anything. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"There's no 'use of checkuser by proxy.'" But there is, you made an inappropriate RFCU to try to gain advantage in a content dispute, one which your friend, Jayjg, conveniently and immediately acted upon, and you have also, habitually, asked Jayjg to run check users for you. Jayjg also habitually runs CheckUser as a favour to his friends upon request by talk and email. 74.98.232.18 13:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the promise of good behaviour to Jimbo you have never seen the emails in question and you are making frankly wrong assumptions about what those emails contained or what "good behaviour" referred to. It did not refer to editing behavior or content disputes and certainly not to editing content in a way SlimVirgin doesn't like which is how you have self-servingly interpreted it. 74.98.232.18 13:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, I am not a banned user and it is not the practice to list IP addresses of users who do not have userids and are not banned, therefore keeping a list of IP addresses I've edited from and particularly including them on a "sockpuppet" page is a form of harassment and intimidation. 74.98.232.108 14:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's past time for this harrassment to end. In the past half-year, certain editors have attacked HotR with dubious 3RR blocks, dubious accusations of sockpuppetry, and dubious administrative charges. Now, he's being threatened with sanctions for a non-offense. Does anyone seriously believe this is fair and just? CJCurrie 19:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to require that HotR stick to one account and make a reasonable effort to always log in before editing? I don't think that sounds like a sanction, but it would be an improvement over the current situation. SlimVirgin, Jayjg, myself, and everyone else would have to also agree to not treat that account as banned, unless it gets banned in the future. Kla'quot 06:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, Jimbo and I are negotiating with him. Fred Bauder 13:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. Thanks Fred. Kla'quot 16:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]