User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 32

Baiting

Well, we've waded through a lot of wordage over /Giano. I've tried and failed to understand the intensity of your criticism of my language. Yes, it was harsh; it's a harsh situation when a trusted servant runs amok. I've put rather more effort into understanding you than a youngster would; I've been wrong, stupid, or rude too many times in my life to think I can't be so again. And I think I may just have a tiny corner of the sticky tape under my fingernail.

You cited a specific diff of mine [1] as "baiting"; I place it in context:

It's a completely nonsensical question. A "call for this statement of fealty from our trusted servants"? Come off it. It's sheer lunacy. Bureaucrats serve the encyclopedia, not you or me. --Tony Sidaway 03:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I beg to differ -- with courtesy but most seriously. All you have done in your comment is convince me that if you were a b'crat, I'd have to ask you to stand for recall. John Reid 11:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that you don't object to hostile language per se, at least not at the level I employed in my other comments. Here, I've certainly not been nasty; I've used no foul language. Tony is a red hair away from calling me a lunatic and I've bent over backwards to respond with courtesy.

You're objecting to something else and you call this "baiting". I'd like to know exactly what you mean and how I can avoid it in future.

Tony made a statement which I consider, were it to issue from the mouth of a b'crat, immediate grounds for recall. B'crats serve the community which has elected them -- period. Any b'crat who has a different opinion has gone right off the rails and should be taken out. You'll recall I proposed a workshop remedy for Taxman on these grounds -- I might well have proposed Taxman is de-b'cratted but I did not feel his statement of disloyalty was sufficiently strong and, well, sometimes half-measures really are best. Still, ArbCom has the power and the duty to remove admins and b'crats from office who abuse the trust placed in them by our community. Additionally, the community has the right -- and responsibility -- to ask officers to step down when we no longer feel they serve our needs. Do you disagree with any of this?

I can't decide if the rather antique tone of words like "fealty" upsets you or others -- or if it should. B'crats are elected by the community to serve the community; this relationship is one of subservience and is naturally described with words such as "fealty" and "loyalty". In some ways, it is an archaic relationship, as when a vassal swears total obedience to his feudal lord. The difference is that, in modern times, the sovereign is the community itself. The principle of unswerving fealty is unchanged: obey or be cast out.

Make no mistake: I am not an aristocrat. WP:NOT a lot of things but it seems to me that it is a ramshackle-group-consensus-led body. This may not be a democracy but it is not an aristocracy, either. It is a blind to say, "we serve the project". That is either code for "we serve Jimbo and the Board" or it is a statement of autonomy. I say b'crats serve the community and through the community, the project. Tony clearly disagrees; Taxman may; I'm not certain of your position.

I do think you know my position clearly, though. I want to know what each individual b'crat thinks -- and not at obfuscating length, either. I want each b'crat to state who is his master: our community, Jimbo, or himself.

It's a valid question to ask; and we have a right to expect a civil answer to the question. Nobody should be embarrassed or ashamed to state where his loyalties lie. Please tell me exactly how and where I should frame this question so as to satisfy your concerns. John Reid 07:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You are treating colleagues as enemies, demonizing them. Fred Bauder 13:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure I shouldn't do that. I don't want to demonize or dehumanize anybody, even a rogue b'crat; but a b'crat who does not respect the authority of the community is indeed a thorn in the side of us all. Any effort to improve process is fruitless if those empowered to carry it out, disregard it. We need to find out if any b'crat sincerely believes he is autonomous and, if so, remove him from office. We do not need to insult him on the way out. I have done my best to concentrate on action, rather than humanity; but I have, at least in your eyes, failed.

So, I ask you, as a respected community member, recognized for wisdom and temperate language, how I may rephrase my inquiry into the values of our trusted servants so as to avoid any avoidable offense. I'm sure that you will not point out my fault without offering a remedy. Thank you. John Reid 15:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is more that they feel entitled to use their discretion, in close cases, than that they think they are autonomous. Fred Bauder 15:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Fred, I asked humbly for help and you're not forthcoming. Why? I'm not here to ask you about the substantive issue; if I've gone on at length on that issue it's only to summarize my thoughts because I'm asking you for acceptable language in which to frame them. I intend no offense to say that, at the moment, I'm not interested in your take on the issue. I do understand that you have a problem with the manner in which I expressed myself; I hope you appreciate that. I'd like to think that my willingness to admit fault and seek improvement is meritorious in your eyes. I'm verbose but not always tactful and this is a very difficult area in which to be tactful. I assume that since you have felt free to criticize the manner, tone, wording, or approach I have taken, it is because you are able to improve upon it. I seek to learn.

You and I may disagree on the substantive issue but that should not stop you from bending to lend a hand to a polite request, should it? I'm sure you do not assert I am forbidden to challenge my trusted servants in any way, using any language at all. It's merely that I am personally unable to think of a civil way to go about it. Will you not take the time to educate me?

I'm sure that someone might read irony or mockery into my request; we have a long and disgraceful tradition in the English language of sarcastic questions. Be assured that I do my very best at all times to say exactly what I mean; I write nothing between the lines and there is nothing there to be read. I don't believe that anyone can demonstrate an acceptable framing for my inquiry better than you can, so it is you I ask for help.

Here is the very best, direct, honest, and polite phrasing I have been able to generate, to be asked directly of a b'crat: Do you obey the community, WMF Board, some other authority, or some combination of the above; or are you autonomous? I'm sure you can do better than that and I await your improvement. Thank you. John Reid 07:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobs01?

Fred, in re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others

Ruy Lopez has posted to arbitration enforcement that he thinks Nobs has been editing from IP addresses. I'm not familiar with the case but I skimmed it and the IP's edits do deal with spies and the Venona documents, among similar Nobs-like topics. The only records I can find is an old checkuser Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ColonelS in which you indicate knowledge of Nobs' geographic area. The IPs Ruy has ID'd as Nobs suspects are from Tucson, Arizona. Do you think this is sufficient proof to declare evasion and reset Nobs' one-year ban? Thatcher131 00:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Fred. Thatcher131 14:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Blanking of user pages etc

Hello, I am not certain at all if you are the person to ask about this, but since I am not going to be participating here any more, I would like to ask that the user pages for "Musikfabrik" and "Jean-Thierry Boisseau" be blanked.

I would also appeciate, at some point in the future when the decision has been reached and that everyone who needs to see it has been informed etc, that the name of the case be changed to something else, and that the references to my name be blanked since Jean-Thierry Boisseau is my birth name.

Perhaps you might be so kind as to pass this on to the correct person if you are not the person to handle this? Thanking you in advance. 87.231.242.188 17:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"I would also appeciate, at some point in the future when the decision has been reached and that everyone who needs to see it has been informed etc, that the name of the case be changed to something else, and that the references to my name be blanked since Jean-Thierry Boisseau is my birth name." I don't quite see what the justification for this might be. It would surely cause quite a lot of confusion, and I cannot see the justification for striking Boisseau's name from the record books. He chose his username, didn't he? Moreschi 12:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience forks

Fred, do you want the particpants to open user conduct forks now, or only after the current case is voted through and closed? Also, perhaps you should indicate that the clerks will open cases upon request made at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration (given the complexity of opening and listing cases). Thatcher131 16:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

After the proposal passes, if it does. Fred Bauder 17:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience fork

I'm an interested observer (and a kibbitzer :), though not a named participant) at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, and I note that you have proposed "forking" the case to deal with policy issues separately from the user behavior issues. Is this a fait accompli, or does it require a majority of arbitrators? FWIW--I think it's a good idea--my primary interest is in the policy aspects, rather than the behavior of individual editors, or in the outcome of this particular content dispute. Just curious... --EngineerScotty 17:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It requires approval. Fred Bauder 18:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to express concern over such forking in that many of the policy aspects seem to be not obviously within the scope of the ArbCom jurisdiction. JoshuaZ 18:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

In what way would it be outside jurisdiction. If we have jurisdiction over the entire matter, how would we not have jurisdiction over a part? Fred Bauder 18:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Splitting editor behavior into separate cases is probably the most efficient way to handle it. I think the content issues can be handled by a simple declaration that wacky ideas have their place, but wikipedia is foremost a reference work. Assuming editors can follow our long standing policies and not act out against each other, that should be enough. -- and I think the genesis of this case is not in the fact that our policies are unclear but in the fact that some editors were unwilling to accept them. Unfortunately the evidence and workshop pages are focused almost entirely on content issues, not behavior. I tried to keep on top of the case and formulate some workshop findings on editor behavior but I frankly didn't have the stamina (for reasons off-wiki as well as on). Thatcher131 18:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm more worried by how the workshop page is going more than anything else. If the ArbCom doesn't intend to rule on content matters most of my worries are satisfied. JoshuaZ 18:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

How could we rule on sophisticated physics questions? Fred Bauder 18:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, the ArbCom cannot determine which theories have scientific validity. You might be able to establish firmer precedent in ways in which policy is squishy. (You'll note that I cribbed much of of the proposed decision at Wikipedia:Notability (science)--codification of good established precedents is a useful thing to do, if for no other reason than to deal with wikilawyers who suggest that arbcom decisions have no import beyond the particular case. While "binding precedent" doesn't exist per se on Wikipedia, the ArbCom is certainly entitled to say "this is how we will likely rule in similar circumstances". --EngineerScotty 19:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes good sense. The user conduct issues in this case seem to me to be much easier to resolve than the policy issues, provided of course that one includes in this the matter of (a) editing the article on yourself and your pet theory and (b) editing policy to favour your position in a content dispute, which I think are the two things that need ArbCom. Simple edit warring can be dealt with through the usual processes of page protection and, if necessary, blocking; eventually even the most recalcitrant soapbox warrior usually recognises that it's a battle he can't win and either goes away or plays nice. Guy 20:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sentence complete?

You wrote "Obvious pseudoscience 15) Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more." Is that sentence complete? Bubba73 (talk), 20:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes Fred Bauder 21:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

without more what? Bubba73 (talk), 21:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Boisseau arbitration - suggested minor rewording

Please see my comment on the talk page to the /Proposed Decision in the Jean-Thierry Boisseau case. Per the /Workshop discussion, I think the minor rewording suggested there is in order; please give the matter such consideration as you deem warranted. Newyorkbrad 21:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Tommysun's education, Ian Tresman's actions, and why there is an arbitration (IMHO)

I am very well aware how lacking Tommy is in his education on the subjects he holds near-and-dear. As I get paid to teach astronomy and physics to community college students, I can definitely say that Tommy would benefit from an introductory education in the subjects he is excited about. Despite being uneducated and seemingly not wanting to remedy the situation, Tommy yet feels entitled to talk, talk, talk on the talkpages and when that doesn't get him attention to introduce his misconceptions into articles in a very disruptive fashion. I try to take it all in stride because, frankly, Tommy is easier to deal with than other editors coming from his perspective. While it is true that Tommy does not like to be corrected and takes it as a personal affront, even the most causal editors can tell there is something "off" in the way he presents himself. He does not want to be treated in the student capacity and has made that abundantly clear. Tommy and I live in the same city, so I have offered on numerous occasions to meet with him personally to attempt to see from whence his misconceptions come. He doesn't seem to want that, instead content to continue his advocacy as you saw on the arbitration pages. I try as best as I can to ignore Tommy until his advocacy becomes too shrill or he decides to reintroduce his misconceptions into the article pages and then I do my best to explain my edits as succinctly as possible because anything else results in tirades that can last for dozens of kilobytes of text.

As far as I can tell, Tommy is headed down the road toward serious sanction. However, I'm growing tired of bringing these cases up over and over again (Reddi, Ed Poor, etc.) so I'm hoping that other editors will take up the slack, make the complaints, and spend the time necessary to document just how disruptive Tommy can be.

I'm actually more concerned with Ian Tresman who POV-pushes against mainstream experts in a much more subtle and hard-to-detect manor. His technique is to bullet point objections to almost everything that doesn't accomodate his perspective until he finds a critique that he thinks sticks which he will then continue to bring up over and over and over again. This kind of technique is much more patient than Tommy's technique but is ultimately more successful at being able to slowly introduce misconceptions into the article pages. In mediation sessions regarding the redshift article, one user in particular (User:Flying Jazz) thought that the discussions that Ian and I had were so ridiculous that he thought it fair game to criticize us both. Eventually, however, Flying Jazz began to come to the conclusion that Ian was more difficult to deal with than I (though you may wish to talk to him for his full analysis which is much more nuanced than I describe). Ultimately, Ian has evolved as a Wikipedian into someone who may be easier to deal with but still revels in a kind of "nagging" disruption that's very hard to document because it is more of a long-term thing.

Ian has cut back on editting articles quite a bit you may have noticed from his contributions page. He will avoid editting until such time as he is sufficiently ignored and then he will basically announce that because people aren't responding to his point, it must be valid and then he will add it into the article space. He'll generally try to find a peer-reviewed citation to back up his assertion (even if the paper is not well-cited, vetted, or contains obvious errors) and then complain bitterly when others (generally myself) either remove or attempt to mitigate his contribution in the article space. He will claim the protection of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, and just recently WP:BLP. Then he will lodge a complaint against the person trying to mitigate his claim which is usually looked at by administrators and often is summarily dismissed and he will go back to step 1 and begin all over again. This was the pattern that was in place when Shell decided, for some reason, that I was out of line and blocked me. That's what got this arbitration case rolling because it became clear to me that this would only get worse as the issues became more and more esoteric and harder to judge.

Sorry for the long explanation, and I would be fine with including this on the arbitration page, but I'm not sure whether it belongs there.

--ScienceApologist 14:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience individual remedies

It looks like you are pursuing individual remedies in the case rather than forking them to new cases. If so, would it be helpful for me to try and put together some more findings on the workshop page tonight (after work)? (I would not want to spend the time and then find out you were finished with the case, for example.) Thatcher131 19:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Malice

I'm sorry but I don't think that my comment qualifies as a personal attack any more than you referring to it as malicious does. Notice that I said his actions reeked of malice, not his person.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is a difference, and please do not threaten me, as it is uncalled for. There is really nothing in the WP:NPA which states that I did anything that inappropriate. As I said before, if you could say that I made a personal attack then it would be much easier to say that you made one against me.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as a lot of people are concerned Homey is under a community ban unless Jimbo says otherwise, and I find it difficult to disagree with them. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• (As far as the facts are concerned, Homey is not under a hard ban and never has been.) CJCurrie 02:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That was before he showed up with his disruptive Farnsworth sock, and his more recent disruptive edits. The facts are different now. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, as one of the cosigners of an RfAr against Homey, I'm concerned that it just sort of vanished without a trace after Homey appeared to have quit WP. This is just asking for system-gaming. Perhaps the RfAr needs to be reopened to deal with mutliple, disruptive socks. Would that settle the matter? IronDuke 02:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is agreed that he should use one account and not be disruptive. Fred Bauder 03:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

May I ask, agreed by whom? Not trying to be difficult, just trying to get a handle on the situation. I don't want to make Homey's life any more difficult, but I also don't want multiple accounts contributing to the same article, which is the status quo, AFAIK. If there's been a behind-the-scenes decision and I'm being a bull in a china shop here, do please let me know via email. IronDuke 03:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Since I blocked all Homey's accounts one time (in July I think) and said I considered him under a community ban, I think I made my feeling known. This was when he was sockpuppeting complaints about other users on AN/I, making comments on CU page using socks, and breaking 3RR with socks, among other things. I do not care if he edits with one account as long as he follows Wikipedia policy. I do not need or want to know the name of the account. He needs to be told to do this with a warning that not doing it will result in a permament ban for all accounts he ever makes until he goes through an arbcom case that reverses it. FloNight 04:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Flo. I'm starting to feel, though, that whatever account he chooses will be obvious, since he continues to edit within the same set of articles. And it becomes like a game of musical chairs; which account will Homey finally settle on? And how will we know? I totally respect his desire to becomes anonymous again, but I think his desire to keep after the articles he was previously editing make this a hard goal to attain. Also, given his apparent, multiple violations of WP:SOCK, perhaps a formal community ban is in order now, assuming it hasn't already been done. Homey seems to react with... indifference... to the desires of the community. IronDuke 04:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I would endorse such a ban. I suggesgt possibly moving this discussion to ANI or AN for community ratification. JoshuaZ 05:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that (i) the "sockpuppets" were not sockpuppets; they were alternate accounts, and were acknowledged as such at the time *by* HotR, (ii) no one, to my knowledge, has accused HotR of using sockpuppets to break the 3RR, (iii) the "AN/I" case against him was based on flimsy evidence, and there's no guarantee it would have passed, (iv) this entire situation has the appearance of a witch hunt. CJCurrie 22:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

CJ, the sockpuppets were not acknowledged as alternate accounts at the time, but only after a period of shenanigans and denials, then admissions, then claims that his computer had been hacked into, and so on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm having a difficult time believing Homey's proposal is even being seriously entertained considering all the goodwill and time of the community he's wasted not once, but many times. Homey was disruptive in a truly major way; not only did he disrupt a range of articles with biased editing, 3RR violations and sockpuppets, but he disrupted his own RFAR with sockpuppeting and bizarre claims and maneuvers to discredit those who stood up to his shenanigans. Surely the project is not so desperate for editors that we're forced to take back those who repeatedly abused the community's trust to the degree that they were ejected? I mean, really, he was just here disrupting the same articles as before as an anon last week, on the 26th:[2] I do not support granting Homey any role in the community. FeloniousMonk 05:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that FeloniousMonk blocked HotR *twice* through questionable interpretations of the 3RR, when this entire situation was starting. I will repeat, this resembles a witch hunt. CJCurrie 22:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

FM blocked Homey for entirely normal interpretations of 3RR; you then turned up at the 3RR policy to try to have it changed, but your proposals were not accepted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The sockpuppetry in itself has been extremely disruptive. I'm going to have to agree with JoshuaZ here, we should move this to WP:AN/I and propose a ban for exhausting the community's patience. Khoikhoi 05:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please, I endorse the idea of discussing a community ban at ANI as well. - crz crztalk 05:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Which is to say, I support the ban proposal itself as well. - crz crztalk 06:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, Homey needs to be banned from articles he has previously disrupted and edit with one account only. The articles are already controversial and challenging enough for reasonable editors to try to hammer out without adding Homey's wearying, disruptive behavior to the equation. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur with MPerel. And it's not enough to say that Homey "should edit with one account only." It needs to be clear what the consequences will be if he fails to stick to this radically ordinary concept. For the Israel-related articles in which he's been the most disruptive, I'd like him to be banned from Talk pages as well as from the actual article, and I'm not saying this lightly. I have never seen Homey indicate remorse for the frustration, wasted time, and pain that he his style of discussion has led to. Kla'quot 08:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The situation on Allegations of Israeli apartheid was confrontational and it takes more than one person to make such a situation -- for example, earlier today Jayjg in the absence of Homey was making very provocative statements towards another editor on its talk page, see [3], but luckily no one responded in kind and the situation was diffused. I notice also that there is a lack of an acknowledgment of Homey's valuable contributions outside of that one article. MPerel's suggestion seems extremely reasonable since it takes into account what are Wikipedia's best interests. --Deodar 17:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, user Kendrick7 was making very provocative, and arguably deliberately dishonest edits, for which he subsequently apologized, and this section is about Homey. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Assuming (for the sake of argument) that editor X is provocative, the answer is not to balance the equation by adding provocative editor Y. Thatcher131 18:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's likely because they were few and far between and in no way mitigate or out weigh the trouble he's caused the community. FeloniousMonk 17:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The previous comment is a smear, plain and simple. HotR was one of Wikipedia's leading contributors from 2003 to 2006. I can't help but think much of the current controversy has more to do with content disagreements than with concern for procedure. CJCurrie 22:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop denying the facts of what has happened and the degree of disruption that has been caused. You've been one of his defenders throughout, and indeed I believe it was you who first involved him in fighting at New anti-Semitism. Continuing to pretend there's no problem, or that the problem lies with others, doesn't move us toward a resolution. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Abusive sockpuppet

Fred, could I impose on you to run an IP check on a user account that I just blocked? It seems to be a sleeper for banned user Zaphnathpaaneah under the username of Osirica. This sockpuppet's first edit was in September and has been silent until now, starting in exclusively at Black people. Same abusive language and many of the same "buzz words." In three years of editng this site, I have never seen a more horrible, racist, bigoted troll as this guy. Check the original talk page to see what I mean. I tried to help him with a problem and he hurled the most insane abuse at me that you can imagine. If you can see which other users are on the range, you might uncover a lot more sleepers. Thanks much. - Lucky 6.9 08:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit Ban Lifted

How do I go about getting my editing bad lifted regarding the Winter Soldier Article? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Your ban will expire In early February. What is the basis for lifting the ban early? Fred Bauder 21:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Perspective on an open case for arbitration

While I have recused myself from presenting evidence per se since I know someone whose biography is directly influenced by the evidence being presented in the case, today I came across a biography (of someone now deceased and whom I only know from having cited his work in a book I wrote) in an entirely different field (language theory -- my own field). I am offering the comments I put on that biography's page just as a possible "perspective" in some of the issues that are being hotly discussed on that page:

Talk:Marcel_Schützenberger#POV-check_notes

Sometimes it helps, in issues of POV, to check to see how people are discussed in other cultures and languages. This particular biography jumped out at me. Quite an eye opener to me as regards some of the issues underlying these disputes.

Offered only for perhaps a deeper perspective.

-- QTJ 23:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

question on arbitration discussion

Hi Fred. I notice that ScienceApologist deleted a comment of mine to you on the discussion page of the Pseudoscience "Proposed Decision" page. Is this OK behavior? It will make hash of the discussion if he can remove other people's comments.Elerner 03:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I witnessed that series of events as well. Here is EL's edit. And here is SA's edit. I would conjecture that what happened was that SA grabbed the image of the section before EL saved. And then, when SA saved, the system mistakenly did not declare an edit conflict and instead just saved SA's image of that section--which of course resulted in EL's edit being lost. EL may have been editing in WholePageEditMode. These are conjectures, of course. The system has similarly mussed my edits--on both the giving and on the receiving end. Hence, I commend EL on alertly making sure that the system did not lose his edit. --Rednblu 05:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Jan Wong

I've done a bit of googling, and the anon's edit appears to be correct. -- ran (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist and whether he is being aggressive...

Could I clarify that I am not in any sense representing ScienceApologist and have said elsewhere that I agree with Shell's block of him. I wasn't intending to appear that I was making a statement equivalent to saying white is black. I was however saying that I consider his choice of words to inharmonious instead of aggressive. For example on the LTTE article I have been accused of supporting crimes against humanity committed by the LTTE and the Sri Lankan Government. These accusations were possibly by the same editor using socks and I would certainly characterise this as very aggressive. In my honest opinion describing other editors as incompetent would constitute being uncivil, but isn't very aggressive. In the context of ScienceApologist having already been blocked, in my view he should only be cautioned. I fully appreciate that you have expressed a different view. Addhoc 15:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Re SPUI

Considering section 16 (re SPUI) at WP:ANI, what would your opinion be? Would a community block (not on my part) be deserved? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Not that I intend to block him anytime soon, but would a (not highway-related) block on my part be a conflict of interest? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

RE Iran-Iraq War Arbitration

Fred can you weigh in on this one from the evidence I've posted? The editor in question won't respond and continues to revert logical changes back to his POV version. It's an edit holocaust at this point. Thanks.Marky48 01:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Fred.Marky48 03:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

re:WP:AN/I SPUI

In response to your post: [4] I think everyone is fully aware he can be banned in any area he disrupts and that any admin can impose this. I think the issue now is: should he be banned throughout the entire community of Wikipedia. Can I ask, has the ArbCom made any decision regarding a indef block if he is persistantly disruptive? It's becoming increasingly obvious that he is only here to disrupt now. While I would like to see him continue editing positively, he hasn't done so in the last month without getting a block for his edits. (I stand corrected he just made two edits without getting blocked). I would start and RFAr on this, but I'm not sure it would be accepted, or that it would just be an extention of the previous RFAr on SPUI/highways. Another issue regarding any block SPUI recieves is that he has so many followers and friends that anything he does, even ArbCom violations, admins unblock because it's SPUI. As I quote on admin from the above discussion I linked

Oppose community ban. He is hardly contributing and not really a problem now. If he is indefblocked for something he has recently done, I will unblock him after a reasonable amount of time.

This is becoming an increasing strain on everyone as it seems that he could get away with anything and eventually get unblocked because of his mass of friends. As you can see by his block log there has been many times where editors have attempted to give him long (maybe a week or so) blocks and they end up being 5 hours because of an AN or AN/i discussion saying that SPUI deserves a shorter block, in spite of him deserving the block. Admins now are not willing to give SPUI a long block, simply because they know it will get overturned shortly. Is there no policy regarding admins unblocking because of this, because this seems highly unfair. As I stated on WP:AN/I, I am willing to give SPUI another chance and am willing to work with him outside Wikipedia to improve his behavior, but what if it never improves? SPUI will never get indefblocked because of his seemingly invincible status. semper fi — Moe 04:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If an administrator, acting under an arbitration remedy, bans or blocks someone, that should not be overturned by another administrator. If they do, it is serious offense, wheelwarring at the least. But someone needs to call them on it. Fred Bauder 12:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just saw your "Motions in prior cases" section on SPUI and it wouldn't surprise me that it didn't pass. But yes, I agree that reversing a ArbCom-related block is very bad and it could result in deeper trouble for admins. If this motion doesn't pass, there should be some kind of limit in regards as to how many blocks he should be able to recieve before a block becomes indefinite. semper fi — Moe 21:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)