User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 53

IP block due to suspected COI

Fred, on October 12 2007 Yamla blocked an IP range because of suspected COI at the Fellowship of Friends article. A discussion was started at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard but Yamla hasn't participated for almost 2 weeks. Meanwhile, the IP block is affecting 3 editors of the page. Could you help decide if the IP block is appropriate? I am one of the editor affected by the IP block and strongly feel that Yamla's action was too harsh. Thank you in advance. Mfantoni 07:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Is 142.205.0.0/16 it? Fred Bauder 12:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

G di S

Fred, you probably already realised, but Gio's got himself indef blocked. Just thought you might have missed it. The Rambling Man 14:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll be staying away from this article . It would appear there is a large difference in opinion about what is a good BLP between different editors. Even since your edit, the version has been changed again to the one containing the fraud conviction etc. Earlier today I had not realised there was such a conflict of opinion, as I had simply been reacting to what I saw as good, properly sourced material from a reputable publication which met BLP criteria being deleted. I was not aware that this may not be the case, or that there was still a dispute about it. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. AlexSloan 15:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject China

Hey Fred, Could you clarify or elaborate what you meant here? Regards, nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 16:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-election?

Do you intend to run for re-election to the arbitration committee (as your term expires on December 31)? Picaroon (t) 23:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

See the section labelled "Question" above. Viridae^Talk 23:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For doing a lot of good as a Wikipedia:Arbitrator; and for knowing when to let someone else have a chance. :-) AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

How to post a violation?

Regarding the ArbCom decision involving DreamGuy_2, I have never reported anyone for violations of the restrictions placed upon the user in question. Should it be directed to the admins affecting the decision (of which you are one), to the clarification subpage, or to the specific ArbCom page regarding DreamGuy_2? I have noted the user in question using anonymous IP addresses to edit within the Jack the Ripper article and repeated uncivility and personal attacks, despite being given numerous chances to adopt a more professional tone. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. the resulting violation complaint can be found here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Arb-com

I applaud you, and I hope the rest of Wikipedia ensures this is a standing ovation.

Fred, I respect your decision not to run again, and I'm not going to insult you by attempting to change your mind, but someone has to say thank you for all the hard work you've done, and you'll definitely be missed, if only by me. There isn't a barnstar around here that could sum up what you've done for Wikipedia in your time on arb-com, but, well, it'll have to do. Steve block Talk 17:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I want you to know that though I haven't agreed with you on everything, I respect you immensely -- you're a stand-up guy, and you've put countless hours into a job for which you don't get near the credit you deserve. Your work, and your input, will be missed. Ral315 » 03:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Q&A Page

Editors recognize that the Arbitrators do not have time to follow, in real time, all of the diffs on all of the pages of all of the arbitration cases. Editors recognize that questions that they would like to ask the Arbitrators would usually get no response, or a much delayed response, if asked in one of the several talk pages of the arbitration. In response to this, many editors will message Arbitrators directly on their talk pages, which garners a much faster response.

The problem with doing so is that, consequently, discussion relevant to the Arbitration is split from the remainder of the discussion. Those who haven't watchlisted Arbitrators' talk pages might not even be aware of the communication. I think that this is problematic, but I would like to suggest a solution.

I believe that a Question and Answer Page (by whatever title is appropriate) would be a useful addition to Arbitration. There, users could ask questions, and arbitrators could reply as needed. This resolves the current problems: it provides a clean space that arbitrators can readily keep track without getting lost in tens or hundreds of daily diffs, it allows users a place to ask a question and reasonably expect that an Arbitrator will see it, and it keeps all of the discussion within the Arbitration, instead of allowing it to get scattered across Userspace where some participants might not see it.

If you think this is reasonable, would it be possible to add it to the current Science Apologist and Martinphi Arbitration that is currently ongoing? Thank you for your consideration. Note: I am canvassing all active arbitrators on this issue because I feel that this is a neutral suggestion. Antelan ^talk 06:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Stalin

Please don't remove images of real monuments. And feel free to add images from Nazi concentration camps into Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Hitler articles before u include such stuff into Joseph Stalin. Av0id3r 23:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Dattorro

Hi there Fred. I believe that a couple of weeks back you were involved in cleaning up after the edits of Dattorro (talk · contribs), who had been warned and blocked for harrassing another user and inappropriately posting information/links to external sites revealing personal details of that user. It seems evident that Dattorro has resumed this behaviour, this time using the anon ip addresses 70.109.217.17 (talk · contribs) and 68.9.194.183 (talk · contribs) to post links on various user talkpages to a page on his website containing the same or similar personal details about that other user.

When you unblocked Dattorro last time, it was with the comment that he "Understands not to post other user's name"; I dunno whether as a result of any direct dialogue or extracted commitment, or whether on the basis that he should understand given the adequate warnings against it. In any case I've reblocked Dattorro (and the ip) after this latest spree.

I gather the last time you used your oversight capability to erase the personal info details posted about the other user from the records. Would you therefore kindly take a look at those anon edits and erase the edit summaries, which show the link to his site and the personal details therein? Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Make WP:VANDALISM less vague, define "deliberate" & "good-faith effort"

Would you comment on Wikipedia talk:Vandalism#Make it less vague, define "deliberate" & "good-faith effort", please? Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 22:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Advice required

Fred, could you please take a look at this thread here [1]. It seems to me that things are spiralling out of control - Vintagekits may not be the amongst the best of our editors but he is far from the worst. As you were heavily involved in the terms of "The Troubles" you probably have a better understanding of the complications than most. I think it is possible that Rockpocket is getting things a little out of proportion and needs to have some things explained to him, not least that perspective, tact and diplomacy may be better than the sledgehammer. It already looks as though One Night In Hackney has walked away in disgust. To Vintagekits Rockpocket is red rag to a bull and Rockpocket is fully aware of this - it all smacks of the goading that brought about this case in the first instance. This needs stopping ASAP. Thanks. Giano 22:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: A slightly earlier thread is here [2] when others were trying to calm Rockpocket too, he seems unable to see a balanced view on this or give an inch. Giano 23:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this situation, but Rockpocket is one of the calmest, most reasonable editors I know, if that helps. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned that he is becoming over-stressed and over-involved - this now seems to have become an all engrossing personal crusade - he needs to take a step backewards for his own good. It looks like Brad is making some sound suggestions on Rockpocket's page. Giano 23:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I know nothing about this, so I probably shouldn't be speculating, but I wonder whether it's a situation where an uninvolved admin tries to take action, the target starts accusing him of various things, he defends himself, and suddenly third parties think he looks too "involved." I've seen this happen to many admins, and often the targets of the admin action do it deliberately in order to neutralize an admin who knows a lot about them. I'm not saying this happened here, because I've no idea whether it did. I just know that Rockpocket is a good admin, very reasonable person, and great editor. If he's getting stressed, there's probably a good reason for it. But yes, you're right that he should probably step back for his own sake, regardless of how it developed. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That sums it up pretty well. Tyrenius 01:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

When you have a day or two to spare read up on "The Troubles" arbcom case it was pretty stressful fo all involved. Rockpocket took the Arbs decision pretty hard and is having a problem accepting it, and I think is determined to make his prophesies come true. It's difficult for all concerned. Giano 23:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask that when asking for impartial advice you provide facts rather than your uniquely coloured perspective, Giano? Unless your are my wife or psychiatrist, whether I "took the Arbs decision pretty hard and is having a problem accepting it" can be nothing more than a reflection of your own prejudice. You do not, and cannot, know that, and I would appreciate if you would refrain from offering amateur evaluations of my emotional state. If you had bothered asking me, or even read my comments on the Arb decision, you will note exactly my feelings on the matter:

Its not single edits here and there that result in Vk's ongoing conflicts, even though those are what are provided as evidence. Those are simply consequences of his rumbustious editing style and I don't think it is even possible that will change. This is why I supported an indef block last time. Nevertheless, that hasn't happened and its not as if ArbCom were not provided with evidence of his style. Thus we can only assume they do not consider that a good enough reason to restrict someone from editing. So instead we deal with the problem using the additional remedies ArbCom provided. Despite what Vk will tell you, that doesn't mean trying to get him blocked, it means ensuring he keeps within the terms of his probation and keep him from further disrupting the project.

It is no secret that I supported proposals to maintain Vk's indef block. I have stated that a number of times and explained why I feel that way. But mainly its because I think, personally, we spend way too much time indulging incivil, impolite people who abuse Wikipedia and Wikipedians for their own ends. However, there are plenty of things on Wikipedia that I think are incorrect, yet still am perfectly content to respect our rules, mechanism and policies even when I disagree with them. I believe my record, as kindly pointed out by SV above, reflects that and to suggest that I have suddenly decided to hound out one editor by "goading" them is absurd and entirely uncharacteristic. It is even more absurd if you consider I was the one who told Vk I would do my best to ensure he wouldn't be blocked if he came clean about the sock and meat-puppetry he indulged in. I am the one who unblocked Vk from an indef block previously (even after he issued a threats of violence against me). Do you really think those are the actions of someone "out to get" Vk. I mean, if I wanted him gone, those would have been the perfect opportunities to do so. No, those are the actions of someone who has spent a significant amount of time and effort trying, and failing, to ensure Vk can work successfully in our framework without causing disruption. I am trying to do the same now, using ArbCom's new remedies.

The fact is, my sole motivation is to ensure ArbCom's remedies/our policies are enforced. This has been my stated motivation from the very beginning and all my actions have been towards that end. I consider these claims little more than a tactic by Vk and his group of supporters to marginalize those who are most familiar with his record (I believe that because he did exactly the same thing with John (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)). I do find it frustrating, that this campaign has been afforded credibility by individual who are well meaning, but have little experience of the bigger picture.

I would also ask those to consider that the edits made by Vk that sparked this storm were incivil, were clearly a breach of the ArbCom probation and were endorsed by a number of other admins. That seems to have been forgotten in the rush to condemn me for getting involved inappropriately. The reason I issued that warning because no-one else did. So what is more of a problem here? The admin that warned an editor, correctly, than he had breached an ArbCom remedy, or the editor who caused the disruption in the first place, and then caused more by an extremely petulant, incivil response to the warning? The disparity in response to these is the only thing I had any emotional reaction to, and I find it typical of our community, which appears to respond to drama much more robustly than responding to boring, but persistent, core policy infractions.

Nevertheless, I appreciate that, irrespective of why and by whom the erroneous perception of a vendetta has been propagated, it is something that has needlessly drawn the attention of good editors away from improving the encyclopaedia - the very definition of disruption. This is not helpful and that I regret. I also appreciate that any actions by me are going to be declared unfair by Vk (and his loyal supporters) and thus the effectiveness of them would be debatable. I understand that, though disagree with legitimizing it. I am left wondering at what message we are sending: that editors with such atrocious records of abuse, harassment and incivility can essentially veto admin action my mounting campaigns to discredit those who issued them (twice). That the efforts of (if I say so myself) an admin with a pretty damn good record of politeness and policy adherence are to be demonized on the claims of an editor with a record like this.

To close, I understand the principle Giano is promoting, lets give Vk a final chance. Notwithstanding this is his third final chance, the other two which he blew spectacularly, I am not adverse to that. An indef block is probably only going to lead to more sockpuppetry, so a policy compliant Vk is a better out for the project. No doubt about it, but both of those options are better than the Vk we had before ArbCom. So what I am adverse to is the principle of wiping the slate clean and treating clear repetitions of disruptive behaviour as if it is is a one off, or an isolated incident. It isn't. Its the nth time. Vk's record does not go away just because he was unblocked, and when the same sort of behaviour starts up again just days after being placed on promotion, I see no good reason at all that probationary measures should not be used, when that was what they were proscribed for. Therefore while I'm desperate to walk away and never set eyes on Vk again, but I'm also extremely persistent and I have not put, literally, days of my life dealing with the incredible amount of disruption the behaviour of Vk (and others) have caused this project, only for it to start up again because we are not putting ArbCom's remedy to work. If someone can convince me that is seriously being done and there are admins committed to putting that work in watching the edits of the subjects of this ArbCom then I have no problems going to them with any concerns. However, the "army" of admins that are supposedly watching Vk are actually watching his talk-page, and respond to the resulting drama rather than responding to his edits. So, Fred, I respect your opinion and and am happy to heed your advice on this issue, however when considering this please remember ArbCom's remedies likely will stop disruption, but only if properly enforced. If those who are willing to engage are to step back, please make sure there is a mechanism in place to ensure that enforcement happens. Until such time I hear otherwise from ArbCom or such a programme is in place, I intend to continue to monitor the Troubles articles. However, out of respect for concerns voiced by trusted colleagues, I will ensure that any action from me with regards to these ArbCom remedies is run through a completely independent, experienced and trustworthy admin to ensure my fairness and perspective is unaffected by my alleged "vendetta".

I'm sorry to take up so much of your talk page, but wanted to make my definitive statement on the subject here, in response to what I consider to be an enormously hypocritical, agenda driven request ("perspective, tact and diplomacy" is something Giano clearly values). I'm happy to discuss it further private, but will not be engaging any further publicly, as I feel there is little more to be said from my perspective. Rockpocket 04:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Block rockpuppet and ban his admin prvleges —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.51.69 (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

CAP subsidy cuts

I noticed you added a news item to the CAP page regarding the potential loss of farm subsidies to large farmers. Unfortunately, the article you reference has a somewhat anti-monarchist stance and all the landowners you mention as examples are members of the aristocracy. If you look at [3] you will see that the people you mention do not seem to appear in the top 20 list of major recipents of farm subsidy(though it is difficult to be sure since the entries seem to call themselves 'farms'). This issue has been the subject of freedom of information requests to extract the information about who gets the money, so there ought to be better lists somewhere. However, your current list of examples is plainly pushing a POV and needs some re-balancing. From memory I think the farmers guardian list is more likely to be accurate, that commercial operators will top the list of subsidy recipients. Sandpiper 01:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The RPA for Scotland is publishing a list for 2006 [4], but the corresponding agency for england either seems to have a website problem (it has a 'click here' which does nothing), or is being very coy about its information. Sandpiper —Preceding comment was added at 01:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think obtaining money under the CAP has absolutely nothing to do with competence as a farmer.Sandpiper 15:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure whether you are interested in a debate on the CAP, or just staring in disbelief at a crazy system. It is one of those things designed by a committee....The requirement to carry out farming is quite modest, essentially only to ensure that the land remains clear of major overgrowth (ie bushes and saplings), so that it could be farmed just by going at it with a tractor in a normal farming way. I'm not sure how bees are getting on. The idea of recent reforms was to cut out schemes for all and sundry odd things, but this may be more of an aspiration (reluctant aspiration, at that) than a completed event. Personally, we were very excited to get our first ever subsidy cheque when the new system came in, for a whole £75 (for a year). Once the transition period is over this may rise by around x10 to £750. The government was thrown into great consternation by receiving double the number of claims under the new system as under the old, which naturally their computers could not cope with. The changes in rules made a lot of small landowners eligible (a lot= 60,000).

Our neighbour with a real more typical traditional size family farm may get x10 again, £7500, maybe £10,000. That isn't a huge wage, but it goes quite a long way towards making one if you want to be a farmer. If you wanted to buy such a farm it would likely cost in the region of £500,000-£1,000,000, which perhaps puts the income into perspective. It only makes any kind of sense if you are the dedicated sort who has inherited a family farm, or made your money in the city and decided to retire early, and want a rural life. As you might gather from the scale of the large payments mentioned, they are farms of thousands of acres.

The subsidy naturally increases as the enterprise becomes larger, since it is payable per acre farmed. This lays it open to the criticism that it is money going to big businesses, but equally if there is to be any subsidy on farm production at all, it is also fair to distribute it on an equal basis to all applicants. Why should people be penalised for organising their farming in an efficient way? This was originally a system intended to encourage production, not encourage inefficient practices. I think that upland areas which are rather poor for agriculture get a much lower subsidy rate. So particularly some of the Scottish, Welsh and even some higher areas of England may have large farms getting relatively little money. For example, the Royal estates at Balmoral. Windsor great park, on the other hand, is probably quite fertile farmland. I recall the queen talking excitedly about how they grew their own food in the war.

There is already a modest concession to small farmers. There is 'modulation' applied to claims above £5000, which basically means a deduction of around 5-10% used to fund other schemes. Thinking about it, this seems a very odd way to allocate and re-allocate money. Even odder is the way they go about organising this allowance for smaller farmers. Instead of just paying us our £75, they deducted about £3 which was then paid to us separately later in the year. It seemed likely the adminstration cost would have been bigger than they payment. Sandpiper 17:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, there is now a ref to farm payments 2003-2004 from the RPA in england. The date means this would be payments under the unreformed scheme (though even 2006 payments will mainly reflect the historic position before the transition process got started).Sandpiper —Preceding comment was added at 21:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

I've just sent one regarding a certain issue. Acalamari 02:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's okay now, my E-mail is out of date now. Thanks. Acalamari 03:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Martinphi

Just a quick note that I've given him a one-week block for soapboxing and disruption over on Homeopathy, given he's already up for Arbcom over acting the same way on paranormal articles. I set it for a week as I didn't want to second-guess Arbcom rulings, adjust this as you see fit, and I'm also copying this to a couple other ArbCom members, so that I'm sure the committee knows and can judge on it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikinfo

I've tried to edit Wikinfo. I keep being told to confirm my e-mail adress. I confirm it but the computer ignores my confirmation.Barbara Shack 16:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

 Thanks.  I've made the edit I wanted to make.Barbara Shack 18:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not running for ArbCom?

Fred, I respect your decision not to run for ArbCom again, but I want you to know I have seen you as one of the best ArbCommers out there. If you reconsider, I'd gladly vote for you.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

BLP?

Fred, how is this a BLP concern? There's no question that he served as part of Merck's team, and it's not accusing him of doing anything unethical -- it's simply a statement about his participation in a highly notable case. If I'm missing something here, please amplify. Raymond Arritt 04:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh cripes, not those two again. I didn't notice it was DSB who added that -- should have checked. I refereed one of their tiffs a few months ago and came a hair's breadth from blocking them both for a week. Raymond Arritt 04:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It makes no difference who added it, the wording comes from Frank's own AEI bio. --David Shankbone 04:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

David, I'm sorry to see you have removed the section of your talk page dealing with this issue. Irrespective of how one feels about Merck's conduct, if there is more than one factual way to refer to a person in a half-sentence capsule description, we should 1) look for a broadly applicable description rather than focusing on a single specific fact or incident (the undue weight clause), and 2) we should generally respect that person's wishes if they object to one reference over another, especially if the objected-to version is less respectful of the undue weight clause. (I would certainly afford you the same courtesy if you were the subject of an article.) As we recently discussed, brief capsule descriptions should generally be neutral and broadly applicable. For example, in the article Law & Order, which makes a passing reference to Fred Thompson, it would be appropriate to refer to him as "presedential candidate Fred Thompson" or "former Senator Fred Thompson" but not as "former pro-choice lobbyist Fred Thompson" , which is an NPOV and undue weight violation. (That complicated issue can be convered in a neutral and balanced way in Fred Thompson of course.) Here I feel from your other edits that you feel that defending Merck and other corporate clients is bad thing, which just reinforces that any capsule description of THF as "the lawyer who defended Merck" is an undue weight violation. Please stick to neutral descriptions in passing mentions and lists, and save the coverage of the issue for the main article. More broadly, I am concerned that you appear to be making THF-related edits that have more to do with picking at old scabs and less to do with an altrusitic interest in writing the world's greatest free encyclopedia. Count me as a fourth admininstrator who thinks you should avoid making further THF-related edits. Thatcher131 12:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Privatemusings

Hi Fred, my understanding is that David Gerard restricted Privatemusings to only one account... he does not wish to use that account anymore and as such it's been blocked. I do not see the difference in which account the person is allowed to edit with; if you wish to reblock him though, you won't find any resistance here. Regards, east.718 at 02:46, 11/16/2007

Hi Fred

(and as an aside - having seen the post above, I'd like to say please please please don't support a block, I continue to work hard to contribute usefully)

<phew> - anyways, the point of this note, was to let you know that I dropped a note in at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources regarding our recent discussions - I have mentioned (well, actually tried to summarise) your perspective, but your thoughts directly would probably be very useful. Thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny. I think he can probably contribute on any of the ArbCom pages :-P Avruch^Talk 01:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian/Proposed decision

Good evening, Fred. There's a current discussion on this section of the Clerk's Noticeboard, regarding your vote to close the header-linked Arbitration case. Perhaps you might take a look? Cheers, Anthøny 20:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wimpy

There is some question (on Mackensen's page) as to what "wimpy" means in context. Could you elaborate? Thanks. Lsi john (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A weak, inadequate remedy that does not solve the problem. Fred Bauder (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. There was speculation that you referred to Giano as being wimpy. (not by me), and I wanted to clarify. Lsi john (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive?

If you want to talk about soomething that will be disruptive to the project, blocking Giano from editing for 90 days (or even 1 day) would do just that. He is a fabulous content creator, who is right on both this case, and on nearly all the cases in which he takes an active role. Punishing someone because his methods piss you off is outrageous. Mr Which^??? 00:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean like demanding Durova's head on a platter because her investigative methods were inadequate? Thatcher131 00:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats one of the most diplomatic descriptions I've read. Barnstar of understatement for you ;) Lsi john (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher's remark was clearly inappropriate. He should know that Durova is the wrong gender for that metaphor. Thatcher should have said the demands was that she be burned at the stake. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you call the pile of horse excrement that was the "report" she put together on User:!! "inadequate" is just laughable: so utterly ludicrous that it barely even merits a response. Mr Which^??? 00:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you want to punish someone whose "methods piss you off"; you've just decided that your judgement is superior to Fred's on the matter of methods. Thatcher131 01:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

BS. Nearly the entire community thought Durova effed up. Fred and the crew attempting to block Giano is not supported by anything resembling a consensus within the community that has spoken thus far. Not even close. Mr Which^??? 02:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't mistake a handful of people screaming for blood as representative of the community. The "entire community" didn't speak up in support of Giano et al starting this witch-hunt in the first place, but it didn't stop them from doing it. Boldness in the interest of the community is great when you are the one doing it. Its not as much fun when the shoe is on the other foot. Rockpocket 07:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a "handful of people", it's nearly everyone that thinks that Durova's "sleuthing" was completely inappropriate. Hell, even Durova admits she got it WAY wrong, even if her apology was the weakest, most self-serving I'd ever seen. That you defend the sleuthing says more about you than either Giano or Durova. Mr Which^??? 14:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the many thousands of editors who have not uttered a word about this appreciate you reading their minds, as do I for informing me that I "defend the sleuthing" without every having said such as thing. Try speaking for yourself, instead of others, and people may pay more attention to you. Rockpocket 17:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh good lord, RP, use your brain! I was, of course, referring to the editors who have commented on the issue thus far, at the appopriate venues (AN/I, RfC, and RfArb). Only one who was being intentionally, willfully obtuse would think I was attempting to "read the minds" of "many thousands of editors." Mr Which^??? 08:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

How willfully obtuse of me to not appreciate you meant "the tiny proportion of the entire community that have commented", when you used the words "nearly the entire community." Sadly I can't read your mind as well as you appear to read mine. For the sake of us poor non-clairvoyants, it you could mean what you say and say what you mean in future, it would make communication so much easier. Rockpocket 08:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting what I wrote. I did not write "nearly the entire community" as you claim. My quote was that "it's nearly everyone that thinks that Durova's "sleuthing" was completely inappropriate." To a rational person, that would obviously refer to that subset of people that have actually seen Durova in action, and taken the time to make their opinion known. The rest of the community is blissfully unaware of her secretive investigations. I have no idea your motives for intentionally misrepresenting what I wrote. I have ideas, but frankly, I don't give a damn why you're doing it. You're being willfully obtuse, in defense of a person who's actions have no defense. That's your right, of course. It's also my right to wait for Bauder to respond, if he chooses to do so, and to ignore your pointless prattle. Mr Which^??? 08:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess all that mind reading leads to short term memory loss. Why else would you state I did not write "nearly the entire community" in the very same thread you wrote "nearly the entire community"? I'm sure Fred is tired of this. I know I am. If you have something else to say to me, I have my own talk page you can troll. Rockpocket 09:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll thank you to stop being a jerk, and read the more recent post I quoted, which was clarifying the obvious: that I was referring to those who are actually familiar with this case. Additionally, you'll stop referring to me as a "troll" in the edit summaries. Nothing I've posted here constitutes trolling, and as such, your accusation constitutes a personal attack. Mr Which^??? 09:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Your diff

Citing this:[5] as evidence of disruption is just the the sort of sloppy investigative technique that sparked this whole thing off in the first place. Have a look at the edits surrounding it, the relationship between Giano and Snickersnee, and view it in context of the "Obscene Trolling. Knows German" comment in Durova's original email. Andplus 15:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you honestly think that someone who called a 3 month ban on an excellent contributor a "wimpy" solution cares? There's an agenda here, Andplus. What is actually true has less to do with it than banning Giano for methods that six arbiters apparently really don't like. He pisses them off, and that's all that matters. Mr Which^??? 15:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That German thread and its spinoffs really have been a comedy goldmine. Mr. Bauder, you need to withdraw that as "evidence" of anything you want proven. My spontaneous reaction is here. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 10:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)