User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 40

Waldorf review

Fred, is the review page like a workshop, where parties can add proposals about other editors, and then we will make a voting page or reuse the old one? Or is the review page for direct voting. becuase I seem to have mixed the templates, some say support/oppose and some say comments by arb/parties etc. Needs to be fixed either way, and I can do it if you tell me which way to go. Thatcher131 18:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Me too, I'm a little unclear. Also, is it acceptable to correct one of the templates? Where you say: "There are some third party sources available regarding Waldorf education" and offer a single citation, it's more correct to say "There are many third party sources available regarding Waldorf education," as there are almost six-dozen. And I see you already corrected me. Thanks and sorry if I broke protocol. - Wikiwag 20:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I spend quite a bit of time reading that one, trying to figure out whether it said what Pete K said it did. Besides, it was interesting, believe it or not, I know nothing. Please put others in the Evidence section. Fred Bauder 20:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You know "nothing?" You mean about how to use the template? Sorry - I don't mean to be thick. I'm just trying to understand. - Wikiwag 20:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about Waldorf education other than chance encounters with a few individuals who were involved. So I found much in the Atlantic article which was new and interesting. Fred Bauder 18:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Well then that I'm sure will make you a good, impartial arbiter. :-) It is a good article and does a fair job of giving a reasonably balanced picture of Waldorf education. - Wikiwag 01:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comment in WP:DRV/Marsden-Connelly

*Keep deleted, by its nature a violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Fred Bauder 19:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)'

Please explain what leads you to make this blanket statement. ~ trialsanderrors 09:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Response

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

Dear ArbComm Member of Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University;

This note is to bring to your attention two issues which are creating upheaval in the article located here [1]and placed on probation under the premise of "Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee."[2]. This request is based on enforcement or remedies stated in the arbitration process and failure to follow up on it.

1) An article-banned user [3] orchestrated a come back through proxy IPs from Japan and then through an account "Some people" which has been blocked twice. The problem with this is that this user had modified the entire article in less than 12 hours on January 28 2007. This user partner, TalkAbout; acted in synchrony with 244 on that night and made some changes as well using "Some people" new version. User Andries had a minor edit of that version as well.

Request to investigate user Some people [4] Analysis of situation [5] Suspicion of sockpuppet account [6] Blocks to user Some people for "a reincarnation of the editor who formerly posted from the IP address 195.82.106.244"( As admin Thatcher put it) [7]

2) The only admin we've dealing with is Thatcher131. I would like to bring to your attention what I consider to be "lack of neutrality" and fairness from his/her part. Even though, user "Some people" was blocked by Thatcher131 under a strong suspicion of him being user 244 (banned by the ArbComm for a year) Thatcher131 supported the new version of the page which are the versions of a banned user.[8] A request for enforcement of arbitration has been submitted long time ago before user 195.82.106.244 (aka 244) made several changes through his sockpuppet account "Some people" [9] but the request is still sitting there.

User "Some people" transformed the article with over 30 + entries on 22:41 28 Jan 2007 [10] and then User TalkAbout added some content and at that point, that was considered the new "good version" of the article.

I would like to request the following: 1) the article to be reverted to a state before "Some people" took over. 2) To change the "admin in charge", Thatcher131 to someone who is not emotionally involved in this issue (Thatcher131 was the clerk in the arbitration case and helped user 195.82.106.244 to file the case and presented some evidence against me but not against 244[11])and that could enforce normal wikipedia procedures are taking place. I appreciate your time and prompt consideration on this.

Truly Yours, avyakt7 21:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmf.

1. I blocked Some people (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a likely sock/meat puppet of the anonymous 195 editor when I was sure based on contribs. Just not fast enough for Riveros, I guess. I have also semi-protected the article to prevent drive-by editing by 195-like IP addresses.
2. Riveros reverted across 30 edits by three editors, only some of which were the banned 195 editor.
3. Riveros seems to object to my advice and comments on the BKWS talk page here.
4. The fact that TalkAbout (talk · contribs) prefers many of the same content edits as the 195 editor (based on personal interpretation of BK scriptures; hence original research) is a problem. However, TalkAbout is not abusive, and even Riveros acknowledges that TalkAbout is somone different. The case does not authorize additional action against any other editor of the article.
5. Riveros seems to have ownership issues, "The issue here is that a user reverted a post I had for a week after discussion. Whether that post has BK sources or not is not the issue. The issue is: it was deleted whitout letting me know about it. " [12]
6. I filed the initial request for arbitration, so I recused myself as clerk for this case. The idea that I am biased is laughable.
7. I'm not "in charge" of anything, I'm just the only admin who regularly watches Arbitration enforcement. Arbitration enforcement is a burden, not a pleasure. To take action there responsibly, an admin must be famliar not only with recent edits, but with the background of the case and the behavior of all parties, to make sure that one party is not taking advantage of an admin's unfamiliarity to get an inappropriate sanction. It is certainly the toughest job I have ever volunteered for on Wikipedia. That fact, combined with the fact that someone is guaranteed to be upset no matter what action an admin takes or declines to take (and frequently, both sides are upset with the result), probably is responsible for the fact that so few admins patrol there. So I will be happy to unwatch the BK page and have nothing further to do with this dispute.
8. I can see that being an arbitration clerk and also handling complaints at arbitration enforcement may cause some confusion. I certainly don't want to give the impression that only clerks may enforce arbitration remedies. If the committee wishes me to choose one or the other I will be happy to do so.
9. As I told several of the participants in the Waldorf case, don't assume that

if the BKWS case is reopened, the arbitration hammer will drop on everyone else but you.

Thatcher131 22:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tatcher131, here is my reply:

1. Not fast enough, not strong enough. "Some people" have been around since 244 was banned doing the same disruptive behavior. That is why he was able to come back and make over 30 entries and get away with it. He is a banned user. There is a "big" problem here if a banned user is allowed to post. Thatcher131, you then supported this behavior.

2. My reverts were based on the fact that user "Some people" was banned. Thatcher131 even suggested that user was 195.82.106.244 before I reverted the article. Unfortunately, TalkAbout made her entries at that time too. However, I gave her a notice which she disregarded; besides, it is very likely that TalkAbout and "Some people" are working together. A fast look at the article history (which I gave a link above) will demonstrate this. This case is not about abusive behavior, it is about enforcing something which the ArbCom pointed out.

3. As far as "ownership issues": This is what you wrote to me:"When you reverted Some people here, you also reverted several of TalkAbout's edits. One way to deal with the situation is, rather than reverting, try and remove poorly sourced content added by Some people without removing TalkAbout's. Another way of handling it would be to apologize to TalkAbout: I'm sorry that I had to revert your work as well, but Some people is a banned user, and it was too hard to separate your edits from his. Go ahead and add your stuff back." A third way of dealing with it would be to negotiate with the other editors on the talk page before making any changes. Try and propose compromise language, or point out sections that are original research rather than reporting what other reliable sources have said." Thatcher131, please realize what you are suggesting. You want me to go back and take TalkAbout's editions out of "Some people" when both of them were editing almost at the same time. Please takea look at the history. That in itself, will support what I am saying. I did what it was in my hands to do; which at the time was to warn TalkAbout that she was acting dishonestly if she used "Some people" versions. Just see the history of the article. Besides, All I was asking is what you sugessted me to do; which is for TalkAbout to let me know that she was going to erase my post. My post was discussed in the talk page and changed by me accordingly. TalkAbout and Some People just decide to erase it completely without a word.

4. I do not think the idea you are biased is laughable. I showed a link above where you went out of your way as a clerk to try to get me [13] If you are not the one in "charge" then it looks like it, since you are the only one who reponds our inquires; sometimes acting on them; some others putting those off. If there is some one else that I could go to, please let me know.

5. I am asking for enforcement of the final desicion of the ArbCom. If this case needs to be re-opened to accomplish that, let it be. Best Wishes, avyakt7 21:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User Evlekis

Hi, can you please look at user Evlekis and his edit wars at Wikipedia. This user, accept for editing unsourced things and use personal attacks on me, accept for that he also is taking away my articles at the talk page. He has done that a couple of times and I find it very irritating when somebody who obvious never are refering to sources or references when he edits keeps on taking away my articles at talkpage. Alkalada 21:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As somebody with nothing to hide. May I recommend that you examine all of the various dialogues involving Alkalada and me: first read his userpage and get a lowdown on his personality, then look at his last few days, his critical remarks towards old countries and populations, and see also that I have tried to handle this in as civilised a way as possible. Thank you. Evlekis 23:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I truly do believe that you should review your decision to remove the indefinite block on Alkalada. Please look into the situation. —KingIvan 07:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait, I just noticed you blocked him for a month. Sorry about thinking nothing was being done. —KingIvan 07:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

Hello. I give you my word that I will not make personal attacks against fellow users again in future. I have editied for more than a year and I believe that this is the first time that I have found myself in such a situation and so it will not happen again; but I would like to say that the user whom I upset is not the most agreeable of characters himself, and although I wish not to make an issue, he has in his recent edits thrown insults at me too, and his have involved foul language. Never the less. I try to play by the Wiki rules and it is not my intention to annoy any of the administrators. Thanks for the friendly short warning which did not look abrupt. Evlekis 20:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, thanks a lot for the entry on Gao Yaojie. I'm just about the make an entry in Wikipedia Chinese. This is gonna be helpful!

Colleague?

Sorry what do you mean, am I meant to have offended somebody? Jordovan 14:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Friends University article

Dear Fred Bauder: I would like to call to your attention what I believe is a hoax being added to the article about Friends University. One specific editor has been determined to add a trivia section that claims that Friends once went by the name Friends University of Central Kansas. This particular editor finds the acronym funny and has convinced other less experienced editors that it is this false acronym should be added to the article. It is getting picked up by other websites that mirror Wikipedia material and it is creating a false scenario. I have explained on the talk page why this section is inappropriate, for a number of reasons, e.g., no reliable source, etc., but it keeps coming back. I would appreciate your assistance based upon you being a senior admin. Thank you.--Getaway 18:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

WordBomb sock blocks

You've put block notices on some IP pages (66.102.186.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 66.102.186.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to name two) that seem to be rolling IPs used by Cingular/AT&T for wireless data access. Also, the IPs don't ACTUALLY seem to be blocked. Do you recall anything about this issue? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Shocked At Your Misrepresentations

Fred, I am personally shocked by your misrepresentations regarding the Sathya Sai Baba ArbCom case. You said about me:

• ...sometimes removing reliable sources [14] and relevant external links [15]. Here he removes queries regarding original research.

First of all, I removed what you call "relevant external links" in accordance with the ArbCom ruling that you participated in. The ArbCom ruling prohibited the links I removed. Need I remind you: "The three revert rule shall not apply to such removal. This includes links to critical websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of negative experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him."

And your reference about me removing "queries for original research", if you would have looked at the talk page (I even said to look on the talk page on the Edit Summary), you would have seen that I posted the relevant information that warranted the removal of those tags.

Regarding your comment about me removing "reliable sources", even Andries said that reference was a primary source and Thatcher agreed that the Mick Brown reference was better sourced.

I find your gross misrepresentations appalling. SSS108 ^talk-email 08:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Though, I do not fully agree with SSS108 (I never do), I admit that there is some truth in what SSS108 writes here. Fred's descriptions of SSS108 recent behavior is not completely fair. I will try to explain where, why, and what later. Andries 01:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Fred, I think that SSS108's edits are a bit misguided in a somewhat complicated matter, but they are not a clear case of disruptive editing, as your comments suggests. SSS108 removed information sourced to UNESCO's press release, because of the stated reason that this was sourced to primary source material (which I admit). I also admit that mentioned reason has been in the past reason to remove information, such as the Alaya Rahm's self-dismissed court case and a question in the European Parliament about SSB, but the difference is that the latter two cases were never reported by reputable secondary sources, unlike the UNESCO withdrawal. I think that the UNESCO press release can and should be included here, though, as an addition to the secondary source material. Andries 10:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

However, I think Fred is right on the money with reference to his first example of SSS108's bad edits (regarding the UNESCO affair). Need I remind that primary sources are acceptable for Wikipedia if it is reliable? Unesco's website is a reliable source for any claims they make, and we should not forget that a heavy chunk of text was removed on the tiny plea of following WP:BLP#Writing style. I personally view this as downgrading the information in the article; The Unesco incident is important to retain because the information that follows does not make sense. For the record, Thatcher was ambiguous about it. Not to mention that this is a particular example of SSS108's editwarring while I was editing the article, which is an instance of the disruptive behaviour that brought about this second ArbCom case. Ekantik ^talk 02:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I need your thoughts

Could you weigh in at the RFC for a new intro sentence to Race and intelligence? The talk page is a long mess... use this direct link: [16] Thanks!futurebird 23:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

About "Boy"

I think you're getting a little too excited over nothing. If you abuse your status I could report you too, this animal what you call yours colleague likes to spread messages of hatred and culture fascism. You like to do very little to stop him telling people they talk shit, and teaming up with friends like User:Barbaric who also only has fascistic ideas. I dont need to be told that I am offending people. People like them need to be thrown off by default. I refuse to accept that I have caused offence. Jordovan 05:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Waldorf review

Fred, when you're ready to put the Waldorf review to a vote, continue to use the {{Under review}} template, which links to the review page with the votes. (The voting template will link to the old proposed decision page). Thatcher131 16:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I added an enforcement provision to the article ban. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education/Review#Enforcement_by_block Thatcher131 17:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

New Issue needing attention: Controversial material

I will like to inform you that Andries has once again reinserted very controversial claim into Sathya Sai article as of yesterday about Sai Baba sex change titled "Alleged sex change". We had a long discussion related to this under User_talk:Fred_Bauder/Archive_38#Request_to_Fred in your talk page. Even you agreed this claim does not have a reliable source of Sai Baba actually doing it (Changing his sex from time to time). He never discussed about this exceptional claim in the Sathya Sai Baba talk page with other editors. He is pushing his POV again. He does not want third party (administrators & arbitrators) to verify the sources he is using for this claims to see if the sources / claims is reliable.

Problems with this claim: The claim lacks sound editorial judgement. The claim is biased not supported by reliable sources. The exceptional claim is in question on how reliable it is? I don’t understand why he is keen to reintroduce again & again controversial material into this article when it is under arb.com and want to repeatedly disrupt the article. Please advise.

Wikisunn Wikisunn 9th February 2007

Fred, I saw your reply in my talk page. Can I revert this? As this exceptional claim was never discussed in any talk page and sources / claim’s reliability is in question. It is against Wikipedia policy related to Biography of living persons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Biased_or_malicious_content.

Again about this claim, this was not published in any reputed source. Also you know that Andries is an activist, trying to push his POV. Why is that such exceptional claims are only found in some unknown Dutch articles or authors who are fundamental Christians. If you look at his sources like de Volksrant or Tal Brooke or Trouw – they are all trying to push their anti christ attack on Sai Baba. You will see charades of negative attacks on Sai Baba in these articles. Tal Brooke is the author of the following book on Sai Baba titled Lord of the Air: Tales of a Modern Antichrist. Also Tal Brooke is the President and Chairman for the Spiritual Counterfeits Project, which is again a Fundamentalist Christian Organization. Greatest advantage for critics is they know that nobody is going to verify their claims and they can say what ever they want even if it does not make sense in the real world.

Wikisunn 9th February 2007

Wikisunn, I have repeatedly explained to you that the claim is sourced to multiple reliable sources including Nagel's 1994 University press article about Sathya Sai Baba its eponymous movement, as mentioned in the inline references. It is true that I am not very open to discuss removal of contents sourced to multiple reliable sources, especially not when the removal is so poorly motivated. Andries 18:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Andries first discuss your exceptional claims with other editors in the talk page. Let other editors verify your claim to see if it is reliable. You are no exception to this rule. You cannot keep pushing your POV and disrupting this article. Why are so reluctant discussing this with other editors. Wikipedia policy and guidelines on content Decision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Policies_and_guidelines clearly states as follows "Decisions on the content and editorial processes of Wikipedia are made largely through consensus decision-making." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making.

Wikisunn 9th February 2007

Wikisunn, may be you want to read this article by Alexandra Nagel home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/articles/Paper%20'Shiva-Shakti'.html (this article is not a reputable source, but it lists reputable sources) I had already given a list of reputable sources for the alleged sex change. Andries 19:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Andries, If you are willing to discuss then let us discuss this in the talk page and please don't add controversial content with out discussing first with other editors and disrupt the article. The claim that Sathya Sai Baba changed from male to female and then back to male just to have sex from one instant to another is ridiculous and highly questionable. This claim lacks sound editoral judgement. That's why it must be discussed with other editors. The sources / claim must be verified. Also regarding the website you mentioned, you yourself said it is not a reputed source, I don't think our discussion should be based on non reputable sources.

Wikisunn 9th February 2007

Wikisunn, on what should our discussion be based? Andries 19:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Andries, I will start a discussion in Sathya Sai Baba talk page regarding this exceptional claim we can have a detailed discussion there. This is arbitrator's talk page this is not the right forum for our discussions. Remember we are not the only editors there are other editors when you want add controversial material you have discuss with everybody and arrive at consensus. You know the rule so don't break it. So let's discuss it in the talk page.

Wikisunn 9th February 2007

`:Why didn't you try to achieve consensus before removing it. You know that I rarely agree with SSS108, but he did not oppose inclusion of the sex change in the article. Andries 19:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

When you added Bibliography in the article you discussed about that with everybody in the Sathya Sai Baba talkpage. This claim you never discussed with any editor. How do you know if some one opposes or not unless you discuss the issue with everyone on the talk page. Anyway I have added this exceptional claim in the talk page once all editors respond we can come to consensus.

Wikisunn 9th February 2007

Because informed editors, like SSS108, know that this claim is well-sourced and SSS108 hence did not oppose its inclusion or thought inclusion to be opportune for his pro-SSB strategy. May be SSS108 thought that most people will think that a person who claims to be sexually abused and claims that the abuser suddenly changes from a man into a woman is not credible. I can of course understand such reasoning because it used to be my own. Andries 20:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Fred, the gender change claim is treated in the type of source that is generally considered the best available source for Wikipedia articles i.e. a peer reviewed university press article about the subject (Nagel, 1994 De Sai Paradox). Apart from that it has also been mentioned in several other reliable sources. It will be clear that, based on this, I cannot think of a good reason for exclusion. Andries 22:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Andries,You said sss108 never opposed the claim. Now after the discussion about the claim, it must be clear to you that he strongly opposes this claim. If you look at the sources like Nagel or Helena Klitsie they are all giving the story related by a third unknown person who saw the claim, they never said they experienced it directly. As SS108 pointed out Regarding Tal Brooke's third-hand account of "Patrick" in his book, Lawrence A. Bapp said of it, "The animus of Brooke's book (1979) is too strong for one to have much confidence in its accuracy." A interesting opinion from a scholar.

Andries you are they only person calling your sources reliable and pushing for publishing this ridiculous claim. So far in all these discussions in arbitrators page and in discussion with other editors, administrator, arbitrator and all other editors have opposed publishing this claim. Why do you keep pushing your POV. why do you want to disrupt this article. If you keep disrupting the article during arb.com, where is the guarantee that you won't disrupt this article after arb.com by writing controversial claims and unreliable sources.

Wikisunn 12th February 2007

That's how I see it. Fred Bauder 17:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Fred, I would also like to point out the following. Everybody knows there are anti sai and pro sai editors involved in this article. They have a check on each other's role in the article. If Andries is forgiven with 1RR rule after arb.com and SSS108 is banned after arb.com then this article Sathya Sai article in wikipedia will become the next largest anti sai website on net and will be out of control. If Andries is given a second chance with 1RR after all that he has done, then could you consider giving the others the same second chance the option of 1RRule. If that's not possible atleast a different option other than totally banning from wikipedia. Would you please consider to give all the party involved a fair trial and a fair second chance. Wikisunn 13th February 2007

I don't think this will work. I will remove my support for wimpy remedies with respect to Andries though. Fred Bauder 18:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just my thoughts on this mini-discussion, but it's probably redundant to mention that Wikisunn's last comment is not of good faith at all. For a brand-new editor largely unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and the previous disputes to make forecasts about how the SSB article would look after the ArbCom requires a pretty big imagination.

For the record, I have every intention to insert "positive" information into the article such as the major milestones in SSB's career, more information about his welfare projects, and so on, after the article has been cleaned up of course as everyone agrees that it is currently in a big mess. It's a pretty dim view to assume that after the ArbCom the article will be "taken over by the Borg", and Wikisunn's latest comment is openly adversarial with speculations about "the next anti sai website" seems to be me more borne out of hostility to Andries. The article will not be disrupted because all editors are bound by NPOV and the responsibility to help Wikipedia rather than harm it. Ekantik ^talk 18:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fred, thanks for your reply. I will like to point that my concern about what will happen to this article after arbitration, if Andries is not banned and SSS108 was banned was not a mere speculation. Even Thatcher spoke about the pro and anti sai editor issues in one of his comments and opted for 1RR rule other than blocking ssss108. The following was his exact statement "However, it seems that the only regular editors here have either a strong pro-SSB or strong anti-SSB agenda, and if I block or ban SSS108, I will have to personally watch the article to make sure it doesn't deteriorate into an attack article". I think the general statement by Ekantik such as this article will not deteriote disrupted because all editors are bound by NPOV and the responsibility to help is a speculation. If this was the true case then the article would not have gone through edit wars and second arbitration.

Wikisunn 13th February 2007

Hi Wikisunn, I'll thank you not to project your impressions and speculate on what I "might" have meant. You are a brand-new editor to Wikipedia and are not familiar with the history of these disputes. The only edit-war that I was involved in was when SSS108 reverted my edits for no other reason than personal grudges, this has been discussed and proven in the ArbCom discussion. Thatcher agreed with that too, as you like to consider other people's opinions. Please familiarise yourself with the history of these disputes before attempting to make an opinion about things that went on before you got here, I have told you to do this umpteen times but you have not.

Much as I would like to speak without being accused of "party politics", Andries has done a lot of great work by coming up with several academic sources that are useful for the article, and is still doing so. For the record, I also have a couple of academic sources which I might use to introduce well-sourced information into the article at some point in the future. Apparently you have nothing to say about any of these types of constructive edits, but simply focus on edit-warring and disputation that only occurred because SSS108 has a personal grudge and was being obstructive? If you had taken the time to read through the talk-page archives you would have seen all this for yourself. I hope you realise that the number of times you blanked a lot of content from the article (simply because you disagreed with what was written) dangerously verged on vandalism, as per an earlier version of your talk-page where you were served with several warnings (by SSS108) about your vandal behaviour.

So what I am basically trying to say is this: 'People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.' I hope you understand. Ekantik ^talk 04:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ekantik, I stopped responding to your comments after you misquoted my statements repeatedly, criticised me being a new user in the Sathya Sai arbitration workshop. You have done it again. I am not the only editor who has complained about your behaviour. You don't decide what I can write / talk to the arbitrator. This discussion does not even involve you. I am not going to accuse you back or point links from your user page of how many wikipedia rules you broke, when you were a new wikipedia user. I personally don't believe in petty fights / frivolous arguments I think it's waste of time and energy. I request you to show more civility and respect to fellow editors. Stop criticising people who differ from your views that does not lead to a healthy discussion. I hope you won't continue this behaviour in the future. Wikisunn 16th February 2007

Hi Fred, The edit wars between editors touched its peak on Dec 19th 2006. Thatcher had to interfere and made the above statement I mentioned about the pro and anti sai editor issue, put the 1RR since he did not want to block sss108. He discussed this statement in the Sathya Sai Baba article discussion page - You can see the statement under "Remedies against sss108":[17] [18]

Thatcher being the administrator has dealt with all the editors, knows about all the editors, seen all the edit wars and he may be the right person to judge what will the future impact to this article after arbitration decisions. Wikisunn 14th February 2007

Wikisunn, you are wrong once again. This issue has reached ArbCom, therefore it is now the role of Arbitrators to judge the "future impact" to this article (of which there will be nothing but responsible editing of course). With all due respect to Thatcher, he does not know about the disputes beyond what he saw directly, which is why he proceeded to block SSS108 for 48 hours (suspended). The evidence and the reasonings are all available at the relevant ArbCom pages, I wish you would continue this discussion there as that is the proper venue for such discussions. I must say that I still find it unusual that a brand-new editor like yourself unfamiliar with the history of these disputes is still continuing to rake over old stuff as if it is new material. Ekantik ^talk 00:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

And just as a general observation, SSS108 has been blocked yet again for 12 hours because of continuing incivility, harassment and personal attacks. Ekantik ^talk 00:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ekantik, I disgree with your comments about Thatcher. Wikisunn 16th February 2007

Fred, it is true that I will probably not change my behavior (except for edit warring) if you and other people do not explain where when and why I broke the letter or the spirit of the Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Now I simply do not understand what I did wrong. I know you are short in time, but may be you can ask somebody else to explain it to me. I am willing to make a phone call anywhere in Europe. Andries 19:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)