User talk:Fred Bauder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

I maintain a fork of Wikipedia at http://wikinfo.org, alternative address, http://internet-encyclopedia.org/. It is hosted by ibiblio.org. Fred Bauder 18:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Fred_Bauder (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)

Contents

[edit] Barnstar

The Minor Barnstar
For of few words are made great men. It is the minor actions, the small subtleties, that can show the greatest valor, the deepest insight, the discerning thought. Thank you : ) Jc37 03:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defender of the Wiki

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I award you this Defender of the Wiki barnstar in recognition of your three years of continuous meritorious service on the Arbitration Committee. (Sorry that it's a bit late) Eluchil404 11:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a bot-generated summary of the current candidates on requests for adminship.

When the bot is running this page will update about once an hour. The last update was 13:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

If this page does not update, a similar summary is available at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report.

Open RFAs are ordered from oldest to most recent.

 0-69%   70-85%   86-100%   < 10 responses

[edit] Adminship

Username S O N S % Ending
1 Meno25 39 0 0 100% 19:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
2 RockMFR 28 19 7 60% 06:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
3 Darthgriz98 35 0 0 100% 01:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
4 Nmajdan 46 0 0 100% 16:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
5 Danny 167 46 7 78% 00:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
6 Mikeblas 28 0 1 100% 02:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
7 Angusmclellan 57 0 1 100% 13:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
8 J Milburn 36 0 0 100% 16:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
9 Jrockley 6 15 9 29% 01:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
10 Dgies 57 2 0 97% 15:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
11 Natl1 9 7 8 56% 20:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
12 Smcafirst 4 2 1 67% 00:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
13 Fuhghettaboutit 14 0 0 100% 01:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
14 Hemlock Martinis 7 0 0 100% 06:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Recently concluded: Sox23, KFP, Cla68, Soumyasch, Jet123

[edit] Bureaucratship

Username S O N S % Ending

Material has been removed here and placed in User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 1, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 2, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 3, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 4, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 5, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 6, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 7, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 8, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 9, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 10, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 11, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 12, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 13, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 14, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 15, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 16, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 17, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 18, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 19, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 20, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 21, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 22, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 23, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 24, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 25, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 26, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 27 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 28 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 29 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 30 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 31 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 32 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 33 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 34 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 35 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 36 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 37 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 38 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 39 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 40.

[edit] New notes

[edit] ?

[edit] Notes

[edit] Old notes

[edit] Evidence

How would I go about emailing private evidence? I ask you because you're very active on the committee. Would I email it to you, or to a clerk, or what? Miltopia 21:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Presuming you are talking about Nathanrdotcom, "evidence may be submitted directly to the Arbitration Committee by e-mailing any member" (from the RfAr page). There's a list of arbitrators - and quick links to their Special:Emailuser page - here. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I got an email from someone with your email address linked, and I sent you something. I know could use the email user link at the left, but it would be easier to format links in Gmail, but I don't want to just send you the email unless I know it's you. So, is that your email address? Milto LOL pia 02:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your deletion of a list of reliable sources

Fred, could you please explain why you have deleted Talk:Rachel Marsden/Reliable Sources and protected against its recreation? I know you think it violated WP:BLP; I would like to hear how it did, considering that it consisted entirely of references to reliable sources? You deleted this in the midst of the Deletion Review of Marsden-Donnelly harassment case, for which we need a list of reliable sources. Kla'quot 17:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Material which violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons may be deleted by any user without limit. Fred Bauder 19:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Then click the Edit tab, select the text, and press the Backspace key; there was no need to use your Admin tools. Uncle G asked weeks ago for contributors to collect a lot of good sources and cite them; if this was a bad idea you should have said so earlier before I did the work. And you protected a page called Talk:xxx/Reliable Sources from being recreated; I'll let that fact speak for itself. Kla'quot 20:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starwood arbitration

Do you really support a ban on my editing anything on an article of someone who has even appeared at an ACE event? Do you realize that this means I can't edit ANYTHING on most of the authors in the Americam Neo-Pagan communmity who do lectures, and many musicians who do Celtic or world music? Do you understand that about 40 of these notable people would not have articles at all had I not created them, and many of the others would have no discographies, no bibliographies, or very incomplete ones? And you really think it's right to place an INDEFINITE ban on my editing ANY of them, regardless of what that input might be? Rosencomet 20:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly do. Most of these people are significant people that will have articles about them in any event. There are hundreds of thousands of articles which you are free to edit. Fred Bauder 20:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Fred, please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood/Workshop#Summary_of_the_case. I think there are two cases conflated here. It seems that editors Paul Pigman and Kathryn NicDhàna assumed that their dispute with Frater Xyzzy and Jefferson Anderson was a continuation of the Starwood matter, and added it to their evidence. But they seem to be unrelated, except for the participation of Anderson and Frater in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rosenbaum.

At the same time, a consideration of the second matter might be warranted. Pigman and NicDhàna have a conflict of interest over Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism, and seem to have overreacted to proper questioning of sources and the COI by Frater and Anderson, who are probably sockpuppets. MEDCAB was offered and rejected, but the situation doesn't seem to be out of hand yet. Do you want to consider everything together, or split the case and ask for a new application at RFAR over the Celtic Paganism business. Thatcher131 00:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it did seem as though there was too much. I think I will concentrate on Rosencomet and Starwood. The rest, if they want us to consider it should be a separate arbitration. Fred Bauder 01:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Would you object if I informed the parties and cleaned up the workshop page of proposals related to the Celtic Paganism dispute? Thatcher131 01:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. Fred Bauder 01:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "No editwarring over links to Starwood. I've not thought about the other users yet. Hopefully with you gone, things might settle down.Fred Bauder 01:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)"
I have not edit-warred since WEEKS BEFORE this arbitration began. I have reduced the links, both internal and external. I have provided dozens of 3rd-party citations, which the editors on the other side of the issue SAID was what was required to establish the notability necessary to justify the links. I have added references. I have listed recordings produced from Starwood appearances by artists, which Salix Alba said supported notability. I have refrained from contentious edits, and have discussed edits to these articles on talk pages rather than make them myself (apart from the reductions, etc I just mentioned, and such non-contentious edits as typos, spelling, grammar, etc). I have consulted Che Neuvara, the mediator of the mediation that Pigman interrupted unnecessarily (IMO) by calling for this arbitration, before even doing the DELETIONS. I have been working to help this situation, while Pigman, Kathryn and Weniwediwiki have not only done nothing to supply citations or otherwise improve the article(s), but have never once recognized that I have contributed anything positive or changed my ways. (One exception: Weniwediwiki put the lists in columns, which I thanked her for, then I did the same on the WinterStar page.) Che, BostonMa, and SalixAlba have, though. They've been fairly objective, and focused on good articles rather than battles over egos and extraneous issues. Rosencomet 02:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit]

[edit] About fair use

Hi, again! I heard somewhere that you are the Wikipedia lawyer. I apologize if your not, but I have a question regarding fair use on images, and since you're a retired lawyer, who else could be better suited for answering it??!! Anyway, there was an issue that came up after a user added an external link to a cheating site on RuneScape. During a discussion here, the idea came up that Jagex, the developer of RuneScape, has every right to order us to remove the screenshots on RuneScape, since they're fair use. Is this true? If so, would it be in our interest to keep the article free of content that might indirectly cause Jagex to become unhappy? Thanks.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 03:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not in any way the Wikipedia lawyer; however User:BradPatrick actually is. 05:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When did IRC become official?

Hi Fred, IRC may be a great place to find officials and chat them, but since when did IRC become a valid chanel for official business? [15] Regards, Ben Aveling 07:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That was its original purpose. The creation of the channel was the subject of extensive conversations between Jimbo and others. It was to be a place where problems which required action by administrators could be brought to by the office, discussed and acted on. Fred Bauder 16:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
And I think it served that purpose for a while. But I don't think it does any more. I think that general consensus is that we've reached the position where the standard place for admin and arbcom discussion happens on wiki. There is an exception for things that 'should not be overheard', but those conversations need to be brought online for comment and for the record before they can be considered 'offical'. I also have an issue with the word 'trusted' because it implies that these people have passed some test of community trust, such as an election or an RfA, whereas it just means that they are trusted by the owners of the channel. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SuperDeng

Fred, I would like to explain why I am somewhat supportive to Deng despite many problems he brought upon himself. Unlike many other problematic editors banned for edit warring, Deng is a productive editor useful for the project. He brought a wealth of well-referenced info to many articles, he uses reliable academic references to support his edits, the content he adds is firmly within the scholarly mainstream, the editor is knowledgeable and committed to the improvement of Wikipedia. He was indeed stalked and baited by some of his opponents and instead of keeping his cool, he took the bait, retaliated to stalking them as well and engaged in the creation of sockpuppets to outrevert Kurt Leyman (talk • contribs) and Constanz (talk • contribs) in edit wars despite I warned him multiple times that such activity would prove counterproductive. Several editors, myself included, offered to mentor him but it was already too late as Deng has already built himself a bad reputation and several admins justifiably felt that they already had it with him.

I would prefer him being able to edit simply because his contributions are useful to the Wikipedia as they result to the net improvement of the encyclopedic content. If his hotheadedness is under control, he will be a useful editor. However, I cannot vouch that the latter will be the case. Therefore, if he is allowed to resume editing, I will strongly support some sort of probation imposed on him. --Irpen 20:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I just see absolutely no evidence that he will change. And you know, it doesn't take much for his "hotheadedness" to come out. If he's unblocked, it'll just happen again with a different user. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 21:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deng Arbcom case

I responded. It's lengthy. It's rambly. But. I responded. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 21:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omura page/Omura Quote usage question

Hello, I am trying to get some fundamental things sorted before I get blocked - if that is what happens.

1) Can Omura's statement on WP be used to state what he says he(Dr Omura) said either about the Tribunial and BDORT involvment and/or to Dr Gorringe re the NZ Tribunial issue? ie can any of these be used:

a) Dr. Gorringe of New Zealand (who called me to help for his defense before a hearing in New Zealand in 2002-2003).

b) I did not [know] Dr. Gorringe and never spoke with him before his first phone call to me.

c) I questioned him about where he learned and how he performs the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test.

d) It immediately became clear that he was using some type of variation of a German doctor named Dr. Voll’s electro-diagnostic and therapeutic method that had very little to do with my Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (although both methods had been used in Germany and the U.S.).

e) Dr. Gorringe told me that he learned it from his old teacher, who incorrectly told him that what he was learning was Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test.

and/or?

f) Therefore, I told him that he is misrepresenting the BDORT as something completely different. I told him that I agreed with the New Zealand medical board that his license should be suspended because not only was he misrepresenting my Bi-Digital O-Ring Test but also because he did not order the basic laboratory tests to confirm his personal tests’ findings.

2) If Omura puts his statement on his website, can it then be used moreso? If so in what way further.

Thank you.Richardmalter 08:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

He is welcome to post to the talk page of the article regarding his concerns. This information gives perspective to the New Zealand proceeding, particularly with respect to the use of medical tests to confirm BDORT findings. Fred Bauder 16:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waldorf Arbitration

Fred, as you are re-opening the arbitration and inviting all the previous participants, I would like to request that you consider extending an invitation to the editors who have been participating in the articles post-arbitration. They will be in a better position, I believe, to produce evidence regarding the conduct of the participants since the arbitration took place. Thanks! Pete K 16:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been participating in editing and discussing the WE page for a few weeks. I'd be happy to participate in the arbitration review process as well. Just let me know how I can do that. Thanks. Henitsirk 20:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Likewise for me. - Wikiwag 00:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email

You have asked that discussion about the biography of living persons issue be sent to you in email. How do I find your email address? Thanks. Venado 18:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Venado, the toolbox menu on the left of the page has an email option. Pete K 19:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Venado 20:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review

Could you fill me in on the appropriate procedures here? This will be the first time I've had anything to do with an arbitration review. Lethaniol contacted me today and asked for my input about the Waldorf situation. While I looked into his request I discovered the arbitration review had opened. I don't have any evidence to submit regarding WP:BLP so I doubt e-mail will be necessary.

I've contacted three editors at their user pages and requested they get in touch with me: I'm considering submitting a recommendation to the committee that they be topic banned and I want to give them the opportunity to communicate with me before I make any formal statement. I've told them I'll keep an open mind for a week.

I hope that approach is fair and reasonable. Please advise. DurovaCharge! 19:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Durova, the BLP issue looks like the last straw, but is probably not the only issue. You know that the editors here have been very contentious over the article since the amnesty in the first arbitration; your talk page as well as mine. I expect that Fred is looking into article bans and/or a stronger form of probation, based on the parties (or perhaps some of the parties) inability to learn after the first case, so anything you want to say along those lines would be appropriate. Thatcher131 13:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teacher Issues

I see you have just removed Wikiwag's comments - so I suppose this will be to! Please can you explain where you would like us to discuss the issue of the WP:BLP for this teacher, because at the moment there does not appear to be an appropriate forum. Maybe leave a message on Talk:Waldorf Education so people know what to do? Cheers Lethaniol 01:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

In what way does a request for clarification warrant these actions!? My post was no more (and in fact far less derogatory) than the original reporting. Kindly explain yourself. - Wikiwag 01:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Discussion of material of this nature needs to be off-wiki. Use email to me. I will forward it to the arbitrators. Fred Bauder 01:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. Can I expect a reply? - Wikiwag 01:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Fred, I'm hoping we can get an answer on the reasons the section about the teacher was removed. All we know, so far, is that you don't like the content. AFAIK, you don't have a right to make that decision. The material is properly sourced and should be returned to the article unless there's a reason that you can provide for its removal (and I'm not suggesting there isn't, only that you haven't provided it, to my knowledge). Why should an incident that is sourced in three different independent sources be squelched? I don't think it's up to Wikipedia to police content. Pete K 13:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I've been communicating with Fred on this off-wiki. I understand the issue is that this one incident [while noteworthy and well-sourced] doesn't rise to the level of indicting the system. And therefore, focusing attention on this one person is not appropriate here. Suffice to say that between he and Thatcher131's breakdown and explanation of the issue here, I've accepted their POV; I see their point where it wasn't clear to me before from the WP:BLP guidelines, and it was a mistake for me to reinsert it in any fashion, even though I believed I was following the guidelines. If this issue is to be discussed, it has to be done somewhere other than Wikipedia. - Wikiwag 17:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that, but if other supporting sources can be produced, is the material OK to be re-introduced here? My question is - is there some content in the article itself that we are trying to protect from public view, or is this unusual treatment of already public information based on something else? Nobody wants to indict Waldorf based on one incident (or two incidents) but if it is shown that this article doesn't misrepresent what actually happens in Waldorf, can it be used? Pete K 17:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm saying this as an anon so i don't get wikistalked by him

I'm certain that another indefinite ban is appropriate on this user. I mean, come on - two seconds after he gets unblocked, he gets straight back into edit warring, POV pushing, unwillingness to discuss. If there was any justice in the world, he would be banned and never given another chance since he will never change his ways.

Fred Bauer:

Look at all my articles and edits, and look how I fully explain my changes in the talk pages. I fully explain why I edit and evidence of edits.

And btw... I am reporting the Ivan guy whe talked about before. Look at this.

Yes I've fucking heard of them you stupid idiot, but that is not a modern state! When saying modern state, people are reffering to states from the 19th century forward. —KingIvan 11:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

He is saying this on the breakup of yugoslavia talk page. It is clearly a personal attack.

On that talk page, I have clearly and fully explained why I edit and evidence of it. Now.. this Ivan guy responds with personal attacks.

My suggestion is that he got a bann cause this personal attack and vandalism where he edits articles without refering to sources. Alkalada 11:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Fred Bauer... it is okey to say fuck off to people at Wikipedia? Look:

(cur) (last) 11:31, 30 January 2007 Ivan Kricancic (Talk | contribs) (rv. "no no no" is not a valid argument. fuck off

He is saying to me "fuck off". Please.. bann this guy. Alkalada 11:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very full explanation here. Even better. Huh? What's this - avoiding my arguments because you know I'm right - I suppose you could justify it by admitting you're a troll. And "ban" only has one N. —KingIvan 12:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you dont agree with me.. then it doesnt give you the right to use personal attacks. You said fuck off and you called me a stupid idiot. And you also never refere to sources when you edit. I think it is pretty fair that you get a bann. Alkalada 12:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have evidence that Ivan is a troll. Look at his user page and look at this. This is taken from his userpage:

"It especially is annoying that Muslimani try to claim early Bosnia's history as theirs and only theirs. It's fine for a nation to define itself by religion, but if the defining feature that separates Muslimani as a nation from Croats and Serbs is Islam, then their nation only existed from the time they became Muslim, and all history that happened in Bosnia prior to this is not part of their nation's history, but part of the history of Croats and Serbs, since the Muslimani (or "Bosniaks" as they now wish to be called, most likely so people will mistake Bosnia's history for theirs) were Croats and Serbs who converted to Islam when the Turks invaded. "

He is saying that we bosniaks were croats and serbs who converted to Islam. That is not true!

And if you look at Wikipedia about bosniaks, you will se that Ivan has wrong. Please... bann this bosniak hater. Alkalada 12:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Most respectable Western historians will disagree, Alkalada. (And "ban" still only has one N, no matter how much you don't want it too) —KingIvan 12:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Ivan, No, they wont. Search at history pages about Bosnia, done by WESTERN PEOPLE.

We were a separate people, called bosnjani before the arrival of turks, we had our own religion, we were bogomils while you croats were catholic. And that is our history, wheather you like it or not. Alkalada 12:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Alkalada, No. The Bosnian history pages on Wikipedia that you are refefring to are, almost exclusively, edited by people who are not respectable historians, or even historians - further more, most Bosnia-related articles are plagued by Muslim nationalists like yourself. "Bosjani" was what all inhabitants of Bosnia were called before the Turks - it was simply a regional name for the Serbs and Croats who lived there. After the arrival of the Turks, all Serbs and Croats who converted to Islam referred to themselves as "Turks". And now, since the Turks don't rule there anymore, the muslim inhabitants needed a new name so they decided to name themselves after Bosnia. —KingIvan 06:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Robert Prechter

Hello Fred,

You've the only administrator who has commented on the Robert Prechter case so far, thus I'm bringing an issue related to the case to your attention. Socionomics is one of the articles in question, and it was nominated for deletion on Jan. 27. But, apparently, it could be deleted at any moment with a copy kept elsewhere. The conduct of several editors in the AfD has mirrored issues I raised in my request for arbitration -- smears of a living person, obvious incivility, the use of my name and bad-faith accusations of COI.

My question is whether the AfD is procedurally permissible while Socionomics is part of an arbitration case. I sought guidance about the AfD yesterday via a request for clarification, but haven't received a reply. Thanks very much for your time. --Rgfolsom 15:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, an AfD is permissible, that is a content question. Fred Bauder 16:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt reply.--Rgfolsom 16:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Since the arbitration is over, shouldn't Socionomics be sent back into the bit-bucket? --Orange Mike 01:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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 [16]and placed on probation under the premise of "Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee."[17]. 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 [18] 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 [19] Analysis of situation [20] Suspicion of sockpuppet account [21] 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) [22]

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.[23] 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" [24] but the request is still sitting there.

User "Some people" transformed the article with over 30 + entries on 22:41 28 Jan 2007 [25] 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[26])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 · logs · 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. " [27]
  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 [28] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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!

[edit] Colleague?

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] WordBomb sock blocks

You've put block notices on some IP pages (66.102.186.24 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 66.102.186.16 (talk · contribs · logs · 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)

[edit] 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 [29] and relevant external links [30]. 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)

[edit] 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: [31] Thanks!futurebird 23:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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":[32] [33]
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)

[edit] Indefblock of IP

I don't mean to sound silly, but I thought shared IPs should not be blocked indef, as you did with 64.59.144.85 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log). Given the last block was one week, indef seems a little harsh. Perhaps there is a past history of major abuse from that IP? Cheers. `Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Got it. BTW, you posted on my editor review - perhaps you wanted my talk page? I moved your message there. Cheers, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Michael Langan/ScienceApologist RFAR

Hi Fred. Regarding Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist#DrL_2 which says "All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern." Since I seem to remember you wrote this I thought you should know that we have two new disruptive editors at Talk:Christopher Michael Langan, Sheerfirepower (talk • contribs) and 204.73.177.254 (talk • contribs), who are definitely exhibiting a 'a similar editing pattern'. And since Sheerfirepower after several words of caution is already bandying about terms like "making matters worse for himself by using his sysop powers to threaten me" and implied legal threats like "Asmodeus up there sounds like he might be getting ready to sue your asses off" I thought you'd like to have a word with him before others assume these are Langan meat puppets and they are blocked under the provision provided above. FeloniousMonk 20:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Are involved parties prevented by policy or convention from issuing blocks in such instances? FeloniousMonk 21:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the policy answer, but the better practice would be to post to WP:AE or WP:ANI. Thatcher131 17:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism Reversion

Hey. Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page.

Kriak 01:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] request for clarification on the Kosovo arbcom's decision

Hi, I have entered a request for clarification regarding remedies that were taken against me (sorry if that's incorrect grammar) in the Kosovo arbitration case in October last year. As you were one of the administrators on the Kosovo arbitration committee I would very much appreciate if you could take a look at my entry and answer my questions. RegardsOsli73 13:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for filing a motion to revoke Osli73's sanctions. A shifting ip address has been using these as a pretext to harass and censor Osli73. Curiously, Osli73 was not even around during the arbitration case, and like yourself, I've been wandering how he became involved. El_C 23:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fred, please note my recent comments to dmcdevit's reply relating to the Kosovo arbcom's decision. Regards Osli73 10:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fred, although Dmcdevit was a member of the ARBCOM at the time of the Kosovo arbcom process (which endedin October 2006), I see that has now resigned and is no longer a member of the Arbcom. Is he still entitled to vote on the motion to revoke the remedies? Regards Osli73 08:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

His comment makes clear what the thinking was. I don't agree. His vote is good. He was an arbitrator when he made it. Fred Bauder 14:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Regards Osli73 15:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Schwarz

Hi Fred, given your past involvement with this article I would be grateful if you could drop in at Talk:Barbara Schwarz. A new user (BabyDweezil) has been edit warring on the article, wants it deleted and doesn't seem to be willing to follow WP:V and WP:RS. I've had to protect the article temporarily to "encourage" the disputants to settle the issue on the talk page. Unfortunately BabyDweezil seems to be quite intransigent, and the discussion is going round in circles. Your input would be appreciated. -- ChrisO 18:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rosencomet

Dear Sir,

I don't want to say anything inappropriate here while the decisions are still being made, but whatever happens, I did want you to know that I appreciate seeing someone involved in this matter say "His editing has improved significantly and his range of editing has broadened." I will never please everyone, and I have certainly made mistakes (and may make more), but I am heartened that someone can recognize my efforts to change. If I can continue editing, I hope to avoid conflicts and learn alternative methods of dealing with any disagreements that may arise with other editors. When all this is over, I hope to have the opportunity to ask for your advice and guidance. Sincerely, Rosencomet 01:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your proposed Ban for me even commenting on Alternative Medicine matters

I am unclear why your propose that I not even be able to comment on alternative medicine related articles. Since I have been on Wikipedia, virtually every edit of mine was removed by Fyslee and others close to Barrett and I understand that I have been quite defensive . For that I apologize. However, I do have a wealth of experience and information that could benefit this encyclopedia. I would request you modify your proposal to include my editing at least on talk pages, articles relating to my legal case, and certainly on alternative medical modalities. Thank you. Ilena (chat) 18:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to correct a repetition (myriad times here) of some charges that are false or misleading:
  1. I have not "removed" "virtually every edit" of Ilena's. I have been only one of many who have at times edited or reverted Ilena's edits that were disputed because of policy violations. Among them were issues related to spamlinking of her vanity (because SHE did it) sites, her attack sites, promotional edits, praising edits, non NPOV edits, OR, notability, deletions of very well sourced opposing POV (even government sources), etc. etc.. Her interpretation reveals an assumption of bad faith, because the reasons have been explained to her numerous times, but she insists its all a conspiracy against her and her POV. I believe that there are some other editors who have removed and reverted her edits far more than I have, including Ronz, admin Arthur Rubin, and several others. She just chooses to pick me out of the crowd of editors with whom she has been in conflict. During this RFARB I have stayed away from her, and yet she has carried on long edit wars, even getting blocked again. She has also deleted many of mine and others edits that were well sourced and within policy.
  2. The second charge is without a shred of relation to reality: "...removed by Fyslee and others close to Barrett..." Just because some editors share Barrett's mainstream views does not mean we are "close to" him. That's a part of Ilena's conspiracy theory, and a gross example of assuming bad faith. That's all, and I do not intend to debate her here. Just setting the record straight. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 20:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Banning for off-Wikipedia affiliations

Kirill stated on my talk page that banning a contributor for off-Wikipedia affiliations is fine and that seems to be his main reason for his support of banning me. See thread.

With regards to your comments, I deny that I engaged in advocacy. I you think otherwises then please produce some recent diffs (<1 year old) that show that I engaged in advocacy. Andries 06:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Brownback article

Dear Fred Bauder: I have been working on the Sam Brownback article and for several days I have been in a push an pull match with an editor who believes that he must remove three of the fully sourced, fully cited quotes and information about Senator Brownback. Both the other editor and I have violated the 3RR rule today. I admit I have violated the rule; however, so has the other editor. Now, I have been willing to compromise and I have used the talk page to do that, I can show you the edit history where I attempted to compromise. Could you please take a look at the situation? I have been putting back in the quotes and information and editor Jerimee has been taking them out The edit history of where he takes them out, just today only, looks like this: First Removal Today and Second Removal Today and Third Removal Today and Fourth Removal Today and Fifth Removal Today and Sixth Removal Today and Seventh Removal Today and Eighth Removal Today and Ninth Removal Today and Tenth Removal Today.--Getaway 19:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Message for Ptmccain

I was wanting to leave a message for Ptmccain that one of his/her images was up for deletion, but the user talk page is fully protected and the user is indefinitely banned. Would such a notification be beating a dead horse? Andjam 02:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armenia-Azerbaijan

Dear Mr. Bauder. I'm writing you with regard to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Armenia-Azerbaijan. In my opinion, if the case is going to be accepted, the list of involved parties should include additional persons, whom I would like to add to the list. These are Azerbaijani, Mardavich, ROOB323. I explained the reasons on RFA page. Please advise. Sincerely, Grandmaster 13:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fred, please see my comment here, I'm not an involved party in the Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute, I've only had disagreements with User:Grandmaster on a totally unrelated article Safavids, could you please remove my name from the list of involved parties?. Cheers. --Mardavich 04:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, please also see my comment here. I have not gotten involved in this whole Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute and I want to keep it that way. I have only been involved in Iran related topics. I believe Grandmaster has put me on the list for the same reason he has put Mardavich on, because we have had disagreements in the past regarding certain articles. Again, I have kept myself out of this whole dispute and stuck to Iran related articles only. Grandmaster only brings up two articles as "proof" that I was involved in the dispute, yet I only made one edit on each, and both those articles are Iran related as well. Please take my name off. I am not an involved party and I stayed out the Armenia-Azerbaijan edit wars. Thanks.Azerbaijani 16:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser, Hi Fred, can you order a checkuser now? There are chances that Tabib won't be contributing and his last edit could be too late to request one. I will not be providing my evidence right now, since there are just too much abuses and will be unfortunitly huge (not because of text but diff.). A checkuser on every users involved will be ordered, but I need it as soon as possible for it to not be too late to find anything about Tabib. Fad (ix) 18:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Were his last couple of edits in the same geographic location as the others? Fad (ix) 19:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... what does that mean it is a yes or a no? Fad (ix) 19:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
So basically checkusers can not compare selective sets of edits by a user with a selective set of edits by the same user? My aim in asking this is to know if Tabib who change location for his job got his recent edits in the American continent. Fad (ix) 20:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A concern concerning the Barret Case.

In the proposed decision it is stated that "Fyslee has repeatedly used Quackwatch and similar partisan sites as references" and then refer to this edit. I'm concerned that a) the edit given is an example where Barret's expertise is relevant b) since the edit attributes the matter to Barret as a relevant source, not as a given statement it is relevant and not a use of an unreliable source (especially given, the independent coverage and notability that Quackwatch has recieved, (as discussed in the article on Quackwatch)). Now, Fyslee certainly pushed references to Quackwatch, but the dif given is one of the best examples where such a comment might be justified in some form. Therefore, I would greatly appreciate if you would clarify what precisely the ArbCom is saying about using Quackwatch in general and mentioning Barret's opinions. In particular, would the edit given have been possibly acceptable if it had been made by somoene else? Thanks, JoshuaZ 20:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I should have produced more examples. Biased sources such as Barret or Quackwatch should be considered unreliable sources for most purposes. Fred Bauder 20:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Devastating article. Fred Bauder 20:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I may not have been clear enough in what I was hoping would be clarified. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association Quackwatch is one of the "select sites that provide reliable health information and resources" and has received praise from U.S. News & World Report among others. Now, I agree that this doesn't make it a reliable source and for Wikipedia purposes is not a reliable source for most purposes. What I'm hoping can be clarified is whether quoting Barret or Quackwatch as essentially notable opinions (as one might quote a prominent newspaper columnist such as George Will or Paul Krugman) is acceptable as long as who Barret is and what his biases are is made clear. Since the given dif seems to be a use of that, I'd like to know(as an editor who has added notes about Quackwatch opinions in that context to articles in the past) whether that is acceptable. JoshuaZ 20:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Part of it is the name, "Quack". I'm not sure what community consensus would be. Obviously lives are saved if people use evidence based medicine, but that is true about many potentially dangerous things where a paternalistic determination could be made about what is more likely to be safe or sensible. We could advocate universal medical insurance if lives saved was the criteria or prompt intervention in Durfur. The American Medical Association is a business competitor of alternative medicine, but who else would you go to as an authority on medicine? The question of global warming keeps coming up in my mind. Just as in this case, there is no rational advocate for the other side. What is the reliable source which says that Bach Flower Therapy is safe and effective? What kind of a reference is this? I think you may be safe enough using such references. What we are dealing with in the case of Fyslee is someone who has made quackbusting an avocation. I think you can see that there are contradictions. Fred Bauder 01:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. JoshuaZ 03:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser request

Dear Fred, I have never done this, so I don't know how to go about it. How can I request a checkuser on User:BackMaun and User:Alien666? The former has been specifically visiting articles I, and others who have been involved in the Starwood arbitration and certain other issues, have edited, and making unexplained and often IMO nonsensical edits (like breaking links or duplicating material and revert-warring over it). The latter is, I believe, a former suspected sockpuppet of Mattisse who reappeared for one day (Feb. 19th - so far) after 6 months of inactivity, and edited some of the same pages. From the style, the choice of edits, and the line on Alien666's userpage "Wish me luck this time!", I suspect both of being sock puppets. Certainly the behavior doesn't match someone new to Wikipedia, as BackMaun claims to be.

Thank you, Rosencomet 18:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know I have had my own issues in the past. How serious this is depends on whether you tack this activity on to the incredible history Mattisse has with sockpuppetry. It seems to be ongoing. At the moment, I'd say User:Khabs is having more problems than I have, but I'd hate to see him/her whipped into the frenzy of revert-warring that was instigated with me. See BackMaun's activity on List of Thelemites, List of UFO researchers, Allen H. Greenfield and Anodea Judith; this looks like a "ramp up" to me. I do find it strange that Hanuman Das, Ekajati and 999 were so swiftly dealt with while Mattisse has been allowed to continue with only talk of action. But I am not proposing any punishment, living in a bit of a glass house (though I've never used a sock or visited the articles others edit regularly and messed with their work); I'd just like to avoid vote-stacking and similar behavior. (I have enough problems with the 3-person tag-team that keeps challenging my edits.) I'd also hate to see anyone treated like User:Jefferson Anderson was recently. Rosencomet 19:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fred

I don't know what you guys do, or even read the evidence page. Because I am seriously thinking that you all are ignoring it. Valid evidences are lost in this mud slinging war, everyone answering in others section and turning this into a discussion board. Is it too much asking to get an injonction on this too? Something such as "Every parties involved shall only write in their own evidence section also they shall not directly address others." Fad (ix) 18:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, Newyorkbrad warned them. Fad (ix) 18:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Smart ArbCom case

Fred, a suggestion for the Proposed Decision page: the article should go on article probation.

This is a useful suggestion, I feel, because, it may mean less conflict amongst editors, if people can use the talk page more rather than revert-warring. Your opinion is appreciated. --sunstar nettalk 23:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Osli73

Fred, in the Kosovo arbitration case, you voted to put Osli73 on revert parole. I wish to bring to your attention that he has been violating his parole with impunity for some time now. On February 24, this behavior was brought to the attention of the arb enforcement board (see link below), but there has not been any action or comment since. Meanwhile, edit warring is heating up again at the Srebrenica article. If those who have been put on parole can violate the limits put upon them with little or no consequence, it puts us at risk of the article falling back into a free-for-all. Could you either respond to this or contact the appropriate administrator? Thank you. Fairview360 01:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#.5B.5BUser:Osli73.5D.5D


[edit] Pakistan-India arbcomm case

Its pretty much decided what is going to happen to me. So I just wanted to ask for a quick and urgent favour.
Could you point out to the committee that I am on a shared IP used by many people. If my account only could be banned, and if anyone discovers I am editing again, they can ban the IP. Thank you. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ UT 18:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How is this fair?

Looks like the arbcom has decided to ban me for a year. I honestly dont know how this conclusion was reached. I contributed like a good user, never insulted any user and never vandalised any article. The Indian users openly made racist remarks against Pakistanis, Muslims and our Prophet and Literally hijacked Pakistani articles to prevent anyone form editing. If this isnt good enough for you, then let me explain the 2nd major flaw. This arbcom was opened The Day After me and Nadir were unblocked from one of Ramas unfair blocks, and minutes after we tried to complain. It was simply to save himself from our complaint against him. We barely posted a word between the unblock and the complaint, and all the evidence used against us, is old evidence he had already used to ban us before. Not to mention the lousy evidence is the reason we complained against him in the first place. The only thing I see happening here is the arbcom banning the Minority users to solve the problem. Rama started the arbcom and omitted certain Indian users who were the Key causes of this dispute, and this lets them off the hook, even though they have made extremely racist remarks. Why treat me worse than a vandal? The so called evidence used against me doesnt even make sense. Is PoV pushing defined as making suggestions on Talk Pages? I am so shocked by this outcome.
I guess it helps to have a lot of people supporting you blindly. A 6 month punnishment was rejected for a guy who openly insulted the muslim Prophet (by linking him to paedophilia), insulted muslims by comparing slavery to the Hijab, said Pakistanis enjoyed killing people, and clear evidence was shown that he reverts every single edit from other users on Hinduism pages which doesnt fit his PoV. The Arbitrators didnt even suggest punishing any Indian users. Instead, a proposal to give all Pakistani users bans were put forward.
I dont know what has happened here. I really want to discuss this matter with you. I am an honest guy, I have nothing to hide, yet here I am being treated like an obvious vandal who deserves to get banned. In the first month I joined Wiki, I made some minor mistakes. I went through more than 3 weeks of bans by the same admin for this. And now the Same mistakes are giving me another year? Please get back to me. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ UT 19:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barrett v Rosenthal

I know it's late in the case, but I have proposed an additional remedy, article probation here. I think Ilena is correct to be concerned about the behavior of other editors. This case seems to have dragged out of the woodwork several other partisans on alt medicine topics, both pro and con. I agree with Ilena that GigiButterfly (talk • contribs) is an SPA with a likely conflict of interest with respect to Barrett. Shot_info (talk • contribs) appears to be associated [34] with this web site [35] run by an Australian skeptic, that currently hosts a set of parody song lyrics attacking Ilena personally. Several other editors have joined this case on both sides, including Dematt (talk • contribs), I'clast (talk • contribs), Ronz (talk • contribs), and Levine2112 (talk • contribs), although their conduct does not appear to rise to the level of arbitration. I am concerned that once Ilena is banned and Fyslee is topic-banned, other users might take up their crusade. Article probation for the core articles in this case would allow admins to take action to stop disruption without having to go through arbitration again, and limiting it to 6 months would be a good test to see if it is really needed; depending on circumstances it could be extended or allowed to expire accordingly. Thatcher131 20:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your vote

I see you have voted against me in ArbCom case. Please have look at my contributions and compare them to accusations against me. I have already faced months of blocks and when I decided to stay away from any disputes, Rama's Arrow opened ArbCom case because he doesn't want people editing who do not agree with him. He is taking everything personally. Please see his earlier such attempts here which were unsucessful. Szhaider 01:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser request

Elnurso (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) registered one day before Dacy69 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and the same day he registered on Russian Wikipedia. Can you check if Eknuros correspond to any other users? Fad (ix) 05:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Prechter RfAr

The Robert Prechter arbitration, on which you have written a proposed decision, is one of the last holdovers from 2006, meaning we start with 6 arbitrators, of whom 3 are now inactive. None of the new arbitrators have signed up to participate in this case. You might want to ping some of your newer colleagues to become active in this case, or either it will never be decided, or else it will be decided with a majority of 2, which would seem a sub-optimal number. Recognizing of course this is not the most pressing item on the committee's plate. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
And going through the list, the same seems to be true on your Waldorf review. Newyorkbrad 01:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Damir Mišić

Hello. I'm sorry to bother you yet gain about User:Alkalada, but Akhilleus advised me to contact you after I left this message on his talk page.

Hello. I was the person who initiated this report. I noticed that when you (Akhilleus) closed the discussion, User:Hahahihihoho, User:Thunderman and User:Horde Zla are all indef blocked for being the disruptive troll, Hahahihihoho. But I also noticed that User:Alkalada (who is a 100% proven sock of Hahahihihoho) is not currently indef blocked as his sock. I think this is not the right decision; besides the fact that he is Hahahihihoho, User:Fred Bauder gave User:Alkalada another chance and unblocked him. But then, two days after the unblock, he was blocked again - this time for one week, for incivility, personal attacks etc. After that block expired, Alkalada was blocked yet again - this time for one month (See his block log). This latest block expired recently, and he has immediately jumped straight back into his POV editing, personal attacks and blind reverts. I believe this user will never learn from his blocks, and will never change his ways. I think it's only fair that he be indef blocked, just like all the other socks of User:Hahahihihoho. —KingIvan 05:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not indefinetly blocked Ivan, please, please... get it!

And in EVERY revet I made I have explained myself on the talkpages, Fred Bauer, you can watch and see it yourself. I have clearly stated why I edit.

Btw... please... bann user Semberac, he uses vandalism without any references and he is calling all bosniaks lier. He makes personal attacks.

Thanks // Alkalada 13:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Alkalada's post-

You are indefinitely blocked. Since it is proven that you are Hahahihihoho, and you and most of your sockpuppets are indef blocked, your Alkalada account should be indef blocked as well, for the sake of consistency, as all of your other accounts are blocked based heavily on your POV edits - your account named "Alkalda" is no different. Furthermore, Semberac did not use vandalism of any sort; he merely reverted your unsourced/POV edits - vandalism and content dispute are very different things.

New post for Fred Bauder- Pretty much all of your admin actions have been good decisions, but I must say, unblocking Hahahihihoho/Alkalada most certainly was not a good idea. It really is 100% certain now that he has not and will not learn how to behave here on Wikipedia. Please reinstate the indef block. —KingIvan 01:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Urgent last request- Please reply

My last request would me for you to disengage the autoblock.
Please try to understand. This is only my temporary IP. I dont mind you banning my real IP. I can promise you I wont be editing at all. Please also take into consideration the "offences". I am not a vandal. I really wish you to take my last request seriously. I am asking you as a friend, as I have always had my best intentions on Wikipedia, and I dont deserve a dishonourable discharge. please let me know what you can do for me. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ UT 23:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 03:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me

[edit] About evidences

I was wondering how days more do I have to add them. As you noticied, the last days I more writen text than direct diff. sor of evidence because the last few days I didn't have much time and diff. time are much more time consuming. So, how much time do I have left? Fad (ix) 16:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal of probation

As you were one of the few voices of sanity during the highways arbitration case, I would appreciate your support in my effort to have my probation lifted. Thanks. —phh (t/c) 13:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free Republic case

Fred, in re: Free Republic, I wanted to be sure you are aware of a thread on AN/I pointing to this from Free Rpublic, where BryanFromPalatine recruits more editors; and this alleging that Dean Hinnen is BryanFromPalatine. Bryan has been community banned for disruption, there isn't much evidence on the case page relating to this as he was banned so what was the point of going into it. However there is broad sentiment for banning Dean as a sock and/or meat puppet even before American Politics Journal made its allegations, so I was surprised to see you considering an article ban only. Cheers and keep up the good work (one Wikipedia job I will never seek, to be sure). Thatcher131 13:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Proposed decision#Blocking of David Levy

You expressed the opinion that Phil's decision to block me for "trolling" was "appropriate." Could you please explain your reasoning? Thanks. —David Levy 15:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the controversy which resulted in the blocking related to this exchange. Fred Bauder 16:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand. Why was it appropriate for Phil to label my good-faith editing "trolling" and block me while he and I were engaged in a content dispute? Do you take issue with my criticism of Phil's decision to utilize the administrative rollback function in a content dispute (which the ArbCom unanimously agreed is inappropriate)? Should I not have directed Phil to the page on which the relevant issue was under discussion (with no consensus for his actions)? —David Levy 16:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you find that discussion now. I have looked and could not find it. I believe my objection was to posting of logs, or rather reference to logs that could not be posted, but I'm not sure. Fred Bauder 17:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The discussion is archived here. I was one of several editors who reverted the removal of a question for which there was no consensus regarding its appropriateness (or lack thereof). Phil (who directly opposed me in this dispute) blocked me for "trolling" (which was a flagrantly false accusation of deliberate, bad-faith disruption), and an uninvolved sysop (Steel359) unblocked me three minutes later. —David Levy 18:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Please try to avoid inserting material derived from drama sites in the future. That's the problem. Fred Bauder 18:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
1. You're retroactively applying a subsequent ArbCom ruling. At the time, the aforementioned discussion and clear lack of consensus for the question removal were all that we had to go by.
2. You're condoning Phil's characterization of my edits as "trolling" (which refers to a bad-faith act of intentionally trying to cause disruption). Do you believe that I was trolling? How about the three other editors (including two other administrators) who reverted the question removal? —David Levy 19:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I was wrong, but that's the reason. Fred Bauder 19:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for clarifying. Perhaps you could add a notation to this effect. —David Levy 20:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again, Fred! I sincerely appreciate it.  :-) —David Levy 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BabyDweezil

Thanks for letting me know, Fred. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Clayboy

Wouldn't it be better to delete the talk page as well? There are a lot of things there too which can be "detrimental to the reputation of Wikipedia". - Aksi_great (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm...

WP:V, WP:NOR, as well as WP:RS was superseded by WP:A. Thought you'd like to know that. :) - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 23:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You are prominently mentioned on Free Republic!

By our departed 'friend' 'Bryno' Freeper Funnies and an update to the Bryno situation. Bryno exposed - FaAfA (yap) 06:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If you have time please vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination)

Fred Bauder I am terribly sorry to bother you, and I honestly don't know which way you would vote. I do think that editors there regard you enough so that the mere act of voting would go toward ending this latest dispute. (I realize when you re-wrote the article you didn't want to have to "babysit" it for lack of a better term, so please understand that I would not have come here for anything else than to save what I believe is an informative article.) Thank you for your time, Anynobody 07:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to participate, even though it wasn't what I was hoping for I appreciate your response. Anynobody 23:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi Fred. Thank you for your support of my Schwarz nomination and thank you very much for your past efforts at minimizing the inappropriate use of that article. You might want to copy-edit your vote as you seem to have tripped over a double negative (smile) Thanks again. --Justanother 17:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the FR RFAr proposed decision

Fred - I've documented some problems with the FR RFAr proposed decision that need to be addressed, and hopefully rectified. Please see Problems_with_the_proposed_decision and respond there. Thanks. - FaAfA (yap) 03:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trodel/Barbara Schwarz

Trodel/Barbara Schwarz - Thanks --Justanother 16:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry I took so long

Dear Mr. Bauder, I have just read your January invitation to the arbitration and apologize as I took an extended break from Wikipedia after trying to get involved in improving the Waldorf article - for the readers. Generally, my frustration was that there seemed to be much "jockying for position" among various factions and no real sense of responsibility toward presenting a clear, balanced article about Waldorf education (period). I told a previous arbitrator and will have to tell you the same that I wish you the very best but am not interested in participating in any way.

Perhaps there are some who wish to use this type of behavior to drive everyone else away so they can promote a skewed viewpoint, but if that is all they have time for in their lives, well, I feel quite sorry for them.

I see the article is up with a nice photo, but I will choose to not even read it - ever. My experience was THAT bad.

 Wonderactivist 18:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Again?

"... Eventually I managed to get most of these biographies reinstated by waiting several months and then trying again, when Louis Blair was not looking. ..." - Sam Sloan (Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:12 pm)

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_frm/thread/7d8fd30b87dcbe95?scoring=d&hl=en

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=68693060#Sam_Sloan

(This is posted here by Louis Blair (March 13, 2007))

[edit] Socionomics

Now that the Robert Prechter case has closed, is it time to delete Socionomics? TML 02:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Its talk page should go, too. TML 02:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Fred: Thanks for taking the time and effort to look at the evidence and reach decisions in the Starwood Arbitration. While I personally might wish for a stronger decision on Rosencomet's future actions relating to these articles, I realize this was not an easy case in some ways. I believe that this case should never have reached the level of Arbcom in the normal course of Wikipedia discussion/consensus, policy application, and conflict resolution. In my opinion, there is little about the central dispute in this matter that isn't adequately and rather definitively covered in already existing policy. (Leaving aside the actions of the Ekajati, et al. sockpuppet hydra.) Nonetheless, I greatly appreciate your efforts toward resolving the situation. Thank you again. --Pigmandialogue 17:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confirmation

You should have just gotten two emails; one with one phrase, the other ending in a question, neither signed with an encrypted key as the first was. image:smile.png Feel free to delete this after you have read it. -- Avi 20:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strangeness on your talk page

Very weird, but when I view your talk page, I get the "you have new messages" alert displayed at the top, even though my own talk page has not been edited for days. I thought maybe you had hard code on your page causing that to display, but I don't see anything. Doesn't seem to happen when I view any other pages, talk or otherwise. Bizarre, eh? - Crockspot 19:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • By the way, that strangeness suddenly just ceased when I left the above message. I guess your talk page REALLY wanted to hear from me. - Crockspot 20:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starwood arbitration

Since this case looks finished, please vote to close. The case is three months old and I'd like to close it tonight or tomorrow morning. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 20:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related to anthroposophy

Hello! I started a discussion on a Talk:Anthroposophy#About anthroposophical sources. I was told that I should ask you to join it. Could you engage on a conversation there, please? Erdanion 20:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starwood, Round 900

Hi Fred, could you take a look at what is happening here: Talk:Starwood Festival#Request For Comment: Child Care and Youth Programming? After one edit to the Starwood article, where I removed a phrase that seemed to me to be very advert-like, Rosencomet (talk • contribs) has started an RfC over the phrase. I think he is being very WP:OWNy. He's also once again veering into personal attack territory. The previous RfCs clearly expressed that Rosencomet has a WP:COI conflict of interest in this matter, and shouldn't be working on this article at all. It has been suggested in the arbitration that Rosencomet avoid "editing aggressively". While he has not been edit-warring on the article itself, I consider his attacks and accusations on the article talk page, in the arbitration, and on various talk pages, to certainly be "aggressive". He is also Canvassing for this RfC: [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] . Rosencomet is no longer a newbie, and has been told many times that this sort of behaviour is wrong. He is also back to his habit of posting the same long rants and accusations on the talk page, and then copying and pasting them onto my talk page, even though I (and others) have expressly requested that he not do this. Thanks. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for adding so much text to your talk page, but I don't feel I can let this go without comment. I feel that I am being sucked into a battle when all I want is to edit in peace, and in compliance with what I have been told I can and should do.
Comment Once again, Kathryn is trying to prejudice this arbitration against me even concerning discussions on a talk page. I added what I consider to be a quite valid feature of this event, child care and youth programming, under the appropriate heading. When Kathryn deleted it, I did NOT revert it, but discussed it on the talk page. But the response that came from Pigman (concurred with by Kathryn) showed, IMO, that the issue of the addition being "promotional" was just a cover for their personal and unsupported conclusions about the morality or "family-friendliness" of both the programming and the "social atmosphere" of the event.

Well, the reason it strikes me as advertising copy in this article is because of the strong integration of drugs and sex into the Starwood programming and in the social atmosphere outside of programming.

Yes, I admit this offended me, and my reaction reflected that. If there was any "attack", I believe it was this unsupported negative characterization. THAT is what my strong words were about, not just that a sentence I added was deleted. (Perhaps they were baiting me; I don't know.)
I opened the RFC only AFTER Pigman's comments, to focus on the issue of whether a mention of the fact that the event has child care and youth programming was appropriate under the heading "Activities". (I also hoped that this would help further differentiate between Starwood and WinterStar, which they have been pushing to have merged.) I had pointed out that whole paragraphs devoted to such programming exist in the articles of similar events, and quoted them. It seemed to me that the responses, for the most part, supported keeping the mention of the programming, but argued that the term "family friendly" may not be appropriate for various reasons. I accepted this, and re-posted the info without the characterization. Another editor has now deleted it saying (as he has said in the past) that child care and youth programming is "utterly unnotable". Again, I did not revert him, but asked for an explanation as to why he thought so, and whether his evaluation extends to the other articles with much more extensive language describing their similar programming.
I do not think I have done anything wrong here. I am asking for the opinions of other editors on the talk page of the article and not engaging in a revert war. Kathryn and Pigman, however, continue to ignore the conclusion of this arbitration that my editing is not prohibited, and seem to conclude that ANY defense of my positions, even on the talk pages, should be regarded as "agressive editing". Kathryn even calls asking for an RFC agressive editing.
I sincerely believe that Pigman, Kathryn and Weniwediwiki (who, on these issues, edit as one) have shown enough NPOV on this issue that they should be given the same admonishment against agressively editing these articles as I have been giving. They have shown a pattern of following my contributions far beyond this article, have called two mediations and an arbitration (and, IMO, ignored their results), have defended the actions of a serial sockpuppeteer on many of the articles I have created and/or contributed to, and are now casting aspersions on the subject of this article with no cited sources. I am not asking for blocks or punitive action, but I would like some recognition that much of this unpleasantness has been (and continues to be) instigated by this group. I would really like to see it stop; I certainly have not visited the articles they create or contribute to, reverted their work, and fought battles about it that drew in many other editors and arbitrators.
As for canvassing, I merely informed several people who had commented on issues regarding this article that an RFC had been opened, and welcomed their input. I get such notifications from others at times. I said not one word about how I thought they should vote and, in fact, some of them did not support my position. If I have done something wrong there, I apologize; this was the first RFC I've ever called. Rosencomet 19:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] armenia-azerbaijan arbitration workpage

I would like to draw your and ARbcom members attention to a bulk of personal attacks and accusation with which user:Fadix flooded workshop page. He openly admits that he will continue his attacks. It is absolutely unacceptable. Workshop page is destroyed. It is very bizzare that almost no other Armenian users participate in the discussion despite there are several involved. I have feeling that they communicated with each other and this is a strategy: Fadix bombs and tarnishes all Azeri editors involved (me, Adil, Atabek and Grandmaster). We have to response to all these allegations. And here is clear picture - Fadix vs. 4 bad Azeri editors. We can not keep silence because he constantly accuses us in sock- and meat pupetting, harassing, saying that we are government representatives, and so on. Maybe he wants that someone from us will lose his temper and make personal attacks. That will equal the situation because now several Armenian editors are listed in workshop for personal attacks. How long it will be allowed to harrass us - he repeats over and over again that we are oficial reps, etc. I kindly and urgently request temporary injection - no more personal attacks and harrasment on workshop page. --Dacy69 21:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Wikipedia talk:Articles about ongoing enterprises

What are you trying to do? Deleting large blocks of Talk page content is usually presumed to be vandalism. I'm trying to assume good faith but it would be much easier if you'd explain what you're doing on the Talk page itself. Rossami (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I guess... But the way you're trying to archive is splitting discussions up and leaving dangling discussions threads. And the edit summaries leave those of us unfamiliar with that specific dispute very confused. Why not just archive the entire page (following the more conventional archiving processes) and keep only the most recent discussion threads?
It's really not clear why this particular part of the discussion deserves the special treatment. Rossami (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
My guess is that most readers of the talk page did the same thing I did - ignored the entire thread as a partisan diatribe. The page itself had pretty much died and could be tagged as rejected regardless of the parts of the discussion that appear to concern you. Unless you really think that there's something worth saving on that Talk page, I'd just archive everything into the pagehistory and let it go.
Regardless, now that I know what you're intending I won't revert if you do a partial archive again. Thanks for taking the time to explain. Rossami (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser

Dear Mr. Bauder. Could you review my urgent motion for checkuser of User:Zurbagan and User:Pulu-Pughi [42]. I have a reason to suspect sockpuppetry by a person, who previously used socks to create an article about Ziya Bunyadov, and I also suspect that it is a permanently banned user evading the block. I provided more info here: [43] These 2 accounts keep on edit warring on Ziya Bunyadov and post messages in support of each other, as you can see from their contributions. In my opinion this is an urgent issue that cannot be delayed any longer. Thank you. Grandmaster 20:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starwood RfAr

Rosencomet has written a rebuttal at Kathryn's comment. Here's the original, which I've subsequently moved it back into his/her section here. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 05:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wilkes,_Wyss_and_Onefortyone

Based on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wilkes,_Wyss_and_Onefortyone#Ted_Wilkes_placed_on_Probation, Ted Wilkes was blocked for repeated block evasion, eventually blocked for 1 year from March 19, 2006. I think that his block would have expired, except that

14:59, 19 March 2006 Jtdirl (Talk | contribs) blocked "Ted Wilkes (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (block to expire after 1 year as per arbcom ruling.)

Suggestions? - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 07:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
Appreciate your follow-up. I decided to bring this up because I was just reading over WP:PROB and saw that he was misblocked. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 14:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Error management

The page above has been nominated for deletion. Please feel free to go to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Error management to take part in the discussion. John Carter 16:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hello Mr. Bauder, I have send you an email regarding the Azeri-Armenian arbitration case. Please check it, thanks - Fedayee 21:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lol @ googling my name

Hate to bring this up, but may I ask if you are even considering believing this nonsense? If you are, let me know - the guy who runs that place has modified revisions, and I've got some screenshots to prove it if need be. Hopefully that's all that needs to be said, so bye. Milto LOL pia 07:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Fred Bauder 13:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freep

Fred, if you want to consider probation against FAAFA will you also please formally oppose closure. Thanks. Thatcher131 00:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I also hope you are aware of these edits just prior to his 10 day block which just ended. This was his last deathbed conversion.[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52]. --Tbeatty 02:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fred This is what I posted in the FR RfAr in reponse to TBeatty's post above, which he also posted in the FR RFAr. If I am allowed to stay - I suggest one of those sanctions where 2 individuals are barred from interacting. The fact that he's so focused on me that he dedicated much of his user page to taunting me, and actually requested unprotection of my user talk page ( he's edited my user page multiple times without my permission) is troubling. You might look at his edits to known sockpuppet DeanHinnen's userpage too, where he reverted an Admin to insure that Hinnen's parting polemic would remain. (refactored as he requested unprotection of my talk page - not user page. He edited my user page on 3/15, but only discussed such on 3/24 [53] Apology issued to TB on the RF RFAr)
Quit taunting diff, baiting diff 'Stalking' diff and harassing me diff - follow the intent of BLP, make sure you tell the truth, don't side with known sockpuppets who may agree with your politics - and we won't have any problems. By the way, I find it very disturbing that you requested unprotection for my user page (which you have edited without my permission multiple times). diff I had them re-protect it.
Thanks again for your consideration and reevaluation, Fred. - FaAfA Aloha 05:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
So now you have conditions that must be met before you will behave? You do have balls. - Crockspot 12:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fred

I am not writting this to appologise, showing remorse has no relevency in this situation because to say the truth I still believe I have done nothing by ill intention neither believe having harmed the project in any considerable way. But this again is totally irrelevent. I already packed my bags, but I just am wondering. If I was really that disruptive and putting those I disagree with down by harassing them or personally attacking them. I just want you to pay attention to that. leaving message from wikipedia (see summary) [54] This Turkish member on the summary was announcing about him leaving the project soon after he came because no one wanted to listen to him and he was victim of incivility. The guy did not start revert warring or has not harmed in any way, he tried to make his point but in vain. I was the only member who supported him, here was my answer. [55] I defended him answering to and Armenian member: Assume good faith, he is a new user, and is apparent he is still not well aware of the policies, but there is nothing he did that could bring me to believe that he is acting in bad faith. Don't drive him away, unless you want only bad intentioned editors like neurobio contributing. Besides, you haven't yourself been that wikipedias way either as new editor at first. [56] And this is what the guy answered in my talkpage: I must first say how happy I am for your support, because I was really discouraged to continue to making further edits on wikipedia. Thank you very much. [57] (neurobio is the guy who was the subject of my attack worthing the last ban by InShaneee which I reported myself) Irronically the same day Adil came back on Wikipedia. Unfortunitally the guy did not have the support I promessed him because I was occupied elsewhere after the disruptions started(guess where). One more recently, another Turkish member with whom I disagree with his opinions but saw he contributed with no ill intention, his contributions having improved, I said: You have improved a lot since you have registered and I like that Deniz. [58] I can provide many such examples, hidden here and there. I welcome good members and try preventing them to leave the project. I doubt you will find any other member involved in this case who have a history of keeping those with whom they might disagree with, they rather see them out. I don't. Even after having strong opinions about a topic, I am still able to distinguish between what fit in an article(my standards being: neutrality, notability and relevency as simple as that, something both Eupator and Fedayee have adhered to) and what don't. It really does not matter for me to even justify why I got mad, and if it is an apology you want, I won't give any because I will not pretend to be sorry for what I did. What I can say, is OK, the arbcom did not want me to do it, it just had to tell it, I don't agree, but out of respect will adhere to. When Khoikhoi blocked me last, I said, unblock me and I will contribute on science related articles it was for three days and not attack during that period and won't contribute anywhere else. I respected that, Grandmaster I believe even asked that he could request from Khoikhoi for me to contribute on an article on mediation while this restriction was imposed, but I gave my word, at a point Khoikhoi came and said to me that I could post there, I respected my words out of respect for him. I am not forced to believe that my attacks were actually harming the project, I could still have adhered to it even if I think that my action was giving positive results. The biggest evidence of that is the Armenian Genocide article, it became a total battleground, and I am totally embarassed of all the crap which happened there and I hope the Arbcom does not take a look at. But I achieved preventing bad intentioned people from both side on harming the entire project. I have cleaned the talk page, while Thoth and Neurobio(I do not show double standard, one from each side) once a while still come there to throw their comments, the only way to show those people they are not welcome for me was to be harsh. It was only after cleaning it, and later getting it archived that now the door was open and peace happened there. I did not use any ressources and waste administrators time, I alone settled the entire thing which worthed Khoikhoi barnstar to me. This alone will compensate every wrongdoings I might have done past and present, I might not have contributed in a lot of articles and you are not forced to believe me, no one beside me could have done that, and you could ask to every administrators which were involved on that article. Since the Armenian Genocide article was a bomb, which an Arbcom cases could not have settled it, and believe me, you don't imagine what kind of people were comming there. I did not start reporting every single person, I did not start on an endless edit wars. I just took the responsability, to take the necessary dispositions to clean the mess and use everything to do that. Just for your information check the edit history of the Armenian genocide article and see how many time it was protected, imagine what mess there was in the talkpage.

All what I am saying here, my point is that this is not a black and white situation, and that I have already accepted my fate, I will leave after this and bring this experience I acquired here elsewhere and contribute there. At this point a ban or not would have made the same differences, as a concensus from the arbitrators would have made the same differences: "We don't want you to do that." That would have been all..., I could have lived with that, because agreeing or not is my personal convictions, but out of respect I would have done that, the embarassement alone is enough, on the other hand the ban was a punishment, I personally did not vote during the last election for a committee entitled to punish, but rather prevent harm to be done. And this was what I kept telling to Fedayee and Eupator, that the Arbcom was not punishment, it was to prevent harm being done. So, I won't add anything other than you could have trusted me or not, you would not have known if I would have respected the word I could have given, but if there was 99% chances I would do it again, the slight 1% would have been enough to give that chance since at this point the one or two more personal attacks which could later result of the ban will never outweight the one year of positive contribution which the community might have seen. I could leave, like I said, I accepted that fate, but one word from the Arbcom could have been enough, one word. You were the one who told me during Cool_Cat case when I posted about neutrality on the newsgroups to continue interpreting it the way I do it. It would have taken one word also to tell me to stop that. And I believe Eupator and Fedayee would have just done that, both don't worth a ban, they have shown what they are capable of. Fad (ix) 03:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[59] Fred Bauder 03:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Did I do what I said I would do? He had locked countless numbers of articles what was I supposed to do, I threatned him for him to stop it. When someone vote to keep a duplicate article and does not see anything wrong on doing that(the delete was so obvious that the admin who handled it deleted it without any concensus), when some misuses good intentioned conflict resolutions, when someone abuses the report incidences. Do you really think that the community is even interested to hear this totally worthless intestine war? We didn't even have a Clerk asigned to the case with that much members involved. When I have gone very mad with Grandmaster for the first time, it was again for a very good reason, he suggested an extention to a policy which defied logic, and I will not place possible intentions, I'm sure you are even not interested in that. I refrain voting when I think I should abstain, I am ready to make concessions more than anyone else, I was the one who made most concessions when Francis was moderating the Nagorno Karabakh article, I have chosen nearly all of Francis propositions. The only thing I have requested from Grandmasters part was to admit Adil's wrong and a little bit of honesty, but zilch. I never got that. I never accepted that and will not accept that. I am tired of having to explain each single dot I add which ends up with loads of argumentations and finish by me giving it up to prevent another edit war. I am tired of having to explain what neutrality means, what is notability, what is relevency. I am tired of having to repeat the same old rhetorics, writting and writting over, and getting as answers as if nothing was answered. I have tried to tutor Artaxiad, I have requested from Armenian contributors to behave, the only thing I expected from Grandmasters part, was at least once admitting Adil's wrongdoings, not even saying him to stop. Tell me, how am I even supposed to assume good faith and keep blind eye in a situation that the wrongdoing is so obvious that there is even no point to discuss about, and still no answer. There is hardly any policies which have not be broken, every good intentioned community placed systems being abused including this one. I handled the situation alone, I did not start abusing the system by reporting people with whom I disagreed with. Never ever reported anyone for 3RR, never ever reported anyone for personal attacks, incivilities. Yet, someone will start abusing the entire system a leg on the table to report the bite. Check the number of times I have been reported to InShaneee when everyone know I had a problem with that administrator they kept reporting me to that same person. Now you could start presenting each diff. one after the other. But I will challenge you to find any single little dot I have made in those articles which was not properly discussed. I can unplug my computer when I am mad, but someone who does not understand the guidelines and policies affecting the content of the article, how could they behave, tell me? Fad (ix) 05:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another Scientology problem?

Hi Fred. Thanks for your support in the Barbara Schwarz controversy. If you feel like getting involved in another one please check out this article: Altered texts in Scientology doctrine. Although I think it is on a fairly worthwhile subject it is almost entirely original research. Standard Tech is bad too. Thanks. Steve Dufour 12:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fadix

Dear Fred.

I would like to make a request to you regarding your decision to ban Fadix. Fadix has decided to leave the Armenian Wiki project (including all the articles related to the current arbitration), and therefore a ban would be unnecessary. As the following link shows ([60]), Fadix did leave Wikipedia at some point. The only reason he came back was that the Armenian Genocide article, which virtually has been created (in its present form) by Fadix, was being continuously vandalized, and Fadix was urged by Armenian members to return to correct the situation. Even the administrator User:InShaneee, who had caused Fadix to leave, had realized his mistake and took steps to protect the Armenian Genocide article, but he was unsuccessful. When Fadix leaves the Armenian project, the article will likely be vandalized by the same users have tried to do it so many times every time Fadix has left it.

I would therefore respectfully ask you to reconsider your decision of banning Fadix, as he is leaving the project. I would also ask you to take steps, as User:Inshaneee had, to prevent the Armenian Genocide article becoming vandalized, after everyone finds out about Fadix' depature. Thank you.--TigranTheGreat 01:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree regarding the problem. We are in quite a fix in this area, as we want neither information regarding the historical atrocities of the Turks, nor the modern atrocities of the Armenians (and Azerbaijanis) to be suppressed. We need uniform sober, conservative, fact based editing. In the case of Fadix, it was necessary to look at his behavior as a whole. Fred Bauder 01:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

True. I need to add, though, that in the case of Fadix, he has never needed to raise his tone to make sense, and has never used it as a way to enforce his position (he basically has very little number of reverts, compared to the other users). For some time he has already announced his wish to the Armenian editors that he will be leaving, and was waiting the occasion to do so (he only wants to concentrate on the Genocide and Biology articles). He was provoked after the unfortunate arrival of User:AdilBaguirov (which affected all users, by the way, both Armenian and Azeri). What pushed him over the edge further was that he found himself forced by Adil and the other new Azeri members to remain contributing in those articles in which he had no wish to contribute anymore. In sum, it seems that with his mind set on leaving, his ban will be unnecessary. Cheers. --TigranTheGreat 02:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Langan entry

Hi, I'm an editor that has for the past couple of weeks worked on the entry on Christopher Michael Langan. It is an entry which, as you know, has had a few problems. I wanted to draw your attention to something, as well as solicit an opinion, if you are not too busy. I apologise for having to give a little bit of background.

When I began to edit the Langan entry, I soon realised there was a serious NOR violation, involving discussion of a non-notable lawsuit not reported by any secondary sources (and I note that the ArbCom hearing against Asmodeus also made a finding that the entry must not contain any original research). When I made the case for the removal of this section of the entry, there were initially two results: 1) I was informed that "this material had already been passed," and therefore did not need to be discussed; 2) I was warned that I was in violation of the ArbCom ruling against Asmodeus, because I was engaging in a "similar pattern" of editing. I then appealed to User Jimbo Wales, who immediately intervened to remove the offending material, explaining this intervention here. The material had been included in the entry for many months, so I believe this outcome displeased the editors defending it.

Some further editing issues arose in the wake of this intervention. One consequence of this was that I was blocked for 48 hours by user FeloniousMonk. I believe any objective examination of the evidence will show that this block was improper and abusive, and I note the opinion of Mr Wales that this block was unwarranted. For many of the details in relation to this block, I urge you to examine the material collated on my talk page (apologies for not providing the diffs here).

I wanted to draw your attention to this chain of events, firstly because I note that one of the reasons given for the block was my "violation" of the ArbCom ruling against user Asmodeus, since according to FeloniousMonk I was engaging in a "similar pattern" of editing to Asmodeus (the other reason given was that I was disruptive, which I also contest). FeloniousMonk never explained what a "similar pattern" of editing meant, despite being asked to do so both before and after he imposed the block (and despite his offering to do so). It is my belief that FeloniousMonk blocked me for reasons of a content dispute. After imposing the block, he also attempted to conceal the fact that another editor had suggested to him another path for resolving the dispute (see here).

It seems to me that FeloniousMonk abused the ruling of the ArbCom in question, but also that the ArbCom ruling is open to this abuse, and that this part of the ArbCom ruling is therefore questionable.

(Parenthetically, I note for the record, in case you think I may be engaging in a kind of vendetta against my blocker, that I have not discussed the block with FM since he imposed it, nor have I referred to it on the talk page of the Langan entry. I also note for the record my opinion that the Langan entry has been plagued since the ArbCom ruling by blatant violations not only of NOR but of BLP, specifically editing without sensitivity, introducing controversy, as well as bias and malice, although the situation may now have settled down a little.)

As is the way with these things, there are many more details and complexities than I can go into here. But I am wondering what you think of the behaviour of administrator FeloniousMonk, as well as of the ruling itself. I wanted to ask your opinion firstly because of your prior involvement in the ArbCom hearing, secondly because I think your opinion may be valuable, and thirdly because I believe you have recently been involved in an ArbCom case involving an editor blocking for reasons of a content dispute. I apologise again for imposing all this on you, but would be very interested in your response, should you find the time to examine the relevant material. FNMF 01:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This article poses problems which are at the limit of what we are able to deal with. The court records are available, and accurate, but don't have a great deal to do with the life of the subject. Who, but one of us, would bother to research them? If there are interesting things to say about this man, positive or negative, such a petty dispute is not one of those things. FeloniousMonk erred, but his error is understandable in light of the trouble we had with Asmodeus. I doubt I have time to examine this matter in detail. Fred Bauder 01:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt response. I understand if you are busy. I would just like to point out, however, that both the NOR violation, and FeloniousMonk's "err" in blocking me, followed in the wake of, and were enabled by, the ArbCom ruling against Asmodeus. In my opinion this suggests the possibility that both the findings of fact and the rulings of this ArbCom were overly one-sided. I suggest it was interpreted by some editors as vindication, on which basis they granted themselves license to commit serious policy violations. I also feel it necessary to point out that FeloniousMonk was the editor who initially introduced the NOR-violating section (about a courtcase where evidence was heard from only one side), a section which, almost unbelievably, originally contained one-sided allegations against Langan's wife (see here). This begs the question of motivation (specifically, of his motivation for introducing the section, his motivation when he refused to address my concerns about the situation, his motivation when he improperly warned me, and his motivation when he improperly blocked me). Thus to speak of all this as “understandable” in my opinion downplays evidence of bias and abuse. Thanks again. FNMF 02:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hello Fred, please check your mail. Cheers. - Fedayee 01:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lookingheart returns

Hi, Fred. Writing about the editor Lookingheart and the Rainbow Gathering article. As you may recall, you were involved in mediation of this article and edit war. Lookingheart repeatedly inserted unsourced information into the article. At last word, you seemed to indicate you would ban Lookingheart if he continued with this. While I have no firm evidence he was the contributing party, the information that he wanted included in the article has since reappeared (and was removed). I invite you to look into this. Thank you. Bstone 19:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/e/User_talk%7EFred_Bauder_722b.html"