User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia is not a crystal ball but...

...I think you must have one. I was about to propose that principle too :o) (See my last comment at Talk:Kosovo. Regards, Asteriontalk 19:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom Case

I would like you to reconsider one fo your votes in section "Zer0faults has removed sourced information" located here [1]

Per WP:OR it states:

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Nescio never provided proof that the Information Operations Roadmap and Zarqawi PSYOP Program were linked. He then links Smith-Mundt through the Informations Operations Roadmap making it a violation of WP:OR. As for the first piece I am removing it because if you review the article, its mentioned 3 times already. However the second is clearly a vioaltion as Smith-Mundt is only linked to Information Operations Roadmap and Zarqawi program is not linked to either in any source. Thank you. --User:Zer0faults 12:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfAr: New anti-Semitism

Greetings. You recently opined to "accept" the case for arbitration concerning editors in the New anti-Semitism article. Several editors (myself included) have expressed confusion about your acceptance message. You stated your opinion about the content of the article, but, as I understand it, the ArbCom is not usually involved in content disputes. As well, the Request for Arbitration was not about the content of the article, but (it seems) about the conduct of users on the talk page. Could you elaborate? All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Eatonsh=Continueddonations=Returnoftheman

With literally no break at all, permanently blocked user Eatonsh aka Continueddonations is back, this time exclusively focusing on the main Schizophrenia and the Talk:Schizophrenia page. That they all are the same user is obvious if you look at his writing style, interpunction, topics, timing, appearance, mode of reasoning, etc. that IMHO it does not need any further proof. However, I am not sure how to deal with it any further; I admit I am somehow involved in this by now (he has called me a Nazi perhaps once too often by now), and reverting him all the time is a drag and looks, in spite of my explanations, odd to some other users on the page in question, some of which are helping him. Thus, I am herewith asking some of the users, admins and ArbCom members who were involved in this case previously to check and to either suggest what to do or to initiate some remedial course of action. Many thanks in advance. Ebbinghaus 23:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Nomination: Wikinfo

Hello. This is to inform you that I have nominated an article you have created, Wikinfo, for deletion a second time, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (2nd nomination). Best regards, Sandstein 20:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

Fred, I need some advice and I'd like to shoot you an e-mail. Let me know if that's OK. Thanks. Lucky 6.9 02:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Never mind...problem seems to be solved. Thanks for getting back to me. - Lucky 6.9 18:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are you harassing me?

No. The arbcom decision, based on a lie, said I could only operate under one account. I was continually harassed so I switched to a new account and stopped editing under this one.

I have not broken any policies. I have not edited any of the pages I used to edit because I knew you and Mackensen would immediately seek out confrontation.

Why do you have to prove to the world that you are right, and no other opinion is allowed, after I stopped editing under Ya ya ya ya ya ya?

Similarly you refuse to accept criticism so you vandalize my talkpage and revert every attempt to start an arbcom case on a blatant series of policy violations, and then you act like I'm not permanently banned.

I let it (the arbcom case I tried to file three times) go when you began wikistalking me.

I'm switching accounts again.

You don't like it? Too bad. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 02:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's true. It's a conspiracy and we're all out to get you. Mackensen (talk) 03:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Spammy Links

Hi I have already did an edit in Yoga category and there seems to be keep adding their spammy links. I hope you could help us out there. Thanks.

[edit] SpinyNorman

Fred, your comment about it not mattering that Spiny is JonGwynne: first, the evidence is pretty compelling that they're the same person. Second, the reason I added it as evidence is that it makes a considerable difference that this same person has been on personal attack parole and (as I recall) revert parole before; and yet even before the ArbCom case was closed, had started to engage in the same behavior with a different user name. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 5th sockpuppet of User:Eatonsh

User:Londheart is the new sockpuppet of User:Etaonsh, who was indefinitely banned by you for extremely offensive behavior. His subsequent sockuppets, including User:Continueddonations, User:Cestlogique, and User:Returnoftheman, were all banned as well, either as socks or for the repeated offense.

However, the current sock, which User:Etaonsh has admitted to be one (as well as the later ones)[2], is not only not banned, but Cowman109, has stated that for him, the previous multiple bans do not matter so much (even after he then checked the details): "Well I'm not sure of the details of the previous blocks, but I won't go on blocking you unless something you go on to break policy."[[3]

I would disagree with him on this, I think, overly friendly attitude. What this would mean, in effect, is that a multiply perma-banned user (with a proven track record of racism, homophobia, physical threats, and vandalism) is allowed to come back as a sock if he only tries long enough and creates one fake identity after the next. Perhaps you can look into this case and react accordingly. Sorry for bothering you with this. Ebbinghaus 22:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, Cowman misread the history here. Londheart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is currently indef-blocked, but appealing the block. Guy 11:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sites attacking Wikipedians

I noticed in ArbCom deliberations that there is a move to disallow links to sites which make personal attacks against Wikipedians. A while back there was a dispute on Simon Wessely (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) in which the One Click Group, a ME/CFS activist group in the UK who have a bitter and abiding hatred of the subject, posted a particularly blatant hatchet job. As a result of my attempts to neutralise this - initially just by rephrasing, it was only later that I discovered many of their "facts" were falsehoods or distortions - they launched some exceptionally vitriolic attacks on me (the story is here). I notice that we currently have a link to their website, to a paper attacking Wessely, in fact, on that article. Given my past history with the one-clickers it's probably not prudent for me to remove it, but I wonder if you have a view here? Guy 11:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GetWiki

This article is up for deletion, you have done some wonderful work with it so just wondered if you will be interested on the vote. Unitedroad 12:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for explanation

[4] May one ask .. why? David | Talk 21:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wrongful identification as banned user

Adrian (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) Hi. I am asking for your opinion concerning my wrongful identification as permanently banned Dabljuh (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). user:Nandesuka has been reverting all my edits to articles, their respective discussion pages and user talk pages, stating on User_talk:Lordkazan#Why_I_reverted_that that despite my assertion that I am not Dabljuh, who apparently comes from Germany like me, I am him. I posted the following to User_talk:Jayjg#Your_view.3F.

Hi there. Well, I'm sorry for all the fuzz I caused, running in a blind rage. There is no good reason for my behaviour, I just went on a rant. This said I just wanted to give you my word on two things: 1. Although I am German, I am not the person that used the banned user account Dabljuh. 2. I am not especially familiar with Wikipedia. Prior to my bad crushing in on the ongoing dispute on articles associated with circumcision, my contributions to Wikipedia were confined without exception to minor spelling and grammar corrections, adding Wikipedia-internal links to articles and two or three times asking questions on article talk pages. That's where my familiarity with Wikipedia comes from. I am not familiar enough with it, though, to effectively search through Arbitration Committee decisions. User:Nandesuka commented a deletion of a comment to user:Lordkazan on user_talk:lordkazan "(rm edit from user banned by order of the arbitration committee)". He since has explained on that talk page that, despite my protests, I am the sockpuppet of a banned user (Dabljuh). I seriously don't know what to do now, especially since the ban enforcement imposed on me by Nandesuka has taken place in a moment, when I already had apologized for my initial very bad behaviour and went on to partake in civil discussion on article talks and refrained from any further stupid vandalism. Now, it seems, Nandesuka won't reply to anything I say, he just deleted comments on his own talk page and also in all articles and on other users home pages stating that a banned user may not edit. I understand that user:Dabljuh has been banned indefinitely. So my only way out of this seems to be giving valid proof or sufficient assertion that I am not him. Hmmm... out of words... I am not him, have never talked to him in Wikipedia or in person. I'm just not Dabljuh. What else could I do? Do you have any suggestions? yours sincerely, Adrian 87.78.158.150 14:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason I am posting this to your talk page is that Jayjg has also reverted some edits I made index.php?title=Gliding_action&action=history and protected Gliding action asserting that my edits were "extremely aggressive edit-warring by extremely rude IP editor". In my opinion especially the latest two of those edits were not harmful to the article (added Wikipedia-internal links and changed words in accordance with a debate on the discussion that hasn't had contributions since July) and in spite of the fact that I had since apologized for my behaviour and had confined my edits to civil discussion and such (perceived) harmless minor changes. So I'm in fear Jayjg has a bad opinion of me and might not enter any discussion. But to get this right: I WAS behaving badly in the first place before stopping it, and I am sorry for that and tried to sincerely show it. I know that at least part of all this is on me and I accept that. I have since read though the applying Wikipedia guidelines and recognized severe mistakes I made (like not abiding from editing articles for a while). But I am not Dabljuh or a sockpuppet of him or anyone else. I have never had a Wikipedia account and have never before engaged in edit-war or any such thing before the past week. I am trying not to make any implications, just asking for your opinion on the whole thing. yours sincerely, Adrian 87.78.186.67 15:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You are being identified as a disruptive anti-circumcision activist. Just avoid the topic, Fred Bauder 20:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time. I have some more questions arising from your reply, though.
  • So I am being identified as Dabljuh, as Nandesuka said?
  • For how long do I have to / should I avoid the topic, aside from me currently avoiding it and going to do so indefinitely because it seems to be a pointless effort? Must I also stay out of (civilized) discussion on the respective talk pages?
  • Wouldn't a partial block/ban have been sufficient?
Thanks again. 84.44.171.5 22:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

added PS: while waiting for the preview of this edit to load, I checked user_talk:Nandesuka only to find my assertion that I am not Dabljuh and my pointing to Jayjg's talk page removed. On Jayjg,s talk page he is telling me to simply stop evading my block. I will now have to re-log into my ISP to get a different IP so I can even post this. I know I am evading a block thereby, but one that has been imposed on me for a false reason (although, I admit I may have given reasons different from that which could justify a ban). 87.78.186.67 15:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I just got back from town and am too tired to figure any of this out tonight. I'll try tomorrow morning Fred Bauder 21:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop

Hello. Could I ask that you use edit summaries, please? This page is bound to get busy, particularly when editors as prolix as Tony and I are involved.
brenneman {L} 03:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano Your post

Your message to carnildo: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano has been opened. It concerns you to a certain degree. However other than point out how your RfA might be appealed I doubt there will be any direct effect on you. You can always apologize some more, or even grovel a bit, but that is up to you. Fred Bauder 17:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"apologize some more" - SOME MORE? Do you have a diff for the first appology to me? Giano 17:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You know all I know. He said it was a mistake and should have consulted on the Administrators Noticeboard. Fred Bauder 18:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Have you the remotest idea how despicable "hate speech" is regarded by most decent people? Giano 18:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and having just participated in the indefinite blocking of Rookiee (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) I am quite conscious of the issues involved. Fred Bauder 18:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I never even, personally, saw what he thought was "a mistake," and that's a crucial ambiguity/silence. The blocking based on personal opinion was the heart of the matter, and the individuals involved and issues surrouding that decision were/are unimportant: it's deciding that you know better, that there are no rights to others. Geogre 18:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tendentious

Your edit

I found this statement very disappointing. Your views on the matter appear fixed to some degree: Everything was fine with the promotion. Your edit here suggests that bias is a problem only when other people have it. - brenneman {L} 13:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You will look in vain for my Support vote on that RfA. Fred Bauder 13:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how that's relevant to the comment I made above? My thrust is that you've made several edits to the page that appear to support the b'cat's independance in decision making, yet choose to dismiss my edit as partisan. I'm sure you are busy and I'll not take up more of your time with this, I'd simply ask that you consider what I've said. - brenneman {L} 13:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 71.111.117.99

Hi Fred!

Request for Arbitration I hope I am doing this right. I would like to request arbitration and report gross abuses by the user/ adminstrator "Gwernol" who conducted a 1 WEEK block for an editor who made a good faith attempt to improve the "Jodie Foster" by adding just 3 words. Furthermore Gwenol proceeded to use page protection to gag the user from using his or her own talk page! Gwenol (or his allies) then took the extraordinary, unethical and unusual step of changing the history page record of the Jodie Foster article to erase even the hisotry of the attempt at improving the page and his revisions. Gwernol then threatened this user/editor, who was acting in good faith, with an lifetime ban! (Which I do not believe that he has the authority to do).

I hope the Committee will look into this along with the sarcastic, belittling and needling comments Gwendol puts about edits he does not like with the comment (to many good faith edits). "Thank you for experimenting with the page Jodie Foster on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed" He shuld know perfectly well these edits are not "experiments" but the hard work of peopkle trying to improve articles.

I believe Gwernol has abused his power as administrator to punish editors for content he does not like regardless of its relevance and truthfulness. I ask that Gwendol's SYSOPS and administrative powers be revoked or at the very least be suspended for 6 months. I also belive Mr. Gwernol owes me an apology for the intentional infliction of emotional distress he has caused me. Please consider my request for the betterment of the Wikicommunity and Wikipedia. Thank you very much. 71.111.117.99 09:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

I've got it covered. I posted links on the WP:BN. Thanks. - Taxman Talk 12:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I need some advice regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible

Fred, would you be willing to give me some guidance regarding this remedy in the Intangible case?

Intangible is placed on Probation. He may be banned for appropriate periods from any article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing.

It's in response to arbitration enforcement. Either one of our talk pages or e-mail would be fine if you prefer. Thanks. Thatcher131 17:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I think its more or less in hand. Sorry to bother you. Thatcher131 18:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Message sent

I sent you an email and any thoughts you might have on the matter would be appreciated. Thank you.--MONGO 17:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colorado tolerance

Colorado has 50% more (typically anti-gay) fundamentalists than mainline (typically tolerant) protestants, same as the national average. However, the Roman Catholics (anti-gay) have more members than both groups of protestants combined. There are only 5 MCC (pro-gay) churches in Colorado with 587 members, but 85,000 Southern Baptists, and the SBC is about as anti-gay as it gets. http://thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/state/08_2000.asp

Wyoming has a slightly higher proportion of mainline protestants. I'd expect them to be more tolerant than Colorado, but Matthew Shepard didn't find them to be that way.

I have no personal experience to go on, so maybe I'm all wet, but I think of urban blue states as being tolerant, and the rural red states in the bible belt as being extremely hostile, with the other rural red states fitting into the slightly hostile ("we won't beat you up, as long as you keep your sexuality in the closet") category. We could all be a little more kind to each other, no matter where we live. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 19:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citizendium

That's a new one to me. I'm not sure what you are saying by "top down command structure" though? Care to elaborate? I ask in this space because I don't know how appropriate a sidebar is on the workshop page. Regards, Hamster Sandwich 23:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The first year I was here Larry was pretty much in charge. In all fairness, I suppose, Wikipedia:Consensus was probably his policy. Fred Bauder 00:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
To me Jimbo is the God-head from which all things Wikipedian flow. I just try to tow the line, is all. Thanks for pointing that article out though! Peace! Hamster Sandwich 00:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is Larry's perspective http://www.memoryarchive.org/en/The_Origins_of_Wikipedia,_2001,_by_Larry_Sanger Fred Bauder 00:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Bookmarked. Thanks again! Hamster Sandwich 00:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I seem to be saying sorry a lot lately.

Hi Fred, I blanked one of your comments. I won't link to it here but I'm sure you can find it. If you don't feel it was the right thing to do, do please revert. Thanks, Ben Aveling 10:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giano arbitration

Please follow up on the comment Giano left on my talk page. --Mgm|(talk) 11:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My move of Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Sorry for unknowingly breaking the diffs of an ArbCom case by moving the target page. I didn't know there was an ArbCom case with diffs into the history of Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Too bad that diffs aren't redirected automatically by MediaWiki, as the revision ID's seem to be preserved over page moves.

I also tested doing a move protection in my sandbox, so that pages that have diffs into them from ArbCom cases could be protected against moving. But that wouldn't have helped either, because there is no warning for admins when doing the move (so that wouldn't have helped me, because I'm an admin).

Maybe a tag template reading "This page may not be moved due to diffs into the page history from ArbCom cases" could help—although the work for tagging and untagging would be enormous. As a side note, partial-history moving of pages is possible, but complicated (tested here). Sorry again and best regards, --Ligulem 16:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supression of Falun Gong

Hi Fred, Back on September 13 you unprotected the Supression of Falun Gong article (named Persecution of Falun Gong at the time), according to your edit summary this was "for arbitration research." The situation on the article seems to be back to the edit war that was going on before it was protected. Though editors do not cross the letter of 3RR, they certainly aren't sticking to the spirit, with the same edits and reverts taking place each day - but no posts to the talk page to discuss disagreements and try to build a consensus. This doesn't seem like a good situation for the article. Is there anything that can be done to stabalize this page while the arbitration process continues? Thanks --Siobhan Hansa 14:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hard work

Wow, you've been working very hard on the RfArs! I was looking over this case (being as sucker for drama, and not having a TV), and I noticed your fast and thorough beginnings of a proposed decision. That's quite thorough, and you should be commended for your hard work. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Konstable (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)

Blocked me (Dormantfascist (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)) with no explanation it just says (go away) and a link to a new zealand college (69.69.163.91 01:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] links

I don't know if this is directly related to the blocking, but considering the situations that User:Konstable has apparently been dealing with concerning the "American fascist", etc...

- jc37 05:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Readminship

While I agree with the sentiment that RFA is too harsh on people, I do not agree with the persistent assumption that it would be even harsher to renoms of ex-admins, since this evidence points to the contrary (that if renoms fail, they fail for reasons entirely unrelated to the earlier demotion). For instance, from reading the oppose-!votes, it is obvious that the reason Carnildo's re-RFA didn't reach consensus is that he never apologized; if he had, people would have forgiven him. I would really appreciate your opinion and response to this issue. >Radiant< 11:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are correct. Fred Bauder 12:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking policy

If you find it necessary to point out that Kelly has "a long record of devoted service to Wikipedia" (which is nowhere made apparent during the arbitration), why not say the same (if not more) about Giano? People may see plain bias in such different treatment of wikipedians. Concerning this edit. It's a pity that you couldn't find a passage in the blocking policy which provides for the blocks of those indulging in insults and personal attacks and readily found the one providing for blocks of long-standing contributors like Giano. Apparently, we read different policy pages and edit in different wikidimensions. I actually regret the amount of time I wasted on following the workshop page. Sigh... Ghirla -трёп- 16:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo arbitration update

Hi Fred,

FYI, I've added a new proposed finding and proposed remedy to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Workshop (see [5], [6]). Your views would be appreciated. You may also wish to have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Evidence#Editors involved after start of Arbitration for a useful summary of what's been going on recently.

Any idea when the other arbitrators are likely to be able to give their views on the proposed decision? -- ChrisO 19:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Request from Bosna

Dear Mr. Bauder,

I believe User:Ew is using sockpuppet User:Naconkantari to make morer than three reverts to Kosovo article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&action=history

You can see that he switch from Ew to Naconkantari and make same revert. Reason I believe that he use sockpuppet is also because both Ew and Naconkantari contribs have strange habit to make all edit m minor edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Evv http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Naconkantari

At very least, could you please inform user:Ew that is it not proper to make edits that change whole meaning of articles and call it minor edit.

Thank you

Checkuser shows these are different people. I suggest you ask Evv to provide an adequate edit summary and not mark major edits as minor. Fred Bauder 11:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sending email to Arb Com mailing list

Hello Fred :-) I'm going to send an email to the Arb Com mailing list regarding my injunction on the Giano case. Want to make it clear that this is done as an user not a clerk. FloNight 14:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We goofed up?

Fred, few days ago you and I received an email from this user regarding wiki stalking and what sounded like real life threats of blackmail. I assumed more experienced people from ArbCom and such like you would deal with this - but today he contacted me again saying that nothing has been done, he got no reply and he is disappointed at this failure to react to his request. So am I, and I'd like to ask you why nothing has been done? Did everyone assumed - like me - that others will do that? PS. Clossius wanted to keep low profile and didn't post it on ANI or in other places.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/e/User_talk%7EFred_Bauder_Archive_30_1b93.html"