User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 33

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] User:SPUI

Fred, with regards to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#SPUI I think he should undergo some form of mentorship, it's a risk, but it should be tried anyway. --SunStar Net 11:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See my comments on the talk page

That is, Talk:Aneutronic fusion. The article as it stands inappropriately intermingles scientific claims (which aren't unreasonable) from engineering ones (which are speculative at best, OR at worst). Two great sins are a) research scientists who think they are engineers, and that unconstrained theory translates directly into constrained practice, and b) engineers and other practicians who think they are research scientists. Eric appears to be a sinner of type a--I won't dispute his chops as a physicist, but I find his claims concerning a powerplant to be entirely inappropriate. I needn't point out that many sinners of type b also inflict Wikipedia. --EngineerScotty 01:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting A Response

Fred, can you please tell me if ArbCom is going to respond to Andries request regarding the stand-alone reliability of "Salon.com" (discussion:Talk:Salon.com/as a source for Wikipedia)? Salon.com's stand-alone reliability is important because if Salon.com is deemed to be a reliable stand-alone source (articles that only appear on Salon.com that are not mentioned or published by other reliable or reputable media sources) then there is potential for widespread citations from Salon.com in which one can push any bias one may have using the (admitted) online tabloid, Salon.com: Some Examples. If ArbCom is not going to address this issue, please let me know. I'd appreciate a response. Thanks. SSS108 talk-email 16:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Word missing?

[1] seems to be missing a word? Do you mean to have "opportunity to" in there possibly?? JoshuaZ 19:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Undeletion

Thanks for letting me know. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel PoV

I have added 6 links to my RfA as evidence to support biased editing behavior. Will you please look at them and consider changing your vote to accept. If you are still not able to vote to accept, would you please post on my talk page what is deficent. Carbonate 00:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Now I am confused, not one of the six links I submitted as evidence for biased editing was in any way related to the edit war this RfA relates to. I have been trying to keep my statement under the 500 word limit, so I only submitted six links chosen from other articles in wikipedia. Was I supposed to post biased edits made during the revert war? Carbonate 02:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi

The committee grossly misunderstood the arbitration requestion. You added in a book [2] that I wanted to include as well and provided evidence on why it should be included.[3] This was removed by Vivaldi the other day with no explanation.[4] And this debate goes back to May.[5]

Moreover, this user has tried to add in a degree that the school does not offer[6] despite several concerns on the talk page.[7]

I believe the committee's proposals were not based on indepth reading of these matters. I agree with your inclusion of the books (I originally added them), but the failure for the committee to directly address my concerns has not stopped the POV pushing (removing the books, etc).

Please review the articles. Arbusto 02:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The books are unsuitable are sources as they are self-published. However they may still be of interest to the reader. I think it is a close call. Probably leaving them out is better as they do contain some pretty serious allegations. Fred Bauder 03:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help on WP:RS dispute

Hi, I wonder if you could lend an outsiders opinion to a dispute that has been raging on articles related to Operation Gladio. The dispute is whether a book on the subject is an WP:RS or not. The book is by Dr. Daniele Ganser of the ETH Zurich university. The book was published by them and Ganser received a PhD from that University for this work. ETH Zurich is very prestigious, having been the university where Einstein worked and having 21 Nobel prize winners on their staff. It is one of the fore-most universities in Europe.

I and others say this makes the book notable. Another group of editors say that because Ganser joined a group called 9/11 Scholars for Truth two years after the book was published, Ganser's work becomes suspect and cannot be referenced.

What do you think? I'd prefer not to go through the trouble of arbitration for such a specific issue. Thanks. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 16:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Does that mean, in your opinion, that all books published by ETH Zurich are unreliable. Should we delete General relativity? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 16:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Your answer would seem to suggest that academic peer-reviewed publications are don't pass WP:RS unless the author has never, and will never, be politically active. Is this Wikipedia policy? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes. And who defines what is disinformation? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you've given two examples but not a definition. Who decides what is disinformation? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

And what happens when two editors disagree? What if I think that Islam is disinformation? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate RfA Required?

Hi, Fred. Sorry to take your time, but I just thought I'd better check - to what extent has the Pseudoscience RfA already been decided? In my view, Wikipedia has a severe problem with people like ScienceApologist, to the extent that even if they're useful for keeping certain science articles in shape, other aspects of their behavior cost far more than they're worth. Thus, if it's too late in this RfA for my statement and evidence to be taken into full consideration as those of an involved party (I just got added to the list), I'd like to start looking toward another RfA dealing specifically with those aspects of the "pseudoscience" problem which are not being addressed (e.g., the deletion of valid material by "ID critics"). Thanks, Asmodeus 23:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marsden arbitration

"Having violated the ban imposed by Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Arthur_Ellis on editing articles which relate to Canadian politics, Arthur Ellis is blocked for 1 day. This nominal block for a serious offense reflects his misunderstanding of the scope of the ban."
  • I don't understand how one could misunderstand the scope of a ban on articles related to Canadian politics especially when the earlier arbitration case was also related to Rachel Marsden. (I'm assuming the first line of the article is "Rachel Marsden is a Canadian politician") Based on his previous run in with arbitration, I think a 1 day block obviously isn't sufficient here. - Mgm|(talk) 10:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Presley Request

Hi. I responded to your question on the Presley Evidence page. Let me know if you need any additional information. Lochdale 20:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

See also my list of sources on the same page. Onefortyone 01:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Konstable Arbitration case

As it may or may not affect this arbitration case, Konstable has given up his admiship rights by asking Angela for it's removal and it has been carried out. Just thought I would let you know this. semper fi — Moe 02:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SPUI

Seeing the unsuccessful response given, what do you suggest? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Active controversy

Hi

re:arbitration decision. I am just interested to read what constitutes a non-active controversy. I posted regarding the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. The contention over the use of self-published material [on behalf of the group] is very current and active and I am being refused to use any by the group's members who do not want public reference to it.

I have tried for mediation with the cult/NRM member re-writing the article along the lines of their current PR. He refused to enagage. I tried via arbitration. He refused to engage again. Refusal to engage is a pretty clear tactic.

I guess I will try the RfC avenue but what happens if he refuses to engage again? 195.82.106.244 09:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Dear All,

I have never refused anything. Can you show proof of that? Admin Jossi is in the Brahma Kumaris page now. He suggested the following:

  1. Rather than spend so much energy in trying to cite websites from proponents and critics, the article will be better served if old-style research is done by looking into scholarly books and articles that must exist for this religion. If there are none, which I doubt, then the article needs to be reduced to the minimum or maybe deleted for lack of notability. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
User 195.82.106.244 "new tactic" is to get other admins attention to do whatever he likes without going through the whole issue. User .244 needs to produce reliable sources as suggested by Jossi.
Thank you. avyakt7 15:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Jossie said the same thing as Fred, Luis [8].
Appreciate the effort Fred. Very decent of you and, of course, correct. Both times I notified Luis Riveros11 of the mediation and arbitration, he refused to sign up for the process. 195.82.106.244 17:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I may have erred in voting to reject the arbitration. But it was taken down rather quickly.

It's true it was only up for three days but there were 4 votes against it. If you think the other arbitrators are likely to change their votes as well I will gladly restore it for you. Thatcher131 17:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are being used as an excuse to revert war.

User:SSS108, who desperatly wants information removed from some article about some indian guru is using your statement that individual incidents discussed in a Salon.com article should not be included in the article about some indian guru is actually a licence on his part to engage in revert wars in an attempt to remove all mention of said article - in fact, his most recent statement was that you are "the voice of consensus." I am frusterated and disengaging. JBKramer 20:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fred, you comments are ambiguous. I think you need to clarify your position exactly on what can and cannot be cited from the Salon.com article. You made the comment and everyone seems to have a different understanding of what you said. Your current comment on the talk page is just as open to interpretation as your comment on the RFA page. SSS108 talk-email 20:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boisseau arbitration

Since you're "caught up and bored," you might want to go back to the /Proposed Decision page of the Jean-Thierry Boisseau arbitration and vote on a couple of proposed remedies that I believe another arb added after your initial draft. Frankly, I think the whole case may be moot anyway (Boisseau hasn't edited in weeks and says he's gone), but if the case is going to go to conclusion you can weigh in on those items. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

He's gone. Fred Bauder 20:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
You guys probably need to figure out a mootness policy. :) One of your colleagues on the committee probably spent a couple of hours reading through the evidence and voting today, and at least two more will have to do the same before the case can be closed. Newyorkbrad 20:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you in principle about completing cases. But it's just a question of how the committee balances that against dealing with the backlog, and prioritizing. I suppose I shouldn't be addressing that to the person who gets to most cases first and does a majority of the drafting! Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
a) if you think there is a backog at RFAR now then you haven't been paying attention for very long. b) nothing prevents "gone" users from coming back, either as themselves or under new names, and the mooted case suddenly becomes an unresolved liability. (HotR?) Thatcher131 20:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been paying attention for several months, and I know the delays were much worse in times past before that. I believe a major contributing factor to the major epidemic of community happiness we had a couple of months ago was a long delay in processing a seemingly unrelated arbitration case causing unhappiness to build among some of the subjects of the case (again, the delay is certainly not a reflection on Fred, who did the drafting promptly). You may have seen that my standard question for all the current ArbCom candidates is what they might propose to speed up the arbitration process (although other people asked the same thing in the January 2006 elections as well).
In this case, M. Boisseau is an instance where the user came to Wikipedia for a specific reason, and when he says he's gone, I believe he means it and that remedies against him may be meaningless. Having said that, I agree that a black-letter rule that "once things get as far as an accepted ArbCom case, the case will be finished" does have the virtues of simplicity and maybe deterring some frivolous filings. Newyorkbrad 20:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Unhappy user leaves [9]. Maybe not so much [10]. Thatcher131 20:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, an unproductive user who might otherwise have left, sticking around just to complain about his ArbCom case, is sort of the opposite problem.... Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oops, sorry

I know better. Sorry, temporary brain lapse. -- Samuel Wantman 22:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrator

I thought you were some random user and I was about to tell you not to respond to my statements on the case page but then I noticed that you're a part of Arbcom, lol. I have responded to one of your proposed decisions. BhaiSaab talk 22:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion is valid and right. However, I would rather have users understand that I meant Israel as a political entity rather than the people of Israel, considering I've already made the statement. BhaiSaab talk 04:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but be sure to check out these statements as well. BhaiSaab talk 05:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Where are the other arbitrators? Why are you the only one working? BhaiSaab talk 15:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That is not fair to you. BhaiSaab talk 18:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bowling For Columbine

I have since pointed counter evidence in my defense. I request that you reconsider your decision with the new evidence in light, or at the very least, explain how the conclusions you came to can be reached from the cited examples. -Schrodinger82 01:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

Hi, I sent you an e-mail yesterday, did you get it?--Euthymios 10:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Procedural Question

Copied from Thatcher131's talkpage at his suggestion:

As a possible arbitrator for the Clash of Civilisations that is the RfArb on HKelkar, I wonder if I could ask a question: when a RfArb has been opened on a particular user, are the findings of fact going to focus on that user alone, or on all users cited by ArbComm as parties to the dispute? I ask because I have avoided, for purposes of sparing myself considerable aggravation, discussing my interactions with another user. However, if the ArbComm will be passing out some form of judgment on all involved, as has been suggested to me [11] I would not be able to square it with my conscience if I did not make an effort to at least begin to spell out some of the damage done by the others involved. Thank you for your time, and I apologise on behalf of all India-related editors for the degree of work that this arbitration will involve. We should have stamped this out earlier. I do hope that some good will come of it now. Hornplease 19:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ready to draw a line in the sand?

Fred, given your willingness to excuse past misdeeds on the part of User:Mantanmoreland, et al, based on the belief that he gave up sockpuppeting in July[12], I'm curious to know how many examples of subsequent instances of abusive sockpuppetry by Mantanmoreland you'd need to see in order to change your mind.

One?

Two?

Ten?

Just wondering where the threshold is now. --Pencey Academy Dropout 04:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

We haven't seen one. Fred Bauder 12:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I have opened an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan. Tom Harrison Talk 14:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Lerner ban

Since there seem to be enough votes to ban me from editing any article that I am expert in, I just want to make a few points to each of the arbitrators personally so there is no excuse that they don’t know what they are doing.

Not one of you have said what the difference is between my case and that of a climate researcher editing an article on climate research, which is specifically allowed by the Wiki conflict of interest policy. Any professional scientist by definition has a financial interest in the funding of his or her research. Climate researchers "make money off of" climate research. Especially in any controversial field, they must appeal to the general public to generate political support for the governmental funding decisions that they depend on, if they are at universities.

Like myself, anyone working for a corporation has a financial interest in that corporation raising money from the public, both through the sale of products and the sale of shares.

Arbitrator Bauder has said that Bill Gates should be allowed to edit the article on Windows as an expert, yet in no way says how the same rule would not allow me to edit “aneutronic fusion” as an expert.

Aneutronic fusion using the plasma focus is NOT just my work. I am one researcher among quite a few in all these fields, just as a climate researcher is one among many. Nor is that the only approach to aneutronic fusion. Someone who thinks aneutronic fusion is a good idea could, for example, invest in TriAlpha’s Energy, which has a competing approach, or a Congressional aide might be inspired to allocate some money to University of Illinois' effort on the plasma focus.

The case is even clearer with "plasma cosmology" because I never have, unfortunately, gotten funding for this work (except my brief stint at European Southern Observatory.)

Quite clearly no general rule seems to be operating here, at least none that any of you have chosen to defend, that distinguishes my case from that of any other professional expert who makes a living from their research.

My only conclusion is that the intent is simply censorship—to eliminate all those promoting certain viewpoints, specifically on cosmology, from Wikipedia. I assume that if I am banned for conflict on interest, anyone who in any way supports a similar viewpoint will be banned as my “meat puppet”.

If I am mistaken and you actually do have some way of showing how a general rule would lead to my banning, but not the a banning of every other professional scientist, I hope you will post it on the proposed decision talk page.

Eric LernerElerner 00:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfArb

Thank you for your note. I chose to present evidence in any case. If the ArbComm specifically excludes the editor in question from its findings of fact or suggested enforcement, then I will follow your advice, and file a separate RfArb. I have observed that in some cases -such as the one being closed now - a recommendation to that effect is made by the ArbComm.

That being said, I hasten to say that this is an opportunity to clear up this thicket which has led to distortions and edit wars on dozens of pages, and to miss it would be very unfortunate indeed. Thank you for your time. I don't envy you your job. Hornplease 07:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom and TerryJ-Ho

Please see my response to your recent response there. Thank you. Diff.Hkelkar 13:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wo rohe Kräfte sinnlos walten, da kann sich kein Gebild gestalten

"Thank" you for including me into this arbritration case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ulritz without giving any further explanation! I will from now on abstain from editing the English Wikipedia for the reason indicated in the heading (Friedrich Schiller "die Glocke"). Have fun!

ps: by the way, supporting someone who calls other users "asocial neo-nazis" because they oppose comments like "unless they're Germans, then you can just shoot them" does not correspond with my idea of Wikipedia. (194.9.5.12 14:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC))

Sorry about that, but you need to provide more information if something is to be done. Fred Bauder 15:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fred,

I am tired of justifying myself all the time for not being Ulritz nor am I eager to start another dispute with regard to the recent insultation (as I have already said "where brute force rules mindlessly, no design can emerge") - it would be a fight against windmills anyway.

However, just fyi, please find attached below the following link (please refer in particular to the second part of the entries under the heading):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rex_Germanus#Blocked_for_violation_of_Arbcom_probation

(194.9.5.10 16:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC))


[edit] Links to attack sites

Having removed all links to ED, should the same be done with Wikinfo? there are a few. See also User:WHEELER. Guy (Help!) 15:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You certainly should not remove links to articles imported from Wikinfo. I suppose some of the criticisms of Wikipedia posted on Wikinfo at Critical views of Wikipedia are unfair. I note a rather extreme criticism by RK. He, along with 172 and Larry Sanger were the reason the fork was created. I don't think Wikinfo constitutes an attack site. Particularly not one on which individual editors or administrators here are singled out for abuse. Fred Bauder 15:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, this was a brainfart, I have just realised I am confusing my wikis. Sorry and all that. User:WHEELER is taking articles the other way, I think. I am a bear of very little brain... Guy (Help!) 11:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HArrassment by BhaiSaab

BhaiSaab has been harrassing me off wikipedia. He emails me, trolls facebook for me and even tried to call me once. This is very distressing and something has to be done.Hkelkar 18:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
You gave out your own name. I am simply trying to confirm your identity. BhaiSaab talk 18:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
There are issues with his actions here that must be raised.Hkelkar 18:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
No offense but even an admin was considering taking this course of action to verify your identity. You gave out your name, and you are well aware of what a Google search turns up. It is publically available information that I haven't even posted here. BhaiSaab talk 18:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
See WP:STALK Hkelkar 18:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It states nothing about this. BhaiSaab talk 18:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually it does.

Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment

. Stating that Hkelkar has a facebook puts him

at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media

. WP:STALK is clear. Mr. Bauder, I find it amazing what lengths BhaiSaab has gone to to try and stalk Hkelkar. Bakaman Bakatalk 19:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There are issues regarding who Hkelkar is and the ambiguity is under investigation. However it is inappropriate for BhaiSaab to be researching it. If he did find out something it would be a gross violation to disclose it on Wikipedia. What must be remembered, it is not who edits, but how. We are quite prepared to treat two, or several users as one, if they act the same. Fred Bauder 19:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that he has facebook can be find out by anyone who knows his name, which he has publicly disclosed several times. Since Fred states that it is inappropriate for me to research this matter on my own - ok, I will stop, but I have no intentions of posting my findings publicly without the permission of administrators. BhaiSaab talk 22:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Did I ever state my full name publicly on wikipedia? I first did it in an irc chat session with Trident and admins which you illegally posted on wikipedia. Then Twohorned posted my name in the ArbComm page (and got reverted).Hkelkar 22:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you have. BhaiSaab talk 22:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling?????

Please see my response to your recent comments in the ArbCommHkelkar 21:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitting some flak

Hi, You may remember me from my requests for an old Chinese textbook (which we never found) and my attempts to gently steer a master of Zen to the use of logic. I actually liked that user, even though trying to interact with him proved highly challenging. However, I've hit a group of editors who seem equally difficult to reason with and not nearly so nice. I just got my first ever "vandalism" warning from somebody I've never heard of.

I have been keeping an eye on a contributor who was very badly savaged a year or so back (I felt bad for not having picked up on the abuse in time to rise to her defense). I noticed a mention on her discussion page to trouble on an article called Black people, and since I've spent lots of time on the Race article I decided to take a look. I could easily identify several problems with it.

I made a couple of changes that were reverted. Rather than engage in an edit war I have tried to get a coherent discussion going on the discussion page. The person who reverted to one of my changes made assertions but never provided the evidence to support what he has said. I was just thinking about using the evidence I found in a direct way to attempt another edit when I got the "vandalism" notice out of the blue -- from somebody who hasn't edited recently and after a several-day period when I have not made edits to the article itself.

I am finding some of the people who are editing this article to have very uncivil and unproductive ways of trying to forward their beliefs. Since you have some familiarity with the issues of [race] (I hate that definitionless word) yourself, I thought you might be in a position to suggest that personal attacks, unsubstantiated charges of POV-pushing, and calling any valid edit a case of vandalism are all behaviors that are inappropriate.

Just in case this editor tries to push a charge of vandalism on me, I guess it wouldn't hurt to have someone with some experience in that area take a look at it.

Thanks. P0M 00:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

My impression is that much of what passes for "race" is simply ethnic difference, culture. Fred Bauder 01:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Race is a misbegotten word. You could call it either a category without a definition or a supposed single category with a gazillion definitions. It's a sure recipe for disaster since two people can be talking past each other without realizing it. I call race a myth, but racism is a reality and that is why it is worth it to me to try to correct mistakes and particularly mistakes that support racism.
The user who attacked me has attacked to users who have not been around for very long. Since I am involved in editing the article it would not be good form for me to try to represent the values of the Wikipedia institution. (I remember admins who had been editing an article getting in trouble for trying to tell bad actors that they were heading for trouble. I'm not an admininstrator and the only way I have to deal with uncivilized editors is to patiently hit them with evidence and analysis. Unfortunately that does not always work with ideology warriors.) P0M 10:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)