User talk:Fred Bauder

My associates and I have installed the GetWiki software at http://www.wikinfo.org, alternative address, http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/. It is hosted by ibiblio.org. The wikidata base dump was not installed. Software has been developed which allows easy importing of Wikipedia articles and to date about 30,000 have been imported. Certain policies have been changed from Wikipedia although the notion of using American English has been abandoned; International English is used and we are experimenting with articles in French and German. The concept of neutral point of view for each article has been changed to a policy of accepting a cluster of articles with differing points of view. Several policies which have been observed to cause tension on Wikipedia have been liberalized. See Wikinfo. Fred Bauder 13:51, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It may be useful when trying to locate information on a book to try the search engine at Redbaud.com

---

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 and User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 6

What are you doing Fred?

Fred

I'm somewhat puzzled by what you're adding to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk/Proposed decision. We have a vote for changing BC/AD to BCE/CE throughout WP that clearly fails. Some editors, despite that, unilaterally change some articles that consistently used BC/AD to BCE/CE. I (along with other editors) edit them back (as there was no basis for the change) - and you decide I am wrong and to be chastised, but those who made the unilateral edits to change an article that consistently used BC/AD to BCE/CE are acting perfectly properly. How is that fair or reasonable?!?!? Kind regards, jguk 22:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The proposed decision will develop further, but according to the manual of style both usages are acceptable. What is not acceptable is repeatedly reverting any article simply to make it conform to a particular style. Fred Bauder 22:12, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

It is SouthernComfort, egged on by Slrubenstein, who has been editing articles that were completely consistently using BC/AD so that they use BCE/CE - all I have been doing is reverting these changes because (and I agree with you here) it is not acceptable to change an article simply to make it conform to another style that you prefer. It is not me that has been initiating these changes! (There was one article, Elamite Empire, where I inadvertently did do this - as SouthernComfort was pretty making so many unilateral changes to articles, I made a mistake on this one. But on every other one you will see that before SC recently visited them, they always used BC/AD.)

You seem to be deciding the case on content, deciding you prefer SouthernComfort's content, and then concluding I have misbehaved because I have been stopping SouthernComfort's changes. ArbCom is meant to stay away from content, isn't it? I have also indicated on a number of occasions to SC that the act of changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE causes a lot of offence - and I have referred him to the outrage caused in New South Wales when this happened in one exam question, and led to questions being raised in both chambers of parliament and the minister backing down. SC has chosen to ignore this offence - if I am to be chastised on this for disagreeing with him, should he not also be chastised for disagreeing with me? jguk 22:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a distinction between changing an article and repeatedly reverting it.(Especially when you know very well that the other editor is offended by the usage). Fred Bauder 23:00, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

SC changed an article when he was fully aware Slrubenstein's proposal had failed and reverted time and time again to insert his preferred usage despite his being fully aware that I (and others) are offended by such deliberate changes). Why is my taking offence at his changes irrelevant? Where changes such as this happened in NSW it caused parliamentary questions, and the news that religious leaders in NSW were not actually offended by BC/AD usage (ie those who were making the changes were doing so on a false premise). Where similar changes have happened in the UK there have been angry letters to newspapers. The offence caused by SC's changes is real, yet you seem to say that is irrelevant, and we should instead concede to SC because he claims to be offended. You may, of course, not have been fully aware of this when you made your findings of fact. However, I should be grateful if you would reconsider whether your findings are really fair and reasonable in all the circumstances, jguk 23:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OldRight's response

There has been a misunderstanding. I can assure you that I am not some sort of sockpuppet, or being POV, or pushing a political agenda. All I have been doing is trying to keep articles specific and to the point. I'm sorry that that's been misunderstood, but there's no need for arbitration. -- OldRight 20:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Antarctic krill

hallo Fred! can you please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Antarctic_krill maybe help with some editing / formatting / vote - best greetings Uwe Kils 20:57, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Two issues: vandal Rovoam and user Pantherarosa

Hi Fred,

As a member of ArbCom committee, who is also somewhat familiar with my past activity in Wikipedia and various attacks I have suffered in the past, I decided to turn to you for help and advise.

I have two concerns, which I want to share with you.

First, Rovoam has been systematically engaged in outrageous vandalisms and regular abusive behavior directed against me and against other editors. No reverts, no admin blocks, even no vprotection helped to stop this vandal, and I worryingly observe that the persistence of this vandal eventually tires up many other editors and scares them off from engaging in his "target entries", thus, leaving me virtually alone to deal with him. If you are not aware of this person's deeds, please, read regular disclaimer on Rovoam. As I said numerously before, the only way to stop this person is to demonstrate at least as much persistence and determination in fighting his spurious edits and vandalism. And for this purpose, we need unity of effort of many editors.

Second, less-scale although no less (personally) important issue for me is the recent insult by User:Pantherarosa against me in my user page [1]. This was a particularly unexpected insult and initially I was even more surprised than offended. First of all, as I said in my communication with User:JohnKenney, I havent been in touch with this person for months (!) and frankly, I thought that whatever our past experience was, it's now over and he doesn't care about me as much as I dont care about him. Second, I could have imagined that this person would attack me on some nationalist grounds, but I would never expect this person to lower himself to such blatantly childish and street abuses. I left a message in his talkpage expressing my surprise and also expressing my determination to make him punished for his insults. [2].

I dont know how should I go about my complaint on Pantherarosa's conduct. User:JohnKenney advised me to turn to RFC, but according to RFC rules, "at least two people should have tried to resolve the same issue by discussing it". I think, RFC process perhaps is not quite appropriate in my case, because this user insulted me personally and me alone, and insulted in a way that there's been nothing left for "discussion". It is obvious that he should be punished for his insults, and I dont think that he would ever apologize for what he did.

So, in short, I ask for your help and advise on both dealing with vandal Rovoam and how should I go about the insults by user Pantherarosa. Hope to hear from you. Thanks in advance.--Tabib 13:21, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Concerns and ways of solution

Hi Fred again and thanks for your message.

First, on Pantherarosa: in my communication with John I said that I am not going to sit and wait until this person attacks me again. I dont think it is fair if a person gets along with his insults just because it was a single-shot insult and I think it is not appropriate (at least for me) to simply wait when this person insults me again so that I would be able to make him responsible for his words. I am extremely busy at work these days and have little time left for WP, but I will not leave my complaint against Pantherarosa, he's got to be held responsible for his insult. Btw, this person tried to spuriously delete my and your comments on his behaviour. pls, see, [3]

Second, and most important, Rovoam: I am very concerned about this guy. He is really smart and manipulative. Remember, I said that my case was realy an unprecedented case, Grunt then did not agree with me, but I think now even he would accept that this issue has really grow too much. As I said (and stated in disclaimers as well), the only way to deal with Rovoam effectively is UNITY of all other editors. We should not allow him get along with his overt and blatant vandalism, spurious edits and tricks. I would suggest the following: ArbCom can make a special decision BANNING Rovoam from editing Wikipedia forever. Following this decision, absolutely ALL edits by Rovoam would be reverted, i.e. ANY anon which would be suspected to be Rovoam would be reverted and his edits would be just disregarded by other editors. That's in fact what's going on now. In many entries all his edits are reverted by me and many other editors, but I believe, FORMAL decision by ArbCom would significantly ease this process and would make it impossible for Rovoam to deceive any newbee editors in the future. In addition, I am also thinking about applying for adminship in order to have more opportunities for fighting against Rovoam. I will be extremely busy in July and August and I am very worried that during this period Rovoam can get along with his overt vandalisms, and especially, that he can deceive other editors, who are less knowledgeable about the background and the issue at hand.--Tabib 14:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the Rovoam thing is a problem. Tabib doesn't always handle it well but this seems to be largely down to the fact that Rovoam is deliberately singling Tabib out because he has a low boiling point. I think it may be time for Arbcom to tackle Rovoam again. He is effectively unblockable and it's difficult to deal with his obsessive reverts when he's in full swing because of the sheer volume.

Since Rovoam doesn't seem to be interested in good faith editing where Tabib is concerned it may be appropriate to declare his edits in certain articles anathema, revertible on sight as simple vandalism, but I don't think anyone short of arbcom could make such a decision. We'd have to look at his edits closely. Also he is quite capable of exploiting loopholes so it would require some forethought. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It has to be stopped somehow

Fred,

Same old story is repeating itself. I am still being attacked by vandals and I still have to struggle against vandal edits in many Azerbaijan- and Turkey-related entries. Furthermore, same User:Fadix who waged some implicit and explicit attacks against me in Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh starts same actions again. This can't last forever. ArbCom should take decisive and immediate steps in order to prevent this farce once and for all.

First of all, minor detail regarding the previously banned vandal Baku Ibne/Osmanoglou/LIGerasimova etc. ArbCom forgot to ban one of his sockpuppets Twinkletoes (talk · contribs) and now he came back introducing spurious and sneaky edits and supporting Rovoam in his vandalisms. He basically joined Rovoam in disrupting/vandalizing the Caucasus entry ([4]) introducing the "map", inappropriateness of which was discussed in Talk:Caucasus. Also, another newly created sockpuppet Luba-Gerasimova (talk · contribs) reverted back to Rovoam's sneaky edits in History of Turkey ([5]). I think, admins should immediately close down both "Twinkletoes" and "Luba-Gerasimova" accounts.

As to Rovoam, he is still vandalizing the pages, and shows total disrespect to ArbCom decision on revert limitation and personal attack parole. Here are just some examples:

Violations of revert limitation (few examples):

• June 17: vandalisms of User talk:Francs2000(Archive9) history log - 26 (!-perhaps even more, lost count) vandal reverts
• June 17: vandalisms of User:Canderson7 history log - 7 vandal reverts in a day

Violations of personal attack parole (few examples):

Some recent examples from my userpage: [6], [7]); Some recent examples from User:Francs2000, talkpage: [8], [9]); Same for User:Canderson7: [10]) and the most recent yesterday attack calling me "parasite" ([11];[12]; [13]

I reinstate my earlier belief that the only way to stop this vandal is unity of many editors and formal decision by ArbCom banning this person from editing Wikipedia. I ask you and other ArbCom members to treat this issue with utmost seriosity and take immediate actions to stop this madness. I am convinced that no other user of Wikipedia has ever suffered as much malicious attacks as I have suffered during these months. Despite all of this I did not retreat and I never lowered myself to the level of those who attacked me. But this can't last forever, I need help and I hope you in ArbCom can help me more efficiently this time.--Tabib 09:19, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Iglesia ni Cristo page

Hello, as a Wikipedia arbitrator, I would like your input on the Iglesia ni Cristo page, which is currently caught in a revert war from members who claim this article is biased and other Wikipedians who claim the article is in adherence to the religion and NPOV standards.--Onlytofind 09:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Currently, the dispute is in the external links. This was kind of resolved by a vote (through Rlquall's arbitration), which resulted in a 3 pro and 3 con links (however weird that may seem). The thing is, Onlytofind is trying to get around the consensus (he actually calls it a "kangaroo election" even though he initiated it). Though we feel the article is slightly con INC, we are not claiming that the article is biased. I, for one, is not against how many links are there, and think that the article is more NPOV than a few months ago. It is Onlytofind's historical habit of making the article project the INC in a very negative light (even calling us INC members "hypocrites") that worries us. You can check the article's history to find out. We have no problem with the other contributors, only Onlytofind. Ealva 03:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RFA: cl ch: objecting to remedies

You wrote I'd like to see some links to edits or findings of fact which would support this remedy re JG. How nice. *I'd* like to see some FoF to support your votes for my remedies: [14] William M. Connolley 21:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Yuber arbitration

Please change the ruling you made on the 5th about looking into POV at both sides in light of the new evidence against Yuber. Thanks,

Guy Montag 00:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not know your personal views on the Middle East conflict, nor do I perticalary think that it is important in this arbitration, but I think you've misunderstood where I was coming from. The Golan Heights is annexed by Israel, those individuals who reside there are citizens of Israel. It is a contentious POV to suggest that there is a military occupation. That is why I suggested that this complex problem be diverted to the International law and the Arab Israeli conflict. There it explains the different positions of everyone in the conflict. Saying something from one point of view and claiming it to be the truth, makes articles like that irrelevent. Whatever the status is, it should be explained in a neutral way so individuals can determine what the status is themselves. I have a POV, I have never denied this, but I follow the rules and cooperate with other editors if they find something objectionable until the wording is satisifactory to both sides. I thought that was the point of wikipedia. With Yuber it is impossible to do so.

Regards,

Guy Montag 21:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration bulls**t

Enjoying attacking innocent users much, s**tball? Enviroknot is no sockpuppet of mine, nor is KaintheScion. I really don't care anymore what you f**ckers do to me but you should stop attacking innocents on the say-so of a bunch of Islamist a*sholes and raghead mujahideen wannabes. Leave Enviroknot the f**k alone already. NO swearing please ElKabong 16:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chinese public opinion

I've replied at Talk:Tibet. I must say, you have a very... ahem... "strange" impression of how Chinese people think and get information. But in any case, I look forward to your reply. -- ran (talk) 20:53, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ugh... ignore the argument that ensued between my and Lapsed Pacifist. This is what I hate about discussion controversial topics... when I explain an opinion, people think I support it. -_- In the end I find myself defending things I don't really support. -- ran (talk) 21:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

New socks

Hi Fred,

I already thanked ArbCom members, including you, for blocking the abusive and spurious sockpuppets in WP:RFAr. But I want to stress that special thanks belong to you. I was especially glad to read your message in my talkpage that I can turn to you in cases when new such socks emerge. This would save both me and ArbCom extra time and efforts, since I wouldn't have to appeal to ArbCom 'for clarification' every time such socks appear.

Here are some new socks, which are easier to detect: Scender Beg (talk · contribs) ("born" today, June 30); Schander Beg (talk · contribs) (same date) Skender Beg (talk · contribs) (same date), Skander Beg (talk · contribs) (same date), Pusti Malaka (talk · contribs) ("born" y-day, June 29) (see similar pattern used prev by Baku Ibne/Azer Zadnizy etc., i.e. using username to convey a 'message' ("...that I have read so far, I would say Pusti Malaka" [15]) (dont know what this message means though) Lorda Sfigata (talk · contribs) (similar name to previous sock) ("born" y-day, June 29) (also other spurious posts, see, e.g. [16] (intervening in-between my posts and advancing spurious comments).)

Fred, also please block another sock Benito Juarez (talk · contribs) "born" June 25 . I am confident that this is a sockpuppet, although not sure whose. (may be same as Lorda Sfigata/Pusti Malaka, --> [if so, then] LIGerasimova/Baku Ibne/Twinkletoes etc.) His whole contrib history is personal attacks against me (just check any diff link in his contrib log). At one case, the guy even simply copied and pasted identical spurious posts and attacks from one talkpage to another (see, for ex. identical spurious posts in Talk:Moses Kalankaytuk and Talk:Caucasus. Furthermore, pls, see his implicit personal attack against me in Talk:Azerbaijan: [17] where he implicitly refers to me writing "Azeri (Baku) pundits, who peddle pov" (similar attacks were from LIGerasimova (calling me "Baku Ibne", i.e. "Baku homosexual".) It's also worth indicating that there was no active discussion in that talkpage at the time of his spurious post. As I said, I dont know for surev whom this sock belongs. Another suspect would be User:Pantherarosa, who in the past also used to use an expression "hearsay peddler" ([18]). Before his insult to me, which I informed you about in your talkpage, I would not suspect him at all in vandalism and sockpuppetry, but after his recent insult, he is also in my list of suspects, so, it may be worth checking his IP and this socks IPs too.

There are so many of these socks that even I sometimes get confused and have hard time on determining which sock is whose. But I am sure that if any such moves are effectively prevented in a timely manner by blocking these socks, then these vandals will not be as much "enthusiastic" in their actions as before. --Tabib June 30, 2005 07:26 (UTC)

---

Fred, first I want to thank you for removing vandal sockpuppet attacks in my talkpage.

Also, could you please, protect my userpage and talkpage for approximately couple of weeks. Due to my work, I may not be active in WP for this time, and I do not want some vandals or sockpuppets to attack me or in my absence. I can't proceed with such request to request for page protection, but if you find this request of mine apropriate, I would really prefer my userpage and talkpage stay protected while I'm not active.

Also, I want to inform you that I have just deleted similar vandal-sockpuppet crap from Talk:Azerbaijan ([19]); Talk:Caucasus ([20]); Talk:Moses Kalankaytuk ([21]); Talk:Safavids ([22]) and Talk:Artsakh ([23]). It would be great if you and other editors esp with admin privileges keep an eye on these talkpages as well. Thanks. --Tabib July 1, 2005 13:54 (UTC)

Requesting sockpuppet check

(if you have this ability) on Ruy Lopez and Davenbelle. i somewhat doubt it but they engage in similar behavior at times. thank you. J. Parker Stone 1 July 2005 05:44 (UTC)

Absurd. — Davenbelle July 1, 2005 06:49 (UTC)

well i have to say your edits aren't that distinguishable, though your comments are moreso. but ya never know... J. Parker Stone 6 July 2005 01:41 (UTC)

How do you go about checking for this? Does it involve {{subst:Special:Watchlist}} ? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * )

Wikipedia:Naming conflict

I've written up a new policy proposal, with assistance from Ed Poor, to set out some guidelines and basic principles for dealing with naming conflicts of the Gdanzig type. Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conflict and let me know what you think? -- ChrisO 1 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)

Jguk arbitration

My understanding is that a temporary injunction against Jguk was passed 4-0-1, but it is not listed on the project page. Am I missing something? Thanks if you can clarify. Maurreen 3 July 2005 18:11 (UTC)

Fred

check your email when you get the chance will ya. thanks. J. Parker Stone 7 July 2005 03:01 (UTC)

Serious question

Dear Fred,

I am new to Wikipedia, enormously impressed and at the same time disturbed. I don’t suppose I am raising anything new for you but would appreciate your comments.

After reading around and noticing the way that Wikipedia is structured and what is happening in the hierarchy and all the changes since May 04, [when a major new software infrastructure was introduced] it seems to me likely that Wikipedia is being used by western ‘intelligence’ not only to provide a way of keeping under surveillance those who might be troublesome but also of ensuring that in the most important fields of human knowledge and endeavour not only does Wikipedia provide a simple way of staying in touch with developments but, even more insidiously, a way of ensuring that these developments may even, to an extent, be ‘managed’ in a way that is as compatible as possible with western values and interests. NPOV seems as close to a definition of this as anyone is likely to be able to imagine.

I accept that I have no hard 'evidence' whatsoever for this surmise. At the very least, however, it would be a dereliction of duty were CIA, Homeland Security, MI6 and whoever else, not to infiltrate as far as possible and set up whatever mechanisms were possible to be able to track people, groups and movements over 200 languages and involved in discussions on every possible topic of human interest.

But I suggest that it is very unlikely that their involvement is limited in that way. It is more likely that they are supporting the development of Wikipedia and its community in order to be able to keep track of people and developments and foster what they consider to be positive change.

I would be very interested in your comments. I am sending this also to a few others whom I think would have something to add. I am truuly trying to think and understand.

Jeffrey Newman 8 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)

Do you want to consolidate working class with social class?

Based on how you rewrote the introduction to working class, it seems that you would want to merge it with social class. I tried to clarify the introduction to working class, but I think that it is as convoluted as ever now. The reference to a Wikipedia editor as an authority on class is especially confusing, as is the fact that the article immediately goes into detailed theories of class without providing a general overview of the subject. If we can't define working class without detailed reference to theories of social class, then the former article should be merged into the later. Good luck. AdamRetchless 23:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Heya, about that RFAr injunction...

... you said to holler on an ArbCom members talk page if things aren't going fast enough. Can I please have a confirmation that the injunction is in effect? Alfrem is still reverting that page, and I have blocked him for 48 hours this time as 24 hours does not seem to be enough for it to sink through the constantly reverting an article is not acceptable on Wikipedia.

Incidently, I take no pleasure in blocking the man. I just want sources, and a halt to POV pushing. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked for a week (was using anonymous editing to evade block). Should I unblock? Please advise. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Cantus' request for arbitration

Hi Fred Bauder, in Cantus' request for arbitration, would you consider applying an extension of Cantus' second case, which states Cantus is limited to one revert per article per 24 hour period. Should he violate this, an admin may ban him for a short period of time (up to a week), the extension being one revert per 24hr period to any page in any namespace? I feel that the current proposed decision will once again not make it clear to him that refusing to discuss and reverting without edit summaries is not acceptable. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 18:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

My admonishment

Fred, I am told that the ArbCom has "adminished" me for my rudeness in dealing with Skyring. Is this so? If it is, might it not be a good idea to advise me of this rather than leave me to find out secondhand? Or maybe I am misinformed. I am also told you have banned Skyring from editing Australian political articles for a year. If this is the case, might I express the view that this punishment is too harsh? Although Skyring was for a period extremely tiresome I don't believe he is a deliberate wrecker and I think a shorter ban would have been sufficient deterrent. This is particularly so when we consider that the Stalinist wrecker Ruy Lopez and the LaRouchist pest Cognition are allowed to run amok unchecked. Adam 04:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Fred, thanks for your reply, I know you have a difficult time with all this. I will try to be better behaved when I return after a break. But the fact is that my tactics do get results, and are made necessary by the weak structure of wikipedia, which is not of course your fault. I believe R Lopez under his previous incarnations has been the subject of numerous disputes - if there is a sockpuppet rule he ought to be banned under it. Cognition is apparently not a sockpuppet, just another LaRouche zombie. Adam 04:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Just to give one illustration of my point above. What kind of encyclopaedia allows this kind of idiot to go on vandalising articles and wasting people's time? Adam 06:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

just thanks

thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Tkorrovi et al: Motion to close, etc

I draw your attention to this. Paul Beardsell 12:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Yuber returned again?

Sorry to bother you but I think you should know that another two sockpuppets have popped up that appear to be the user called Yuber. They are ser:63.70.62.84 and User:Siegerz. I have reported them to the Admins noticeboard and Vandalism in Progress page but there has been no response yet. Existentializer 17:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood arbitration

Fred, thank you for your comment on my talk page. Whilst I initiated the original RfAr on Instantnood, I have had nothing to do with the second one. I'd rather sit this one out, though if you feel I ought to comment on something, or if the ArbCom is considering any remedy invoolving myself, I'd be grateful if you'd let me know, jguk 17:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Plautus satire

Is it fair that you've reopened arbitration against him while he is blocked and can't respond? That edit you pointed to wasn't disruptive enough to even warrant the block, let alone a one year ban. Perhaps put things on hold and just ask him if he intends to work productively. -- Netoholic @ 18:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is fair. Fred Bauder 19:26, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I see you recently blocked User:A Man In Black as "Sockpuppet Plautus satire". He came into #wikipedia asking for help, and it seems to be an error - other than this edit, which could easily be innocent, his contributions seem nothing like those of Plautus. --SPUI (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

After a long talk on IRC, we are pretty convinced he isn't Plautus. I am unbanning him (no offence to your autority of course). Sasquatch′↔T↔C 10:07, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

DavidGerard has also informed that their IPs do not match. Regards!Sasquatch′↔T↔C 10:09, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Plautus satire

Can you point me to the Arb case? The one I find is under voting. He sent me this reply via email:

---

This is not an unsolicited email. You are an administrator on wikipedia, which is a public forum, and I am a user of that forum. If you do not want emails like this, surrender your administrator account to me and I will field them for you.

---

Obviously, that is a request I'd never comply with. The way it was written sounds like, "I'm going to take your janitor key, beat up everyone and fix the mess around here my way." --AllyUnion (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin

While I agree with your edit commented "Citations needed" in Joseph Stalin, a proper way would be to move dubious pieces into talk page. Both deleted pieces have certain circulation and deserve to be disussed at least in the talk page. mikka (t) 21:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Scimitar

Hello! I'm just a little curious about what's going on in connection with me at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Argyrosargyrou/Proposed decision. I see my name, but not any text detailing exactly what's happening. I had a relatively significant role in events, but I don't believe I did anything inappropriate. Any clarification you could offer would be appreciated. Thanks! --Scimitar ^parley 16:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for clarifying. --Scimitar ^parley 17:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

end me your ears please==

please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Update and see if it might hlep ,my cause. Gabrielsimon 03:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposed decision in the AI case

I read your comment on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI/Proposed decision regarding the proposed remedies. I was wondering if you had a chance to look at the talk page. In my opinion there is a fundamental problem, namely what I would characterize as AI's failure to seek or respect consensus, which could be addressed. As I see it, the edit war on the talk page and the POV edits are only symptoms of this general problem. I'm not sure if a special remedy is necessary: one could argue that at some point repeatedly making essentially the same edits against consensus constitutes mere vandalism; on the other hand, I think it would help in this case if an authority like the ArbCom commented on the general problem (which the "refactoring" and POV editing are special cases of). Thanks, --MarkSweep 21:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

a possible new RFC/RFA

DreamGUy is constantly incivil towards, well almost everyone. hes been rude to me to the point where i can not stand him any longer, but thats not why im speaking here,. hes rude t o admoins, and refuses to accept any possibllity thats hes fallable or knows any wrongdoing. if you examine the diffs im about to pose you might see my point. i beleive arbitration might be the only way to deal with him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=20138200&oldid=20109082

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=20144058&oldid=20139602

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=20144117&oldid=20144058

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=20157696&oldid=20144117

all i did was change then to chronological order, which he seems to have resented http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=20421198&oldid=20180591

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=20183731&oldid=20183120

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=20228302&oldid=20227979

his completel lack of good faith http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DreamGuy&diff=16957501&oldid=13202531

sorry if this is uncalled for, i would just like to see t his issue resolved without having to listen to his rants and rudness any longer. Gabrielsimon 01:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Email

please check it when you get the chance. J. Parker Stone 06:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

i don't know if that was supposed to be some kind of sarcastic response, but i did send you an email, and i hope things get movin' a bit. J. Parker Stone 21:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

well ok to sum it up can we please get things going with the ArbCom, i realize it's summer but it's been 4 months. J. Parker Stone 21:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

it's a tad irrelevant now, i don't particularly like Davenbelle's edits but i am free to work with him on disputed subjects rather than impugning him as a leftist as i did before. i brought the ArbCom case forward with the assumption that people could get easily banned for POV edits -- i was wrong and got this Dec. sockpuppet thing as well as past fights with 172 and Viajero thrown back at me.

in any case while i think the problem has pretty much been resolved now given the time that has passed and the fact that i have patched things up with two users i used to get into severe disputes with if there is still going to be this punishment i just want it to wrap up soon. while Davenbelle IMO has made some serious POV edits he probably hasn't done anything worthy of a year-ban. J. Parker Stone 07:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

well i think i've made my case that i've dropped the former aggressive POVing pretty clear but in any case i thank you for favoring a more specific punishment. J. Parker Stone 12:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

email again, my last one on the matter. J. Parker Stone 00:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ArmchairVexillologistDon#Final_decision

I wish to let you know that the user that is the subject to this RFAr has returned. He came back August 6 [24]. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't destroy the page history of User:ArmchairVexillologistDon. He never created a user page for himself. It was a redlink until I created a stopgap page containing only his name in December 2004 to make it easier to go to his talk page via his signature on other talk pages (someone did that for me when I started so I've done that from time to time with redlinked users to make communication easier.) AndyL 03:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

ArmchairVexillologistDon is still breaking his conditions by posting on page(s) he's tempbanned from. The page has been slated for speedy deletion since it is an orphaned talk page. [[25]] Homey 23:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Fred, does the Arbcomm require Talk:French Republican Tricolour form of Canadian Maple Leaf Flag preserved as evidence or we go ahead and "speedy delete" since it's an orphaned talk page?Homey 15:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

We can bring it back if we need it. Fred Bauder 17:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Howdy,

To keep "matters straight" it is worthy of note that AndyL and Homey are in fact the same person. If this is not noted, an uniformed user with believe there are TWO people complaining about me, instead of ONE person.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

AVD is again violating the tempban against posting to pages related to flags, Canada or fascism, this time by posting to Talk:Canada [26] . Homey 19:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

216.112.42.61

Fred -

Thanks for your offer about examining 216.112.42.61. He seems to deserve it. However, what can you do about an anonymous editor? --EMS | Talk 01:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

AI prohibited from CoS articles

And what is the reason for this based on what? --AI 21:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Aggressive point of view editing. We do need to show more evidence. Fred Bauder 22:48, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

No need for evidence, I agree my POV is pro-scn because I am a Scientologist and yes I know I am very aggressive in almost everything I do. My POV should be acceptable considering the CoS articles are highly anti-Scn and contain false information with too much attribution to unprofessional "critics" and attribution given to sources who are referencing material that is unpublished. Need I say more? Aloha. --AI 04:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Misleading Username

How can I make a complaint about a wiki user with a misleading username? I assumed Ombudsman had an official wiki ombudsman role despite his POV edits. This was reinforced by his user page, which contains a box with links to wiki arbitration and mediation sections, and his frequent seemingly official welcome messages to new members. I only recently learned that he has no official role. It appears that he is trying to mislead editors to believe he is a neutral wiki mediator to provide cover for POV edits, esp. in the anti-psychiatry area (he adopts the Tom Cruise position on psychiatry). What can I do?--Agiantman 09:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabe is now Gavin

I'm copying the message you left on User talk:Gabrielsimon to User talk:Gavin the Chosen. FYI, this is where any correspondence with him goes now. ~~ N (t/c) 16:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

workshoppe

is it proper for me to attempt to edit the workshop page? if not, i have been speaking on the talk page....Gavin the Chosen 23:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFAR quesiton

Could you possibly fill in [N] in the "On this case, [N] Arbitrators is/are recused and [N] is/are inactive, so [N] votes are" bit on my RfAr. Thanks, ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 15:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

why /Workshop rather than /Evidence?

Hi,

You recently edited Template:ArbComOpenTasks to point to /Workshop links rather than /Evidence links.

This will be confusing to users who are unfamiliar with the arbitration process, because there is no link to /Evidence at the /Workshop page, and now there are no longer any links to /Evidence at the RfAr page itself. The only way to know about the existence of the /Evidence page is, well, if you already know about it.

The /Workshop page itself is somewhat confusing, because it is simply an unmodified template: the prior content at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration that lists the parties and their statements (during the voting by arbitrators on whether to accept/reject) is not reproduced there. -- Curps 15:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've edited Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Workshop to point to the /Evidence page, since that page has already been edited. However, I'm not entirely sure how you wish to use Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop: is the evidence now intended to go at the bottom of that page or will there still be a separate evidence page? It seems that you are transitioning between two different ways of handling the evidence-gathering phase, and I'm not sure what your wishes are here, or how to edit things to reflect them. -- Curps 18:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Admin overriding Arb-com

Under exactly what authority does UninvitedCompany think he can unilaterally permanently ban users, and destroy their user pages, and protect their talk pages so that they can't respond? - [27]

It should be noted that the alleged images were listed at User:Evil Monkey/Nudity as well as being considered entirely appropriate for articles, having, as far as I can tell, already survived IFD, and have been on Wikipedia for over a month.

Note that an arbcom case has only just opened and has by no means come down with even remotely any penalty such as a ban. UninvitedCompany seems to think he has greater authority than ArbCom, and can completely act outside it.

Does UninvitedCompany has infinite power and permission to unilaterally with impunity?

Particularly when the user/victim in question has challanged a prior abuse of adminship by UninvitedCompany in an RfC, and has diametrically opposed political opinions?

This seems to be a case of right wing evangelical Christian admins thinking they have the right to dictate to everyone else.

It also seems in contempt of the arbitration committee's right to make the decision.

SomeAccountThatIWillListOn-Ril'sUserPageWhenOrIfIEverGetItBack (-Ril-) 12:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

sock pupptry

i dont remember how to find out if somes a sock or not. anyway, the users im curious about are Hipocrite, DreamGuy becasue both showthe same lack of civillity.Gavin the Chosen 04:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I look forward to my name being cleared. I give you explicit permission to disclose to Gavin any and all evidence that would lead you to believe that I am DreamGuy. I do not give you permission to disclose my IP address, to him under any circumstances. Hipocrite 04:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

i do not think that it is your choice in any case. heres the thing toh, your being relaly really rude, with no cause, just like he does. so i suspect.Gavin the Chosen 04:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

In Gabriel's brain, anyone who removes his edits and tries to explain to him why he is wrong in uncivil, and considering he has been blocked 20+ times now for uncivil behavior and sockpuppeting and so forth, it is absolutely bizarre for him to try to accuse other people of doing what he's been proven to be doing nonstop since he got here. His RfAr is ongoing and hopefully the impending long term block will be soon, because it's not right that he should harass multiple real editors this way. DreamGuy 10:56, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Activating a temp injunction

I've just informed dot6s two main IP talk pages about the temp injunction, mentioned it on the talk page, and changed inj to inj on the template. Is there anywhere else i need to post a note? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

rktect arbitration

You said: but you are both doing to have to show some evidence

I tried to limit my statement to 500 words, as indicated. On my account, in what area do you want to see more evidence? And exactly where should it be placed? -- Egil 20:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

You said: I find this dispute very confusing, possibly due to Rktect not signing his posts. I would want Rktect to come up with book and page regarding the authority for his assertions, likewise for you I would want an example of him posting some unsupported fact, many unsupported facts.

Lack of discipline in discussions is one of my arguments. One needs to consult the history log, which is tedious work. For the arbitration request itself, it is easy, because it seems rktect so far has submitted his material as lists of bullet points exclusively. With regards to evidence, I am collecting it here. This is work in progress, aimed to be presented at the time of an arbitration. In the interest of saving everyones time, I would appreciate feedback on what issues need further illumination. -- Egil 06:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I have a question in this matter. As an interested party, I would like to make a statement in this case. At what time is this appropriate, and is there an expected format? Ken ^{talk|contribs} 01:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

• My references are generally in proper format and broken down by category as for example classical, historical, linguistic, archaeological, mathematical, medieval and so forth or at least they generally are up until they get deleted.

• In places where its appropriate I have indicated book and page, Klein pp 105 - 115, other places I have refered to Gardiner section 266, or Gillings chapter 9 or Herodotus "The Histories Book II".

• Some references are footnoted as [1] or [1,4,29] and referenced into the text. If you like I will either scan or digitally photograph any pages that you want to see and don't happen to have in your library at home, and if you like I will footnote any passage you have questions about.

• I can also produce many relevant images which I have copied for my own use from the web such as photographs of rulers, rods and measuring devices. If you mean what you say about determining this based on whether or not I can provide references for my facts I will be very happy to supply as many as you need. Rktect 17:00, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Merle Source

Merle was stripped of membership to the Alberta Alliance party after the Randy Thorstienson announced his resignation in March. unfortunetly the news articles involving Terslesky are not avalible on-line anymore. There was articles in both the Calgary Herald and Edmonton Journal, in which he belived the Alberta Alliance one sitting MLA Paul Hinman should cross the floor to the Progressive Conservatives.

The council revoked his membership to the party. For his status please contact Mark Scholz V.P. of membership at the Alberta Alliance mark.scholz@albertaalliance.com, or Kelly Swerid kswerid@shaw.ca Former Vice President of Election Readiness, or even Merle Terslesky himself.

Thats the best source I can give you --Cloveious 22:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

West Point

I'm not defending West Point or policing relevant content. I could similarly place well referenced information about the varieties of snack food most consumed on campus in 1955, broken down by percentage, and it too would be way out of place. The National Enquirer and Ken Starr might be interested and feel that it appropriate to report what percentage of people at an institution had anal sex in a certain year. Within the context of an article about a 200 year institution which has had dozens of scandals which dwarf your reference, your information is simply out of place. Dr U 03:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Question on procedure

I am, unfortunately, one of the people involved in the Zen-master arbitration process. I just discovered that there is now a workshop attached to the original request for arbitration. The whole process looks different to me than the kind of arbitration that Anthere conducted when there was a big fight over the DNA article. This proceeding has, to me, more the look of a trial with the projected solution being some kind of punishment if anyone is found guilty.

I asked in several ways for outside help because Zen-master was calling people Nazis and similar names, and those accusations can be damaging to individuals outside the Wikipedia domain in the void. I had in mind another case where I had imagined that one user making some abusive statements had decided to behave himself -- not knowing that the abuse was continuing on the talk pages of other articles. I felt that I should have intervened in that case, and I didn't want to stand by and let people get hurt in this case. After the use of abusive language had been abated, hostilities moved into the edit war theatre. Then a request for arbitration was put in. (That's just as I remember things. No time at 3 a.m. to go back and reread old talk page entries.)

I don't see where administrative punishments are particularly suitable in this case. I think mediation, if successful, would be more productive in the long run. The problem, as I see it, is that Zen-master will not accept attempts to mediate by me as being other than inimicable to him. That is perhaps understandable, since in certain key respects I disagree with him. What is needed, IMHO, is to find somebody whose good intentions Zen-master can believe in. And that person, if I understand things correctly, will have to be able to explain to him, in terms that he can accept, why it is not productive to keep repeating the same assertions and questions over and over again.

I basically agree with Zen-master on an emotional basis. I have a non-expert's feeling about the way the issues of "race and intelligence" have been framed, about the reliability of the evidence, about many of the issues that center around the validity of the conceptual scheme used to discuss the entire issue. That being said, I know that I have feelings but no proof. I have agreed with Zen-master publically, on the discussion page of the R&I article, on every point on which I can find agreement with him. He still regards me as some kind of enemy. I watched another contributor (Nectarflowed, I think it was) patiently try to get him through the same fundamental flaw of reasoning that I saw, but Zen-master rejected all attempts at reason and kept pounding at his familiar assertions. Then I tried to set up a parallel problem in scientific inquiry that did not involve the same emotionally loaded issues, but all contributors including Zen-master ignored that attempt.

Since everyone has ignored it, the example has failed its original purpose, but let me use it here to describe what I think is causing the intellectual side of the problem. (What I see as Zen-master's set to see bad intentions in people who disagree with him is another matter.) When kuru, the human analog of mad cow disease, was discovered in New Guinea, the researchers did not investigate all members of the general population of that country. The researchers noticed almost almost immediately that all people affected by that disease were members of an ethnic group called the Fore. Their initial hypothesis was, "Something is causing disease among the Fore." Then the looked for characteristics of this ethnic group that might explain the fact that they had this problem. They very early on considered the possibility that it involved the genetic constitutions of this group. It would have been stupid for those doctors to look at non-Fore members of the general population. Now for the analogy I was setting up: Lower average IQ scores are the "disease," and there are three or four ethnic groups that have progressively lower average IQ scores in the US. The same questions need to be asked: Is this a matter of genetic constitution? (It wasn't a question of genetic constitution in the case of the Fore.) Is it a matter of culture? (It was in the case of the Fore, and they had to be convinced to change practices central to their cultural identity.) Zen-master wants people to not look at "race and intelligence" but to look at "nutrition and intelligence". Applied to the prion disease emergency his approach would have asked health officials to ignore the fact that it was the Fore who manifested the problem and look at all individuals in the country to see why a certain "random" set of indivuals got the disease.

I hope that's clear enough for you to understand what is puzzling me. One possible response to what has gone on so far is to do what Ed Poor did immediately after I wrote to him. Just say: Don't fight, or else. Doing so will prevent future outbreaks of the problem in this one place, but it doesn't strike me as an instance of either arbitration or mediation. It strikes the branches not the root of the problem. I sincerely believe that Zen-master's heart is in the right place. So is Rikurzhen's heart, and that of everybody else involved. At the root of the problem is an issue of dynamics, a dialog that is not taking place. I don't know whether to put any of this on the "workshop." It seems that nobody is interested or aware of what I see as the fundamental issue. P0M 07:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response on my talk page. I haven't seen anybody getting called Nazi, neo-Nazi, or racist for a while, thank goodness. Hitting somebody with a penalty may be the only thing that works when somebody is not truly penitent. One can always hope for sudden enlightenment to set it, but I haven't seen any signs of that. P0M 01:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"existing case"

is closed, this said eisting case. woudl that change your vote on that matter ( the arb thing) or would it remain unchanged?Gavin the Chosen 05:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

re:Coolcat

I never asked him to get out of the Armenian genocide article for ever. We(I and another member), have asked in the past for him to read at least one work about the topic, revisionist if he want, but at least to come and have something to contribute in the article, but since he didn't do such, and came back again(without reading much) and wants again to get texts in the article to be deleted, also, to introduce what he believes in the article,(and not what is said about the topic) I requested him out of there. Of course, I have no authority to do that, but I also said that I will assume the consequences of my acts, because such harsh words seems to be the only way that people will start trying to act, and since nothing worked, for me it was the only option left. I agree that Wikipedia should not become an elitist hole, but neither should it become an anti-elitist one, and when a member comes there, and does even not know the names of those, the position he defend, and has not read a single work, or even an article from them, he has no business in the article, unless it is grammar corrections, or POV wordings. There are many people out there that can correct the grammar of the article, and Coolcat is the last to be able to differentiate from a POV wording and NPOV wording, and he doesn't know the subject at hand. Fadix 23:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

John Wayne

Howdy.

Test Two

For a second test I picked The Swan (1956). Only 14 actors members are listed. 8 have cause of death (or have died). 4 died of cancer. 50%......again....hummm...?

• Filming Locations for The Swan (1956):
  • Biltmore Estate - 1 Approach Road, Asheville, North Carolina, USA

Must have been downwind of a tobacco cigar rolling factory?

I am disputing the assertion put forward by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com that Wayne and others on the set of the movie The Conqueror died because of making that movie. I firmly belief Wayne died from, to quote Wayne: "smoking four to five packs a day for forty years." Now my opinion does not belong in the article, and neither does "The Conqueror's" pro-nuclear fall-out theorist. I would also guess that half of the actors that have passed away, who smoked heavily in the 1940's and 1950's, and lived to be 60 years old or older died from cancer.

WikiDon 02:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. JFK did not die in Switzerland in 1993 either.

Theathenae Arbitration

Technically, I was suggesting that Arvanitic is a variety of Tosk Albanian (I have been subject to a false accusation by you: that I said repeatedly insist on referring to a language used by Greeks as "Albanian"). I have demonstrated this above using reliable sources. Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:NPOV) requires that this be made clear in the article. But if you feel that we could make an exception in this case, I shall be more than happy to stand aside. REX 15:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

If I was able to find out the insulting nature of referring to Greeks as "Albanian" by googling a bit, I suspect you are well aware of it as a Greek speaker. Fred Bauder 15:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

So? It's not like we are omitting it from the article. That is a fact (that some Arvanites dislike being labelled Albanians). But linguistically this language is still a variety of Tosk. We cannot lie on Wikipedia. UNESCO and Ethnologue know better than us. Are they lying by calling it (a dialect of) Albanian? Are they wrong and amateur ancyclopaedia editors right? REX 15:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I had no trouble getting a bunch of google hits for "Arvanitic language". Fred Bauder 16:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

So you believe that these obscure websites are more credible sources than UNESCO. Hmm Interesting! Well as I have told you, if you object, for whatever reason, to us using the truth in the article despite what Wikipedia policy requires (Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:NPOV), I shall not raise too many objections. REX 16:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

May I take that your silence indicates approval? You cannot complain about my orthodox observation of Wikipedia policy like you said you could (empty threat). If you can choose to bend the rules when you feel like it do tell me. Maybe I can do it too. Perhaps you should start acting like someone in your position (an arbitrator) should! REX 18:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry not to get back to you. I have several other irons in the fire. Basically I see no reason for you to cling to your position. Fred Bauder 18:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

So Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:NPOV) and the most credible of sources, UNESCO are not good enough for you. Is that why you started threatening? You don't like facts do you? I am calling Arvanitic a variety of Albanian, I am not calling the Arvanites Albanians. You would have noticed that if you had taken the time to read my statement properly. REX 19:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Mr Bauder, I hope you know that I wasn’t making all this fuss over your vote. It was due to the accusation that I was doing something unjustified. It is entirely up to you what you vote, don’t listen to me! I was perhaps too touchy over your accusations, I should probably try to be more WP:COOL on talk pages. I apologise if I had seemed too severe here. REX 20:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Some questions

Hi Fred. Having just read your user page, I thought I'd say that I'm a fellow retiree ;-) I used to be a mathematician and I live in Cambridge Massachusetts with my wife who is a radiologist and who teaches at Harvard medical school (When people ask how I could retire so young, I always say I married well ;-) As you are presumably aware I participated in Ed Poor's recently closed ArbCom case. I made a "third party" statement urging that the case be accepted, and I contributed an "evidence" section, after it was. Let me say first that I have nothing but respect for the ArbCom members. You are all volunteers doing a thankless task ;-) for which you all deserve the communities gratitude (there now, are you sufficiently buttered up?) But … I have some concerns about the way the case was handled. I have shared some of my concerns here. But I wondered if we might discuss this here in a somewhat more personal and private way? Regards Paul August ☎ 14:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

writing a complaint

I am about to write a complaint regarding User:REX's provocative behaviour and his repeated calumnies against me. I don't want him to be blocked or punished in any way, I just want to stop him slandering me as a far-right-wing. His provocative behaviour is described perfectly by him - I can prove, with his contributions, that he does exactly what he accuses me of doing. While checking his contributions to gather evidence for an RFC (I think that would be the way of complaining against him, with the least consequences for him), I saw his comments here, and I thought I should ask your opinion about it. MATIA 16:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, I suggest you read Slander and libel as well as Malice (legal term). I never slandered you as a right-wing as you say, I just said I detect right-wing politics (or something like that). I have never called YOU a right-wing. For all you know I could have been referring to someone else. Also, personal attacks are in reference to the person, not content (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks). You should have considered that before making the accusation. That accusation is entirely unjustified. Also, you should know that I don't appreciate wiki-stalking. REX 17:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Migration of AfD discussions

Hello and good afternoon. I wanted to contact you regarding your move of a recent Barbara_Schwarz AfD discussion [28] and explain why this move has been reversed. The migration of this page and the subsequent creation of a new discussion in its place resulted in the breakage of several existing wiki-links-- or more accurately resulted in them pointing to the wrong discussion, such as the {{oldafdfull}} template and a few others. To minimise any confusion, I have renamed the second discussion "Barbara Schwarz (2nd nomination)" as per WP:DEL and moved Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (first) back to its original page while preserving the redirect. If hope this was the best solution to this minor dilemma. If there is a more appropriate way to handle these type of situations in the future, please let me know. Best regards, Hall Monitor 18:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Where to put evidence?

Hello Fred,

About the Yuber RFA, where exactly should users put evidence of Guy Montag? There are several bits of evidence on the talk page of the RFA, but shouldn't there be a more appropriate place for it?

Thanks, a-n-o-n-y-m 21:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

You mean all evidence against Guy is supposed to be put on the Yuber rfa/evidence? a-n-o-n-y-m 21:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, a-n-o-n-y-m 22:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI/Evidence

I've recently added new evidence that discusses AI's belligerent article revert warring and intimidation. AI has unapologetically verified (on the evidence page) that I have quoted him/her accurately. I noticed a motion suggested to close the arbitration, but I hope that the new evidence will be considered beforehand. As of now, I don't see any proposed decisions directly concerning the issues that I've presented. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look. Thanks, HKT ^talk 21:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Emico trying to circumvent ban.

Mr Bauder, I understand you were one of the main arbitrators involved in the Emico case. I just wanted to inform you that TheoClarke has already banned [Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Emico] three sockpuppet accounts purportedly being used by Emico and he has now come back, using open proxies, editing the [Iglesia ni Cristo] article to his own POV every day for the past week. I have proposed a lock on this article, and I believe that Emico's ban needs to be extended due to his uncouth behaviour.--Ironbrew 05:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

AVD

Hi,

Yes, I've withdrawn my complaint in exchange for AVD removing material about me posted on another discussion board. It is in relation to that material that I threatened, on that board, to take him to court. Just to be clear, I never made any such comments on wikipedia or in relation to anything AVD had posted here. Homey 20:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Yuber/Guy

Fred, I left you a note on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Proposed decision, but in case you didn't see it, I also want to thank you here for reviewing the presentation of evidence in the case. I see it's caused you quite a bit of extra work, which I feel bad about now. My main concern was the issue of transparency so that Guy could see what was being said about him, which I hope you understand. Now that he's aware of the evidence, he can choose to mount a defense if he wants to. Thank you again for your willingness to be flexible. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat is aggressively refactoring pages and breaking links

Fred, sorry to bother you outside of the ArbCom pages, but User:Cool Cat has been very aggressively refactoring pages (especially the ArbCom case pages) to rename himself from User:Coolcat → User:Cool Cat. He has done this is a very sloppy manner and has broken links all over the place and is refactoring all forms of address in the posts of others to several variations of his new User ID (Cool Cat or Cool_Cat). I feel this is completely out of line and that it is appropriate to bring it to your attention here. Thank you. — Davenbelle 04:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You are in violation of Wikipedia:Civility

Since it has been months and you have refused to address it, I am soon going to take action through the appropriate channels in Wikipedia. In Wikipedia:Civility it clearly states that you can't lie about users, such as outlined here (in regard to my arbitration committee ruling). In the future, I suggest that if you make a ruling against someone, you don't simply make up dozens of claims against them out of thin air.

The problem is that when you make them up, instead of reading through what the person said to try to "spin" what they've said, chances are you won't be able to find any supporting links as evidence. This was evidence by one of your more bold claims of "Cite your sources", where you provided zero (0) links as evidence. The fact that you couldn't come up with anything upon request on the mailing list doesn't help your case either (you actually stopped replying completely once I very thoroughly outlined the many places I did cite sources). This really is your last chance to dig and find something.

In case you're wondering, I was just kind of bored, which is why I didn't get around to this until now. In retrospect, I find the myriad of accusations (lies) you put with zero (0) supporting links to be appalling. If I remember correctly, you easily added over 75% of them personally. Nathan J. Yoder 12:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, so you have read this, but you refuse to respond to the accusations you know them to be highly merititious. I'm still trying to figure out the appropriate channels to figure out how to "prosecute" an arbitrator abuse case, but until then, I'd be VERY interested to hear your defense, since you've not ever attempted to make a single one beyond vague, general accusations. I think I may open a Request for Arbitrartion against you if necessary, but obviously that's problematic when you're dealing with arbitrarors who made the error in question. Nathan J. Yoder 03:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I have filed a request for arbitration against you. Nathan J. Yoder 17:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

NOTICE TO COOL CAT

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

This is the information at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Evidence. You have not followed the required practice. This results in a very confusing evidence page where nothing can be found or followed easily. Fred Bauder 15:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

MOVED. I apollogise for this. --Cool Cat ^Talk 16:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Strange edit

Just wanted to let you know that this edit you made to WP:RfA deleted a lot of text. Was that on purpose, or some Wikipedia quirk? I did not fix it as I don't know what you mean. Oleg Alexandrov 21:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Pmanderson/Septentrionalis

Please also include User:Pmanderson/Septentrionalis. He started the RFA even if he did not sign it [29] and I included him in my response [30]. Most of the recent disputes have been between him and me. Ultramarine 21:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Format of evidence

On the evidence Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect, I see that the requirement is for a very strict linear time format. I have been collecting evidence in a totally different format (User:Egil/Sandbox/rfar), and hope for undestanding that it will take very considerable time to transform this into the time linear format, and also to properly present my issues in the time linear format. The material in question is large, there are many thousand edits from a user account and also probably 4 different anon IPs. My main objection I am trying to show is that the vast majority of these thousands of edits are unencyclopedic and original research, and that this constitues a major problem to the credibility of Wikipedia, and makes it impossible to do useful work. And that there is a consensus among editors that this is the case. -- Egil 09:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we want to keep this as simple as possible. As Jack Web used to say "Just the facts Ma'm". Let Egil remove everything that is irrelevant, immaterial, speculative and false from his statement

and there will certainly be much less to respond to. Rktect 01:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

A section has been set aside on the /Evidence page for your use. Please place what you wish in that section. Do not edit Egil's section. Fred Bauder 03:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

I noted your addition about the State Dept human trafficking report was edited out. You might try inserting it in Human trafficking in Saudi Arabia, if it's not already there. I inserted a link to that article at the bottom of the Saudi Arabia article. Cheers. -- Dave C.^{talk | Esperanza} 06:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Human trafficking

Fred, do you have a source for the trafficking info in the Saudi Arabia article? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so it's a good thing I didn't remove the stuff from the article. :-)I found the Saudi Arabia section in the report this time. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Ril

The votes on injuctions in the matter of Ril predate his vandalism of the Wikiproject Decency page with nudity and the subsequent block. In light of those matters, and in light of the community response that ensued, it seems to me that the AC may wish to revisit those votes.

I respect what you are doing and the difficulty, effort, and time you invest in ongoing participation in the AC. For this reason, and because of our past collaboration, I am honoring your request to lift the block, and will do so without delay.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll add a quick comment here as your talk page is already regrettably cluttered with ArbCom matters. I'm glad -Ril-'s been unblocked, as there should be some allowance for his RFAR and being able to comment there. I am a little concerned, though, about his now having absolute liberty. You'll recall Authentic Matthew was a major reson for the arbitration, with his warring and removing comments at the AFD and making more than one disruptive VFD. Well, it was since merged with community consensus, and on his first day back he RFD'd it. It worries me that this is a continuation. Really, I wonder if a temporary injunction on any deletion nominations until the RFAR is over is possible? (and that was my impetus for becoming a party as well) And I'm not really comfortable talking to him directly, based on past interaction. I noticed one of his first edits was to delete the message from Jimbo, again removing comments... Dmcdevit·t 22:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Onefortyone - arbitration

Thank you for the notice concerning my Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone. I'm afraid I wrongly assumed how the process worked and laid it all out in my Request. As such, I am resorting things to present it on the Evidence page which is a big job but I expect to have it completed by tomorrow. Thank you again, I apolgize for causing this delay. - Ted Wilkes 14:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Njyoder

That's quite a troll who is flaming away on the RfAr page. I wonder if he has any idea just what will happen if he really gets all of the ArbCom members to recuse. He is now only banned from editing certain articles, if I understand. I don't think he understands what will happen if Jimbo Wales really does act. Some of us will watch for possible amusement. Robert McClenon 00:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yuber arbcom

Hi Fred, FYI [31] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms of communism

I think you made some good suggestions and have added the critics you mentioned and others. I have also included arguments by Richard Pipes regarding human nature and WWII, a new table and picture, various other new arguments, and reorganized. Please take a look if you have the time. What else can be improved? Ultramarine 21:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Cool_Cat/Wiki-politics

Fred, since the cases is still not closed, can it be a vote by arbitrators, about wherever or not Coolcats page should be deleted? Fadix 21:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

IN RE BigDaddy777 RfA

Several questions (you can answer here and I'll watch):

1. I am listed as a "complainer" -- but am actually only an interested party, and have no real complaints about BD. I have much more criticism with BD's accusers than anything he has done. I never endorsed the RfC but actually have much to say. How/where do I indicate this on the RfA?
2. Does one really bring arbitration "against" another user? Isn't that an oxymoron? Someone has been using that word when referring to the RfA, and I think it is inappropriate. Arbitration should be "between" parties, not against them. And it should be controlled by neutral parties, and aimed at resolving the dispute, no?

Thanks, Fred.

paul klenk ^talk

Stevertigo arbitration: one key finding of fact is not resolved

Hello,

I don't know if you are following the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Proposed decision, but one key unresolved point is whether the initial 3RR blocks against Stevertigo were proper or improper. I believe it's in the interests of both sides for a finding of fact to be issued one way or the other. Stevertigo has been notified of this request, and he may either concur or object. -- Curps 16:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Based on his message at my talk page, I believe Stevertigo does concur that this point needs to be resolved. -- Curps 17:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

Hello, Fred Bauder. In case you haven't noticed, I'm writing a special series on the upcoming 2005 ArbCom elections for The Wikipedia Signpost. In the October 17 issue, we will be profiling the current ArbCom members. Note that this should not be a platform for re-election; rather, it should serve as an insight into what you feel about the ArbCom, and your opinions of it are. Thus, I hope you don't mind answering a few questions. Many thanks!

1. Are up for re-election this year?
2. If so, do you plan to run for re-election?
3. How do you feel about serving on the ArbCom?
4. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom?
5. Weaknesses?
6. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
7. Do you regret accepting your position? Why or why not?
8. If you could say one thing to the current ArbCom candidates, what would you say, and why?
9. Do you think your job is easy? Hard? Explain.
10. Looking in retrospective, is there anything you would have done differently?
11. Do you feel that the ArbCom is appreciated by the community? If not, how do you think that could be changed?
12. What is the most frustrating thing about being on the ArbCom? Enjoyable?

I hope you didn't mind me bombarding with you with questions; by no means feel obligated to answer all (or any) of them. Thanks for serving Wikipedia, and for taking your time to help a Signpost reporter! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 14:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Alleged sockpuppetry of BigDaddy777

I see a list of alleged sockpuppets of BigDaddy777 (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777/Workshop#Sockpuppets of BigDaddy777. There I see a statement from you that simply says "results of ip check." Does this indicate that this check is going on now and you are going to post the results there later? Or does it indicate that an IP check was conducted and verified the claims? Jdavidb 14:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you please clarify the place on the workshop where you have the phrase "results of ip check"? It is being linked to as if there were actually a statement of results there: [32]. Jdavidb 16:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

I'm speachless. Thanks. +MATIA ☎ 22:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Blocking Halliburton Proxy.

I think blocking the Haliburton Proxy is a mistake - even if you are sure BD777 has edited from it, there are at least two users who have reasonable contribution histories that have done substantial editing from that proxy. It's not like they can use anything else when they are at work. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

If you feel you need to block the IP I really wouldnt be against it. I've never done much editing, and only signed up to avoid the confusion I saw developing over the IP. I can always do any edits I need to do when I get home. Though I am not that familiar with them, the previous user using the IP while not being logged in (I think he had a bunch of edits on the Ann Coulter page) I think said he used other IP's also, so a ban of the IP would not affect him greatly. I have no idea about the other users of the IP, BarneyGumble, pagan-whatever and some other guy. At least I take it they use the IP since they were banned from editing along with the IP, which is when I came into this whole mess [33].--Viper Daimao 19:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

User talk:BigDaddy777

Fred, I have no idea if you are online or not, but there has been a series of postings recently to BD777's user talk page, ostensibly by BD777 himself, that are strange in the extreme. It leads me to wonder whether BD777's account hasn't been hacked. I'm not sure where else I can take this who has any authority to do anything about it who would also be familiar enough with the case to know how highly strange this is. I commented out the comment for now in an attempt to minimize any collateral damage, but the real potential for damage is, of course, if his account really has been hacked. · Katefan0^(scribble) 01:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, it appears that it's okay. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

User:ArmchairVexillologistDon

Because of the recent exchange at [34], I have decided, upon looking at past history, to ban this user forever from Wikipedia. I welcome any questions or concerns. Zach (Sound Off) 23:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I am letting you know that I have filed Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:ArmchairVexillologistDon_-_Reopening. He will be unblocked so he could respond to the case. Zach (Sound Off) 08:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Yuber case

Hi Fred, I see you've voted to close Yuber's case, but I left a question for you some time ago on the discussion and workshop pages, which you may not have seen. [35] Would you mind addressing it? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

See it in Real Time

I would recommend that you and all other parties interested in the integrity of Wikipedia observe what's going on at the Karl Rove page right now. It is exactly as I have reported as happened in the past. I make a clear consise intelligent defense of an edit based on reason, research and reporting. It's immeidately reverted with either no comment or dismissive insulting ones like "your version is inferior."

The last time this happened, one of the admins just shut down the site to editing claiming a 'revert war' ( after my edit had been reverted, of course!) That is NOT an acceptable solution and just perpetuates the problem.

My accusers claim they don't like me because 'I'm mean' or because 'I make personal attacks' etc. But, as this incident lays bare, what they REALLY don't like is my introduction of balance and the removal of POV.

The exact edits I'm currently making are what some of my accusers have characterized as vandalism. That charge is as gross a distortion of Wikipedia's rules as I've ever read.

I hope everyone will watch and decide for themselves.... Big Daddy 18:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ps It's already been TRIPLE reverted in a matter of minutes...Big Daddy 18:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)