Jump to content

User talk:Fred Bauder: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
RfC
No edit summary
Line 932: Line 932:


I have opened an RfC at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan]]. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 14:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I have opened an RfC at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan]]. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 14:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

== 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 Lerner[[User:Elerner|Elerner]] 00:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:23, 20 November 2006

  • Just a note ... delete when cooked. My gratitude for your comment in "Same old Larry". I suspect we're nearly of an age; I was 14 when a good ham friend invited me onto the bus in '68. Anyhow, please see my scribble there; I won't subject you to the rants in my LiveJournal but please do drop a note on my UserPage or in my MozDawg blog. Best to you and all there. --BenTremblay 06:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Fred_Bauder (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)


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

Barnstar

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

Notes

Old notes

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball but...

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

Arbcom Case

I would like you to reconsider one fo your votes in section "Zer0faults has removed sourced information" located here [3]

Per WP:OR it states:

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

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

RfAr: New anti-Semitism

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


Eatonsh=Continueddonations=Returnoftheman

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

AfD Nomination: Wikinfo

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

Help!

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

Why are you harassing me?

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

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

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

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

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

I'm switching accounts again.

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

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

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

SpinyNorman

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

5th sockpuppet of User:Eatonsh

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

However, the current sock, which User:Etaonsh has admitted to be one (as well as the later ones)[4], is not only not banned, but Cowman109, has stated that for him, the previous multiple bans do not matter so much (even after he then checked the details): "Well I'm not sure of the details of the previous blocks, but I won't go on blocking you unless something you go on to break policy."[[5]

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

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

Sites attacking Wikipedians

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

GetWiki

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

Request for explanation

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

wrongful identification as banned user

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano Your post

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

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

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

tendentious

Your edit

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

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

71.111.117.99

Hi Fred!

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

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

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

Notice

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

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

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

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

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

Message sent

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

Colorado tolerance

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

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

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

Citizendium

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

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

I seem to be saying sorry a lot lately.

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

Giano arbitration

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

My move of Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

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

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

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

Supression of Falun Gong

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

Hard work

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

Konstable (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

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

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

Readminship

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

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

Blocking policy

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

Kosovo arbitration update

Hi Fred,

FYI, I've added a new proposed finding and proposed remedy to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Workshop (see [7], [8]). Your views would be appreciated. You may also wish to have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Evidence#Editors involved after start of Arbitration for a useful summary of what's been going on recently.

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


Request from Bosna

Dear Mr. Bauder,

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

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

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

Thank you

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

Sending email to Arb Com mailing list

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

We goofed up?

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

Email

Tried to send you email, don't know if it got through. If it didn't, please send me email. --Ideogram 13:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise proposal

Hi, Fred. I note that the vote is deadlocked on the arbcom proposal for probation re:

  • disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, edits against consensus, and POV forking.

I think I've done pretty well on my self-imposed 40-day "no edit-warring" period. I've only rarely made a 1RR or 2RR edit in the last 6 to 8 weeks.

How about putting me under Mentorship instead of probation? If an experienced user could guide me when I lapse into OR or "POV forking", that would help me a lot more than be slapped with a block. I need to understand why a particular edit is Wikipedia:Original research, and coaching would help me here. Also, I'm really unclear on what the criteria are for Wikipedia:POV forks. Surely it's more than an overwhelming majority vote. If someone could point out why a particular article is evading NPOV or otherwise violating the "no POV forks" rule, that would be a big help too.

Anyway, whatever the committee decides is fine with me. I just thought I'd make a suggestion. Thanks for listening. --Uncle Ed 15:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find Ed's above comment to be interesting since he seems to continue with his earlier behavior, including [9] which seems to be more of the same tendentious editing, in this case either a major misunderstanding or deliberate misinterpretation of what another editor said on the Global warming talk page. He also seems to be continuing to involve himself in pretty much anything related to FM to the point that might constitute wikistalking. See most recently thisJoshuaZ 17:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And is now trying to get the same RfC deleted after it has been endorsed by multiple users: See [10]. JoshuaZ 17:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed has arrived at Talk:Paul Weyrich and has engaged FM. I would appreciate it if an admin kept a close watch on their interaction. --Ideogram 19:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fez

Well, Fred, we've had a spirited workshop and I hope some good can come out of it. There's really very little I can do except stir the pot but I did see one place where a technical solution may address some concerns. With this in mind, I've created {{fez}}, {{User wikipedia/Clerk}}, and of course the fez itself. I'm sure it all seems a bit silly but in some way a silly fez has been required of minor functionaries down through the ages; it's how we know they're minor functionaries. I think it's way out of range for the RfArb itself but you might sort of slip it to Clerks, if not outright require its use to avoid any possibility of confusion. Perhaps they will themselves edit it a little to suit their taste but there doesn't seem to be much occasion for a personal custom note. Don't you agree?

You'll recognize another user's comment that prompted this petty effort of mine; he's against the very notion of Clerks but then, we have always had petty officers wearing fezzes of one sort or another. May as well accept it. Good luck with the RfArb. John Reid 09:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a simple "Tony Sidaway, clerk of the Arbitration Committee" would serve. Fred Bauder 10:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, the fez is important. People live for symbols. Have Clerks wear the fez and you'll see: much less annoyance directed at them just for doing their official duties. Trust me on this one. John Reid 11:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honda S2000 ArbCom case

Any chance of getting other arbitrators to contribute? This case really ought to be sorted out asap, and it's been almost a month since it opened, AND no other arbitrators have even left a comment on the page. I hope you can help move this case forward to a conclusion asap, thanks!! Jsw663 17:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin

SlimVirgin is apparently so upset with my comments on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Proposed decision that he chose to revert them off the page rather than responding or simply ignoring them. I ask all interested parties to advise him to stop this unproductive behaviour. --Ideogram 04:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sussexman, User:Robert I et al

Now that the Gregory Lauder-Frost page has been deleted will the numerous Users who supported his position be unblocked? I mean, they cannot all be accused of sending the same letter can they? From what I can see their "legal threats" amounted to what they saw as firm advice. Has any clear evidence been provided showing they sent letters to anyone at all? But anyway, given that the GLF article has now vanished presumably they could be placed upon probation again? 81.131.14.8 08:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a list of blocked users? Fred Bauder 11:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka

Nandesuka is now reverting my comments off the page. --Ideogram 17:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Harrassment, talk page vandalism, and non-consensus changes to guideline"

I wish to point out that the issue specified in this arb case (the proposal Wikipedia:Non-notability) has been resolved about a week ago through a straw poll which found 71% in opposition to the proposal. It has been marked as 'rejected' by an uninvolved party, and debate has died down and moved to some essays on the matter. >Radiant< 18:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Development

Sorry is posting here is improper, but I just wanted to make sure you noticed this post from today (now reverted) [11]. I've presented it as new evidence of a continued problem [12]. It supplements evidence already submitted [13]. I make no further comment. --Doc 01:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether it is ethical to engage into personal communication with the arbitrators on the issues of the ongoing case. There are reasons why the public pages of the case are there and the reason is that all comments and rebuttals are highly visible to all parties. Therefore, I refrained from contacting the arbitrators directly like Doc just did above. But if I was wrong and such contacts are allowed, I will then follow up with my thoughts. Thanks, --Irpen 02:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You, or anyone else, is free to contact the arbitration committee. The wholesale way is to mail to the arbcom-l list, arbcom-l@Wikipedia.org Fred Bauder 11:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, thanks for response. IMO, sending a private communication to the arbitrators is only appropriate in few exceptional cases such as submitting the evidence whose nature does not allow to make it public. Otherwise, I would consider such communication unfair as private statements related to a specific case cannot be rebutted by the other side. You may remember that I expressed support earlier towards the greater transparency on how ArbCom cases are decided, such as making the recusals meaningful (currently recused arbitrators privately discuss the case with the non-recuses ones at arbcom-l). Because of my view that secret communications with the arbcom members are unfair, I will not follow on your suggestion of contacting the arbitrators by email about the ongoing case. The only time I emailed to all arbitrators was when I was trying to implement a sensible, IMO, ammendment to ArbPolicy on the very same issue (meaningful removal of recused Arbs from the case).

Anyway, since contacting itself is not a problem, as I thought, here is one of my conserns. I am expressing it publicly at your talk, so anyone can see. IMO, there is a certain inconsistensy in the current version of the final page of the case. The "Finding of fact" section contains a statement related with InkSplotch's being or not being a sockpuppet. However, it is unclear from the decision page why her being a sock or not (and of Kelly or not) is at all so important as to warrant a special clause in the finding of fact section. There was a proposal at the work shop on the principle about using socks for ArbCom matters. This proposal did not make it to the final version of proposed decision. However, without something said on the matter in the principles section, there is a confusion of what this "finding of fact" doing there in the firs place. Thanks, --Irpen 17:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My post here is hardly a private communication. However, since it has attracted criticism, next time I'll use e-mail, for which I will not be criticised.--Doc 13:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I prefer open transparent discussion, that is fine. Fred Bauder 13:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, I totally agree with you regarding the preference for transparent discussion. This is exactly why I think that communication to arbitrators in relation to the ongoing cases has to take place at the case page and its subpages rather than by trying to contact arbitrators directly, either by email or at their talk pages. Emailing, IMO, is only appropriate when submitting the private evidence. Here Doc posted something at the page and to add weight to his statement chose to attract the Arb's attention to it by contacting him directly. I saw that an attempt to give an opinion an undue weight. In real courts no party of the case are allowed to talk to jurors or judges in private, except in very limited circumstances. I've read of several mistrials declared when such communication was discovered. --Irpen 03:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naked short selling - authoritative reference

It's long, but it is the position of all fifty state securities regulators on the matter. If you have an interest in a full and honest treatment of the topic, this letter from the North American Securities Administrators Association is worth reading. Thank you for your time.

http://sec.gov/comments/s7-12-06/jpborg7410.pdf

72.192.56.93 05:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)securities professional[reply]

Thanking Kelly

Fred, Am I right in thinking that thanking Kelly specifically for her positive contributions is a way of not saying anything about her other contributions? Regards, Ben Aveling 05:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an in depth analysis of her role in the Userbox war would result in an expression of gratitude. Fred Bauder 12:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't remember thanking Everyking during desysopping despite the unquestionable multitude of positive contribution. --Irpen 06:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I generally supported him, voted for him to be an arbitrator in the last election, but no we did not properly thank him. This had to do with what he did though; attack sites are not real popular. Fred Bauder 12:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you handle disagreement by affiliating with those who are trying to harm Wikipedia, it is to be expected that Wikipedia will withdraw trust. Fred Bauder 12:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that his affiliation with an attack site was totally inapropriate. In deciding to desysop him, the ArbCom saw no need to "thank" him for his great work around here (the fact that he did a whole lot of great work as well is unquestionable). We have a very symmetrical case here. Multitude of Kelly's actions were highly inappropriate as well. At the same time ArbCom unprecedently makes a separate statement of thanking her. This simply seems strange. She is not the first user who has both good and bad sides. She is the first one who, while punished for the bad sides, is also thanked for the good ones. Isn't it a strange action? --Irpen 03:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, she was an arbitrator. Fred Bauder 12:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't see how this makes a difference. --Irpen 19:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone understand the machinations of the reigning Arbcom? Giano 19:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not machinations, genuine gratitude. Fred Bauder 19:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I understand correctly, Everyking deserves less gratitude, and that's why the kick in the ass he got did not have to be sugar-coated, unlike the Kelly's one. --Irpen 19:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know to what extent, if any, the /Proposed Decision is based on any user-proposed language in the /Workshop, but I will take the credit and/or blame for being the first one to propose thanking Kelly Martin for her service here - which I proposed to do in the context of and secondary to a sentence taking note of her departure. It frankly didn't strike me as being something controversial (though of course I don't claim familiarity with everything she ever said or did here or elsewhere). Net net, the current /Proposed Decision is more strongly directed against Kelly Martin than my proposal, by making express that she left amidst controversy and may not regain her admin status on WP:EN without going through a new RfA. In the current draft, the "thank you" stands out a bit because it's isolated in a separate paragraph, rather than being combined with the substantive remedy, which I think is a result of drafting by committee (literally) more than anything else, but I still don't think it's intended as a controversial part of the decision (as opposed to the one-week ban of John Reid, which still troubles me enormously and which I may bring before Jimbo). Newyorkbrad 19:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Stalin_exile_1915.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of it. --Irpen 19:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Ellis blocked

I have blocked Arthur Ellis for making personal attacks on the Rachel MArsden arbitration case; most specifically reverting this edit [14] after TheronJ removed it and warned him. (There are other attacks in the recent history of the page, I believe). The block is for 24 hours, but feel free to release it early if you wish to allow him to continue to particpate on the workshop page. Thatcher131 16:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't take it well. [15]. Thatcher131 16:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thank You

 For offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rachel Marsden

Thank you for your comment. I have already been much more careful about blocks since then (the Ellis block was actually just in my first week as an admin and I was perhaps too quick on the block button in some instances).--Konst.ableTalk 23:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFAr GreekWarrior

Hello :-) Does the GreekWarrior case need Proposed enforcement to log the ban if it becomes necessary? [16] FloNight 23:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So this link [17] in that context is a bannable offense? Humbug. SchmuckyTheCat 18:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fred. Much reduction in controversy if someone far uninvolved from the original fracas makes the link changes. Georgewilliamherbert 08:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have duplicated the whole page. Software bug? I've tried to fix it, but you might just take a look to check that what I did was what you intended. I removed the second half, in the assumption that it was identical to the first half, but of course I didn't do a word-by-word comparison. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 09:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted a page doubling on my talk page as well, this seemed to happen on a few places. Also, what's the point in removing a letter from "ED", rather than simply delinking everything? I sure hope we're all still allowed to write it? --Conti|✉ 14:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, if you want to disable links to ED from my talk page, super. If you want to go through my talk page and insert a bunch of spelling errors, not so super. I'm fixing the spelling back up, and I'll be sure not to leave any live links. Please let me know if this is a problem, thanks. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, my talk page has all the correct spellings back now, and no links to ED; all it took was a couple of "nowiki" tags. Thanks for pointing out those links; I had forgotten all about them. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you modifying dozens of pages that aren't even in article space to invalidate links to this website? I understand the efforts to avoid importing ED problems over to here, but you're modifying archived discussions, which has no effect but to break things for people reading them later. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went and found the RFAr after I made that comment -- you might want to make a more explicit note somewhere of the justification for your actions--I was tempted to call the misdirection of dozens of links to invalid pages vandalism. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination) is in pretty messed up shape after your edit; the page got duplicated and filled with misspellings. Could you run your filter so it only affects links instead of every mention of the site? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

asking for you opinion

As this diff [18] shows, user:Jayjg actually reverted a post I made to WP:AMA member user:Amerique. He also reverted a communication attempt I made on his own talk page [19]. While he may claim that "blocked users are not allowed to edit", I believe that just deleting sincere and civil attempts to communicate from his own and especially on any other user's talk page is extremely rude and very dubious, taking into account the nature of my message to Amerique. I'd appreciate your comment. blocked user:Subversive_element, editing from IP address: 84.44.175.97 15:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I off base here?

I trust your opinion, in particular on this matter. Have I been stalking or harrassing Mongo? He is claiming so and threatening to do something about it. [20]

I think I'm on the "attemptedly constructive and legitimate criticism" side of the line, but I'd like a third party opinion. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 22:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of linking to encyclopediadamatica.com, which is a parked ad site, could you remove the links altogether? I ask particularly regarding the Wikipedia Signpost pages you changed, but also all pages that link (used to link) to ED. Ral315 (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also looking over the changes... whatever you used to make them also changed the word "dramatic" to "damatic" in a bunch of unrelated text in some of those articles. That would appear to be a potential oops... Georgewilliamherbert 22:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about the actual changes to the phrase "Encyclopedia Dramatica", I mean accidental catching variations on the word "dramatic" elsewhere in articles.
Look at (for first example on my open taskbar...) [21]
The changes for ED proper further down are all as expected, but the first change listed was an unrelated instance of the word "dramatically", which also got changed. I spot-checked a bunch of things, and found a bunch of instances of this. Whatever your algorithm was reached a bit too far... Georgewilliamherbert 22:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of IP address 193.253.29.71

I noticed that you blocked that IP address for a month, over a single edit to Bogdanov Affair. According to the decision regarding that article, a first offence shouldn't result in a block longer than a week.

Please reconsider the length of the block to the IP address. Eli Falk 17:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homey

He was not allowed to edit using additional sockpuppets (sockpuppets that used open proxies) and IPs, was he? Jayjg (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, Fred, believe me. I'll try to think of a more rational way of working this out. Jayjg (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If he doesn't have a formal status, it's difficult to prevent Homey from causing disruption. I guess we could respond to any actual disruption just as we would with any other user, but do we really want to sit back and hope that it doesn't happen? Just as a suggestion: maybe formally putting Homey on probation or banning him from a few articles would be a good compromise between a community ban and no ban. Kla'quot 01:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could stop looking for excuses to punish him for non-offenses. Just a thought. CJCurrie 04:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could stop looking for excuses for him, period, CJ.
Fred, Homey promised a number of people, including you and Jimbo I believe, that he'd edit in a non-controversial way from now on and would stick to one account. That was how he managed to avoid a community ban, which many editors were in favor of. Jimbo deleted the Homeontherange user page, per Homey's request, with the words "courtesy delete based on promise of good behavior going forward." [22]
Even as that promise was being made, Homey was already breaking it; he edited uninterrupted with sockpuppets with a view to causing disruption — e.g. at animal rights articles with User:Farnsworth J and User:Farnsworth J., where he tried for several weeks to insert that animal rights activists are anti-Semitic fascists. He did this only because he knows I edit animal rights articles. He then tried to add the same material to New antisemitism, again because he knows that Jay and I, and some other editors he targets, edit there.
Jimbo deleted Homeontherange's user page on August 19, so the promise of good behavior was presumably made to Jimbo on or around that day, yet Farnsworth J. (with a period) edited from August 13-18 and Farnsworth J (no period) from August 22 to September 18. I suspected Farnsworth J was Homey as soon as he started editing, because of the disruption and the reverting (and because of some other distinctive Homey trademarks), and I asked him on his talk page if he had edited with any other accounts; [23] he replied that he had edited as Farnsworth J. (with a period), but he did not say he was Homeontherange. [24] This suggests that his intention was to be deceptive, which is a violation of WP:SOCK.
Homey wrote about the Farnsworth accounts in a post to your page (that he subsequently removed [25]) as though there was nothing disruptive about them; but anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that the animal rights movement is not a bunch of anti-Semitic fascists — if they had to be categorized, they would mostly be left-wing anarchists. As Farnsworth J he spent his time reverting against multiple editors; disrupted Animal rights and New anti-Semitism; had to be warned about 3RR; [26] and threatened to take me to the ArbCom because I removed from New antisemitism (with the agreement of all the other editors on the page, from all POVs) that European bans on halal and kosher meat were motivated by anti-Semitism (which was part of his "animal rights activists are anti-Semites" thing). [27] This is what passes for good behavior from Homey.
He uses each IP and account for only a small number of edits so that it's difficult to trace his overall contributions. This is also a violation of WP:SOCK, which says: "Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail ... it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions." [28]
He has now turned up again as at least three IPs, and possibly one account, and is trying to restart the whole Apartheid outside South Africa dispute — which he was responsible for in the first place — by anonymously undoing merges that were agreed upon. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. He seems to think there's a group of editors who want to stop him from editing completely, but there really isn't. People simply want him to edit non-disruptively and with one account. What's the best way to propose such a motion? SlimVirgin (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean about the best way to do it is: would it have to be a full RfAr, or could it be filed on the RfAr page under Requests for Clarification, given that the last RfAr against Homey was put on hold because he had supposedly left? My thinking is that Homey would turn a full ArbCom case into a circus, so it would be good to avoid that. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be enough that he be asked to edit logged in from one account, and be placed on probation so that admin action can easily be taken if he doesn't. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last RFA case against Homey was specifically and explictly in regards to Admin powers only. Therefore there are no grounds for the course of action Slim suggests as there is no question of admin powers here. I would be more than happy to login to an account if the practice of declaring such accounts "sockpuppets" were to cease. SV is trying to exact punishment for content disputes. This isn't on. There is not a single edit I made yesterday which is in violation of any rules. If I am wrong, Fred, please specify the edit in question and indeed the only problem SlimVirgin had with the Farnsworth account was a content dispute, if there was another problem she would have launched and RFA but it was only when she suspected the account was run by me that she took action, through an Checkuser request that was immediately fulfilled by her friend despite the fact that there was only one account in use. There are grounds for an RFA case into CheckUser abuse but nothing beyond that. If Fred follows the course SV suggests it should not be of the limited and self-serving scope SV suggests but a full fledged case that looks into CheckUser abuse by Jayjg and SV (by proxy).74.98.234.104 12:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, as you know, Jimmy's correspondence with me *yesterday* made no mention of probation or any administrative sanctions against me. SV is overreaching and overextending. 74.98.234.104 12:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#The_user_known_as_Homey Fred Bauder 12:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Fred. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, SlimVirgin omitted to tell you that the prior ArbComm case dealt *only* with Administrative powers and this was explicitly stated at the time. Therefore it is completely out of process to move a motion on a "previous case" in this manner. There therefore must be a full ArbComm hearing or none at all and that full hearing must deal with Jayjg and SlimVirgin's behaviour as well as my own. 74.98.232.108 12:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would work out very well for anyone. Fred Bauder 13:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's the only course possible if you believe in due process. You can't put someone on probation when they haven't even been convicted, particularly not over a case that dealt with a completely different range.
And I see SlimVirgin is at it again [29] any IP address I use is a "sockpuppet" and if I opened a new account that would be declared a sockpuppet as well. Fred, explain to me why, under these circumstances, I should ever create an account again? 74.98.232.108 13:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm simply keeping a list of the IPs you use so that people can track your contributions, and so that anyone requesting a check user will know which IPs to compare any future accounts to. If you start editing with one account and stay logged in, there'll be no need for it. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You and Jayjg have created a catch-22 situation where I cannot use the Homeontherange account because it's anonymity has been compromised on Stormfront and elsewhere and because I do not have the password but where if I log into a single dedicated account it's declared a "sockpuppet" and banned. You've thus made it impossible for me to edit from a logged in account but that's not enough, if I edit without logging in the IP address is edit from is also declared a "sockpuppet" and added to the sockpuppet page. Congratulations, you've got me coming and going and all despite the fact that I am not a banned user. 74.98.232.18 13:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And by opting for an a la carte process with no risk of her or her friend's actions being put under scrutiny Slim is acting in a highly self-serving manner. You should not be enabling her to do this but rather acting as a neutral adjudicator. You know the use of CheckUser by Jayjg is probllmatic and questionable and that SlimVirgin's use of CheckUser by proxy is as well. She and Jayjg should not be shielded from scrutiny, particularly not as a means of giving them an advantage in a content dispute. 74.98.232.108 13:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "use of checkuser by proxy." There are certain distinctive features that occur in your editing, and that's how I know it's you. I usually know it's you within the first couple of posts, Homey, whether or not I say anything. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"There's no 'use of checkuser by proxy.'" But there is, you made an inappropriate RFCU to try to gain advantage in a content dispute, one which your friend, Jayjg, conveniently and immediately acted upon, and you have also, habitually, asked Jayjg to run check users for you. Jayjg also habitually runs CheckUser as a favour to his friends upon request by talk and email. 74.98.232.18 13:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the promise of good behaviour to Jimbo you have never seen the emails in question and you are making frankly wrong assumptions about what those emails contained or what "good behaviour" referred to. It did not refer to editing behavior or content disputes and certainly not to editing content in a way SlimVirgin doesn't like which is how you have self-servingly interpreted it. 74.98.232.18 13:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, I am not a banned user and it is not the practice to list IP addresses of users who do not have userids and are not banned, therefore keeping a list of IP addresses I've edited from and particularly including them on a "sockpuppet" page is a form of harassment and intimidation. 74.98.232.108 14:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's past time for this harrassment to end. In the past half-year, certain editors have attacked HotR with dubious 3RR blocks, dubious accusations of sockpuppetry, and dubious administrative charges. Now, he's being threatened with sanctions for a non-offense. Does anyone seriously believe this is fair and just? CJCurrie 19:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to require that Homey stick to one account and make a reasonable effort to always log in before editing? I don't think that sounds like a sanction, but it would be an improvement over the current situation. SlimVirgin, Jayjg, myself, and everyone else would have to also agree to not treat that account as banned, unless it gets banned in the future. Kla'quot 06:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, Jimbo and I are negotiating with him. Fred Bauder 13:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful. Thanks Fred. Kla'quot 16:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baiting

Well, we've waded through a lot of wordage over /Giano. I've tried and failed to understand the intensity of your criticism of my language. Yes, it was harsh; it's a harsh situation when a trusted servant runs amok. I've put rather more effort into understanding you than a youngster would; I've been wrong, stupid, or rude too many times in my life to think I can't be so again. And I think I may just have a tiny corner of the sticky tape under my fingernail.

You cited a specific diff of mine [30] as "baiting"; I place it in context:

It's a completely nonsensical question. A "call for this statement of fealty from our trusted servants"? Come off it. It's sheer lunacy. Bureaucrats serve the encyclopedia, not you or me. --Tony Sidaway 03:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Tony, I beg to differ -- with courtesy but most seriously. All you have done in your comment is convince me that if you were a b'crat, I'd have to ask you to stand for recall. John Reid 11:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that you don't object to hostile language per se, at least not at the level I employed in my other comments. Here, I've certainly not been nasty; I've used no foul language. Tony is a red hair away from calling me a lunatic and I've bent over backwards to respond with courtesy.

You're objecting to something else and you call this "baiting". I'd like to know exactly what you mean and how I can avoid it in future.

Tony made a statement which I consider, were it to issue from the mouth of a b'crat, immediate grounds for recall. B'crats serve the community which has elected them -- period. Any b'crat who has a different opinion has gone right off the rails and should be taken out. You'll recall I proposed a workshop remedy for Taxman on these grounds -- I might well have proposed Taxman is de-b'cratted but I did not feel his statement of disloyalty was sufficiently strong and, well, sometimes half-measures really are best. Still, ArbCom has the power and the duty to remove admins and b'crats from office who abuse the trust placed in them by our community. Additionally, the community has the right -- and responsibility -- to ask officers to step down when we no longer feel they serve our needs. Do you disagree with any of this?

I can't decide if the rather antique tone of words like "fealty" upsets you or others -- or if it should. B'crats are elected by the community to serve the community; this relationship is one of subservience and is naturally described with words such as "fealty" and "loyalty". In some ways, it is an archaic relationship, as when a vassal swears total obedience to his feudal lord. The difference is that, in modern times, the sovereign is the community itself. The principle of unswerving fealty is unchanged: obey or be cast out.

Make no mistake: I am not an aristocrat. WP:NOT a lot of things but it seems to me that it is a ramshackle-group-consensus-led body. This may not be a democracy but it is not an aristocracy, either. It is a blind to say, "we serve the project". That is either code for "we serve Jimbo and the Board" or it is a statement of autonomy. I say b'crats serve the community and through the community, the project. Tony clearly disagrees; Taxman may; I'm not certain of your position.

I do think you know my position clearly, though. I want to know what each individual b'crat thinks -- and not at obfuscating length, either. I want each b'crat to state who is his master: our community, Jimbo, or himself.

It's a valid question to ask; and we have a right to expect a civil answer to the question. Nobody should be embarrassed or ashamed to state where his loyalties lie. Please tell me exactly how and where I should frame this question so as to satisfy your concerns. John Reid 07:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are treating colleagues as enemies, demonizing them. Fred Bauder 13:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sure I shouldn't do that. I don't want to demonize or dehumanize anybody, even a rogue b'crat; but a b'crat who does not respect the authority of the community is indeed a thorn in the side of us all. Any effort to improve process is fruitless if those empowered to carry it out, disregard it. We need to find out if any b'crat sincerely believes he is autonomous and, if so, remove him from office. We do not need to insult him on the way out. I have done my best to concentrate on action, rather than humanity; but I have, at least in your eyes, failed.

So, I ask you, as a respected community member, recognized for wisdom and temperate language, how I may rephrase my inquiry into the values of our trusted servants so as to avoid any avoidable offense. I'm sure that you will not point out my fault without offering a remedy. Thank you. John Reid 15:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is more that they feel entitled to use their discretion, in close cases, than that they think they are autonomous. Fred Bauder 15:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, I asked humbly for help and you're not forthcoming. Why? I'm not here to ask you about the substantive issue; if I've gone on at length on that issue it's only to summarize my thoughts because I'm asking you for acceptable language in which to frame them. I intend no offense to say that, at the moment, I'm not interested in your take on the issue. I do understand that you have a problem with the manner in which I expressed myself; I hope you appreciate that. I'd like to think that my willingness to admit fault and seek improvement is meritorious in your eyes. I'm verbose but not always tactful and this is a very difficult area in which to be tactful. I assume that since you have felt free to criticize the manner, tone, wording, or approach I have taken, it is because you are able to improve upon it. I seek to learn.

You and I may disagree on the substantive issue but that should not stop you from bending to lend a hand to a polite request, should it? I'm sure you do not assert I am forbidden to challenge my trusted servants in any way, using any language at all. It's merely that I am personally unable to think of a civil way to go about it. Will you not take the time to educate me?

I'm sure that someone might read irony or mockery into my request; we have a long and disgraceful tradition in the English language of sarcastic questions. Be assured that I do my very best at all times to say exactly what I mean; I write nothing between the lines and there is nothing there to be read. I don't believe that anyone can demonstrate an acceptable framing for my inquiry better than you can, so it is you I ask for help.

Here is the very best, direct, honest, and polite phrasing I have been able to generate, to be asked directly of a b'crat: Do you obey the community, WMF Board, some other authority, or some combination of the above; or are you autonomous? I'm sure you can do better than that and I await your improvement. Thank you. John Reid 07:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobs01?

Fred, in re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others

Ruy Lopez has posted to arbitration enforcement that he thinks Nobs has been editing from IP addresses. I'm not familiar with the case but I skimmed it and the IP's edits do deal with spies and the Venona documents, among similar Nobs-like topics. The only records I can find is an old checkuser Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ColonelS in which you indicate knowledge of Nobs' geographic area. The IPs Ruy has ID'd as Nobs suspects are from Tucson, Arizona. Do you think this is sufficient proof to declare evasion and reset Nobs' one-year ban? Thatcher131 00:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Fred. Thatcher131 14:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking of user pages etc

Hello, I am not certain at all if you are the person to ask about this, but since I am not going to be participating here any more, I would like to ask that the user pages for "Musikfabrik" and "Jean-Thierry Boisseau" be blanked.

I would also appeciate, at some point in the future when the decision has been reached and that everyone who needs to see it has been informed etc, that the name of the case be changed to something else, and that the references to my name be blanked since Jean-Thierry Boisseau is my birth name.

Perhaps you might be so kind as to pass this on to the correct person if you are not the person to handle this? Thanking you in advance. 87.231.242.188 17:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I would also appeciate, at some point in the future when the decision has been reached and that everyone who needs to see it has been informed etc, that the name of the case be changed to something else, and that the references to my name be blanked since Jean-Thierry Boisseau is my birth name." I don't quite see what the justification for this might be. It would surely cause quite a lot of confusion, and I cannot see the justification for striking Boisseau's name from the record books. He chose his username, didn't he? Moreschi 12:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience forks

Fred, do you want the particpants to open user conduct forks now, or only after the current case is voted through and closed? Also, perhaps you should indicate that the clerks will open cases upon request made at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration (given the complexity of opening and listing cases). Thatcher131 16:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After the proposal passes, if it does. Fred Bauder 17:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience fork

I'm an interested observer (and a kibbitzer :), though not a named participant) at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, and I note that you have proposed "forking" the case to deal with policy issues separately from the user behavior issues. Is this a fait accompli, or does it require a majority of arbitrators? FWIW--I think it's a good idea--my primary interest is in the policy aspects, rather than the behavior of individual editors, or in the outcome of this particular content dispute. Just curious... --EngineerScotty 17:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It requires approval. Fred Bauder 18:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to express concern over such forking in that many of the policy aspects seem to be not obviously within the scope of the ArbCom jurisdiction. JoshuaZ 18:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In what way would it be outside jurisdiction. If we have jurisdiction over the entire matter, how would we not have jurisdiction over a part? Fred Bauder 18:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting editor behavior into separate cases is probably the most efficient way to handle it. I think the content issues can be handled by a simple declaration that wacky ideas have their place, but wikipedia is foremost a reference work. Assuming editors can follow our long standing policies and not act out against each other, that should be enough. -- and I think the genesis of this case is not in the fact that our policies are unclear but in the fact that some editors were unwilling to accept them. Unfortunately the evidence and workshop pages are focused almost entirely on content issues, not behavior. I tried to keep on top of the case and formulate some workshop findings on editor behavior but I frankly didn't have the stamina (for reasons off-wiki as well as on). Thatcher131 18:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more worried by how the workshop page is going more than anything else. If the ArbCom doesn't intend to rule on content matters most of my worries are satisfied. JoshuaZ 18:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How could we rule on sophisticated physics questions? Fred Bauder 18:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, the ArbCom cannot determine which theories have scientific validity. You might be able to establish firmer precedent in ways in which policy is squishy. (You'll note that I cribbed much of of the proposed decision at Wikipedia:Notability (science)--codification of good established precedents is a useful thing to do, if for no other reason than to deal with wikilawyers who suggest that arbcom decisions have no import beyond the particular case. While "binding precedent" doesn't exist per se on Wikipedia, the ArbCom is certainly entitled to say "this is how we will likely rule in similar circumstances". --EngineerScotty 19:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes good sense. The user conduct issues in this case seem to me to be much easier to resolve than the policy issues, provided of course that one includes in this the matter of (a) editing the article on yourself and your pet theory and (b) editing policy to favour your position in a content dispute, which I think are the two things that need ArbCom. Simple edit warring can be dealt with through the usual processes of page protection and, if necessary, blocking; eventually even the most recalcitrant soapbox warrior usually recognises that it's a battle he can't win and either goes away or plays nice. Guy 20:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence complete?

You wrote "Obvious pseudoscience 15) Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more." Is that sentence complete? Bubba73 (talk), 20:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Fred Bauder 21:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
without more what? Bubba73 (talk), 21:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boisseau arbitration - suggested minor rewording

Please see my comment on the talk page to the /Proposed Decision in the Jean-Thierry Boisseau case. Per the /Workshop discussion, I think the minor rewording suggested there is in order; please give the matter such consideration as you deem warranted. Newyorkbrad 21:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tommysun's education, Ian Tresman's actions, and why there is an arbitration (IMHO)

I am very well aware how lacking Tommy is in his education on the subjects he holds near-and-dear. As I get paid to teach astronomy and physics to community college students, I can definitely say that Tommy would benefit from an introductory education in the subjects he is excited about. Despite being uneducated and seemingly not wanting to remedy the situation, Tommy yet feels entitled to talk, talk, talk on the talkpages and when that doesn't get him attention to introduce his misconceptions into articles in a very disruptive fashion. I try to take it all in stride because, frankly, Tommy is easier to deal with than other editors coming from his perspective. While it is true that Tommy does not like to be corrected and takes it as a personal affront, even the most causal editors can tell there is something "off" in the way he presents himself. He does not want to be treated in the student capacity and has made that abundantly clear. Tommy and I live in the same city, so I have offered on numerous occasions to meet with him personally to attempt to see from whence his misconceptions come. He doesn't seem to want that, instead content to continue his advocacy as you saw on the arbitration pages. I try as best as I can to ignore Tommy until his advocacy becomes too shrill or he decides to reintroduce his misconceptions into the article pages and then I do my best to explain my edits as succinctly as possible because anything else results in tirades that can last for dozens of kilobytes of text.

As far as I can tell, Tommy is headed down the road toward serious sanction. However, I'm growing tired of bringing these cases up over and over again (Reddi, Ed Poor, etc.) so I'm hoping that other editors will take up the slack, make the complaints, and spend the time necessary to document just how disruptive Tommy can be.

I'm actually more concerned with Ian Tresman who POV-pushes against mainstream experts in a much more subtle and hard-to-detect manor. His technique is to bullet point objections to almost everything that doesn't accomodate his perspective until he finds a critique that he thinks sticks which he will then continue to bring up over and over and over again. This kind of technique is much more patient than Tommy's technique but is ultimately more successful at being able to slowly introduce misconceptions into the article pages. In mediation sessions regarding the redshift article, one user in particular (User:Flying Jazz) thought that the discussions that Ian and I had were so ridiculous that he thought it fair game to criticize us both. Eventually, however, Flying Jazz began to come to the conclusion that Ian was more difficult to deal with than I (though you may wish to talk to him for his full analysis which is much more nuanced than I describe). Ultimately, Ian has evolved as a Wikipedian into someone who may be easier to deal with but still revels in a kind of "nagging" disruption that's very hard to document because it is more of a long-term thing.

Ian has cut back on editting articles quite a bit you may have noticed from his contributions page. He will avoid editting until such time as he is sufficiently ignored and then he will basically announce that because people aren't responding to his point, it must be valid and then he will add it into the article space. He'll generally try to find a peer-reviewed citation to back up his assertion (even if the paper is not well-cited, vetted, or contains obvious errors) and then complain bitterly when others (generally myself) either remove or attempt to mitigate his contribution in the article space. He will claim the protection of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, and just recently WP:BLP. Then he will lodge a complaint against the person trying to mitigate his claim which is usually looked at by administrators and often is summarily dismissed and he will go back to step 1 and begin all over again. This was the pattern that was in place when Shell decided, for some reason, that I was out of line and blocked me. That's what got this arbitration case rolling because it became clear to me that this would only get worse as the issues became more and more esoteric and harder to judge.

Sorry for the long explanation, and I would be fine with including this on the arbitration page, but I'm not sure whether it belongs there.

--ScienceApologist 14:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience individual remedies

It looks like you are pursuing individual remedies in the case rather than forking them to new cases. If so, would it be helpful for me to try and put together some more findings on the workshop page tonight (after work)? (I would not want to spend the time and then find out you were finished with the case, for example.) Thatcher131 19:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Malice

I'm sorry but I don't think that my comment qualifies as a personal attack any more than you referring to it as malicious does. Notice that I said his actions reeked of malice, not his person.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is a difference, and please do not threaten me, as it is uncalled for. There is really nothing in the WP:NPA which states that I did anything that inappropriate. As I said before, if you could say that I made a personal attack then it would be much easier to say that you made one against me.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as a lot of people are concerned Homey is under a community ban unless Jimbo says otherwise, and I find it difficult to disagree with them. Jayjg (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was before he showed up with his disruptive Farnsworth sock, and his more recent disruptive edits. The facts are different now. Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as one of the cosigners of an RfAr against Homey, I'm concerned that it just sort of vanished without a trace after Homey appeared to have quit WP. This is just asking for system-gaming. Perhaps the RfAr needs to be reopened to deal with mutliple, disruptive socks. Would that settle the matter? IronDuke 02:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is agreed that he should use one account and not be disruptive. Fred Bauder 03:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask, agreed by whom? Not trying to be difficult, just trying to get a handle on the situation. I don't want to make Homey's life any more difficult, but I also don't want multiple accounts contributing to the same article, which is the status quo, AFAIK. If there's been a behind-the-scenes decision and I'm being a bull in a china shop here, do please let me know via email. IronDuke 03:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I blocked all Homey's accounts one time (in July I think) and said I considered him under a community ban, I think I made my feeling known. This was when he was sockpuppeting complaints about other users on AN/I, making comments on CU page using socks, and breaking 3RR with socks, among other things. I do not care if he edits with one account as long as he follows Wikipedia policy. I do not need or want to know the name of the account. He needs to be told to do this with a warning that not doing it will result in a permament ban for all accounts he ever makes until he goes through an arbcom case that reverses it. FloNight 04:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Flo. I'm starting to feel, though, that whatever account he chooses will be obvious, since he continues to edit within the same set of articles. And it becomes like a game of musical chairs; which account will Homey finally settle on? And how will we know? I totally respect his desire to becomes anonymous again, but I think his desire to keep after the articles he was previously editing make this a hard goal to attain. Also, given his apparent, multiple violations of WP:SOCK, perhaps a formal community ban is in order now, assuming it hasn't already been done. Homey seems to react with... indifference... to the desires of the community. IronDuke 04:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would endorse such a ban. I suggesgt possibly moving this discussion to ANI or AN for community ratification. JoshuaZ 05:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth noting that (i) the "sockpuppets" were not sockpuppets; they were alternate accounts, and were acknowledged as such at the time *by* HotR, (ii) no one, to my knowledge, has accused HotR of using sockpuppets to break the 3RR, (iii) the "AN/I" case against him was based on flimsy evidence, and there's no guarantee it would have passed, (iv) this entire situation has the appearance of a witch hunt. CJCurrie 22:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CJ, the sockpuppets were not acknowledged as alternate accounts at the time, but only after a period of shenanigans and denials, then admissions, then claims that his computer had been hacked into, and so on. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a difficult time believing Homey's proposal is even being seriously entertained considering all the goodwill and time of the community he's wasted not once, but many times. Homey was disruptive in a truly major way; not only did he disrupt a range of articles with biased editing, 3RR violations and sockpuppets, but he disrupted his own RFAR with sockpuppeting and bizarre claims and maneuvers to discredit those who stood up to his shenanigans. Surely the project is not so desperate for editors that we're forced to take back those who repeatedly abused the community's trust to the degree that they were ejected? I mean, really, he was just here disrupting the same articles as before as an anon last week, on the 26th:[31] I do not support granting Homey any role in the community. FeloniousMonk 05:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth noting that FeloniousMonk blocked HotR *twice* through questionable interpretations of the 3RR, when this entire situation was starting. I will repeat, this resembles a witch hunt. CJCurrie 22:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FM blocked Homey for entirely normal interpretations of 3RR; you then turned up at the 3RR policy to try to have it changed, but your proposals were not accepted. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The sockpuppetry in itself has been extremely disruptive. I'm going to have to agree with JoshuaZ here, we should move this to WP:AN/I and propose a ban for exhausting the community's patience. Khoikhoi 05:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please, I endorse the idea of discussing a community ban at ANI as well. - crz crztalk 05:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Which is to say, I support the ban proposal itself as well. - crz crztalk 06:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, Homey needs to be banned from articles he has previously disrupted and edit with one account only. The articles are already controversial and challenging enough for reasonable editors to try to hammer out without adding Homey's wearying, disruptive behavior to the equation. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with MPerel. And it's not enough to say that Homey "should edit with one account only." It needs to be clear what the consequences will be if he fails to stick to this radically ordinary concept. For the Israel-related articles in which he's been the most disruptive, I'd like him to be banned from Talk pages as well as from the actual article, and I'm not saying this lightly. I have never seen Homey indicate remorse for the frustration, wasted time, and pain that he his style of discussion has led to. Kla'quot 08:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The situation on Allegations of Israeli apartheid was confrontational and it takes more than one person to make such a situation -- for example, earlier today Jayjg in the absence of Homeontherange was making very provocative statements towards another editor on its talk page, see [32], but luckily no one responded in kind and the situation was diffused. I notice also that there is a lack of an acknowledgment of Homeontherange's valuable contributions outside of that one article. MPerel's suggestion seems extremely reasonable since it takes into account what are Wikipedia's best interests. --Deodar 17:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, user Kendrick7 was making very provocative, and arguably deliberately dishonest edits, for which he subsequently apologized, and this section is about Homey. Jayjg (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming (for the sake of argument) that editor X is provocative, the answer is not to balance the equation by adding provocative editor Y. Thatcher131 18:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's likely because they were few and far between and in no way mitigate or out weigh the trouble he's caused the community. FeloniousMonk 17:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The previous comment is a smear, plain and simple. HotR was one of Wikipedia's leading contributors from 2003 to 2006. I can't help but think much of the current controversy has more to do with content disagreements than with concern for procedure. CJCurrie 22:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop denying the facts of what has happened and the degree of disruption that has been caused. You've been one of his defenders throughout, and indeed I believe it was you who first involved him in fighting at New anti-Semitism. Continuing to pretend there's no problem, or that the problem lies with others, doesn't move us toward a resolution. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive sockpuppet

Fred, could I impose on you to run an IP check on a user account that I just blocked? It seems to be a sleeper for banned user Zaphnathpaaneah under the username of Osirica. This sockpuppet's first edit was in September and has been silent until now, starting in exclusively at Black people. Same abusive language and many of the same "buzz words." In three years of editng this site, I have never seen a more horrible, racist, bigoted troll as this guy. Check the original talk page to see what I mean. I tried to help him with a problem and he hurled the most insane abuse at me that you can imagine. If you can see which other users are on the range, you might uncover a lot more sleepers. Thanks much. - Lucky 6.9 08:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Ban Lifted

How do I go about getting my editing bad lifted regarding the Winter Soldier Article? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your ban will expire In early February. What is the basis for lifting the ban early? Fred Bauder 21:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective on an open case for arbitration

While I have recused myself from presenting evidence per se since I know someone whose biography is directly influenced by the evidence being presented in the case, today I came across a biography (of someone now deceased and whom I only know from having cited his work in a book I wrote) in an entirely different field (language theory -- my own field). I am offering the comments I put on that biography's page just as a possible "perspective" in some of the issues that are being hotly discussed on that page:

Talk:Marcel_Schützenberger#POV-check_notes

Sometimes it helps, in issues of POV, to check to see how people are discussed in other cultures and languages. This particular biography jumped out at me. Quite an eye opener to me as regards some of the issues underlying these disputes.

Offered only for perhaps a deeper perspective.

-- QTJ 23:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question on arbitration discussion

Hi Fred. I notice that ScienceApologist deleted a comment of mine to you on the discussion page of the Pseudoscience "Proposed Decision" page. Is this OK behavior? It will make hash of the discussion if he can remove other people's comments.Elerner 03:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I witnessed that series of events as well. Here is EL's edit. And here is SA's edit. I would conjecture that what happened was that SA grabbed the image of the section before EL saved. And then, when SA saved, the system mistakenly did not declare an edit conflict and instead just saved SA's image of that section--which of course resulted in EL's edit being lost. EL may have been editing in WholePageEditMode. These are conjectures, of course. The system has similarly mussed my edits--on both the giving and on the receiving end. Hence, I commend EL on alertly making sure that the system did not lose his edit. --Rednblu 05:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Wong

I've done a bit of googling, and the anon's edit appears to be correct. -- ran (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist and whether he is being aggressive...

Could I clarify that I am not in any sense representing ScienceApologist and have said elsewhere that I agree with Shell's block of him. I wasn't intending to appear that I was making a statement equivalent to saying white is black. I was however saying that I consider his choice of words to inharmonious instead of aggressive. For example on the LTTE article I have been accused of supporting crimes against humanity committed by the LTTE and the Sri Lankan Government. These accusations were possibly by the same editor using socks and I would certainly characterise this as very aggressive. In my honest opinion describing other editors as incompetent would constitute being uncivil, but isn't very aggressive. In the context of ScienceApologist having already been blocked, in my view he should only be cautioned. I fully appreciate that you have expressed a different view. Addhoc 15:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re SPUI

Considering section 16 (re SPUI) at WP:ANI, what would your opinion be? Would a community block (not on my part) be deserved? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I intend to block him anytime soon, but would a (not highway-related) block on my part be a conflict of interest? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE Iran-Iraq War Arbitration

Fred can you weigh in on this one from the evidence I've posted? The editor in question won't respond and continues to revert logical changes back to his POV version. It's an edit holocaust at this point. Thanks.Marky48 01:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fred.Marky48 03:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:WP:AN/I SPUI

In response to your post: [33] I think everyone is fully aware he can be banned in any area he disrupts and that any admin can impose this. I think the issue now is: should he be banned throughout the entire community of Wikipedia. Can I ask, has the ArbCom made any decision regarding a indef block if he is persistantly disruptive? It's becoming increasingly obvious that he is only here to disrupt now. While I would like to see him continue editing positively, he hasn't done so in the last month without getting a block for his edits. (I stand corrected he just made two edits without getting blocked). I would start and RFAr on this, but I'm not sure it would be accepted, or that it would just be an extention of the previous RFAr on SPUI/highways. Another issue regarding any block SPUI recieves is that he has so many followers and friends that anything he does, even ArbCom violations, admins unblock because it's SPUI. As I quote on admin from the above discussion I linked

Oppose community ban. He is hardly contributing and not really a problem now. If he is indefblocked for something he has recently done, I will unblock him after a reasonable amount of time.

This is becoming an increasing strain on everyone as it seems that he could get away with anything and eventually get unblocked because of his mass of friends. As you can see by his block log there has been many times where editors have attempted to give him long (maybe a week or so) blocks and they end up being 5 hours because of an AN or AN/i discussion saying that SPUI deserves a shorter block, in spite of him deserving the block. Admins now are not willing to give SPUI a long block, simply because they know it will get overturned shortly. Is there no policy regarding admins unblocking because of this, because this seems highly unfair. As I stated on WP:AN/I, I am willing to give SPUI another chance and am willing to work with him outside Wikipedia to improve his behavior, but what if it never improves? SPUI will never get indefblocked because of his seemingly invincible status. semper fi — Moe 04:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If an administrator, acting under an arbitration remedy, bans or blocks someone, that should not be overturned by another administrator. If they do, it is serious offense, wheelwarring at the least. But someone needs to call them on it. Fred Bauder 12:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just saw your "Motions in prior cases" section on SPUI and it wouldn't surprise me that it didn't pass. But yes, I agree that reversing a ArbCom-related block is very bad and it could result in deeper trouble for admins. If this motion doesn't pass, there should be some kind of limit in regards as to how many blocks he should be able to recieve before a block becomes indefinite. semper fi — Moe 21:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Word missing?

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

Re: Undeletion

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi

The committee grossly misunderstood the arbitration requestion. You added in a book [35] that I wanted to include as well and provided evidence on why it should be included.[36] This was removed by Vivaldi the other day with no explanation.[37] And this debate goes back to May.[38]

Moreover, this user has tried to add in a degree that the school does not offer[39] despite several concerns on the talk page.[40]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

SPUI

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

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)[reply]


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)[reply]


Jossie said the same thing as Fred, Luis [41].
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

He's gone. Fred Bauder 20:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Unhappy user leaves [42]. Maybe not so much [43]. Thatcher131 20:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Oops, sorry

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Okay, but be sure to check out these statements as well. BhaiSaab talk 05:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

E-mail

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

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 [44] 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)[reply]

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[45], 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)[reply]

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

RfC

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

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Bauder&oldid=88907197"