User talk:Fred Bauder

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

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

http://english.people.com.cn/200503/03/eng20050303_175406.html

Looking for some help!

An abusive admin has blocked my pal on IP address 24.147.103.146. The admin is named Gamaliel. This admin has been reported in the past by 24.147.103.146 for copyright violation and made to revert. He must be holding a grudge. It may also be due to his POV on the Kennedys and his past invlovement in edit wars. The reason given for the block was an old RFC on Ted Kennedy. My pal added appropiate links to other Kennedy pages not mentioned in the RFC. The admin is pro Kennnedy so he blocked my pal. In any case, this is an abuse of his priv and I ask your help in bringing this to light. Thank you 193.120.103.205 05:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Healing Wikipedia

I wonder if there is a way to heal the issues and differences that DCV's arbitration has brought to the foreground? In some ways, this entire affair has been bad for racial relations here at Wikipedia. Those who don't like how DCV acts have said that their actions are solely in response to DCV not being "nice" (so to speak). Those who don't like what has happened to DCV (like me) see the affair as being driven by racism and bigotry. The funny thing is that there is overlap between the two sides. A number of those pushing to sanction DCV admit that some of actions against her have been wrong and haven't helped racial issues here (and that some of the users pushing the issue against her are doing so for possibly racist reasons). Almost all of us opposed to the actions against DCV admit that she is abrasive and has violated Wikipedia guidelines and should be more civil in her discussions here. What we see, though, is a double-standard at work, with users appearing to gang up against non-minority editors like DCV for being less than civil but not doing the same to white editors. If this subject interest you, I'd encourage you to post you thoughts here on a special talk page I created.--Alabamaboy 21:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for rejecting the "userbox" RFAR request

Hi, Fred Bauder, could I ask you to expand upon your reasoning for rejecting this arbitration request? I'm just interested in knowing your reasoning. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 23:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (it's fine to reply here, I have your talk page on my watchlist). I think what the case is about is whether admins should delete a load of pages outside of the normal speedy criteria, rather on the merits of the userboxes themselves. Could you possibly reconsider your decision? Talrias (t | e | c) 23:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your consideration

I added 2 more prposed remedies in the Ben Gatti case. I really feel as though we need some sort of "symbolic" blocking here or else he's liable not to "get the message" that the arbcom wants to send. He's completely unrepetent. I just don't see just probation altering his behavior. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also added to the workshop about him being blocked from Price-Anderson Act. Anyway, knowing Ben as I do, I'm just not sure probation is going to alter his behavior. I always have hope, but...just not sure. But hey. Your the arbcom member and I ain't. :) So. Hopefully you are correct. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew the motions from the workshop for Ben to be banned for a day or a week. I kept the Price-Anderson ban motions. I just struck out the banishment motions. If that is not correct, please correct it. I had no idea how to withdraw it. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I gotcha. I do hope this is my *last* arbcom case for awhile. 4 in 3 months (BigDaddy777, Rex071404, Gibraltarian and now Ben) is a bit draining. I like you, Fred, but I kind of hope I won't have to see you on RfAr for awhile. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

o

Proposed remedies

I have an arbitration process question. Are proposed remedies to be proposed only by arbitrators, or may participants (and/or other interested parties) propose them? Are those who requested the arbitration expected to propose remedies? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 13:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fred. I wasn't clear on this before. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 13:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request / result of a personal threat

User:Bumpusmills1 is a new user whom I have worked with in an attempt to teach him Wikipedia guidelines, manners, and so on. To his credit he is trying to learn. Unfortunately, he was a bit abrasive at first and stirred up some vandals and such, especially anonymous editors User:68.45.146.191, User:199.216.98.66 and User:216.13.219.229 who placed User:Bumpusmills1's personal contact info on User:Bumpusmills1's user page and threatened him. (Examples of these threats are [1] and [2], although there are more examples in the history.) It appears these anonymous users are sock puppets of one user. To cut to the chase, I was told to check with the people on the arbitration committee to see if one of you could do a checkuser on these ISPs and see if this is a Wikipedia editor making threats. Thanks for any help you can give. Also, thanks for your comment on the Healing Wikipedia page.--Alabamaboy 16:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This incident has take a more serious turn (see the comments on the admin noticeboard). Can you please run this checkuser request if you get a chance?--Alabamaboy 00:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look

Fred, sorry to bother you with this. I changed the header on one of your items on the Benjamin Gatti arbitration page from "Benjamin Gatti serves a greater good" to "Benjamin Gatti feels he serves a greater good." [3] Judging from your text below the header ("Benjamin Gatti feels his activities with respect to nuclear power represent values which transcends the purpose and policy of Wikipedia"), I felt that's probably what you meant to write. Benjamin has now reverted the change [4]. I'm not going to get into some silly edit war, so am requesting you look at the header and change it yourself if that's what you intended. Thanks again. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 17:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, that seems outside the scope of this arbitration (and this encyclopedia). More to the point, the header looks like you're suggesting that Benjamin's editing practices, as offered in the evidence of this arbitration, are in fact "serving a greater good." (not merely trying to serve a greater good). I've never doubted that his alarmist intentions are sincere; merely that they disrupt Wikipedia. I'd appreciate it if you would consider rewording this somehow, unless you really feel that his editing practices are serving a greater good. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see and appreciate what you're saying, but I'm not sure that's what the text currently says. It gives the opposite appearance -- well, to me anyway (and it seems also to Woohookitty) -- whether you meant it to or not. Maybe there is a better way to get at that point. Thanks for your comments · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, that's much clearer. Thank you for your yeoman's work herel; sorry to create more of it for you. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NLP Arbitration

Hi Fred. Sorry to bother you. I would be grateful if you can tell me what is the current status of the arbitration on the case of NLP article? I would like to contribute to the article but I was deterred by a group of aggressive editors monopolizing the edit. Thanks --Dejakitty 17:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Fred Bauder, Technically I can edit, but due to the presence of aggressive editors, everthing I contribute will trigger further edit war and personal attacks with or without referencing. Is arbitration still going on or is it closed now? --Dejakitty 18:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trekphiler

Note that Trekphiler has removed our comments about his User page from his Talk page without comment. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not vandalism? This user dosen't seem to have been warned, and having user boxes is perfectly allowed(as far as I know) Prodego ^talk 22:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake, an understandable mistake. I am beginning to see the problem with userboxes. They are not content but have to be patrolled and it is a lot of senseless work. Fred Bauder 23:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Ok, keep up the good work! Prodego ^talk 14:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fair use?

Take another look. They're already gone, without any interference from you. Trekphiler 22:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use?

I guess not. The problem was corrected before you started interfering with the page. All the images left were, & are, public domain. I checked them all. Maybe you should have before calling in an airstrike & starting over. Trekphiler 22:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

syntax error?

Not to step on your toes, but this edit looks like something went wrong (and I don't want to make it look like I'm manipulating): [5] Tinus 01:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Price-Anderson Arb case

Fred, I'd like to appeal to you as the one setting the pace, to consider resolving the substantive dispute over what facts are excludable - rather than force this case to drift into a personal mudbath. I am holding back unflattering emails because I fail to see the benefit in a mutual mudbath - the only effect of which can be less editors. Simesa has argued before the Arbcom that a well-sourced and contemporary historical fact should be excluded from an article, such that instead of publishing the risk of nuclear energy as it was understood at the time the risk indemnity act was made, amended, and upheld - we are instead postulating that "the risk is low", or calling it "perceived risk", or in short generalizing the risk largely without reference. Insurance is probability. The article really must embrace all well-sourced references which ought to inform the reader. We should include - to the extent they can be sourced - every criticism and caveat of those studies - but they deserve to be included. The heart of this case is exactly that - I insist on the inclusion of unflattering - but government sourced information - and Simesa argues - usually on his own knowledge - and the letter he has been expecting from Sandia for six months - that the information has been superseded. This is not a mere content dispute. It is a dispute about the nature of NPOV, the inclusion of relevant facts, and the exclusion of facts based on original research. - I appeal to your integrity and your interest in the project to put substance over style. Benjamin Gatti 03:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 Ben has had ample opportunity to argue this point. And it's been rejected. #2, he's about to introduce "unflattering emails" I sent to him. It's an attempt to take the case away from his conduct and onto Price-Anderson since he knows he has no defense for his conduct. Don't let him do it. And besides, as I told him, if he introduces that evidence, I'll introduce the apology I sent him last night. I don't see how me using bad language 3-4 times overrides all of his policy violations. Doesn't work that way. Besides, I didn't think emails were even accepted. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would far prefer the Arbcom serve its purpose by upholding NPOV, and the right of information to be free - in this case to be free from exclusion by virtue of a single person's personal and unsourced opinions. The NRC said a 45% chance in 20 years. In order to exclude that one fact, Simesa and co. have resorted to parsing a handful of civil edits, casting them in the worst possible light, and then calling them personal attacks - when in fact they were neither. I do not intend to see facts excluded because I refused to defend myself in a mudbath. The Arbcom will have overwhelming evidence to punish both sides for petty and puritanical reasons. I however believe that the higher good is served if we put aside the scarlet "A", the breathless finger shaking and hypocritical accusations, and instead put our minds to the work that all of us care about - publishing that which is most unequivicolly true. Look at the 45% issue, read the sources, then look at Simesa'a argument for exclusion and read the sources - all of them, and then as the arbcom give us a finding that will guide everyone in the future on such matters. Do we as they propose - exclude an older study - when we do not have the results of a newer study - or do we as I have suggested include them both, noting the differences in methodology and the arguments available for weighing their respective validity? Benjamin Gatti 04:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I am sure that blackmailing me is an ok means to this end, right? Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti/Workshop#Blackmail_and_threats_are_not_permissible. It's blackmail, pure and simple. It cannot be tolerated. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrating that the people accusing one of incivility are hypocrites is an unpleasant but necessary defense from time to time - I would do anything to avoid. Benjamin Gatti 16:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emails are usually not considered by the Arbitration Committee anyway Fred Bauder 14:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Kate attempted to explain that to Ben and Chazz. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

communism

lead or led does not imply voluntary following. I bet you there will be objection to the use of controll... I have no problems with either usage (Gibby 03:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

Kevin Mulligan

I've reduced the block to one week per your request. Thanks for being positive about it, I appreciate it a lot. -- Essjay · Talk 15:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plagairism?

From the talk page USS Nautilus (SS-168): Maybe I misunderstood something. I wasn't aware lifting directly & exactly from DAFS was OK, yet that's exactly what the article is doing. I pulled this from the DAFS site:

"At 0755, 4 June, while approaching the northern boundary of her patrol area near Midway, she sighted masts on the horizon. Japanese planes sighted the submarine at the same time and began strafing. After diving to 100 feet, she continued observation. At 0800, a formation of four enemy ships was sighted: 1 battleship and 3 cruisers. Within minutes the submarine was again sighted from the air and bombs began to fall. Two of the cruisers attempted to close for a kill and nine depth charges were dropped at a distance of about 1000 yards."

And this from the article:

"At 07:55, 4 June, while approaching the northern boundary of her patrol area near Midway Island, she sighted masts on the horizon. Japanese planes sighted the submarine at the same time and began strafing. After diving to 100 feet (30 m), she continued observation. At 08:00, a formation of four enemy ships was sighted: one battleship and three cruisers. Within minutes the submarine was again sighted from the air and bombs began to fall. Two of the cruisers attempted to close for a kill and nine depth charges were dropped at a distance of about 1000 yards."

Hmmm... I think Leno calls this "Eerie Similarity". I'd call it plagairism. Trekphiler 07:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC) And don't tell me "public domain" makes that okay. Or do you mean to suggest I can copy works of Dickens & pass them off as my own? Trekphiler 15:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plagairism?

Don't tell it to me. I'm not the one that put it up without quotes. I know better. Trekphiler 16:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plagairism?

Fine, you want to encourage or ignore plagairism, that's your priviledge. I brought it to your attention. That's all I can do, not having admin priviledegs or the exalted ability to block people from doing it. If you have that ability & chose not to use it, & you can live with plagairism on your "encyclopedia", I guess I can't do anything about it. Block me or don't. Your moral standards don't trouble me. Trekphiler 16:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plagairism?

And you don't need to accuse me of making trouble for trying to call attention to something that I think is abhorrent to a self-styled encyclopedia. I thought standards here were higher than that, both ethically & civilly. Trekphiler 16:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information: New Help Group

This message is to inform you about a new group whose aim is to try and answer Wikipedians' questions. The group is based here, and is so far nameless. If you can offer any help by improving the pages or by answering any questions, then you are very welcome to do so. You are also welcome to raise any questions.

If you know of anyone who would either like to know about this or could help us, then please tell them. Thank you. The Neokid 17:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Zionist Propeganda"

The term "Zionist Propeganda" which you claim is in Wikipedia is a term that is used by such people as the Iranian president. Please identify where in Wikipedia you think there is such propeganda. If you let me know which articles and what is the propeganda I will do my best to remove it as describe the source opf it so it is identified correctly as propeganda.

Unlike you, I do not think Wikipedia is a place for propeganda from any kind. (Of course some facts or claims can be used as such but that is not what you claimed) Zeq 18:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what Wikipedia currently say about Jerusalem:

"The West Bank is considered by the United Nations and most countries as currently occupied by Israel, though some Israelis and various other groups prefer to refer to it as "disputed" rather than "occupied" territory. ...The area was then captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, although with the exception of East Jerusalem, it was not annexed....The status of East Jerusalem is controversial. Israel, having annexed it, no longer considers it part of the West Bank; however, the annexation is not recognized by any other country, nor by the United Nations. In either case, it is often treated as separate from the West Bank due to its importance; for example, the Oslo Peace Accords treat the status of East Jerusalem as a separate matter from the status of the other Palestinian territories, to be resolved at a later undetermined date."

If you think any of this is not accurate description, or not NPOV or part of any "Zionist propeganda" please identify what need to be corrected and will do my best to correct it. We aim high in writing this encylopedia as you know. On the other hand, terms like "zionist propeganda" are used by very low people like the Iranian president. Zeq 20:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert I case

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I as Robert I has resumed editing I'd like to request an injunction. Homey 19:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plagairism revisited

Y'know, as exercised as I was yesterday & this morning, you'd think I'd have checked this sooner... I just had a look at Wahoo. It's a verbatim lift from DAFS. Looks like you've got a real problem. I don't know if admins condone or ignore plagairism, but I'd suggest something needs to be done before some pissed off lawyer finds out & sues Wikipedia into the 22d Century. Trekphiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq - Zero - Ian and "israelo-arab" articles...

Please... do something :-)

I think both are right for *some matters* and both are wrong for *others* but that the problem is that these article are extremely bad due to this problem because instead of being NPOV they are an accumulation of slightly POV for A and POV for B points. Christophe Greffe 22:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My user page

Aren't you the same guy involved in the RfA -- on the Arb Comm? Are you not familiar with the purpose of user pages? Do not put messages to my on my user page. That's what talk pages are for. On second thought, do NOT post your comments about my user page on my talk page. I've requested that people stop doing so. Be that as it may, you should be well familiar with the fact that user pages are not for dialogue. It's enough that I have to put up with every Tom, Dick and Harry deleting my page and commenting upon its contents. You should know better. Don't do it again. Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DCV unblocked

I have unblocked Deeceevoice because I can find no valid reason on WP:BP for her to be blocked. I have mentioned this on WP:AN/I as well. --Angr (tɔk) 17:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check your email

Hello, please check your email. Sent information re: WebEX and Min Zhu case. --FloNight 18:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock check if possible

Fred -- I have been suspicious for some time about whether Hermitian and Corax could be sockpuppets. My only interactions with both have been on the NAMBLA page. They seem to both only emerge when one or the other is challenged on a content point. In specific, the article (and both of them) has/have been relatively quiescent since last April, when both Corax and Hermitian were last actively editing. A few weeks ago, someone came to the article and began challenging some of the information. Corax began speaking up again, and soon, Hermitian. Hermitian in specific had not edited any WP article since last April, when NAMBLA last calmed down, until this new content dispute emerged. Possible to get a sock check? I wouldn't ask, except the argument is getting fairly heated now and there has been a consensus vote called, on which both have voted. Thanks. If you would, please reply here. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 03:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No apparent connection Fred Bauder 04:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment

Further, Bauder's reason, on the Admin page, is this: "I have blocked Deeceevoice for 24 hours regarding her refusal to engage in dialogue regarding her user page. Please see [87] regarding this issue. Fred Bauder 16:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)"

uh ! :-) MUD god :-))) Anthere 07:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Gibraltarian socks

Hey Fred. I just blocked Gib1 (talk · contribs), Gib2 (talk · contribs), Gib3 (talk · contribs), and Gib4 (talk · contribs) as abusive sockpuppets of Gibraltarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The contributions make it quite clear. He's been using sleeper accounts that are several days old to get around the semi-protection of his favorite articles. I wonder if you could use checkuser on these socks to see if you could find some more sleeper accounts hanging around? Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 21:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all blocked. Dmcdevit·t 21:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq's arbitration case

User:Zeq seems to have turned the request for an arbitration case against him into a forum for attacking Wikipedia. Is this allowed? Brian Tvedt 22:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attacking wikipedia. I am asking wikipedia to implement it's own policies by accepting the arbitration case but applying it in a uniform way to all issues on articles about the conflict. Zeq 22:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my question. My understanding is that the WP:RFAR page is supposed to be limited to statements that would help the arbitration committee decide whether or not to accept a particular case. Zeq has used the page to criticize articles (ZOG and Islamofascism) that have nothing to do with the case at hand. He also seems determined to start a discussion on that page about whether or not Wikipedia has an anti-Israel bias, which is not the issue in the case. My question is, are there grounds for blocking Zeq, at least from the RFAR page? Brian Tvedt 23:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, this was my fault, not his Fred Bauder 23:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double standard

"Questioning the right of the Jewish people to their own homeland, muttering about the influence of the ‘Zionist lobby’ on US foreign policy ...amounts to racial prejudice against Jews. The tragedy is ... antisemitism masquerading as ‘anti-Zionism’ " [6]

Zeq 22:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for the support in the ArbCom elections - I'm taking part to help enhance my knowledge of, and standing in, Wiki, and will keep on editing! Didn't expect to do well but at least some people have faith in me =) Take care bud, doktorb | words 10:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise on DCV and an apology

In recent days I have grown disgusted with Deeceevoice's comments and actions. As a result, I am withdrawing my support of her. That said, Justforasecond has behaved very poorly throughout this entire affair but more so in recent days, placing comments on DCV's talk page merely to stir up trouble. As such, I am proposing that both DCv and JFAS be placed on personal attack parole for a year at [7] Perhaps this is a compromise that a majority of the parties involved could agree to. Please check it out and see what you think. In addition, as a side note to this I am apologizing for my use of "lynching" to describe this RfAr. Best, --Alabamaboy 19:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another apology

This must be the day for it; I was dropping by to leave one, too. Sorry I got so pissed off at you on Deecee's page the other day (so pissed, in fact, that I declared it the last straw for myself on Wikipedia on my user page--a comment now removed). Re-reading your comments over at the RfAr I've seen again your overall good intentions, and the efforts you're making to keep this a balanced and reasonable decision. Given how frustrating it obviously is to be on Arbcom, I thought I doubly owed you an apology and some thanks. Like several of us, I think I've had the wrong end of the stick here for a while, coming to this at first through our nasty encounters with JFAS, but it looks like you're taking some intelligent and badly needed action here. I'm still taking off from Wikipedia as it is--grad school's just gotten too demanding for me to justify my presence here--but I wanted to make at least one less bitter edit before I left. Good luck with it all! With hat off to you, --Dvyost 21:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pedelec

I was wondering if you may instruct or get someone to help out, or do something about pedelec article. (in the process of being deleted) --CyclePat 04:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, if you don't understand why people object to the Pedelec article you could have a look at [8], Talk:Motorized bicycle, talk to User:Woohookitty or me. Pat is a small-time manufacturer of electric bicycles who wants to split out electric bicycles from the good and expanding article at motorized bicycle. He is pushing a barrow. The objection is not to the content of pedelec but to the fact that we already have an article at motorized bicycle which is linked to the German pedelec article from which Pat made the translation, and which already includes most if not all the encyclopaedic content of pedelec as well as additional information. It's a simple matter of undoing a content fork, and getting the one person who is dissatisfied with electric bikes being included in motorized bicycle to work with the flow to the point where evolution takes its course and the subject forks under pressure of article size. We are not there yet. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

RfA! 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deeceevoice's departure

If you're interested in speculating about deeceevoice's departure. -- Jim Apple 05:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Party of America

Fred, can I ask you to please look in at Talk:Socialist Party of America#Reversal of meaning? I'm trying to avoid an edit war. I didn't write the article, and it isn't well cited, but as far as I can tell Jacrosse, also without citation, keeps changing this passage from something I believe is fundamentally correct to something I am sure is not. I've now reverted him three times over the course of a week or so, no one else has spoken up either way, and I think it is best for someone else to take a look. I know this topic is at least more or less within your areas of knowledge. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom candidate userbox

Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.

{{User arbcom nom}}

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Bauder's "Zionism"

Fred, you wrote:

I will set forth my personal view of Zionism: I think was a bad idea, but I support the right of the state of Israel to be fully accepted internationally and regionally. My opinion of notions of Greater Israel is very negative. I am not Jewish. Fred Bauder 21:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

To which someone responded:

If I am wrong and you do support the right of the Jewish people (the people not the religion) to be like any other people and have a homeland of their own then you are Zionist (even though you may not know it) so please clarify if you do support Zionism in the sense that it is the right of the Jewish people to forever have a national homeland in the land of Israel, at least in the 67 borders.

And you responded:

According to you I am a Zionist. Still a bad idea to try to establish a new country with a new population in a place that already had a different people in it. But it has happened and peace would be to everyone's benefit regardless of the past. Fred Bauder 16:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't disagree with either of your two final points, both of which I find eminently reasonable:

"[it's] a bad idea to try to establish a new country with a new population in a place that already had a different people in it"

"it [Israel's creation] has happened and peace would be to everyone's benefit regardless of the past"

While your second point suggests support for the State of Israel, the first (along with "My opinion of notions of Greater Israel is very negative.") makes it clear that you are not a "Zionist." However, you have been accused of being biased against Israel, and I would like you to consider that possibility, despite your second point and its suggestion of support for Israel's existence.

Why should you have any "more negative" notions about "Greater Israel" than about the US? After all, the US was also established as "a new country with a new population in a place that already had a different people in it." And that existing population was greater than 20,000,000, most of whom were killed and replaced by a smaller European population (that only grew larger after the near genocide was completed).

But, you might respond that your view of the European takeover of North America is also "very negative."

OK. Then what regional population group's establishment of their presence in their current location do you not view negatively? In virtually all cases (except the most extreme places where survival can barely be established), the location "already had a different people in it" before the current inhabitants arrived. In the vast majority of cases, the violence that accompanied the arrival of the current inhabitants' ancestors included a far greater degree of genocide and or murder than the establishment of "Greater Israel" (as violent as that has been).

Since I said that I agree with your two points, I am saying that "[it's] a bad idea to try to establish a new country with a new population in a place that already had a different people in it." But if we are going to be consistent and not antisemitic, we would have to then add that all nationalism, regional ethnic takeovers, establishment of racial homogeny, etc. are notions about which we are very negative.

That you seem to have no awareness that simply stating your negative view of the creation of Israel—without mentioning the fact that you view all establishing of ethnic regions and religious/ethnic/racial nationalism negatively (that is, if, as I am assuming, you are consistent and not antisemitic)—seems to indicate antisemitic bias.

"But," you might reply, "Why do I have to say I don't like Brussels sprouts [here, I am assuming you are a normal human being and do not like them ;-)] when I say I don't like spinach in order for you to think I am not biased against spinach?" There are at least two reasons:

There have not been repeated, horrendously murderous campaigns to eliminate spinach from the world. Nor has spinach been historically treated as greatly inferior to Brussels sprouts as a faux vegetable. It would be unreasonable for a Southern misanthrope to be outraged when a statement like "I don't like blacks" is taken to indicate racism when, in his case, his antipathy is equal for all people. Another example: You may have a "negative" view of significant aspects of male group behavior. But, at least in a public forum, you would probably never say "I don't like the way black men behave in groups," without being aware of how racist that could sound without any contextualization or explanation. Why is it then that, if you have a negative view of the establishment of any regional ethnicity at the expense of the preexisting population (i.e., if, like I do, you have a negative view of most of human geopolitical history), in this case you feel free to mention your negative feelings (without providing any caveats or context) about the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel without being aware of how antisemitic that sounds?

Assuming you support the creation of a Palestinian state (as I do) and say so publicly, then such a statement about Israel seems quite biased. How would it look if you claimed to dislike all green leafy vegetables equally, yet for some reasons (even if they are good ones), while going around occasionally mentioning that you dislike spinach and think it was a mistake to ever plant it (but don't believe it should be weeded from the world), you also mention that you support the planting and growing of Brussels sprouts?

While it is entirely possible that the types of bias in your viewpoint are just semantic and apparent (i.e., not real), the fact that so many liberals use this type of biased wording about the Arab-Israeli conflict when they would never do the same about race relations in the US and never seem to be as eager to mention the "negative" ugliness of Palestinian nationalism suggests that some real bias may be operating. And, of course, even if this is true, any bias you may have is not even in the same league of a Zero000 or an Ian Pitchford. Kriegman 10:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence -- any suggestions?

Fred,

Thanks for your help with the attempted purchase of the Chinese language text. I'll probably have to interlibrary loan a copy somehow.

I've been trying to communicate with Zen-master, and I just read your comment to Requests for arbitration/Zen-master. I actually rather like this individual. The problem has been to enculturate him to discussion as opposed to what passes for debate in some quarters, and I think I have made some progress. He is in principle ready to admit that there is a point in having an article on Race and Intelligence. He has problems with the conclusions of the field and tends to blame them on Rikurzhen and other responsible editors. I do not like the conclusions either, and I recognize that I do not have the academic background to dispute the field or even to detect whether Rikurzhen and others are giving an even balance to reports on the field. Jokestress was doing an effective job for a few months, and then she disappeared.

The real problem with the Race and Intelligence article is that it just grew up without any thought having been given to contextualizing the account. Zen-master wants to crowd all of the context into the article, but that won't work because the article is already extremely large. What needs to happen is to start with two broad articles. One is Race, and we already have a fairly good article on that topic. The other is Intelligence. The article is poor. I think the primary problem with it is that the idea of intellgence has been circumscribed by the streetlamp phenomenon, the old Sufi story of the guy who loses a coin or a key, probably has lost it somewhere in his house, but since it is night he goes out to look for it under the streetlamp where he can see what he is doing. Intelligence research has been represented in terms of the things that people can measure. The article could be improved.

Beneath these two articles there should be an article that relates these two areas, Race and Intelligence. But there should also be an article on Nutrition (and I assume that there is), and an article on Nutrition and Intelligence. It would be nice if there were a list in the Intelligence article on factors that have been researched as possible influences on intelligence because that would be a convenient way to check for the presence of articles on those subjects. That being done, one could check for the presence of articles on X and Intelligence.

After all that work is at least stubbed in place, there should be an article on Influences on Intelligence.

I am not the person to do this work because my field is philosophy, not psychology or genetics. But I think doing things this way would bring clarity and closure to an important issue. Any ideas on how to proceed? P0M 18:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need arbitration help at Turkish people page

Just wondering if we could get some assistance at the Turkish people page which where an impasse has been reached and a somewhat clear barrier towards compromise erected. wondering if you could help? thanks. Tombseye 19:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any recommendations of someone who can help out? Tombseye 19:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had originally started that article but it seems to have gotten totally out of hand. Outrageous (or, at least, unlikely) unsourced claims are routinely inserted and reinserted. I think perhaps misunderstandings and langauge barriers may be part of the explanation, but otherwise it seems like most are bad faith edits intended to disrupt. //Big Adamsky 20:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RJII v. Firebug arbitration

Fred, could you have a look at this situation when you get a moment and give us your opinion? In summary, the above case began as two separate ones: Firebug accusing RJII of incivility and personal attacks, and RJII accusing Firebug of intentionally disruptive editing. Others (including myself) have since had encounters with RJII and have run into much the same behavior. Firebug recently quit Wikipedia. RJII believes that the arbitration should now be dropped, but I am of the opinion that the arbitration should proceed, and if necessary I would be willing to step in as the plaintiff. I had previously contributed evidence to the case. Can you tell me what should happen now? TomTheHand 20:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultramarine arbitration decision

I've been back for some days, having hurt my hand in November. I just looked at Talk:Criticisms of communism, although I plan to stay out of it. I believe - I know about myself - that Ultramarine's suggestions of a Conspiracy devised by 172 are figments. You were leaning over backwards in recusing yourself.

I did not present (or quite finish) the analysis of Ultramarine's testimony, but if you would like to see it, I can make it a subpage or e-mail it. Septentrionalis 05:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your conscience required recusal; of course you had to follow it. I shall comment further on the talk page. Septentrionalis

Arbcom for Dummies

I've just created User:Snowspinner/Arbcom, which is a first draft of basic advice that people who are taking a case to the arbcom should have before trying to write an evidence page. It's geared towards the practical rather than the idealistic, but I wanted comments on it before I do... I don't know, actually, what I'll do with it. Phil Sandifer 22:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser

Looks like Gibraltarian has slipped by the semi-protection again with this sockpuppet: GBZ (talk · contribs). Could you follow up again and see if he has more out there? Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 07:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, he is now sending me SIXTY emails a day with the message "UNBLOCK ME NOW!!!". He somehow thinks he's not in violation of any Wikipedia policies, despite the fact that he refers to Ecemaml as a "racist" and a "vandal" every time he posts. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: G thinks that it's perfectly okay to call someone a troll/racist/vandal/etc. if the statement is true. I get "mood sick" everytime I see his disturbing remarks, so I do not want to be heavily involved in this. --TML1988 00:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Mr Bauder, I aopogise in advance for posting on this page but I wondered if I might ask you a question. I made formal complaints and asked for arbitration against what I saw as the deliberate vandalism by Users CJCurry and his confederate Homeontherange to articles I had written or contributed to. To the best of my knowledge those complaints and requests of mine have vanished into thin air. However, they have now requested arbitration against me (!) on fairly spurious reasons (sockpuppets) rather than on fundamental substance. Yet their requests have been met. Is this an example of clear and absolute Wikipedia bias? Robert I 08:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned arbitration?

Hello Mr. Bauder, I am interested what happened with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Proposed decision, it seemed to run out of gas and stop completely. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts.Travb 09:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irismeister's back :-)

Hello Mr. Bauder! Irismeister's back. Hang on :-)

help

Hi Fred, sorry to bother you, but... I saw that you checked the person named at User:Dijxtra/Sock. Is there any way to get relief from this person? I have reported him on vandalism in progress, on the Admin notice board... trying to track and repair this user is very time-consuming and frustrating for me. One of his names was blocked, but he could care less. Is there any way to just block his IP range for a good long period? I have not stepped through Mediation to Arbitration and so forth, must I do that, considering that the user is either demented or a clever troll? Thanks. Herostratus 03:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is difficult, several others are using his ip range. No point in mediation or arbitration, just have to keep blocking him for short periods. Fred Bauder 03:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

But tracking him is too-time consuming. (BTW I saw that he recently put the "indefinite block" templatate on Jimbo's user page, several times.) I guess in that case, my inclination is to call the Chicago Public Library and give them times and IP's and try to get his library card revoked... which I hate to do because for all I know its all he has. Still, I can't really tolerate this guy anymore. Is there any Wikipedia policy or anything that I shouldn't do that, do you think? Herostratus 04:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get the folks at the Chicago Public Library to cooperate. I would be happy to help. Often there is just no response to inquiries like this. Fred Bauder 15:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I warned the user without effect and just sent an email to the CPL. As you say they're probably too busy or unwilling to bother with it, we'll see. If they can't help, I can't believe there's nothing to be done. The user has frequently stated his intention to continue his vandalism "forever". Perhaps a week or two block of the range, unfortunate for our useful CPL contributors or not, might drive him off? Surely that's possible, I hope. Well let's wait and see if its necessary. Herostratus 10:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siddiqui

Siddiqui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Eliezer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Dominion of Melchizedek

Fred, the DOM article is once again being reverted by Johnski and his marry band of twits. I know right now that the arbitration committee is in flux, but is it possible to ask for a temporary injunction? These individuals will no longer respect the process. I would appreciate it if you could let me know. Thanks.. Davidpdx 08:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cartesian materialism

The arbitration for Cartesian materialism was really requested by me because Alienus and I are locked in a dispute and there are only the two of us involved. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Deadlock_with_two_contributors_-_response_to_preliminary_arbitration . Requests for comment and third party input have been unsuccessful. I would like to be shot of this matter and move on to other things (I think Alienus would as well) but we both believe that the other is wrong. For me it is a matter of principle about the structure of articles. Please save us from this deadly embrace! loxley 14:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my mind about this dispute, at first I thought that the other party had a genuine interest in the subject but it is now clear that something else is happening, I added this to the arbitration request:

Arbitration on Cartesian materialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Not_a_content_dispute.2C_just_straightforward_bullying

This is not a content dispute, just straightforward bullying see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/06_12_2005_Alienus_and_Loxley_edit_war_over_Dennett_and_Philosophy_of_the_Mind#Final_mediator_recommendations_by_Nicholas_Turnbull

I would like to reinstate this request.

1. I have added all the content for this article. It cannot be a content dispute.

2. Alienus refuses to talk specifically about any point, including the new data that obviates his objections.

3. The mediation concluded that the dispute involved bullying.

4. The article is the victim of an evil troll who is simply teasing me.

Please do something. loxley 09:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug/Workshop

I've added some proposals to the workshop on the RJII arbitration. You might want to check them out; I'd be interested to hear your comments on them. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:robertjkoenig

Robertjkoenig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Zorro_redux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) KK_Utah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Template:Gibraltarian

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian

As per the request at Wikipedia:Bot requests, Uncle G's 'bot is ready to prepend this template to the talk pages for all IP addresses in 212.120.224.0/21. Just say the word. Uncle G 18:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EffK request to Fred Bauder

Hi Fred, please help per this request to Arbcom. I cannot load my Evidence page, for some while now (seriously it won't load), so could you please see that this is taken into consideration as per my request for substitution of the diff presented instead on the Evidence/talk page -ready to paste.I ask you as an Arbitrator in good standing to effect my substitution of one diff, somehow. Refers to my recent diff of : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=36111579,[[9]] into my Evidence/Talk. I do hope that you can advise such that this be achieved.The browser fails currently at 1.38 Megs. Since this is an open admission that user:Str1977 is actively guarding the WP from me, it is highly relevant. If you cannot substitute this diff as an outside Arb, I ask you yourself to present it as relevant evidence, in neutral terms you chose. otherwise could you simply remove the very last EffK diff, leaving the short accompanying text surrounding that diff.Alternatively place it at the beginning of my evidence, and the last 100 diff would become defunct,no? If there is some reason you cannot do this, or make a substitution at my request to you as Arb, would you please let me know -Thankyou. EffK 19:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denver

Can you vote for John Denver on the Article Collaboration Drive? Thanks. Carolaman 19:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerking

I've posted comments on talk pages before, but I got the feeling that I was tossing them down a black hole. Since many of the edits I made were purely aesthetic anyway, I just went ahead and made them. A good example was the RFAr where, in the section for confirmation that all parties were aware of the dispute, a lazy petitioner said "I posted to their talk pages". Since some of the talk pages were extremely long, I went and found the diffs and added them. Anyway, I don't particularly care who does this work, just as long as someone is doing it. It seems like it ought to be done. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 21:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copperchair is back

I've added to the evidence on the RfAr. It seems that 196.40.38.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and Copperchair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are either the same person, or the new anon is a meatpuppet (both Costa Rican, both Star Wars fanatics, etc.).--chris.lawson 22:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Arab-Israeli War

Your views on the ongoing deletion of good sourced content, references and footnotes and the addition of dubious material and original research to this article would be much appreciated if you have time. --Ian Pitchford 22:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Ayers

Jonah_Ayers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jonah_Ayers Sock_check_request_-_User:Jonah_Ayers Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment_-_Jonah_Ayers.2FBiff_Rose

Congratulations (or condolences?) on your re-election/re-appointment

We don't always see eye to eye but here's wishing you all the best of luck in carrying out your duties. ++Lar: t/c 21:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from me as well, and you'll be sure to hear from your local Signpost reporter soon... ;-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much deserved congratulations! And thank you for all your amazing hard work to date. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Fred! You'll be great for the job (again). --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Owl.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Owl.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

dbenbenn | talk 01:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Roles

Hello Fred. Thank you for leaving comments about ArbCom on my user page. I appreciate the work you do for ArbCom. I would still strongly suggest separating the police/investigator functions away from those who have the duty to adjudicate. Couldn’t the investigation (deletions, checkuser, etc) be done by some of the 800 admins? They could then participate in the arbitration as witnesses, sharing the results of their investigation. This would protect the independence of the arbitrator.

Best of luck with your work on ArbCom. If I can help in any way let me know.

Edivorce 01:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred says:

"You take the common law position. I take the civil law position which I consider more likely to do justice, remembering that we do not do justice, per se, but attempt to craft whatever decision advances the progress of the project."

- I think that is right(civil/common). Many European civil law, maybe Islamic law too, do combine investigation with adjudication. Sometimes it slips into common law jurisdictions too, as in special masters or some administrative hearings. I remember I once represented a guy in a Michigan unemployment hearing. I called a witness and and hearing officer said "I don't need to hear it, I know all about it." I was lost. I didn't know what else he knew or didn't know. My subjective experience of the event was that it was oppressive--and we won the case. I sincerely think the common law has the best of it in this matter. --Edivorce 02:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltarian

He just used a sock to try to introduce a RfAr case against me. I removed it. If you don't want me doing that, let me know. The part that continues to slay me with him is that he's still acting like this is me versus him when he's now been blocked by I think 6 or 7 different admins. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I suggest that you look over item #8 of the "Finds of Fact" section on this case (Misuse of Arbitration-Only Pages) and cast your vote on that one. --TML1988 23:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting!

Hello there! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my arbitration commitee nomination. Although it was not successful, I appreciate the time you spent to read my statement and questions and for then voting, either positively or negativly. Again, thank you! Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 22:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin and Hitler

In my own family both death and disability struck at the hands of Hitler rather than Stalin. Obviously you have encountered the folks most people have never heard of attitude I was reacting against in your own life. Living in Honduras has somewhat modified my own former more anglo-firstworld view, where indeed the deaths of unknown peoples can be frighteningly easily dismissed, SqueakBox 00:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

For fixing the links. Hope you read them as well:-) Zeq 15:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freestylefrappe ArbCom Inaccuracy

Hi Fred,

I noted this on the workshop page, but I'm not sure if you saw it. In the finding-of-fact on the Stephenj block, the sentence "Karmafist had posted a warning [14], but no repetition of the offense had occurred" is not accurate. Karmafist actually posted that warning after the block, as the timestamps show. -- SCZenz 23:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Proposed Decision

I'm not sure in what cases parties can edit the proposed decision pages (if at all), so I figured I'd make a note here that I added a header that you missed when creating the Proposed Decision page on Freestylefrappe's arbitration case. The diff is here: [10], and if this is not allowed, I apologize- feel free to revert me or change the header as necessary. Ral315 (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred.

I don't know if it would interest you but there is a vote to delete a template called Defban which is used to deal with vandals who post defamation on the site. Splash doesn't seem to grasp that it is not a breach of no legal threats but a template created after consultation with some arbcom members to protect WP from defamation postings and to make sure those posting such stuff know they are leaving themselves legally at risk of being sued. I'd be interested to hear your opinion. It is on WP:TFD. Merci, FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Practical Editing Question

I'm working on significant edits of the Mediation article. I've begun by posting comments on the talk page signaling my intention to make changes. My question is: What is an appropriate period time to wait for responses? I would appreciate your advice. --Edivorce 14:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Thanks, Fred --Edivorce 16:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser

Hi, I don't know how many hopes I have to go through to get this, but you are listed on the CheckUser_policy#English_Wikipedia as having authority to check a user.

Could you check and see if TDC and CJK are the same users?

They currently have a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez outstanding for Ruy and are both against him.

I would like to request that you please keep your comments on my request to this page, as both users monitor my talk page.

I don't care if they find out, but it would save me hassle if they didn't know yet.Travb 22:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too late. CJK 22:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time Fred. I guess the cat is out of the bag.Travb 23:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost interview

Hello, Fred Bauder. I hope you don't mind taking a few minutes out of your busy Arbitration schedule to answer a few questions for the Wikipedia Signpost.

How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?
What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?
What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?
What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?
What do you think of Jimbo's decision to re-appoint yourself, JamesF., and Jayjg? What would you say to those who opposed this decision?
After a week on the job, what are your initial thoughts?
What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?
If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
What are your thoughts on the clerk's office? Do you support it? Why or why not?
Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?
If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why?
Is there anything else you would like to mention?

Congrats on your recent selection. By no means feel obligated to answer all (or any) of the questions; though we'd appreciate it if you did. An article featuring your responses will be published on Monday. Thanks a lot, and don't hesistate to ask me if you have any questions at all! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If some of the questions look familiar, feel free to skip them; I reused some questions from last time. Thanks!

?

What does the Arbitration Com. do? Wiki eZach 03:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Public Library vandal

Hi, just to update you on the George Reeves vandal front, since you investigated this user... George Reeves and 1998-99 NBA season (recent target) recently had to be protected, by Curps and GregAsche respectively. I have just appealed to Curps, GregAsche, and AJR for a long-term IP-range block, and I repeat that appeal to you. I have written to the library but, as you say, I'm not optomistic... I'm not super pleased that I had to spend time on all this tonight, I had hoped to make some edits instead... Herostratus 08:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Public Library vandal

Hi Fred, just to update you on the George Reeves vandal front, since you investigated this user... George Reeves and 1998-99 NBA season (recent target) recently had to be protected, by Curps and GregAsche respectively. I have just appealed to Curps, GregAsche, and AJR for a long-term IP-range block, and I repeat that appeal to you. I have written to the library but, as you say, I'm not optomistic... I'm not super pleased that I had to spend time on all this tonight, I had hoped to make some edits instead... Herostratus 08:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to also be using a large Illinois internet provider. I think permanent semi-protection may be the only practical solution. Fred Bauder 16:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK, I didn't know that. I'm not certain that permanent semi-protections is a good idea, because he goes after articles pretty much at random... witness his vociferous attack on 1998-99 NBA season, of all things. At least if George Reeves and his other favorites are unprotected, I can pick him up there and then follow him to his other targets. This is not good. I'm surprised that there is no solution. This guy enjoys jeering that he cannot be be stopped... its disappointing to find that that is true. Surely this sort of thing has come up before? Are we really hostage to people like this? I believe him when he says that he will never stop, because he's obsessive. Can we not block that ISP? Or are they likely to be unresponsive to a request for action against him? I will try at any rate. Dknights had to suffer a reprimand for "edit warring" with this guy and which is so unfair... enh. Herostratus 17:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnski Arbitration Case

I wanted to take a minute to comment on your vote on the Johnski arbitration case. First of all, it appears there probably are now enough votes to close the case. That case (along with many others) has been stalled for a month now because of the arbitration elections. Meanwhile, Johnski has been aggressively editing the article, with little or no consequence. I was able to get an administrator to block him, although that likely will only been a week at the most.

Second, I think the suggestion that semi-protection not be indefinite is limiting at best. So far, the arbitration committee, has not (in my opinion) given any deterrent to those editors who constantly whitewash the article to stop. Mind you, these same editors are probably DOM agents (although this is not completely verifiable) pushing what is essentially is scam. This means, the problem will continue to be an ongoing issue which possibly will have to be revisited by the arbitration committee in the future.

Personally, I think the integrity of Wikipedia has to be taken in to account. There are at least nine other people who jointly filed this RFA (complainants) which agree that these editors are posing a problem to the community. If an arbitration committee sits idling by and gives the appearance of not giving a damn, then we as editors have to wonder why we are wasting our time fixing the articles where an editor is aggressively POV pushing.

These comments aren't meant to be an attack, but a wake up call. All I'm asking if for arbitration committee members to look at the history of the dispute and take it seriously. I'm very leery whether this arbitration decision will do anything to help the decision. Maybe I wasted my time filing it. If anything, I think the decision that is being made needs to be strengthened, not made weaker as you are suggesting. I've made some suggestions as to what can be done on various pages for this arbitration case and for the most part they have been ignored. It is disheartening to spend so much time trying to fix something and be told my suggestions don't matter. Thank for hearing me out. Davidpdx 14:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KnessetP.R.Guy

KnessetP.R.Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Problems with Eliezer & OpenInfo

Fred, I have tried editing the article and these two guys have an absolute strangle hold on the article. They do not allow dissenting views. I assure you, they will only revert my edits to their anti-Messianic propoganda as they have done in the past. Ultimately, they will only block me permenantly and continue strangling the article. If I knew I would have a fair chance at editing the article, I would be very happy to make it neutral.KnessetP.R.Guy 20:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is entirely untrue. This article has been edited by numerous people, from both sides.

However, when a Messianic supporter comes on, and claims to be representing the Jewish point of view, his edits will be watched carefully.

The fact is, that based on KPRG's edits, he is definitely not neutral. In fact, he simply uses force and the Wikipedia equivalent of yelling to get his points across, by erasing other people's edits, and putting his points on top.

Yes, KPRG is Israel. However, he does not accurately reflect the Jewish point of view. I have been researching Messianicism since 1990, so that is over 15 years.

I have talked with Jews from all over, and other than Israelis, have not met ANY Jews who agree with Messianicism, or legitimize it. This includes Jews who are self-proclaimed AGNOSTICS, who get very upset when they hear about organizations trying to convert Jews. OpenInfo 01:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Ril-

Some months ago you moved to lift the community imposed ban of -Ril- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In the months since that decision he has made virtually no useful contributions to Wikipedia, and has instead spent almost all his time persecuting a small group of editors and their contributions, myself included. This user is doing nothing to help improve the encyclopedia, and is also likely banned user CheeseDreams. Can someone simply ban this fellow, or do we have to go through another arbitration round? - SimonP 21:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, further to your question to Simon, my old name was User:-Ril-.

In response to Simon's statement above,

I lecture and perform research at and for a university. During term time I am unavailable for much in the way of substantive edits, for obvious reasons, and this is why "in the months since the decision" I have not been available to write or contribute to articles substantively - the months "since the decision" are also the months "where I have to spend a lot of time dealing with students as well as my own research (in historical linguistics)" and the month "where I go and visit my parents due to it being christmas".
I can only be said to have "persecuted" (as Simon calls it):
- Mellisadolbeer, who is obsessed with her own, unique, and totally original research, theory about the origin of the Gospel of Matthew, that she expounded at Authentic Matthew.
- Karlscherer3, who spammed wikipedia with his unique and original (research) categorisation of Puzzles, attempting to twist Puzzle articles to his very amateur non-standard categorisation, and adding inflated views of his own competence, including articles about himself, 200+ articles supporting his categorisation and with little other content, over 50 rather poor images supporting that categorisation, and claims in articles such as Turing Machine to have himself made such a machine.
- Noitall for vehemently anti-Islamic POV pushing (which is now regarded by the community as being absurdly obvious, but at the time I was one of the few editors combatting his behaviour), as well as his other social-conservatism POV pushing - such as the fiasco he/she and others caused over Wikipedia:Wikipedians for decency
- UninvitedCompany for wholesale unilateral action, ignoring the community, ignoring NPOV, and violating admin priveleges by using them in areas where he/she is directly involved
- SimonP, for
  - his/her mass unilateral action over the location of certain editorial templates, which is of a similar type to Kelly Martin's (and we all know what the community thinks of that)
  - his/her spamming wikipedia with masses of bible fluff in the form of articles for every single verse of the bible, rather than in the manner of encyclopedia treatment of the subject (i.e. articles about topics, subjects, and narratives)
  - his/her violation of Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources in including the entire source text of over 6 chapters of the bible inside the six articles about those chapters, and his/her violation of WP:NPOV for only using the KJV translation in doing so.
What or who is CheeseDreams and what is his/its connection?

Recently I started some centralised discussion about the Bible-source-text issue, it didn't go in the direction Simon would have liked at all, and consequently this action of Simon appears to be a (somewhat obvious) case of sour grapes, and seeking revenge.

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 00:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The previous cases are at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril-, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2. The records of the community imposed ban can be found at User talk:-Ril-/ban. At this point -Ril- is less violating polices, and more simply making a mockery of them. Wikipedia is founded upon consensus, but -Ril- has spent months working on ways to circumvent the prevailing consensus on Bilbe verse articles. He has repeatedly used a certain technique to get his own way:

First he creates a new policy page, such as Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text
Then he advertises the page on the user pages of anyone he thinks will agree with him. (e.g. [11], [12], [13], [14], [15].
A handful of the of people he has notified do comment on the page in question. Since they have agreed with -Ril- in the past, they mostly agree with him
Only after a number of his allies have commented does he inform those he disagreed with of the new discussion, and presents the situation as a fait accompli. (e.g. [16])
Despite previous discussions with much larger participation, such as Wikipedia:Merge/Bible verses, he then treats the new pages as policy and begins implementing them.

At this point I am pretty much ready to ban -Ril- as a sockpuppet of the hard banned user CheeseDreams, but it would be better if a more neutral party were to do so. - SimonP 00:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic Judaism Continued Problems

I followed your advice and tried revising the article to be more neutral. (Admittedly, I'm still a bit awkward with Wiki codes) In the process, the article got locked and no alert tags appear to reflect the controversy around the article as it is worded. As I predicted, Eliezer and OpenInfo's propoganda prevails.KnessetP.R.Guy 13:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]