User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 12

university of miami page HELP

I am wondering if you would be willing to take up arbitration for the University of Miami page, which has been repeatedly vandalized. Over the last two weeks, four different individuals have deleted the "criticism" section of the university of miami, while differnt members of continually had to put it back up. None of these people have tried to use the talk page, and they have been repeatedly warned. I am beginning to suspect they are the same person, and possibly someone who does not feel that the UM should be criticized...Please help us, becuase I'm not really sure what we can do, and its becoming a growing problem. Thanks,

-Jake

Sorry, just noticed this. Please put new stuff at the bottom. Fred Bauder 20:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Alleged harassment of Cberlet

Fred - With all due respect, if you are going to propose findings of fact and penalties against me that state that I've somehow harassed or wronged User:Cberlet in the two Arbcom cases, you owe it to me to at least specify when and where this occured, and what policies it violated. Right now your proposals simply assert it to be so, and only link to the RfC I filed against Cberlet when he was making personal attacks against me [1] back in July. Quite frankly, this leaves me at a loss of understanding of what I'm even being accused of in any of these findings, much less how they merit the penalties you are suggesting. Since [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy requires transparency in proceedings where Arbitrators are to "make detailed rationale for all their decisions public," I believe it is fair of me to ask this of you. Thanks in advance. Rangerdude 09:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Fred - The link you added on the harrassment allegation shows nothing more than Cberlet's list of diffs that I edited the article about him. Not a single one of these diffs shows any editing impropriety, and all edits were fully sourced and mindful of NPOV. If you're going to make allegations, you need to back them up with specific and conclusive evidence. The fact that you have not done so and instead can only link to diffs of me engaging in normal legitimate editing of articles suggests that your charge is severely flawed. Rangerdude 19:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Question

Now that we have confirmed that I'm not Pigsonthewing would it be appropriate or allowed for me to add myself as a 'Party' in his arbitration? While I wasn't involved in the original dispute I have obviously been heavily involved on the 'evidence' page and should probably be held to account for my actions like everyone else. Also, the text on the evidence page says not to place edits in other users' evidence sections, but not the procedure if someone does. Should I respond on the page, move the comments to the workshop or evidence talk pages and respond there, or something else? Thanks. --CBD ^T _C ^@ 11:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

That block

Just to explain myself, it was part of the AFD on the FSM, which got heavily sock-infested. So I went around and blocked a bunch of sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Then somebody pointed out on ANI that this doesn't actually help and I believe he said he'd unblocked them, so I just figured I'd drop the issue and not do that again. Radiant_>|< 16:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

A question on the Rangerdude case

Fred, I know this case is so tangled and voluminous as to be rather daunting (even for me), but I just wanted to inquire whether you've had a chance to evaluate the evidence I've contributed. Best · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet, Nobs et. al. case

At Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#External_activities_of_users: might you consider rewording? I think I understand what you are saying, but it is (rather atypically) worded in such a way that I can't be sure.

You wrote: "The policies of Wikipedia apply on Wikipedia;…" (OK, so far pretty much a tautology) "…use in external activities of such tactics as 'links & ties',…" (now you're beginning to lose me, in what sense are "links and ties" a "tactic", maybe there is a verb missing, doing something with links and ties?) "…or guilt by association may be properly reported in a[n] article concerning them,…" (I'm getting lost in the passive voice, who may report what in an article concerning whom?) "…but do not justify their use by any party on Wikipedia…" (the use of what? The referent of their is very unclear) "which requires actual verification of information by a reliable source, Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research." (OK, you seem to be saying again that use of things in Wikipedia requires that Wikipedia policies be followed. But in between, where you presumably were stating the substance of the matter, you completely lost me.) -- Jmabel | Talk 02:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Fred

For letting me know. I find it odd that WP takes me right back to 16/17 century politics and war - my only WP defence is the definition of one canon of Canon Law . I guess I'll have to drag it into the open , and it isn't one I was referring to historical events , but the one that refers to WP users . Thanks anyway, I suppose it will all distract from injecting source. I begin to think some people do not know how to read , only edit. Maybe I get a chance to ask the Jimbo question, mark 2 to do with classification of source. Now now, I'll stop. Mind yourself. EffK 21:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply required as per Wikipedia:Arbitration policy for Requests

I have not yet seen your reply as required by Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Requests to my request here as of 15:39, November 24, 2005 re with respect to this process. Please provide a rationale for your vote that was rendered while I was prevented from responding on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone in accordance with Wikipedia:Arbitration policy for Requests which states "Individual Arbitrators will provide a rationale for their vote if so moved, or if specifically requested." Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 23:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, but the question I had asked here was: On what authority did you base your decision to deny me due process and render an opinion? - Ted Wilkes 23:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, but you continue to avoid answering the question. Please do so. - Ted Wilkes 00:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Wilkes, Wyss, 141

Why did you accept this RfAr when no efforts, nor evidence of any efforts, to remedy the alleged issue by other means have been made or presented? I ask because this seems to be contrary to both the template instructions and WP policy. Could you please cite the documented section of Wikipedia's written policy which you used to make this extraordinary exception? Thanks. Wyss 00:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

To substantiate your implied claim that I did not respect the decision, please cite diffs showing that I made any edits whatsoever to the articles in question after you made that post. Furthermore, why isn't this single post listed in the RfAr as evidence of a prior effort and what documented section of Wikipedia's written policy did you use to make the extraordinary exception of basing your decision on alleged evidence not placed into the template on the RfAr page as required by the template instructions and WP policy? Thank you. Wyss 00:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration re-opened

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 has been re-opened. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Workshop. (SEWilco 03:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC))

Blocking disrupter at INC

I've been blocking a disrupter of the Iglesia ni Cristo.Advice?Regards.--Jondel 11:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

UK Schools range block

Looks like we're getting some collateral damage from the block. I posted here, but since it's in the middle of the page and the board is high traffic, I thought I'd let you know. Looking for some input from somebody more experienced with dealing with blocks. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Motion to provide voting rationale

Please see [2]. Thank you. Rangerdude 18:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Bauder: You stated here:

• "I am upset, but all of the accusations by Ted Wilkes came after the case was accepted."

Please explain this fabrication. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 20:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone Fred Bauder 21:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee procedure re RedWolf request

Please note that it appears you failed to follow standard procedure as seen here and notify User:RedWolf that his "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone has been accepted" and that he "Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone/Evidence." Kindly correct this matter. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 22:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Wikiowl.gif license

Hi,

We'd like to use this image in HuWiki, but couldn't figure out the precise license for it. Could you help us out?

Thanks, nyenyec ☎ 22:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I copied the discussion to Image talk:Wikiowl.gif and also posted my reply there. -- nyenyec ☎ 13:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

EffK/workshop

Sorry to bother you Fred, I note that all 'parties' comments were removed from workshop . Do we, McClenon and I, get a chance to re-insert ? I assume this is normal admin roll-back, but do not in the least understand.

While I am here can I mention : I revert to unsigned-in on all talk pages now:

History function on WP has always worked illogically -previous can mean later etc. This is unsigned in , EffK

second post here :I always seem to get it arse-ways, now I go in there from the RFA and its all there. Separate things I don't get . Could be a waste of your time, so I am sorry. Other things are real, if this first is not, of which I'm not sure. EffK

Extremism

Dear Sir: Let me call your attention to this verifiable citation,

"It's certainly true there are right-wingers who have intolerant ideas about opponents and who would like to silence them, or worse. However, Berlet's analysis omits any mention of the same behavior on the extreme left, not to mention by himself."

Strong language from an author cited in the Military Law Review as the "foremost expert in extremism" [3]. nobs 22:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

How long does arbitration go on for

Hello Fred. I feel I should add a statement to the FuelWagon/Ed Poor case, as I was a witness to many of the events mentioned by FuelWagon and SlimVirgin, and was also a witness to the behaviour on the Terri Schiavo talk page long before SlimVirgin came near it. However, I am rather busy at the moment. So my question is — how much time do I have? I'm not very familiar with arbitration cases. Do they end suddenly, or do they drag on for months? Should I treat this with more urgency than other Wikipedian business? Thanks. AnnH ^(talk) 15:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Close Rex071404 4 please...

I really hope to see you casting the closing vote for the 4th Rex071404 case and officially close it, preferably no later than Christmas.

Last call

You wrote:

"I am about done with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Workshop."

Nice start, although you should wait for all the evidence. As the arbitrators haven't even finished supplying their required rationale, so there didn't seem to be a hurry. Not that evidence is easy for this case. (SEWilco 04:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC))

Some of my material is visible here and here. It will be moved to the case when it is ready, and you should act based on the official version. I've seen problems take place when decisions are made based on partial evidence. (SEWilco 15:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC))

Wilkes, Wyss, 141

Hello Fred. After reviewing a bit more, I've realized Wyss hasn't been anywhere near as malicious as Wilkes. I would like it if Wyss is taken out of the remedies (which may not have a point as she's apparently left) but I think we should separate them as a package and deal with them separately. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 03:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Chooserr (talk · contribs)

• See contributions, on the verge of spam, not to mention keeps creating bizarre religion related POV forks, in between 'welcoming' new users, he's been doing this non stop ever since his block expired--Aolanonawanabe 01:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Probation

Hello Fred. I'm interested to know the rationale behind the reason why the decision of probation: " may ban them from any article which relates to China which they disrupt by inappropriate editing " [4], as part of the ArbCom remedies, is extended to cover any article relates to China that are not relevant to the case itself [5]. I did not expect an ArbCom decision made within the context of the case would be applicable to matters beyond the case. Meanwhile, FYI, you may be interested to take a look at user:Jiang's query at the talk page [6]. Thanks very much. — Instantnood 06:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Probationary bans

Hi Fred, you put a small template [7] on the Proposed Decision page of the Instantnood (and myself) arbitration case. Yesterday I made a generic probationary ban template: Template:User article ban and linked it to Wikipedia:Probation. You might consider editing your notice to just point at the wp:probation page for enforcement.

It'd probably be better for continued discussion to happen under the main article of that case where the Final Decision is, rather than the previous talk pages considering the minor differences between them, it's just less confusion and a consolidated talk. SchmuckyTheCat 16:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood_2

Replied here Alai 17:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

WSI Arbitration

Any idea on when a decision might be reached? TDC 23:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Creation of an Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct

Do you support the creation of a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at User talk:Jimbo Wales#A sincere question? - Ted Wilkes 18:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course. It would be helpful to all. Fred Bauder 19:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Stalled arbitration

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine appears to have stalled. In the meantime, wholly independently, and coming upon this dispute by another route entirely, I have proposed a solution to the perennial neutrality dispute that appears to underpin this conflict on Talk:Criticisms of communism#NPOV. Both sides appear to have at least accepted the idea in principle, but have become stalled. The Arbitration Committee giving them a little encouragement, and perhaps a tiny push to get them over the initial hump and into the process of actually working, might help. Uncle G 04:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks

i appreciate your decision, esp. after the irritated email i sent you. Stoned Trey 06:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

IPs from Canada?

Just a question. Are the IPs 66.186.250.106 and 66.61.69.65, which have deleted some of my contributions and denigrated my sources, also logging in from Canada? See [8], [9], [10], [11] and [12]. Onefortyone 13:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Jguk

Jguk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SmokeDog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 212.134.22.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

User:Jguk, who, per the second arbcom case against him is prohibited from changing BCE/CE to BC/AD has done so again at Pakistan [13] (edit is also marked as minor, with no edit summary). This is his third violation.

From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/jguk_2:

Jguk banned from changing BCE to BC or CE to AD

1) Jguk is indefinitely prohibited from changing BCE to BC or CE to AD in any article, for any reason.

Enforcement by ban

1) Jguk may be briefly banned, up to a week in the case of repeated offenses, should he attempt to change the era notation in any article.

He has also activated one of his sockepuppets, User:SmokeDog, to make further edits to Pakistan. Sortan 21:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

We've got a blue-light special on 4 day blocks today. jguk just got one. What evidence do you have that User:SmokeDog is a sockpuppet? Nandesuka 22:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Jguk himself [14]. It might be useful to run a full sockpuppet check on him though, as he probably intended to make this change as SmokeDog, and thereby avoid notice. He may also have other sockpuppets used for the same purpose. Sortan 22:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Given that SmokeDog edited immediately after jguk, and that he hadn't made an edit for months before that, I'm inclined to agree. Nandesuka 22:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a note (I fully support the four-day block): I think Pakistan probably should remain BC, not BCE. It's hard to tell, but I've done some digging in the history. Before November 27, there was no ancient history information, but there were a few instances of BC, and none of BCE. During a very busy November 27th, ancient history went in, which at various points used BC, BCE, or both. Probably should have all been BC to begin with, based on the pre-November 27th page. Of course, I could have easily missed some earlier back-and-forthing. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think its perfectly fine for article contributors to change optional styles if there is a general consensus to do so. In this case it was done by User:Tombseye, a regular contributor to the Pakistan article as part of a good faith copyedit [15]. None of the other editors objected, so it doesn't strike me as bad. Of course, if there is any objection or there is no consensus for a change, then the current style should be left alone. My opinion of course ;) Sortan 22:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that BC/BCE should be left strictly alone once an article demonstrates one consistent style or the other. Distiguishing "good-faith" changes from bad is impossible (heck, even Jguk is doing it, AFAICT, in "good faith": he either thinks it makes a better encyclopedia or that it pleases his God) and every change of styles is an open invitation to start edit-warring. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Confirmed. Smokedog (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Jguk (talk · contribs). Kelly Martin (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

He's now editing by ip to evade his block -> [16], etc. Sortan 23:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI, Dan100 has reduced the block to 1 day. Nandesuka 23:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Modern Russian states

Regarding this edit, referring to Ukraine as a "modern Russian state" can be found offensive by many Ukrainians who do not consider Ukraine to be a Russian state. --Lysy ^(talk) 00:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what language to use. I tried russian state. Fred Bauder 00:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You did very well with "historical predecessor of Russia and Ukraine". Thanks. --Lysy ^(talk) 14:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

More precise would be "historical predecessor of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus".--AndriyK 19:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

AndriyK case (error?)

You added the following under "remedies" on the Proposed Decision page:

Reversal of irreversible page moves

5} Moved pages which have become irreversible by adding to the page history of the redirect page may be moved back without the necessity of a vote at Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Did you mean to place this under "findings of fact"? Ral315 (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a remedy. I thought to trying to make it apply to any Wikipedia page which has been moved in this way. It just means that that those pages AndriyK moved can be moved back without a vote. Fred Bauder 14:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I assumed an administrator can simply revert an article move without the necessity of a vote anyway, as: Requested moves is used to request, and vote on, article moves that are not straightforward, or that require the assistance of Wikipedia administrators. So I'd rather see it as a "finding of fact" as well. I may be wrong of course. --Lysy ^(talk) 14:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I just discovered this dialog. I was not sure whether the parties are allowed to talk to the arbitrators outside the arbitration pages, so I was not keeping an eye on this page. I only stopped by to followup on Lysy's. If the very fact of this message is considered unethical or undesirable, please delete and ignore it.

Having said that, I view the undoing of all frivolous page moves is a remedy that only ArbCom can prescribe until we get the automatic undoing of such moves into a policy. As per our guidelines, currently admins cannot move pages on the whim, simply deciding that the move is undeserving even a discussion at WP:RM. In some cases admins do so anyway (see [17]) but only when they are bulletproof confident that there is a nonsense move. More often an admin has no idea on the subject to decide and the issue should go to WP:RM. The ruling explicitly allowing to revert the moves based purely on the fact that move was made with a bad-faith trick would give admins a clear authority to do so. I would prefer the policy that would mandate rather than allow undoing such moves in order to strictly discourage the quick-fix POV pushers to impose their view on the community and create a huge amount of work for admins to merge the histories once the mess is sorted out. Thank you. --Irpen 22:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Should it be found appropriate to move this to the Arbitration pages, I have no objection either. --Irpen 22:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Johnski Arbitration

I just wanted to let someone know we are done posting evidence in the Johnski arbitration case. I know there are a lot of cases waiting and it would probably help get the backlog cleared up the quicker your able to close cases. Please let me know if you have any questions. Davidpdx 15:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

How am I supposed to talk to the arbcom?

Also what do you know about flamekeeper, or User:EffK? An educated conversation regarding who he is and how to best fascilitate his interaction with the wikipedia could be functional. I want to discuss my conversation w him @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Your_care._Arbs_strange_ways. Sam Spade 00:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

He edits on Wikinfo so I am recused Fred Bauder 00:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

and that means you won't comment or provide advice? Can you at least tell me a functional place to dialogue w the arbcom? random talk pages havn't worked, nor has the mailing list... Is there an IRC room? Sam Spade 00:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You voted to reject ...

... accepting the request for arbitration that I filed against SlimVirgin for abuse of adminitrator priviledges. Would you please tell me your reason? Marsden 15:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden's guilty plea

Please stop removing references to Marsden's guilty plea. In Canadian law a conditional discharge involves a judge finding an offender guilty. Though there is no conviction there is still a verdict of guilt. Please read the conditional discharge article. Since conditional discharges are usually offered only in a plea bargain, they usually involve a plea of guilt from the offender (there's no such plea as "no contest" in Canada). This was the case with Marsden:

"Marsden, a right-wing political pundit who has made several appearances on the U.S. network Fox News, pleaded guilty last October to criminal harassment of former Vancouver radio personality Michael Morgan.

The Vancouver radio host received a conditional discharge with one year of probation.

Police said the pair were involved in a sexual relationship for about a year, but when it ended, Marsden began a barrage of unwanted phone calls and e-mails.

Part of her conditional discharge involved an agreement she would not write about Morgan or his family on the Internet, as the pundit has her own website." (You've got (threatening) mail! Online harassment followed romances gone wrong in these cyberstalking cases By Dave Breakenridge -- Sun Mediahttp://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/TechNews/TechAtHome/2005/01/31/915660-sun.html

Again, please stop removing references to Marsden's guilty plea. Homey 15:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Blanking info on the workshop page by Ghirlandajo

Dear Fred, As I already informed you by e-mail, User:Ghirlandajo blanked the comment of Yakudza on the Workshop page. Later he also blanked the section in "Proposed findings of fact" I added. My attempts to restore the information were reverted by User:Ghirlandajo. Could you please solve the problem somehow?

A minor problem: Ghirlandajo plased his section #13 between #8 and #9. I do not know whether I am allowed to move it to the right place.

Thanks in advance.--AndriyK 19:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that one party of the dispute may enter into private correspondance with an arbitrator. That said, I find it annoying that AndriyK attempts to turn his own RfAr into mine or Irpen's. If he is not satisfied wth our actions, he should launch a separate RfAr against us and not to make a circus from his own RfAr. --Ghirlandajo 21:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Clarification. AndriyK was playing with the Workshop for a while as if this was his talk page. Creating new sections, moving his comments around, etc. Then Yakudza copy/pasted a piece already at evidence to the workshop. While I am not sure that needs removed by another party, there should be some clarity about how it is proper and how it's not proper to deal with the Workshop page. Making it a mess to further a cause of one of the sides is something that is not supposed to happen. There is a "statement" section at the main arbitration page for the parties to make their cases. There is also a special "evidence" page from which stuff should not be pasted blindly to the workshop. Workshop, as it says on top, should be a set of structured suggestions for the arbitrators rather than the place for more rant spilled over from elsewhere. --Irpen 20:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Irpen, please do not establish your own rules. I asked Frad, what I am permitted to do and did nothing what is forbidden.--AndriyK 20:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If one party is "permitted" to arbitrarily copy some pieces of evidence verbatim from the Evidence page to the Workshop, let's merge the Evidence with the Workshop. --Ghirlandajo 21:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

What "my own rules"? Read the top of the workshop page and talk to me at my own talk. --Irpen 21:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Your comments would be welcome at Treatment Advocacy Center

The Treatment Advocacy Center page is now protected. Your comments would be welcome.--24.55.228.56 14:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

EffK is forced to Abandon a Corrupted Wikipedia

I refer you to my response of a few moments ago at 15 December [[18]],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005 EffK 02:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

New evidence posted to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2

Hi - I have added new evidence for your consideration. SEWilco and his bot is currently modifying a climate article [19] to his footnote style without discussion. Seems to be a bit contemptuous to me in view of the ongoing proceedings. Thanks, Vsmith 17:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Mcfly85

Hi there Fred, Im Moe Epsilon. I am informing all the users with the checkuser ability under "advice" given by Celestianpower to run a CheckUser on Mcfly85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user "claims" to have NEVER once opened an IP address to vandalize; list of IP addresses that vandalized my user page are suspects. I also suspect he created/opened accounts to vandalize too. (ex. Rock09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 4benson3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Capnoh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Oneandon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Sigma995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Sven66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Pwner (talk · contribs).) A few days ago I was running for adminship and he got on there and edited. Mcfly85, Rock09 and Sigma995 all voted oppose when well noted administrators and others voted support. I suspect Mcfly has vandalized my user page 9 times. You can see conflicts there at my talk page, my RFA. I posted these accusations at the Administrators' noticeboard and nothing was done because of lack of evidence. Well, today Banes noticed something interesting. He posted:

You may want to look at the history of Frank Beard. And, less interestingly, the history of Wayne Newton. I just thought this might interest you.

It was where Mcfly85 and Rock09 edited the same articles simultaneously. Rock09 vandalized the articles and Mcfly85 does clean-up. Suspicious that an article like Frank Beard, an article with 11 edits has edits by Rock09 and Mcfly85 simultaneously. Can you please run a CheckUser on him? — Moe ε 18:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

SEWilco bot

Fred, FYI, I've left a request that the committee reconsider the proposed decision regarding SEWilco's bot, as I feel it may cause problems in the future. [20] Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:/Workshop

I did not remove the comment (which had been posted by Yakudza verbatim three times before that on my RfC and elsewhere) but moved it to /Evidence, where imho it rightfully belongs. If one party is allowed to paste some pieces of evidence to /Workshop, may I do the same? --Ghirlandajo 13:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Your recent nomination at WP:RFD

Greetings:

I just noticed that you had listed a nomination for List of People suggested to have been involved in the Kennedy Assassination → Kennedy assassination theories at WP:RFD. However, you inadvertently placed the nomination in a suboptimal spot. I have refactored your comments into a more appropriate spot on the page. This is just a heads up so that you won't go looking for it later and wonder what happened to it.

All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 15:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

KAT

Ive reported you to the authorities. [21] ;) -Ste|vertigo 19:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Xed 2

Regarding your notice on my talk page: I've checked the evidence page, as well as the workshop page, and find nothing referring to "masking of POV editing under the guise of citing NPOV and demanding sources". Could you point me in the direction of the evidence, please? Thank you. --Viriditas 00:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. From what I can tell, I twice restored a citation request [22] [23], and removed false citations as well as unsupported and irrelevant content [24] [25]. Xed reverted, and I added a totally disputed tag. [26]. I fail to see any alleged "POV editing under the guise of citing NPOV and demanding sources". --Viriditas 00:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, can you show me where I removed "any mention of occupation"? Maybe I'm just not seeing it. Regarding Xed's references, they didn't claim what he said they did, namely "a vigorous campaign by Zionist activists" I don't see where I've stripped the "Palestinian point of view" out of the film, although it does appear that Tariq Shadid is a Palestinian. The original comment stated, "Tariq Shadid, a medical doctor, claimed that the Academy's decision was based on political considerations." I don't think his medical doctor status has any bearing on the article. But, revisiting his website [27], I'm wondering if he should have been credited as a writer for the Palestine Chronicle. Unfortunately, Dr. Shadid's article seems to fall under the Guilt by association section of WP:V, hence its exclusion. I find myself agreeing with much of what Dr. Shadid writes, however. I can't personally comment on the films distribution, as I don't have that information; I can only go on what I've been able to verify. --Viriditas 01:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Based on your latest addition to my page, I can't comment on Jay's edits. However, I can comment that Xed's use of the term "occupation" in that context appears to have as many problems as the term "terrorist". As Jay has pointed out in the past, the word "occupied" is a legal opinion, and should be avoided. [28] --Viriditas 02:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, again. I don't see any references to Xed's POV, here. The word "occupied" isn't even used on the film's official website. [29]. I don't think the NPOV policy protects Xed's POV. --Viriditas 02:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This is the pain I had to go through just to put in some uncontroversial facts... - Xed 02:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)