User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 39

Evidence

How would I go about emailing private evidence? I ask you because you're very active on the committee. Would I email it to you, or to a clerk, or what? Miltopia 21:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming you are talking about Nathanrdotcom, "evidence may be submitted directly to the Arbitration Committee by e-mailing any member" (from the RfAr page). There's a list of arbitrators - and quick links to their Special:Emailuser page - here. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got an email from someone with your email address linked, and I sent you something. I know could use the email user link at the left, but it would be easier to format links in Gmail, but I don't want to just send you the email unless I know it's you. So, is that your email address? Milto LOL pia 02:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion of a list of reliable sources

Fred, could you please explain why you have deleted Talk:Rachel Marsden/Reliable Sources and protected against its recreation? I know you think it violated WP:BLP; I would like to hear how it did, considering that it consisted entirely of references to reliable sources? You deleted this in the midst of the Deletion Review of Marsden-Donnelly harassment case, for which we need a list of reliable sources. Kla'quot 17:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Material which violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons may be deleted by any user without limit. Fred Bauder 19:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then click the Edit tab, select the text, and press the Backspace key; there was no need to use your Admin tools. Uncle G asked weeks ago for contributors to collect a lot of good sources and cite them; if this was a bad idea you should have said so earlier before I did the work. And you protected a page called Talk:xxx/Reliable Sources from being recreated; I'll let that fact speak for itself. Kla'quot 20:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starwood arbitration

Do you really support a ban on my editing anything on an article of someone who has even appeared at an ACE event? Do you realize that this means I can't edit ANYTHING on most of the authors in the Americam Neo-Pagan communmity who do lectures, and many musicians who do Celtic or world music? Do you understand that about 40 of these notable people would not have articles at all had I not created them, and many of the others would have no discographies, no bibliographies, or very incomplete ones? And you really think it's right to place an INDEFINITE ban on my editing ANY of them, regardless of what that input might be? Rosencomet 20:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do. Most of these people are significant people that will have articles about them in any event. There are hundreds of thousands of articles which you are free to edit. Fred Bauder 20:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood/Workshop#Summary_of_the_case. I think there are two cases conflated here. It seems that editors Paul Pigman and Kathryn NicDhàna assumed that their dispute with Frater Xyzzy and Jefferson Anderson was a continuation of the Starwood matter, and added it to their evidence. But they seem to be unrelated, except for the participation of Anderson and Frater in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rosenbaum.

At the same time, a consideration of the second matter might be warranted. Pigman and NicDhàna have a conflict of interest over Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism, and seem to have overreacted to proper questioning of sources and the COI by Frater and Anderson, who are probably sockpuppets. MEDCAB was offered and rejected, but the situation doesn't seem to be out of hand yet. Do you want to consider everything together, or split the case and ask for a new application at RFAR over the Celtic Paganism business. Thatcher131 00:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it did seem as though there was too much. I think I will concentrate on Rosencomet and Starwood. The rest, if they want us to consider it should be a separate arbitration. Fred Bauder 01:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you object if I informed the parties and cleaned up the workshop page of proposals related to the Celtic Paganism dispute? Thatcher131 01:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. Fred Bauder 01:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"No editwarring over links to Starwood. I've not thought about the other users yet. Hopefully with you gone, things might settle down.Fred Bauder 01:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)"

I have not edit-warred since WEEKS BEFORE this arbitration began. I have reduced the links, both internal and external. I have provided dozens of 3rd-party citations, which the editors on the other side of the issue SAID was what was required to establish the notability necessary to justify the links. I have added references. I have listed recordings produced from Starwood appearances by artists, which Salix Alba said supported notability. I have refrained from contentious edits, and have discussed edits to these articles on talk pages rather than make them myself (apart from the reductions, etc I just mentioned, and such non-contentious edits as typos, spelling, grammar, etc). I have consulted Che Neuvara, the mediator of the mediation that Pigman interrupted unnecessarily (IMO) by calling for this arbitration, before even doing the DELETIONS. I have been working to help this situation, while Pigman, Kathryn and Weniwediwiki have not only done nothing to supply citations or otherwise improve the article(s), but have never once recognized that I have contributed anything positive or changed my ways. (One exception: Weniwediwiki put the lists in columns, which I thanked her for, then I did the same on the WinterStar page.) Che, BostonMa, and SalixAlba have, though. They've been fairly objective, and focused on good articles rather than battles over egos and extraneous issues. Rosencomet 02:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

About fair use

Hi, again! I heard somewhere that you are the Wikipedia lawyer. I apologize if your not, but I have a question regarding fair use on images, and since you're a retired lawyer, who else could be better suited for answering it??!! Anyway, there was an issue that came up after a user added an external link to a cheating site on RuneScape. During a discussion here, the idea came up that Jagex, the developer of RuneScape, has every right to order us to remove the screenshots on RuneScape, since they're fair use. Is this true? If so, would it be in our interest to keep the article free of content that might indirectly cause Jagex to become unhappy? Thanks.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in any way the Wikipedia lawyer; however User:BradPatrick actually is. 05:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When did IRC become official?

Hi Fred, IRC may be a great place to find officials and chat them, but since when did IRC become a valid chanel for official business? [1] Regards, Ben Aveling 07:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was its original purpose. The creation of the channel was the subject of extensive conversations between Jimbo and others. It was to be a place where problems which required action by administrators could be brought to by the office, discussed and acted on. Fred Bauder 16:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I think it served that purpose for a while. But I don't think it does any more. I think that general consensus is that we've reached the position where the standard place for admin and arbcom discussion happens on wiki. There is an exception for things that 'should not be overheard', but those conversations need to be brought online for comment and for the record before they can be considered 'offical'. I also have an issue with the word 'trusted' because it implies that these people have passed some test of community trust, such as an election or an RfA, whereas it just means that they are trusted by the owners of the channel. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuperDeng

Fred, I would like to explain why I am somewhat supportive to Deng despite many problems he brought upon himself. Unlike many other problematic editors banned for edit warring, Deng is a productive editor useful for the project. He brought a wealth of well-referenced info to many articles, he uses reliable academic references to support his edits, the content he adds is firmly within the scholarly mainstream, the editor is knowledgeable and committed to the improvement of Wikipedia. He was indeed stalked and baited by some of his opponents and instead of keeping his cool, he took the bait, retaliated to stalking them as well and engaged in the creation of sockpuppets to outrevert Kurt Leyman (talk · contribs) and Constanz (talk · contribs) in edit wars despite I warned him multiple times that such activity would prove counterproductive. Several editors, myself included, offered to mentor him but it was already too late as Deng has already built himself a bad reputation and several admins justifiably felt that they already had it with him.

I would prefer him being able to edit simply because his contributions are useful to the Wikipedia as they result to the net improvement of the encyclopedic content. If his hotheadedness is under control, he will be a useful editor. However, I cannot vouch that the latter will be the case. Therefore, if he is allowed to resume editing, I will strongly support some sort of probation imposed on him. --Irpen 20:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just see absolutely no evidence that he will change. And you know, it doesn't take much for his "hotheadedness" to come out. If he's unblocked, it'll just happen again with a different user. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 21:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deng Arbcom case

I responded. It's lengthy. It's rambly. But. I responded. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 21:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omura page/Omura Quote usage question

Hello, I am trying to get some fundamental things sorted before I get blocked - if that is what happens.

1) Can Omura's statement on WP be used to state what he says he(Dr Omura) said either about the Tribunial and BDORT involvment and/or to Dr Gorringe re the NZ Tribunial issue? ie can any of these be used:

a) Dr. Gorringe of New Zealand (who called me to help for his defense before a hearing in New Zealand in 2002-2003).

b) I did not [know] Dr. Gorringe and never spoke with him before his first phone call to me.

c) I questioned him about where he learned and how he performs the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test.

d) It immediately became clear that he was using some type of variation of a German doctor named Dr. Voll’s electro-diagnostic and therapeutic method that had very little to do with my Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (although both methods had been used in Germany and the U.S.).

e) Dr. Gorringe told me that he learned it from his old teacher, who incorrectly told him that what he was learning was Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test.

and/or?

f) Therefore, I told him that he is misrepresenting the BDORT as something completely different. I told him that I agreed with the New Zealand medical board that his license should be suspended because not only was he misrepresenting my Bi-Digital O-Ring Test but also because he did not order the basic laboratory tests to confirm his personal tests’ findings.

2) If Omura puts his statement on his website, can it then be used moreso? If so in what way further.

Thank you.Richardmalter 08:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is welcome to post to the talk page of the article regarding his concerns. This information gives perspective to the New Zealand proceeding, particularly with respect to the use of medical tests to confirm BDORT findings. Fred Bauder 16:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waldorf Arbitration

Fred, as you are re-opening the arbitration and inviting all the previous participants, I would like to request that you consider extending an invitation to the editors who have been participating in the articles post-arbitration. They will be in a better position, I believe, to produce evidence regarding the conduct of the participants since the arbitration took place. Thanks! Pete K 16:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been participating in editing and discussing the WE page for a few weeks. I'd be happy to participate in the arbitration review process as well. Just let me know how I can do that. Thanks. Henitsirk 20:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise for me. - Wikiwag 00:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

You have asked that discussion about the biography of living persons issue be sent to you in email. How do I find your email address? Thanks. Venado 18:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Venado, the toolbox menu on the left of the page has an email option. Pete K 19:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Venado 20:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review

Could you fill me in on the appropriate procedures here? This will be the first time I've had anything to do with an arbitration review. Lethaniol contacted me today and asked for my input about the Waldorf situation. While I looked into his request I discovered the arbitration review had opened. I don't have any evidence to submit regarding WP:BLP so I doubt e-mail will be necessary.

I've contacted three editors at their user pages and requested they get in touch with me: I'm considering submitting a recommendation to the committee that they be topic banned and I want to give them the opportunity to communicate with me before I make any formal statement. I've told them I'll keep an open mind for a week.

I hope that approach is fair and reasonable. Please advise. Durova^Charge! 19:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, the BLP issue looks like the last straw, but is probably not the only issue. You know that the editors here have been very contentious over the article since the amnesty in the first arbitration; your talk page as well as mine. I expect that Fred is looking into article bans and/or a stronger form of probation, based on the parties (or perhaps some of the parties) inability to learn after the first case, so anything you want to say along those lines would be appropriate. Thatcher131 13:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teacher Issues

I see you have just removed Wikiwag's comments - so I suppose this will be to! Please can you explain where you would like us to discuss the issue of the WP:BLP for this teacher, because at the moment there does not appear to be an appropriate forum. Maybe leave a message on Talk:Waldorf Education so people know what to do? Cheers Lethaniol 01:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does a request for clarification warrant these actions!? My post was no more (and in fact far less derogatory) than the original reporting. Kindly explain yourself. - Wikiwag 01:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of material of this nature needs to be off-wiki. Use email to me. I will forward it to the arbitrators. Fred Bauder 01:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Can I expect a reply? - Wikiwag 01:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, I'm hoping we can get an answer on the reasons the section about the teacher was removed. All we know, so far, is that you don't like the content. AFAIK, you don't have a right to make that decision. The material is properly sourced and should be returned to the article unless there's a reason that you can provide for its removal (and I'm not suggesting there isn't, only that you haven't provided it, to my knowledge). Why should an incident that is sourced in three different independent sources be squelched? I don't think it's up to Wikipedia to police content. Pete K 13:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been communicating with Fred on this off-wiki. I understand the issue is that this one incident [while noteworthy and well-sourced] doesn't rise to the level of indicting the system. And therefore, focusing attention on this one person is not appropriate here. Suffice to say that between he and Thatcher131's breakdown and explanation of the issue here, I've accepted their POV; I see their point where it wasn't clear to me before from the WP:BLP guidelines, and it was a mistake for me to reinsert it in any fashion, even though I believed I was following the guidelines. If this issue is to be discussed, it has to be done somewhere other than Wikipedia. - Wikiwag 17:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with that, but if other supporting sources can be produced, is the material OK to be re-introduced here? My question is - is there some content in the article itself that we are trying to protect from public view, or is this unusual treatment of already public information based on something else? Nobody wants to indict Waldorf based on one incident (or two incidents) but if it is shown that this article doesn't misrepresent what actually happens in Waldorf, can it be used? Pete K 17:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying this as an anon so i don't get wikistalked by him

I'm certain that another indefinite ban is appropriate on this user. I mean, come on - two seconds after he gets unblocked, he gets straight back into edit warring, POV pushing, unwillingness to discuss. If there was any justice in the world, he would be banned and never given another chance since he will never change his ways.

Fred Bauer:

Look at all my articles and edits, and look how I fully explain my changes in the talk pages. I fully explain why I edit and evidence of edits.

And btw... I am reporting the Ivan guy whe talked about before. Look at this.

Yes I've fucking heard of them you stupid idiot, but that is not a modern state! When saying modern state, people are reffering to states from the 19th century forward. —KingIvan 11:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

He is saying this on the breakup of yugoslavia talk page. It is clearly a personal attack.

On that talk page, I have clearly and fully explained why I edit and evidence of it. Now.. this Ivan guy responds with personal attacks.

My suggestion is that he got a bann cause this personal attack and vandalism where he edits articles without refering to sources. Alkalada 11:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fred Bauer... it is okey to say fuck off to people at Wikipedia? Look:

(cur) (last) 11:31, 30 January 2007 Ivan Kricancic (Talk | contribs) (rv. "no no no" is not a valid argument. fuck off

He is saying to me "fuck off". Please.. bann this guy. Alkalada 11:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very full explanation here. Even better. Huh? What's this - avoiding my arguments because you know I'm right - I suppose you could justify it by admitting you're a troll. And "ban" only has one N. —King Ivan 12:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you dont agree with me.. then it doesnt give you the right to use personal attacks. You said fuck off and you called me a stupid idiot. And you also never refere to sources when you edit. I think it is pretty fair that you get a bann. Alkalada 12:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have evidence that Ivan is a troll. Look at his user page and look at this. This is taken from his userpage:

"It especially is annoying that Muslimani try to claim early Bosnia's history as theirs and only theirs. It's fine for a nation to define itself by religion, but if the defining feature that separates Muslimani as a nation from Croats and Serbs is Islam, then their nation only existed from the time they became Muslim, and all history that happened in Bosnia prior to this is not part of their nation's history, but part of the history of Croats and Serbs, since the Muslimani (or "Bosniaks" as they now wish to be called, most likely so people will mistake Bosnia's history for theirs) were Croats and Serbs who converted to Islam when the Turks invaded. "

He is saying that we bosniaks were croats and serbs who converted to Islam. That is not true!

And if you look at Wikipedia about bosniaks, you will se that Ivan has wrong. Please... bann this bosniak hater. Alkalada 12:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most respectable Western historians will disagree, Alkalada. (And "ban" still only has one N, no matter how much you don't want it too) —King Ivan 12:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Ivan, No, they wont. Search at history pages about Bosnia, done by WESTERN PEOPLE.

We were a separate people, called bosnjani before the arrival of turks, we had our own religion, we were bogomils while you croats were catholic. And that is our history, wheather you like it or not. Alkalada 12:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Alkalada, No. The Bosnian history pages on Wikipedia that you are refefring to are, almost exclusively, edited by people who are not respectable historians, or even historians - further more, most Bosnia-related articles are plagued by Muslim nationalists like yourself. "Bosjani" was what all inhabitants of Bosnia were called before the Turks - it was simply a regional name for the Serbs and Croats who lived there. After the arrival of the Turks, all Serbs and Croats who converted to Islam referred to themselves as "Turks". And now, since the Turks don't rule there anymore, the muslim inhabitants needed a new name so they decided to name themselves after Bosnia. —King Ivan 06:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Robert Prechter

Hello Fred,

You've the only administrator who has commented on the Robert Prechter case so far, thus I'm bringing an issue related to the case to your attention. Socionomics is one of the articles in question, and it was nominated for deletion on Jan. 27. But, apparently, it could be deleted at any moment with a copy kept elsewhere. The conduct of several editors in the AfD has mirrored issues I raised in my request for arbitration -- smears of a living person, obvious incivility, the use of my name and bad-faith accusations of COI.

My question is whether the AfD is procedurally permissible while Socionomics is part of an arbitration case. I sought guidance about the AfD yesterday via a request for clarification, but haven't received a reply. Thanks very much for your time. --Rgfolsom 15:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an AfD is permissible, that is a content question. Fred Bauder 16:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply.--Rgfolsom 16:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the arbitration is over, shouldn't Socionomics be sent back into the bit-bucket? --Orange Mike 01:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]