User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 50

Baca Ranch

Hi Fred, I noticed you recreated Baca Ranch as a redirect to a non-existent page and then fully protected it. Any reason? I previously deleted it per WP:CSD#R1 as a redirect to a non-existent page and I'm curious why it got recreated as a redlink redirect. Thanks!--Isotope23 20:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I am absolutely certain that is the correct name for the article. My family has lived across the road from the Baca Grant for 100 years. Fred Bauder 20:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha! Original research!!!

On a serious note, perhaps you could drop a stub at Luis Maria Baca Grant No. 4 so Baca Ranch redirects to something? I'd do it, but as a midwestern lifer I'd never heard of the place before two days ago.--Isotope23 21:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually just got an edit conflict posting the following:

Just curious- I have the same situation on one of the articles- I live there. Can one defend one's self against the charge of OR? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. In this case I have little interest in writing an article, but am probably the world's leading expert on the subject. Fred Bauder 01:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't thought of that angle- thanks. Have to review the rules on that. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an article, which I did, is a blatant violation of Wikipedia:No original research. Doing it any other way involves days of research through sources which are only marginally available, possibly lost. Fred Bauder 10:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... I imagine this won't be the sort of article where there will be a gaggle of editors showing up to pick it apart...--Isotope23 14:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop

Good luck. I hope you are successful. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waldorf education...yet again

We may need some help at Waldorf education; there are no remaining POV problems being raised with the article's substance, but three editors are contesting the neutrality of the article on a purely Ad hominem basis. Hgilbert 01:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Fred, for whatever reasons, you are ignoring the ad hominem attacks. Would you care to comment on one issue: can anthroposophical sources (official lists of schools) be cited to show the number of Waldorf schools that presently exist (or existed at any given year in the past) in the world? Hgilbert 17:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the discussion on the Waldorf ed talk page before taking at face value Hgilbert's apparently innocent inquiry ("It's just a list"). It was well established in the arbitration that just because - in fact precisely because - it's an "official" list, if it's published by anthroposophy, it's forbidden. Allowing anthroposophists to put pretty charts on wikipedia purporting to show the number of schools worldwide (and thus "growth") is indeed an example of the movement promoting itself. Note that the list includes phone and email addresses enabling potential customers to contact the schools! It is quite different from an independent assessment or accounting of the status or growth of the Waldorf movement.DianaW 17:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a ridiculous discussion; an official list of schools is a reliable source. I have changed this to use two academic sources that cite the same numbers, however. Hgilbert 19:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imagination

From the Waldorf talk page, as you may not follow it:

Nielson has presented extensive empirical evidence for Waldorf's imaginative approach; see this paper and "Rudolf Steiner's Pedagogy of Imagination: A Phenomenological Case Study" as well as his book on Rudolf Steiner's Pedagogy of the Imagination] Hgilbert 13:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hemlock Martinus is abusing his power as an administrator.

Hello, My name is Ravi. I am a new Wikipedian. My nickname is ‘Sam’. I made few changes in articles like Purdue University and Indiana as an anonymous user. My e-mail address is Ravi-141@hotmail.com. User:Hemlock Martinus is abusing his power as an administrator. On 9 June 2007, My friend User:Devraj5000 was introducing me to the policies of the Wikipedia. Devraj5000 accidentally violated 3RR. User:Hemlock Martinus, who is an administrator blocked Devraj5000 for 24 hours. Then, Devraj5000 asked me to create an account. I created an account User:R-1441 and I made some comments on the behalf of Devraj5000. Then, Devraj5000 left the computer. After that, User:Hemlock Martinus accused Devraj5000 of sockpuppetry and blocked him for a week. He also blocked IP address: 202.52.234.194 and User:R-1441. Sir, User:R-1441 is my account. I created this new account because User:Hemlock Martinus blocked my account without informing me. It is totally wrong for an administrator to block so many people from editing. User:Hemlock Martinus is an arrogant human being and he is abusing his power as an administrator. He should be blocked from the Wikipedia. Thank you. Ravi.

This has been put on many editors's pages. User talk:Charles Matthews and User talk:Jimbo Wales have a couple of responses. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 08:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rex

You can come here to discuss. Kingjeff 17:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested revision deletions

Regarding User:Justen, thank you for deleting the first two revisions.

My understanding is that, using {{db-userreq}}, I can request that any page within my area of user namespace be deleted. Unfortunately, there isn't a process (as far as I can tell) to have specific revisions deleted, only to have all revisions deleted. Which is why I made the request for oversight.

Could you please assist me in having the latter two revisions deleted? Thank you, again. Please let me know. user:justen talk 14:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed the oversight list again. Any help, or at least a response, would be very much appreciated? Thank you, again! j talk 17:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of being a sockpuppet

Dear Fred Bauder: There is another Wikipedian who constantly claims that I am a sockpuppet of Verklempt. I am not. And I do care if he/she makes this claim because I am not. So he/she can claim it all day long and there will never be anything to verify the false claim. The reason that I am contacting you is that I would appreciate if this particular Wikipedian stop making this allegation on the talk page of Ward Churchill misconduct issues. You can review the constant stream of personal attacks on me here: [[1]]. If he has a real belief that I am also a sockpuppet of Verklempt then he need to provide proof and file a complaint with an admin such as yourself--otherwise he needs to stop personally attacking me on the talk pages. As an admin, you can do a test on my IP and Verklempt's IP and you will see immediately that we different people. We just happen to agree that the blogs referred to in the references do not meet Wikipedian standards and this particular Wikipedian disagrees on that Wikipedian point. However, the constant claims about sockpuppetry are getting old and are inappropriate on the talk page and now should stop. I kindly ask for your assistance. Thank you.--Getaway 21:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also appreciate a look-see. The editor in question is a newbie, and probably a teenager, judging by his cognitive processes. He appears to be stalking me and Getaway both to the pages we edit, and trying to rouse our ire. He has gone to many other editors' talk pages to make his sockpuppet accusations against us. At this point he is a minor irritation, no worse than a gnat, but I do think he needs a bit of counseling. Most of his edit history is taken up by his stalking of me and Getaway, rather than anything constructive.Verklempt 23:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop #2

I noticed you were mentoring Bus stop, just thought I'd let you know he seems to be arousing some ill will at Talk:Jews for Jesus [2], which can get contentious at the best of times. Just thought you might want to know, maybe can help him out some. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the point to this [3] is what? Bus stop 01:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point to it is, whether you mean to or not, you appear to be aggravating people. Jews for Jesus can be a pretty contentious topic (as I well know), so it's one you might want to be especially cautious while discussing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your caution is sufficient. Fred Bauder 01:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read from Bus Stop's page that you're mentoring him. I'm letting you know that his editing and attitude at Who is a Jew? is becoming tendentious. He's attached to his POV for the article, and though other editors revert and explain other POVs that influence the nature of the article, and the efforts to keep the article itself NPOV, Bus has chosen to dismiss them all as being ignorant of the actual nature of the question itself. Please stop in at the talk, and caution him that Wiki is not his soapbox for determining that only Jews who follow all of Judaism's laws, (Halacha), are Jews, and the rest, aren't. He frames it in terms of 'religious or non-religious', but all his answers refer to that phrase or halacha, or lack of halacha, as meters. He opposes long standing ideas of sociological designation from with and without, opposes anthropological evidences, opposes ethnic identity ideas, oppose self-identification, all in favor of whether or not they religiously observe Halacha. Other editors are frustrated, and it's getting ridiculous. Please help. Thank you. ThuranX 00:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I am the one who is trying to keep the article "NPOV." From where does ThuranX get the notion that Bus stop's assertion is that, "... only Jews who follow all of Judaism's laws, (Halacha), are Jews, and the rest, aren't."? I've never said anything like that. In point of fact I've not said anyone wasn't a Jew. I've not said that the utterly nonreligious or atheistic are not Jews. What I have said is that the various answers to the question posed in the title of the article arrive at their various forms in relation to their correspondence to levels of religiousity, ranging from complete adherence to Jewish law to the complete absence of adherence to Jewish law. Another way of saying complete absence of adherence to Jewish law is "nonreligious." ThuranX has taken exception to the word "nonreligious," prefering the word "ethnic." Problem is, "nonreligious" is exactly what we are taking about, and "ethnic" is virtually meaningless. Ethnic can refer to a dozen qualities that tie a group of people together into an ethnicity. But only one of them is applicable in this instance, and that happens to be religion. All of the different answers that the article rightfully comes up with concerning the question posed in the title, Who is a Jew relate to the lens of religiousity through which one examines that question. I am ruling no one out as being Jewish, contrary to the assertions of ThuranX. I am avoiding the ambiguous term ethnic. I prefer saying what we mean in an article. I don't prefer pulling the wool over the reader's eyes. Wikipedia says to avoid WP:WEASEL terms. By using "ethnic" you are failing to mention that it is the relation to religion that determines the outcome of the posed question. It is not culture. It is not language. It is not any of the other myriad potential components of "ethnicity." Let us say what we mean. That is all I am arguing for in that article. Bus stop 00:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, the article does talk about cultural identity, and all those other things you dismiss. I've explained before that you continue to see the entire situation form a POV inside of Halacha and looking outwards, dismissing anything OUTSIDE Halacha. It's fine to take that narrow POV in Minyan and Shul, but totally inappropriate to an NPOV article discussing the range and scope of the debate, which includes those points. The debate about Mihu Yehudi involves those areas, but you cite Halachic rule as a reason to remove them from the article. YOu can't see that you're doing something wrong, and refuse to listen. I'll wait for Fred at this point. ThuranX 01:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ThuranX -- You haven't the foggiest idea what my religious identity is or if I even have a religious identity. Can you please stop pretending about that?

I did not "...cite Halachic rule as a reason to remove" anything "...from the article." Can you please stop pretending about that? Bus stop 14:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ThuranX -- Is there some reason that you are now contacting User_talk:Durova#Bus_Stop about me? Bus stop 19:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is John Carter and why is C.Logan posting complaints about me on User_talk:Durova#Bus_Stop's Talk page? Bus stop 00:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply, because the administrator who agreed to unblock you under certain circumstances came to warn you that you were skirting the line and returning to old habits, and you removed his warning as a personal attack. The fact of the matter is that religious issues (specifically related to Judaism) are, for whatever reason, very dear to you; as such, you have a habit of throwing a wrench into the cogs of discussion by exhibiting an unwillingness to compromise or listen to the reasoning of others. As I have a variety of pages on my watchlist, I tend to notice when users bring up sections regarding topics or individuals with whom I am familiar (i.e. you). You should keep in mind that you were in a bad position, and Durova helped you out; he did so with good faith that you'd grow out of those bad habits with Fred's help.--C.Logan 00:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to Mr. Bauder, I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Impartial evaluation requested. I will refrain from adding any comments there myself, at least for a while, knowing I will be challenged on the basis of being less than impartial in this matter. John Carter 01:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that Drumpler has anything whatsoever to say about me since he and I have had no interaction whatsoever on articles that I've worked on recently? He has not been a participant in any article I've worked on recently, yet he feels free to post Here[4] Why would that be? Bus stop 15:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would people like C.Logan, John Carter, Tendancer, Drumpler, and even Durova be filing complaints against me at this time? I've had no recent interaction with these people at all. Specifically, we have not worked on the same articles recently at all. Bus stop 15:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, once again, you are asking a question that has already been answered. Basically, as C.Logan said above, we have kept some of the pages relevant to earlier discussion, in my case Durova's talk page, where I nominated a few people for the triple crown, on our watch pages. Also, it would really help if you would cease your apparently willful misrepresentation of the statements of others. Nothing I said, or even Logan's or Drumpler's recent comments, even remotely qualify as complaints. Neither, for that matter, did Durova's, despite your blanking of them on that basis. You are once again exhibiting the "Bus stop is right, the world is out to silence him" idea which led to your previous block. I once again suggest you perhaps perhaps limit your activity to articles, or at least actions, which meet the requirements for verifiability and neutrality, and perhaps pay closer attention to what people actually say, rather than your own apparent emotional responses. John Carter 16:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Please note that User:Bus stop is currently now on a campaign to remove valid material from the Jew, Ashkenazi Jews, and Who is a Jew? page, removing content stating Jews are an ethnic group, generally without prior consensus being established, or even sought by him. By the way, I noticed the quote from The Final Encyclopedia at [http:wikinfo.org]. You have good taste in books. John Carter 14:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My tactics are working.

Users Getaway and Veklempt have stopped their disruption for now. I have made no personal attacks on either of them and I do not edit war. My goal is to bring peace and consensus to some of these articles and it is working. Feel free to read all the evidence and take notice of Getaways run in with 2 other administrators. Albion moonlight 23:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your so-called "tactics" are not working in any way. We have not, in your silly words, "stopped" our "disruption". Neither one of us agrees with you and your comments. Also, your attitude is not one of concensus but one of stopping what you believe to be "disruption" when in fact we merely disagreed with you on a Wikipedian point. Based upon the above comments you have now admitted that your baseless, false allegation that myself, Getaway, and Verklempt are sockpuppets is in fact that: baseless, false allegations. The problem that I now see is that you have also admitted that you made that clearly baseless, false allegation to control the behavior of myself, Getaway, and Verklempt and to attempt to intimidate us into compliance with you. That is not appropriate Wikipedia behavior, but unfortunately you have now just unwittingly admitted as such. Also, I haven't changed a single thing in the way that I operate for you.--Getaway 02:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that making no personal attacks and refusing to edit war was excellent way to intimidate people. You do seem to be speaking for Verklempt by the way. - Crockspot 02:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Once again, an unfounded allegation. Where is your evidence?? It just sounds like one more baseless, false allegation. Can anyone provide some evidence for this??? Crockspot clearly can't. I have asked Albion moonlight several times to provide some evidence and he can't. It is just more of the same baseless, false allegations. Where is the beef??--Getaway 02:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was just making a drive-by snarky remark, as I am wont to do from time to time, but since you seem to be laying a challenge before me, I took a few minutes to review your edit history, as well as Verklempt's, and some article edit histories, and I find the similarities and intertwining to be nearly identical to the same intertwining of your edit history with BballJones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who apparently is a sockpuppet of yours. Now I know nothing of your current dispute, nor anything about your past sockpuppetry (previous to ten minutes ago), everything in this post was just learned by me by browsing a little. This isn't rocket science. - Crockspot 03:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be rocket science, but it requires more effort than you put into it. My writing style and editing interests are totally distinct from Getaway's. You owe me an apology for making a baseless accusation.Verklempt 04:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem quite pleased; however, I am not a sockpuppet of Verklempt, which is the false, baseless allegation of Albion moonlight. I still have not seen anything to support that. And, yes, this is not rocket science and thank god for that because your reasoning is flawed. You have not provided evidence that I am who Albion moonlight says that I am, i.e., Verklempt. Only Verklempt is Verklempt. Thank you all for playing the game.--Getaway 17:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am merely pointing out that a compelling case could be made. Absolute proof is neither possible, nor necessary. I draw your attention to a few arbitration rulings regarding this:

As I said before, I am uninvolved, just butting in my two cents, so I will bid you adieu. - Crockspot 00:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors may also want to review the histories of Getaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Keetoowah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), particularly with regards to the Ward Churchill and Condi Rice pages. Getaway, it seems, is the latest incarnation of Keetoowah, the results of whose arbcomm ruling are informative.--Eleemosynary 04:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need I say more Mr Bauder ? Albion moonlight 08:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid checkuser shows little or no connection between these users. Keetwoowah might be behind one of them, but I'm afraid his attitude is shared by many in the Native American community. I don't agree, but it is a legitimate viewpoint. Fred Bauder 14:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please view Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Keetoowah#Remedies. Keetoowah is an editor in good standing, but under revert parole for personal attacks. Based on checkuser, I think this remedy applies to Getaway, but not Verklempt. Fred Bauder 14:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody has a right to there opinion sir. What I object to is edit warring and pages that are protected because of the vandalism that is edit warring. I accept consensus and user Getaway has a history of ignoring consensus. I will continue to warn the others and pass on information as I see fit. I fail to see how some one can be under revert parole and still be in good standing but there is a good deal of things about wikipedia's tolerance for blatant disruption that I do not understand. Anyway thanks for your time. Albion moonlight 19:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the point. I have been involved in revert wars in the past, but I did not do such a thing to you. Just because I have engaged in a revert long before you started with Wikipedia does not mean that you have a right to use my ancient revert war examples (some older than a year) as an excuse to make baseless, false allegations that I am a sockpuppet of Verklempt. Also, all I did was agree with Verklempt's valid argument that some of the blogs listed in the Ward Churchill article are not of a quality to qualify for listing in Wikipedia. I will continue edit the Ward Churchill article and others. Even the title of this section, created by you, leads to the belief that you have been engaging in a clear campaign to shut down my contributions. That is not your job and it violates Wikipedia policy. Happy editing.--Getaway 21:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Workshop comment

Dear Fred. Please, note my response [5] to your comment at the Workshop. Thanks for your time in reviewing the case. Atabek 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mr Bauder

Up until a few minutes ago I didn't think that I harassing anyone. I had read section on no personal attacks but I had completely overlooked the following statements in that section.

These examples are not exclusive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.

The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.

With that said I will curb my behavior. I will no longer mention that user's name or respond to him directly. I think that the tactics I was using were working. But unlike him and his suspected sockpuppet(s) I play by the rules as I understand them. Thanks for the head's up . Albion moonlight 20:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you've seen the light. In my experience, Wikipedia is much more enjoyable when you focus on making constructive improvements to articles on topics in which you have some expertise. Wikipedia politics is a total waste of time for me, but a sport for others. Here's hoping you avoid that road in the future.Verklempt 04:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then

I think we are missing missing each others point so let me be more specific as to what intend to do. I intend to edit those pages but I also intend to direct my comments to the group as opposed to the individual. Trust me Mr Bauder I have no intention of causing trouble. For the most part I just place articles that I am interested in on my watch list and put in my 2 cents worth as I see fit. I do not edit war. I am a reasonable person. Watch me and see how I operate. You will have no valid reason for concern. Albion moonlight 07:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight

Hello. I am posting this message on your talk page, as you are identified as an individual with oversight permission on the English Wikipedia. On July 7, I sent a request for oversight to the appropriate email address. On July 8, that request was partially completed. Unfortunately, since that time, my (several) requests for follow-up have gone without reply. On July 18, I posted a message to the talk page for Oversight, which has not yet received a response. If you could please take a look at that message, and if you could please assist me with the remainder of the original request, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you! j talk 20:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For the renewed interest in my ArbCom. May I strongly suggest reading recent Proposed talk and Workshop discussions for issues of most concern to the parties, as well as various requests for clarifications and suggestions by parties.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia – Azerbaijan 2

Dear Mr. Bauder. I have a question which I would like to ask to you. I checked Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2/Proposed decision, and it appears that remedies apply only to the parties to the previous arbcom. I’m not sure that this will give the desired outcome, as a lot of disruption has been caused by users, not involved in the previous arbcom case. Some of such users took advantage of not being restricted by parole and engaged in relentless edit wars undoing contribs of paroled users. On the other hand, many of the people placed on parole behaved reasonably since the end of the last arbcom, so I’m not sure whether every party to the previous arbcom should be placed on probation, while the remedies do not apply to anyone not involved in the previous case. In my opinion, the remedies should name each person placed on parole, and specify a reason why this is done. In addition, I believe the arbitrators should review behavior of the users who were not involved in the previous case, and if needed apply remedies to correct their behavior. Otherwise disruptive users not restricted by parole would be let continue their disruptive editing. I apologize for taking the liberty to take this issue directly to your user page, but I just want to share with you my concern with the possible outcome of this case. You may wish to respond at talk page of the proposed decision, where this issue is also being discussed, please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2/Proposed decision. Thank you very much. Regards, --Grandmaster 18:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tojo

Hi Fred. Hate to bother you, but I need some further support in the reappearance of WP:TOJO. This user has again created large numbers of sockpuppets and goes around reverting many of my edits. I'm happy making my own complaint to his internet provider, but I suspect he has switched since we last made that move. JFW | T@lk 20:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. Tojo has been unleashing armies of sockpuppets. The latest are:

Yang Ling Nee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dr Beecham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
98735426LHR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jon Fereman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
90.200.228.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Let me know if there's anything I can do. JFW | T@lk 22:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop and WP:AN

Bus stop blanked two posts I made to his or her talk page today, claiming I had violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I've full protected the Who is a Jew? article for a week (three different editors complained about tendentious behavior there) and opened my actions for review at AN. Thanks very much for adopting Bus stop and I'd very much like your input. Durova^Charge! 01:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pic

Nice portrait photo, mate. Really cool, SqueakBox 02:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the edit war caption made me laugh out loud. Durova^Charge! 04:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A forgotten finding?

Dear Fred, some weeks ago you proposed a finding in the Workshop; it was however never moved to Proposed. I'd appreciate your comment on why it has been discarded; after months of being told by certain editors I am a menace and danger to this project, and after years of contributions (from 20 FAs through WP:RW to [6]), I'd like to think I (and others) at least deserve a clear ruling on whether I am am doing good or bad here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 13:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, exaggerations are not helpful, really. I'm not aware of an editor who seriously regards you as "a menace and danger" to the entire project, as you put it. If I recall correctly, the ArbCom set out to examine the behaviour of all involved parties. The title of the case is arbitrary and is not expected to accurately reflect its scope. I don't see why we should single out any particular editor in this far-flung case in order to commend or condemn his behaviour. This will have the effect of giving him a carte blanche for self-indulgence in editing techniques that by no means should be encouraged.

There is no need to adopt an overly legalistic view of the situation. We both know certain patterns of behaviour that, while being consistent with our policies, are not constructive either and are instrumental in escalating the conflicts by involving a number of new participants to divert the attention of one's opponents from productive mainspace editing. It is not reasonable to expect the ArbCom ruling on such exceptional cases as this one in that it will set an unwelcome precedent for future arbitrations. In the absence of a ruling to the contrary, the presumption of innocence will apply to every involved editor. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SOME QUESTION MORE: Did you analise the very first block Tobias Conradi received and how this was out of policy? And when he complained he got out of policy blocked again? And then he got blocked for

SOME QUESTION MORE: Did you analise the very first block Tobias Conradi received and how this was out of policy? And when he complained he got out of policy blocked again? And then he got blocked for moving a town article to the correct name, but the admin without any grasp of the topic thought this was vandalism and blocked Tobias, protected even his talk? Did you see this?

Comment Clarification

Would you mind clarifying this comments. It would seem that there are two ways to look at it, A: You made this statement as a member of the Arbitration committee, or B: You made this statement as the outside view of John Q Editor. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 conspiracy theories are horrible nonsense. Fred Bauder 05:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is still true regardless. --Tbeatty 17:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am answering too. In case you didn't know, 'RS' is a 'guideline', 'V' is a 'policy'. 'V's' are more important than 'RS's'. So if something is alleged in a 'V' source, it can be included, even if you think it is not a 'RS'. I am starting an argument to the highest levels on Wikipedia that the USGOV (especially under Bush: Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch, Scooter Libby) is not a 'RS' any way, and with their proven history of lies I will prove it beyond any shadows of doubts, so you maybe don't want to argue about 'RS' any way. Bmedley Sutler 19:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly sounds NPOV. <- (sarcasm) Good luck with that line of argument. - Crockspot 19:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's true. Sometimes the truth hurts. (especially to the USA! USA! RAH RAH! bunch) Bmedley Sutler 22:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At times any government may not be truthful or forthcoming, the trick is to know when. Fred Bauder 05:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Fred, thanks for your efforts to fully examine the issues at hand in the Paranormal arbitration. I think people on each side appreciate the thoroughness with which you approached the arbitration. Ante lan ^talk 01:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that. Thank you!

P.S. I've been trying to emulate your oracular style. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social structure of China

Hello, I noticed you created this article. I have made extensive revisions, mostly deletions, in an effort to bring it down to size. I look forward to hearing your feedback on what I have done and hope that you will help to improve the article. Thank you! Penguinwithaspear 03:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

I, and I believe several others, would be very gratified if we could see you, an editor of I think universal repute, and the subject editor's "adopter", comment on the proposed Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#Full Judaism community topic ban for Bus stop. Whether you choose to or not, I would like to thank you for your efforts to date regarding this matter, and your excellent efforts in attempting to resolve many of the most contentious disputes we have here. John Carter 18:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia-Azerbaijan

[7] Anatolmethanol 18:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see this: [8], I'm interested to know if banned users are allowed to edit in defiance of their ban and present evidence to the new arbcom case. --Grandmaster 06:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster was aware that Anatolmethanol made a proposition on not banning him until the case was closed. He was also aware that Anatolmethanol already admitted to you by providing the link. But yet, he reported him, preventing more evidences to be posted. Worst part is now he can't ask anyone to proxy for him, because a part of the evidence is there, and the user who does it could be accused of proxying for a banned user. Fadix was the oldest members among us, and knows best the long standing POV pushing, his evidence is very important to the case. Also, the accusations of baiting other users to report them to arbitrators has no foundation. VartanM 16:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stalking you Vartan, let Grandmaster post an evidence for that too. Soon the arbitration committee will not see a single Armenian contributor on English Wikipedia since they will be taking the same decision I took, to mostly go contribute in Armenian Wikipedia and not touch the article where Grandmaster and his team could continue POV pushing; he's so good at manipulating the process in his favour. I'll proxy for Fadix for the evidences, they can block me too. The arbitration need a good pair of glasses to pay attention as to why Tigran doesn't contribute much anymore, or Moosh doesn't touch those articles anymore, and why ROOB left the project. Why doesn’t Hakob contribute now? Why did Raffi rather decided to leave here and found his own encyclopedia? The alleged victims who were supposedly abused have their dirty fingers on all those articles... The only member who stood to prevent that got his derrière kicked out of there. English Wikipedia is just a deceivable pseudo-encyclopedia open for bad faith contributors.

It would probably take a year to clean all the crap some of those editors have edited here. The only good decision, if the arbitration wants to take, is to add a permanent tag on each and single one of those articles announcing that while those page are hosted on Wikipedia, they are the property of some users who are here in bad faith and don't ever attempt to correct or fix anything because there is no way you will be able to keep your cool seeing all the distortion, manipulation and crap which have been put there to then have your derrière kicked.

There isn’t a single Armenian contributor here who wouldn’t give his place to see Fadix back, and proxy for him. We all know that the banning was unjust, and that in his place we would have probably ended in an asylum to put up with all the trash he had to deal with, alone. -- Davo88 18:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys know perfectly well that using socks to evade the ban is a violation of WP:BAN, still you are standing up for the banned user. If Fadix wanted to provide evidence to the arbcom, he should have obtained permission first, and not violate his ban. And incivil and bad faith statements like this: “It would probably take a year to clean all the crap some of those editors have edited here” are not appropriate either. It is very sad that you find no faults with yourselves and blame me and other Azerbaijani contributors for everything that went wrong in Wikipedia. Grandmaster 06:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I stand up for Fadix, victim of a Kangaroo court. The sock showed that the ban was unjust. The sock could have continued contributing without any problems, but to stop your disruption, you will have to stop contributing because your disruption is in your article editing and pseudo-ownership. My sandbox will include your POV pushing documented by Fadix. Arbitrators who want to know your long history of POV pushing are welcome to take a look. Those who wants a second Kangaroo court can just ignore it. Also, Grandmaster, you're so good at repeating your old broken record stop only accusing Azerbaijani editors... Everytime someone exposes your disruptive editing, try it elsewhere. You played the ethnic card to make this sound as an Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. Hiding under an artificially built-up conflict won't save you this time...

Mr. Bauder, I hope this was what you've intended with the ban. It's a legitimate edit by Fadix, with plenty of justifications in the talkpage, reverted by a disruptive editor (see the generalizations of this disruptive editor in his edit summary and talkpage) who gets away because he reverted the user who created the page in question. I think I have said all that was needed to be said. -- Davo88 16:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your 2 posts here are good evidence to the arbcom as violations of WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Since you posted on the talkpage of one the arbitrators, I hope Mr. Bauder and other arbitrators will consider your hostile behavior towards other editors. --Grandmaster 04:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologize on behalf of Davo, its the first time I witness such a reaction from him. VartanM 00:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khachen

There is an anonymous IP, which is revert warring at Khachen removing a large body of sourced material, and replacing it with unsourced OR. Can you please, check this [9]. Thanks. Atabek 06:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am Terry Waite. Hope I don't get kidnapped.

Please see this diff. ([10]). Wish me luck. --Dweller 13:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom status

Fred, I saw your edits on WP:AC. Do you know how long you'll be away, so we know whether to change the majority on the various cases? Thanks. Newyorkbrad 03:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self promotion

Hi Fred, I noticed you created a template called {{Selfpromotion}} about a month ago. I am considering whether or not this should go through deletion process - what benefit does it serve other than to upset people who may already have an axe to grind with Wikipedia? Could it be worded more kindly, if nothing else? Neil ╦ 09:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it serves a purpose regarding sources. Fred Bauder 19:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship at WikInfo

What does it usually take to become an SysOp at Wikinfo? --w^L^{<speak·check>} 10:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It takes active editing on Wikinfo. Fred Bauder 19:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Wikipedia Review on wikinfo

I refer to this link http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php?title=Criticisms_of_Wikipedia_Review&diff=prev&oldid=83504 and this post http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=11357 and this blog post http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20070806/wikipedia-review-and-holocaust-denial/

Your urgent action is required.

Mail

Hi, Fred. Did you get the e-mail I sent you? --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that per an edit on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, Fred is away for a few days. Newyorkbrad 19:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pez1103 misusing Wikipedia for advocacy

Hi Fred, we've got an ongoing situation..... (remember User:Ilena?) This user (User:Pez1103) has been given a very long rope and is having a hard time learning, and I fear is incapable of doing so. There are massive problems with WP:COI, WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and WP:SPA. This is one of those cases that reveals an enormous breach in Wikipedia's "policy wall" that allows such unconstructive and continuous disruptions to occur unpunished. It just wastes alot of people's time when they have to attempt to prevent one editor from making an article into their own personal website. I left a message here (among the others) for User:Pez1103:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Parsifal#Pez1103_using_Wikipedia_for_advocacy

-- Fyslee/talk 21:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred's on vacation. It looks like Pez was blocked once already, then unblocked and is now seeking adoption. Is this a pressing issue right now? Thatcher131 22:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Yes, now I can see he's gone. Thanks for watching his talk page. Yes, the matter is pressing. The Morgellons article is now fully protected, it's that bad a situation. The comments and edits of User:Pez1103 need to be analyzed for the various problems mentioned above and in the link I provided. Based on the previous history of this article and of this user, the protection will have no effect. Things will just resume again when the protection runs out. As long as Pez sees her mission as using Wikipedia to make the article "neutral" and "unbiased" by her own standards, and to make the article suit the purposes of sufferers and the MRF, then the problems will continue. She simply doesn't understand the purpose of Wikipedia, NPOV, or the law of unintended consequences [11]. -- Fyslee/talk 06:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Di Stefano

Why are you removing citations which seem perfectly reasonable? If you have an issue with the POV, why not find alternative reliable sources that argue the opposite? Perhaps I'm missing a trick but I don't understand why The Independent and The Scotsman have become unreliable sources. The Rambling Man 21:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a nice holiday (I dont see any hurry on this issue) but just to let you know I am now taking an active interest in this case and agree with Rambling, SqueakBox 22:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, hope your holiday is going nicely. When you're back and ready I've left a couple of questions on Giovanni's talk page that I'd like to discuss. All the best, The Rambling Man 06:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jason D. Fodeman

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A {{prod}} template has been placed on Jason D. Fodeman, by Calton (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}.

Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Grim Reaper Bot 07:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible arbcom ruling violaton

Fred, we have a current user, Bmedley Sutler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who admits to being in contact with Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who is banned for one year as per arbcom ruling. (See Bmedley's talk page). Bmedley now appears to be making edits on behalf of this banned user. (see edit summary). This user has been warned numerous times for disruption and harrassment, and frankly has a pattern of behavior that is nearly identical to FAAFA. At the least we have a user editing as a proxy for a banned user (meatpuppet), and at the worst, we have a sockpuppet of a banned user. How should I proceed? - Crockspot 18:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom activity

Welcome back. Two ArbCom cases opened in your absence: Allegations of apartheid and BJAODN. Please advise whether you want to remain inactive or be moved to active on these cases. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. I've moved you to active on the two above cases and on Vision Thing (which I should have mentioned earlier and which has a motion pending). You will also find two motions pending on the main RfAr page.... Isn't it good to be back? :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:-)

Welcome back, Fred!! FloNight 21:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]