User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 7
- 1 What are you doing Fred?
- 2 OldRight's response
- 3 Antarctic krill
- 4 Two issues: vandal Rovoam and user Pantherarosa
- 5 Iglesia ni Cristo page
- 6 RFA: cl ch: objecting to remedies
- 7 Yuber arbitration
- 8 Arbitration bulls**t
- 9 Chinese public opinion
- 10 New socks
- 11 Requesting sockpuppet check
- 12 Wikipedia:Naming conflict
- 13 Jguk arbitration
- 14 Fred
- 15 Serious question
- 16 Do you want to consolidate working class with social class?
- 17 Heya, about that RFAr injunction...
- 18 Cantus' request for arbitration
- 19 My admonishment
- 20 just thanks
- 21 Tkorrovi et al: Motion to close, etc
- 22 Yuber returned again?
What are you doing Fred?
I'm somewhat puzzled by what you're adding to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk/Proposed decision. We have a vote for changing BC/AD to BCE/CE throughout WP that clearly fails. Some editors, despite that, unilaterally change some articles that consistently used BC/AD to BCE/CE. I (along with other editors) edit them back (as there was no basis for the change) - and you decide I am wrong and to be chastised, but those who made the unilateral edits to change an article that consistently used BC/AD to BCE/CE are acting perfectly properly. How is that fair or reasonable?!?!? Kind regards, jguk 22:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The proposed decision will develop further, but according to the manual of style both usages are acceptable. What is not acceptable is repeatedly reverting any article simply to make it conform to a particular style. Fred Bauder 22:12, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
It is SouthernComfort, egged on by Slrubenstein, who has been editing articles that were completely consistently using BC/AD so that they use BCE/CE - all I have been doing is reverting these changes because (and I agree with you here) it is not acceptable to change an article simply to make it conform to another style that you prefer. It is not me that has been initiating these changes! (There was one article, Elamite Empire, where I inadvertently did do this - as SouthernComfort was pretty making so many unilateral changes to articles, I made a mistake on this one. But on every other one you will see that before SC recently visited them, they always used BC/AD.)
You seem to be deciding the case on content, deciding you prefer SouthernComfort's content, and then concluding I have misbehaved because I have been stopping SouthernComfort's changes. ArbCom is meant to stay away from content, isn't it? I have also indicated on a number of occasions to SC that the act of changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE causes a lot of offence - and I have referred him to the outrage caused in New South Wales when this happened in one exam question, and led to questions being raised in both chambers of parliament and the minister backing down. SC has chosen to ignore this offence - if I am to be chastised on this for disagreeing with him, should he not also be chastised for disagreeing with me? jguk 22:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think there is a distinction between changing an article and repeatedly reverting it.(Especially when you know very well that the other editor is offended by the usage). Fred Bauder 23:00, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
- SC changed an article when he was fully aware Slrubenstein's proposal had failed and reverted time and time again to insert his preferred usage despite his being fully aware that I (and others) are offended by such deliberate changes). Why is my taking offence at his changes irrelevant? Where changes such as this happened in NSW it caused parliamentary questions, and the news that religious leaders in NSW were not actually offended by BC/AD usage (ie those who were making the changes were doing so on a false premise). Where similar changes have happened in the UK there have been angry letters to newspapers. The offence caused by SC's changes is real, yet you seem to say that is irrelevant, and we should instead concede to SC because he claims to be offended. You may, of course, not have been fully aware of this when you made your findings of fact. However, I should be grateful if you would reconsider whether your findings are really fair and reasonable in all the circumstances, jguk 23:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There has been a misunderstanding. I can assure you that I am not some sort of sockpuppet, or being POV, or pushing a political agenda. All I have been doing is trying to keep articles specific and to the point. I'm sorry that that's been misunderstood, but there's no need for arbitration. -- OldRight 20:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
hallo Fred! can you please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Antarctic_krill maybe help with some editing / formatting / vote - best greetings Uwe Kils 20:57, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Two issues: vandal Rovoam and user Pantherarosa
As a member of ArbCom committee, who is also somewhat familiar with my past activity in Wikipedia and various attacks I have suffered in the past, I decided to turn to you for help and advise.
I have two concerns, which I want to share with you.
First, Rovoam has been systematically engaged in outrageous vandalisms and regular abusive behavior directed against me and against other editors. No reverts, no admin blocks, even no vprotection helped to stop this vandal, and I worryingly observe that the persistence of this vandal eventually tires up many other editors and scares them off from engaging in his "target entries", thus, leaving me virtually alone to deal with him. If you are not aware of this person's deeds, please, read regular disclaimer on Rovoam. As I said numerously before, the only way to stop this person is to demonstrate at least as much persistence and determination in fighting his spurious edits and vandalism. And for this purpose, we need unity of effort of many editors.
Second, less-scale although no less (personally) important issue for me is the recent insult by User:Pantherarosa against me in my user page . This was a particularly unexpected insult and initially I was even more surprised than offended. First of all, as I said in my communication with User:JohnKenney, I havent been in touch with this person for months (!) and frankly, I thought that whatever our past experience was, it's now over and he doesn't care about me as much as I dont care about him. Second, I could have imagined that this person would attack me on some nationalist grounds, but I would never expect this person to lower himself to such blatantly childish and street abuses. I left a message in his talkpage expressing my surprise and also expressing my determination to make him punished for his insults. .
I dont know how should I go about my complaint on Pantherarosa's conduct. User:JohnKenney advised me to turn to RFC, but according to RFC rules, "at least two people should have tried to resolve the same issue by discussing it". I think, RFC process perhaps is not quite appropriate in my case, because this user insulted me personally and me alone, and insulted in a way that there's been nothing left for "discussion". It is obvious that he should be punished for his insults, and I dont think that he would ever apologize for what he did.
So, in short, I ask for your help and advise on both dealing with vandal Rovoam and how should I go about the insults by user Pantherarosa. Hope to hear from you. Thanks in advance.--Tabib 13:21, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Concerns and ways of solution
Hi Fred again and thanks for your message.
First, on Pantherarosa: in my communication with John I said that I am not going to sit and wait until this person attacks me again. I dont think it is fair if a person gets along with his insults just because it was a single-shot insult and I think it is not appropriate (at least for me) to simply wait when this person insults me again so that I would be able to make him responsible for his words. I am extremely busy at work these days and have little time left for WP, but I will not leave my complaint against Pantherarosa, he's got to be held responsible for his insult. Btw, this person tried to spuriously delete my and your comments on his behaviour. pls, see, 
Second, and most important, Rovoam: I am very concerned about this guy. He is really smart and manipulative. Remember, I said that my case was realy an unprecedented case, Grunt then did not agree with me, but I think now even he would accept that this issue has really grow too much. As I said (and stated in disclaimers as well), the only way to deal with Rovoam effectively is UNITY of all other editors. We should not allow him get along with his overt and blatant vandalism, spurious edits and tricks. I would suggest the following: ArbCom can make a special decision BANNING Rovoam from editing Wikipedia forever. Following this decision, absolutely ALL edits by Rovoam would be reverted, i.e. ANY anon which would be suspected to be Rovoam would be reverted and his edits would be just disregarded by other editors. That's in fact what's going on now. In many entries all his edits are reverted by me and many other editors, but I believe, FORMAL decision by ArbCom would significantly ease this process and would make it impossible for Rovoam to deceive any newbee editors in the future. In addition, I am also thinking about applying for adminship in order to have more opportunities for fighting against Rovoam. I will be extremely busy in July and August and I am very worried that during this period Rovoam can get along with his overt vandalisms, and especially, that he can deceive other editors, who are less knowledgeable about the background and the issue at hand.--Tabib 14:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that the Rovoam thing is a problem. Tabib doesn't always handle it well but this seems to be largely down to the fact that Rovoam is deliberately singling Tabib out because he has a low boiling point. I think it may be time for Arbcom to tackle Rovoam again. He is effectively unblockable and it's difficult to deal with his obsessive reverts when he's in full swing because of the sheer volume.
- Since Rovoam doesn't seem to be interested in good faith editing where Tabib is concerned it may be appropriate to declare his edits in certain articles anathema, revertible on sight as simple vandalism, but I don't think anyone short of arbcom could make such a decision. We'd have to look at his edits closely. Also he is quite capable of exploiting loopholes so it would require some forethought. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It has to be stopped somehow
Same old story is repeating itself. I am still being attacked by vandals and I still have to struggle against vandal edits in many Azerbaijan- and Turkey-related entries. Furthermore, same User:Fadix who waged some implicit and explicit attacks against me in Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh starts same actions again. This can't last forever. ArbCom should take decisive and immediate steps in order to prevent this farce once and for all.
First of all, minor detail regarding the previously banned vandal Baku Ibne/Osmanoglou/LIGerasimova etc. ArbCom forgot to ban one of his sockpuppets Twinkletoes (talk · contribs) and now he came back introducing spurious and sneaky edits and supporting Rovoam in his vandalisms. He basically joined Rovoam in disrupting/vandalizing the Caucasus entry () introducing the "map", inappropriateness of which was discussed in Talk:Caucasus. Also, another newly created sockpuppet Luba-Gerasimova (talk · contribs) reverted back to Rovoam's sneaky edits in History of Turkey (). I think, admins should immediately close down both "Twinkletoes" and "Luba-Gerasimova" accounts.
As to Rovoam, he is still vandalizing the pages, and shows total disrespect to ArbCom decision on revert limitation and personal attack parole. Here are just some examples:
Violations of revert limitation (few examples):
- June 17: vandalisms of User talk:Francs2000(Archive9) history log - 26 (!-perhaps even more, lost count) vandal reverts
- June 17: vandalisms of User:Canderson7 history log - 7 vandal reverts in a day
Violations of personal attack parole (few examples):
Some recent examples from my userpage: , ); Some recent examples from User:Francs2000, talkpage: , ); Same for User:Canderson7: ) and the most recent yesterday attack calling me "parasite" (;; 
I reinstate my earlier belief that the only way to stop this vandal is unity of many editors and formal decision by ArbCom banning this person from editing Wikipedia. I ask you and other ArbCom members to treat this issue with utmost seriosity and take immediate actions to stop this madness. I am convinced that no other user of Wikipedia has ever suffered as much malicious attacks as I have suffered during these months. Despite all of this I did not retreat and I never lowered myself to the level of those who attacked me. But this can't last forever, I need help and I hope you in ArbCom can help me more efficiently this time.--Tabib 09:19, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Iglesia ni Cristo page
Hello, as a Wikipedia arbitrator, I would like your input on the Iglesia ni Cristo page, which is currently caught in a revert war from members who claim this article is biased and other Wikipedians who claim the article is in adherence to the religion and NPOV standards.--Onlytofind 09:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Currently, the dispute is in the external links. This was kind of resolved by a vote (through Rlquall's arbitration), which resulted in a 3 pro and 3 con links (however weird that may seem). The thing is, Onlytofind is trying to get around the consensus (he actually calls it a "kangaroo election" even though he initiated it). Though we feel the article is slightly con INC, we are not claiming that the article is biased. I, for one, is not against how many links are there, and think that the article is more NPOV than a few months ago. It is Onlytofind's historical habit of making the article project the INC in a very negative light (even calling us INC members "hypocrites") that worries us. You can check the article's history to find out. We have no problem with the other contributors, only Onlytofind. Ealva 03:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
RFA: cl ch: objecting to remedies
You wrote I'd like to see some links to edits or findings of fact which would support this remedy re JG. How nice. *I'd* like to see some FoF to support your votes for my remedies:  William M. Connolley 21:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC).
Please change the ruling you made on the 5th about looking into POV at both sides in light of the new evidence against Yuber. Thanks,
Guy Montag 00:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I do not know your personal views on the Middle East conflict, nor do I perticalary think that it is important in this arbitration, but I think you've misunderstood where I was coming from. The Golan Heights is annexed by Israel, those individuals who reside there are citizens of Israel. It is a contentious POV to suggest that there is a military occupation. That is why I suggested that this complex problem be diverted to the International law and the Arab Israeli conflict. There it explains the different positions of everyone in the conflict. Saying something from one point of view and claiming it to be the truth, makes articles like that irrelevent. Whatever the status is, it should be explained in a neutral way so individuals can determine what the status is themselves. I have a POV, I have never denied this, but I follow the rules and cooperate with other editors if they find something objectionable until the wording is satisifactory to both sides. I thought that was the point of wikipedia. With Yuber it is impossible to do so.
Guy Montag 21:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Enjoying attacking innocent users much, s**tball? Enviroknot is no sockpuppet of mine, nor is KaintheScion. I really don't care anymore what you f**ckers do to me but you should stop attacking innocents on the say-so of a bunch of Islamist a*sholes and raghead mujahideen wannabes. Leave Enviroknot the f**k alone already. NO swearing please ElKabong 16:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Chinese public opinion
I've replied at Talk:Tibet. I must say, you have a very... ahem... "strange" impression of how Chinese people think and get information. But in any case, I look forward to your reply. -- ran (talk) 20:53, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Ugh... ignore the argument that ensued between my and Lapsed Pacifist. This is what I hate about discussion controversial topics... when I explain an opinion, people think I support it. -_- In the end I find myself defending things I don't really support. -- ran (talk) 21:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I already thanked ArbCom members, including you, for blocking the abusive and spurious sockpuppets in WP:RFAr. But I want to stress that special thanks belong to you. I was especially glad to read your message in my talkpage that I can turn to you in cases when new such socks emerge. This would save both me and ArbCom extra time and efforts, since I wouldn't have to appeal to ArbCom 'for clarification' every time such socks appear.
Here are some new socks, which are easier to detect: Scender Beg (talk · contribs) ("born" today, June 30); Schander Beg (talk · contribs) (same date) Skender Beg (talk · contribs) (same date), Skander Beg (talk · contribs) (same date), Pusti Malaka (talk · contribs) ("born" y-day, June 29) (see similar pattern used prev by Baku Ibne/Azer Zadnizy etc., i.e. using username to convey a 'message' ("...that I have read so far, I would say Pusti Malaka" ) (dont know what this message means though) Lorda Sfigata (talk · contribs) (similar name to previous sock) ("born" y-day, June 29) (also other spurious posts, see, e.g.  (intervening in-between my posts and advancing spurious comments).)
Fred, also please block another sock Benito Juarez (talk · contribs) "born" June 25 . I am confident that this is a sockpuppet, although not sure whose. (may be same as Lorda Sfigata/Pusti Malaka, --> [if so, then] LIGerasimova/Baku Ibne/Twinkletoes etc.) His whole contrib history is personal attacks against me (just check any diff link in his contrib log). At one case, the guy even simply copied and pasted identical spurious posts and attacks from one talkpage to another (see, for ex. identical spurious posts in Talk:Moses Kalankaytuk and Talk:Caucasus. Furthermore, pls, see his implicit personal attack against me in Talk:Azerbaijan:  where he implicitly refers to me writing "Azeri (Baku) pundits, who peddle pov" (similar attacks were from LIGerasimova (calling me "Baku Ibne", i.e. "Baku homosexual".) It's also worth indicating that there was no active discussion in that talkpage at the time of his spurious post. As I said, I dont know for surev whom this sock belongs. Another suspect would be User:Pantherarosa, who in the past also used to use an expression "hearsay peddler" (). Before his insult to me, which I informed you about in your talkpage, I would not suspect him at all in vandalism and sockpuppetry, but after his recent insult, he is also in my list of suspects, so, it may be worth checking his IP and this socks IPs too.
There are so many of these socks that even I sometimes get confused and have hard time on determining which sock is whose. But I am sure that if any such moves are effectively prevented in a timely manner by blocking these socks, then these vandals will not be as much "enthusiastic" in their actions as before. --Tabib June 30, 2005 07:26 (UTC)
Fred, first I want to thank you for removing vandal sockpuppet attacks in my talkpage.
Also, could you please, protect my userpage and talkpage for approximately couple of weeks. Due to my work, I may not be active in WP for this time, and I do not want some vandals or sockpuppets to attack me or in my absence. I can't proceed with such request to request for page protection, but if you find this request of mine apropriate, I would really prefer my userpage and talkpage stay protected while I'm not active.
Also, I want to inform you that I have just deleted similar vandal-sockpuppet crap from Talk:Azerbaijan (); Talk:Caucasus (); Talk:Moses Kalankaytuk (); Talk:Safavids () and Talk:Artsakh (). It would be great if you and other editors esp with admin privileges keep an eye on these talkpages as well. Thanks. --Tabib July 1, 2005 13:54 (UTC)
Requesting sockpuppet check
- Absurd. — Davenbelle July 1, 2005 06:49 (UTC)
- well i have to say your edits aren't that distinguishable, though your comments are moreso. but ya never know... J. Parker Stone 6 July 2005 01:41 (UTC)
I've written up a new policy proposal, with assistance from Ed Poor, to set out some guidelines and basic principles for dealing with naming conflicts of the Gdanzig type. Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conflict and let me know what you think? -- ChrisO 1 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)
My understanding is that a temporary injunction against Jguk was passed 4-0-1, but it is not listed on the project page. Am I missing something? Thanks if you can clarify. Maurreen 3 July 2005 18:11 (UTC)
check your email when you get the chance will ya. thanks. J. Parker Stone 7 July 2005 03:01 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia, enormously impressed and at the same time disturbed. I don’t suppose I am raising anything new for you but would appreciate your comments.
After reading around and noticing the way that Wikipedia is structured and what is happening in the hierarchy and all the changes since May 04, [when a major new software infrastructure was introduced] it seems to me likely that Wikipedia is being used by western ‘intelligence’ not only to provide a way of keeping under surveillance those who might be troublesome but also of ensuring that in the most important fields of human knowledge and endeavour not only does Wikipedia provide a simple way of staying in touch with developments but, even more insidiously, a way of ensuring that these developments may even, to an extent, be ‘managed’ in a way that is as compatible as possible with western values and interests. NPOV seems as close to a definition of this as anyone is likely to be able to imagine.
I accept that I have no hard 'evidence' whatsoever for this surmise. At the very least, however, it would be a dereliction of duty were CIA, Homeland Security, MI6 and whoever else, not to infiltrate as far as possible and set up whatever mechanisms were possible to be able to track people, groups and movements over 200 languages and involved in discussions on every possible topic of human interest.
But I suggest that it is very unlikely that their involvement is limited in that way. It is more likely that they are supporting the development of Wikipedia and its community in order to be able to keep track of people and developments and foster what they consider to be positive change.
I would be very interested in your comments. I am sending this also to a few others whom I think would have something to add. I am truuly trying to think and understand.
Jeffrey Newman 8 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)
Based on how you rewrote the introduction to working class, it seems that you would want to merge it with social class. I tried to clarify the introduction to working class, but I think that it is as convoluted as ever now. The reference to a Wikipedia editor as an authority on class is especially confusing, as is the fact that the article immediately goes into detailed theories of class without providing a general overview of the subject. If we can't define working class without detailed reference to theories of social class, then the former article should be merged into the later. Good luck. AdamRetchless 23:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Heya, about that RFAr injunction...
... you said to holler on an ArbCom members talk page if things aren't going fast enough. Can I please have a confirmation that the injunction is in effect? Alfrem is still reverting that page, and I have blocked him for 48 hours this time as 24 hours does not seem to be enough for it to sink through the constantly reverting an article is not acceptable on Wikipedia.
Incidently, I take no pleasure in blocking the man. I just want sources, and a halt to POV pushing. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- I have blocked for a week (was using anonymous editing to evade block). Should I unblock? Please advise. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Cantus' request for arbitration
Hi Fred Bauder, in Cantus' request for arbitration, would you consider applying an extension of Cantus' second case, which states Cantus is limited to one revert per article per 24 hour period. Should he violate this, an admin may ban him for a short period of time (up to a week), the extension being one revert per 24hr period to any page in any namespace? I feel that the current proposed decision will once again not make it clear to him that refusing to discuss and reverting without edit summaries is not acceptable. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 18:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Fred, I am told that the ArbCom has "adminished" me for my rudeness in dealing with Skyring. Is this so? If it is, might it not be a good idea to advise me of this rather than leave me to find out secondhand? Or maybe I am misinformed. I am also told you have banned Skyring from editing Australian political articles for a year. If this is the case, might I express the view that this punishment is too harsh? Although Skyring was for a period extremely tiresome I don't believe he is a deliberate wrecker and I think a shorter ban would have been sufficient deterrent. This is particularly so when we consider that the Stalinist wrecker Ruy Lopez and the LaRouchist pest Cognition are allowed to run amok unchecked. Adam 04:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Fred, thanks for your reply, I know you have a difficult time with all this. I will try to be better behaved when I return after a break. But the fact is that my tactics do get results, and are made necessary by the weak structure of wikipedia, which is not of course your fault. I believe R Lopez under his previous incarnations has been the subject of numerous disputes - if there is a sockpuppet rule he ought to be banned under it. Cognition is apparently not a sockpuppet, just another LaRouche zombie. Adam 04:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Tkorrovi et al: Motion to close, etc
Yuber returned again?
Sorry to bother you but I think you should know that another two sockpuppets have popped up that appear to be the user called Yuber. They are ser:184.108.40.206 and User:Siegerz. I have reported them to the Admins noticeboard and Vandalism in Progress page but there has been no response yet. Existentializer 17:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)