User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 8

Instantnood arbitration

Fred, thank you for your comment on my talk page. Whilst I initiated the original RfAr on Instantnood, I have had nothing to do with the second one. I'd rather sit this one out, though if you feel I ought to comment on something, or if the ArbCom is considering any remedy invoolving myself, I'd be grateful if you'd let me know, jguk 17:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plautus satire

Is it fair that you've reopened arbitration against him while he is blocked and can't respond? That edit you pointed to wasn't disruptive enough to even warrant the block, let alone a one year ban. Perhaps put things on hold and just ask him if he intends to work productively. -- Netoholic @ 18:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is fair. Fred Bauder 19:26, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I see you recently blocked User:A Man In Black as "Sockpuppet Plautus satire". He came into #wikipedia asking for help, and it seems to be an error - other than this edit, which could easily be innocent, his contributions seem nothing like those of Plautus. --SPUI (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After a long talk on IRC, we are pretty convinced he isn't Plautus. I am unbanning him (no offence to your autority of course). Sasquatch′↔T↔C 10:07, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

DavidGerard has also informed that their IPs do not match. Regards!Sasquatch′↔T↔C 10:09, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Plautus satire

Can you point me to the Arb case? The one I find is under voting. He sent me this reply via email:

This is not an unsolicited email. You are an administrator on wikipedia, which is a public forum, and I am a user of that forum. If you do not want emails like this, surrender your administrator account to me and I will field them for you.

Obviously, that is a request I'd never comply with. The way it was written sounds like, "I'm going to take your janitor key, beat up everyone and fix the mess around here my way." --AllyUnion (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Stalin

While I agree with your edit commented "Citations needed" in Joseph Stalin, a proper way would be to move dubious pieces into talk page. Both deleted pieces have certain circulation and deserve to be disussed at least in the talk page. mikka (t) 21:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scimitar

Hello! I'm just a little curious about what's going on in connection with me at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Argyrosargyrou/Proposed decision. I see my name, but not any text detailing exactly what's happening. I had a relatively significant role in events, but I don't believe I did anything inappropriate. Any clarification you could offer would be appreciated. Thanks! --Scimitar ^parley 16:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. --Scimitar ^parley 17:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

end me your ears please==

please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Update and see if it might hlep ,my cause. Gabrielsimon 03:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed decision in the AI case

I read your comment on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI/Proposed decision regarding the proposed remedies. I was wondering if you had a chance to look at the talk page. In my opinion there is a fundamental problem, namely what I would characterize as AI's failure to seek or respect consensus, which could be addressed. As I see it, the edit war on the talk page and the POV edits are only symptoms of this general problem. I'm not sure if a special remedy is necessary: one could argue that at some point repeatedly making essentially the same edits against consensus constitutes mere vandalism; on the other hand, I think it would help in this case if an authority like the ArbCom commented on the general problem (which the "refactoring" and POV editing are special cases of). Thanks, --MarkSweep 21:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

a possible new RFC/RFA

DreamGUy is constantly incivil towards, well almost everyone. hes been rude to me to the point where i can not stand him any longer, but thats not why im speaking here,. hes rude t o admoins, and refuses to accept any possibllity thats hes fallable or knows any wrongdoing. if you examine the diffs im about to pose you might see my point. i beleive arbitration might be the only way to deal with him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=20138200&oldid=20109082

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=20144058&oldid=20139602

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=20144117&oldid=20144058

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=20157696&oldid=20144117

all i did was change then to chronological order, which he seems to have resented http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=20421198&oldid=20180591

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=20183731&oldid=20183120

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=20228302&oldid=20227979

his completel lack of good faith http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DreamGuy&diff=16957501&oldid=13202531

sorry if this is uncalled for, i would just like to see t his issue resolved without having to listen to his rants and rudness any longer. Gabrielsimon 01:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Email

please check it when you get the chance. J. Parker Stone 06:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i don't know if that was supposed to be some kind of sarcastic response, but i did send you an email, and i hope things get movin' a bit. J. Parker Stone 21:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well ok to sum it up can we please get things going with the ArbCom, i realize it's summer but it's been 4 months. J. Parker Stone 21:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it's a tad irrelevant now, i don't particularly like Davenbelle's edits but i am free to work with him on disputed subjects rather than impugning him as a leftist as i did before. i brought the ArbCom case forward with the assumption that people could get easily banned for POV edits -- i was wrong and got this Dec. sockpuppet thing as well as past fights with 172 and Viajero thrown back at me.

in any case while i think the problem has pretty much been resolved now given the time that has passed and the fact that i have patched things up with two users i used to get into severe disputes with if there is still going to be this punishment i just want it to wrap up soon. while Davenbelle IMO has made some serious POV edits he probably hasn't done anything worthy of a year-ban. J. Parker Stone 07:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well i think i've made my case that i've dropped the former aggressive POVing pretty clear but in any case i thank you for favoring a more specific punishment. J. Parker Stone 12:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

email again, my last one on the matter. J. Parker Stone 00:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ArmchairVexillologistDon#Final_decision

I wish to let you know that the user that is the subject to this RFAr has returned. He came back August 6 [1]. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't destroy the page history of User:ArmchairVexillologistDon. He never created a user page for himself. It was a redlink until I created a stopgap page containing only his name in December 2004 to make it easier to go to his talk page via his signature on other talk pages (someone did that for me when I started so I've done that from time to time with redlinked users to make communication easier.) User:Homey 03:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArmchairVexillologistDon is still breaking his conditions by posting on page(s) he's tempbanned from. The page has been slated for speedy deletion since it is an orphaned talk page. [[2]] User:Homey 23:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, does the Arbcomm require Talk:French Republican Tricolour form of Canadian Maple Leaf Flag preserved as evidence or we go ahead and "speedy delete" since it's an orphaned talk page?User:Homey 15:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We can bring it back if we need it. Fred Bauder 17:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Howdy,

To keep "matters straight" it is worthy of note that [name removed] and User:Homey are in fact the same person. If this is not noted, an uniformed user with believe there are TWO people complaining about me, instead of ONE person.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AVD is again violating the tempban against posting to pages related to flags, Canada or fascism, this time by posting to Talk:Canada [3] . User:Homey 19:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

216.112.42.61

Fred -

Thanks for your offer about examining 216.112.42.61. He seems to deserve it. However, what can you do about an anonymous editor? --EMS | Talk 01:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AI prohibited from CoS articles

And what is the reason for this based on what? --AI 21:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aggressive point of view editing. We do need to show more evidence. Fred Bauder 22:48, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

No need for evidence, I agree my POV is pro-scn because I am a Scientologist and yes I know I am very aggressive in almost everything I do. My POV should be acceptable considering the CoS articles are highly anti-Scn and contain false information with too much attribution to unprofessional "critics" and attribution given to sources who are referencing material that is unpublished. Need I say more? Aloha. --AI 04:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading Username

How can I make a complaint about a wiki user with a misleading username? I assumed Ombudsman had an official wiki ombudsman role despite his POV edits. This was reinforced by his user page, which contains a box with links to wiki arbitration and mediation sections, and his frequent seemingly official welcome messages to new members. I only recently learned that he has no official role. It appears that he is trying to mislead editors to believe he is a neutral wiki mediator to provide cover for POV edits, esp. in the anti-psychiatry area (he adopts the Tom Cruise position on psychiatry). What can I do?--Agiantman 09:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe is now Gavin

I'm copying the message you left on User talk:Gabrielsimon to User talk:Gavin the Chosen. FYI, this is where any correspondence with him goes now. ~~ N (t/c) 16:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

workshoppe

is it proper for me to attempt to edit the workshop page? if not, i have been speaking on the talk page....Gavin the Chosen 23:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFAR quesiton

Could you possibly fill in [N] in the "On this case, [N] Arbitrators is/are recused and [N] is/are inactive, so [N] votes are" bit on my RfAr. Thanks, ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 15:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

why /Workshop rather than /Evidence?

Hi,

You recently edited Template:ArbComOpenTasks to point to /Workshop links rather than /Evidence links.

This will be confusing to users who are unfamiliar with the arbitration process, because there is no link to /Evidence at the /Workshop page, and now there are no longer any links to /Evidence at the RfAr page itself. The only way to know about the existence of the /Evidence page is, well, if you already know about it.

The /Workshop page itself is somewhat confusing, because it is simply an unmodified template: the prior content at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration that lists the parties and their statements (during the voting by arbitrators on whether to accept/reject) is not reproduced there. -- Curps 15:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've edited Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Workshop to point to the /Evidence page, since that page has already been edited. However, I'm not entirely sure how you wish to use Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop: is the evidence now intended to go at the bottom of that page or will there still be a separate evidence page? It seems that you are transitioning between two different ways of handling the evidence-gathering phase, and I'm not sure what your wishes are here, or how to edit things to reflect them. -- Curps 18:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin overriding Arb-com

Under exactly what authority does UninvitedCompany think he can unilaterally permanently ban users, and destroy their user pages, and protect their talk pages so that they can't respond? - [4]

It should be noted that the alleged images were listed at User:Evil Monkey/Nudity as well as being considered entirely appropriate for articles, having, as far as I can tell, already survived IFD, and have been on Wikipedia for over a month.

Note that an arbcom case has only just opened and has by no means come down with even remotely any penalty such as a ban. UninvitedCompany seems to think he has greater authority than ArbCom, and can completely act outside it.

Does UninvitedCompany has infinite power and permission to unilaterally with impunity?

Particularly when the user/victim in question has challanged a prior abuse of adminship by UninvitedCompany in an RfC, and has diametrically opposed political opinions?

This seems to be a case of right wing evangelical Christian admins thinking they have the right to dictate to everyone else.

It also seems in contempt of the arbitration committee's right to make the decision.

SomeAccountThatIWillListOn-Ril'sUserPageWhenOrIfIEverGetItBack (-Ril-) 12:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sock pupptry

i dont remember how to find out if somes a sock or not. anyway, the users im curious about are Hipocrite, DreamGuy becasue both showthe same lack of civillity.Gavin the Chosen 04:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to my name being cleared. I give you explicit permission to disclose to Gavin any and all evidence that would lead you to believe that I am DreamGuy. I do not give you permission to disclose my IP address, to him under any circumstances. Hipocrite 04:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i do not think that it is your choice in any case. heres the thing toh, your being relaly really rude, with no cause, just like he does. so i suspect.Gavin the Chosen 04:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Gabriel's brain, anyone who removes his edits and tries to explain to him why he is wrong in uncivil, and considering he has been blocked 20+ times now for uncivil behavior and sockpuppeting and so forth, it is absolutely bizarre for him to try to accuse other people of doing what he's been proven to be doing nonstop since he got here. His RfAr is ongoing and hopefully the impending long term block will be soon, because it's not right that he should harass multiple real editors this way. DreamGuy 10:56, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Activating a temp injunction

I've just informed dot6s two main IP talk pages about the temp injunction, mentioned it on the talk page, and changed inj to inj on the template. Is there anywhere else i need to post a note? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

rktect arbitration

You said: but you are both doing to have to show some evidence

I tried to limit my statement to 500 words, as indicated. On my account, in what area do you want to see more evidence? And exactly where should it be placed? -- Egil 20:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You said: I find this dispute very confusing, possibly due to Rktect not signing his posts. I would want Rktect to come up with book and page regarding the authority for his assertions, likewise for you I would want an example of him posting some unsupported fact, many unsupported facts.

Lack of discipline in discussions is one of my arguments. One needs to consult the history log, which is tedious work. For the arbitration request itself, it is easy, because it seems rktect so far has submitted his material as lists of bullet points exclusively. With regards to evidence, I am collecting it here. This is work in progress, aimed to be presented at the time of an arbitration. In the interest of saving everyones time, I would appreciate feedback on what issues need further illumination. -- Egil 06:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question in this matter. As an interested party, I would like to make a statement in this case. At what time is this appropriate, and is there an expected format? Ken ^{talk|contribs} 01:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

My references are generally in proper format and broken down by category as for example classical, historical, linguistic, archaeological, mathematical, medieval and so forth or at least they generally are up until they get deleted.

In places where its appropriate I have indicated book and page, Klein pp 105 - 115, other places I have refered to Gardiner section 266, or Gillings chapter 9 or Herodotus "The Histories Book II".

Some references are footnoted as [1] or [1,4,29] and referenced into the text. If you like I will either scan or digitally photograph any pages that you want to see and don't happen to have in your library at home, and if you like I will footnote any passage you have questions about.

I can also produce many relevant images which I have copied for my own use from the web such as photographs of rulers, rods and measuring devices. If you mean what you say about determining this based on whether or not I can provide references for my facts I will be very happy to supply as many as you need. Rktect 17:00, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Merle Source

Merle was stripped of membership to the Alberta Alliance party after the Randy Thorstienson announced his resignation in March. unfortunetly the news articles involving Terslesky are not avalible on-line anymore. There was articles in both the Calgary Herald and Edmonton Journal, in which he belived the Alberta Alliance one sitting MLA Paul Hinman should cross the floor to the Progressive Conservatives.

The council revoked his membership to the party. For his status please contact Mark Scholz V.P. of membership at the Alberta Alliance mark.scholz@albertaalliance.com, or Kelly Swerid kswerid@shaw.ca Former Vice President of Election Readiness, or even Merle Terslesky himself.

Thats the best source I can give you --Cloveious 22:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

West Point

I'm not defending West Point or policing relevant content. I could similarly place well referenced information about the varieties of snack food most consumed on campus in 1955, broken down by percentage, and it too would be way out of place. The National Enquirer and Ken Starr might be interested and feel that it appropriate to report what percentage of people at an institution had anal sex in a certain year. Within the context of an article about a 200 year institution which has had dozens of scandals which dwarf your reference, your information is simply out of place. Dr U 03:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question on procedure

I am, unfortunately, one of the people involved in the Zen-master arbitration process. I just discovered that there is now a workshop attached to the original request for arbitration. The whole process looks different to me than the kind of arbitration that Anthere conducted when there was a big fight over the DNA article. This proceeding has, to me, more the look of a trial with the projected solution being some kind of punishment if anyone is found guilty.

I asked in several ways for outside help because Zen-master was calling people Nazis and similar names, and those accusations can be damaging to individuals outside the Wikipedia domain in the void. I had in mind another case where I had imagined that one user making some abusive statements had decided to behave himself -- not knowing that the abuse was continuing on the talk pages of other articles. I felt that I should have intervened in that case, and I didn't want to stand by and let people get hurt in this case. After the use of abusive language had been abated, hostilities moved into the edit war theatre. Then a request for arbitration was put in. (That's just as I remember things. No time at 3 a.m. to go back and reread old talk page entries.)

I don't see where administrative punishments are particularly suitable in this case. I think mediation, if successful, would be more productive in the long run. The problem, as I see it, is that Zen-master will not accept attempts to mediate by me as being other than inimicable to him. That is perhaps understandable, since in certain key respects I disagree with him. What is needed, IMHO, is to find somebody whose good intentions Zen-master can believe in. And that person, if I understand things correctly, will have to be able to explain to him, in terms that he can accept, why it is not productive to keep repeating the same assertions and questions over and over again.

I basically agree with Zen-master on an emotional basis. I have a non-expert's feeling about the way the issues of "race and intelligence" have been framed, about the reliability of the evidence, about many of the issues that center around the validity of the conceptual scheme used to discuss the entire issue. That being said, I know that I have feelings but no proof. I have agreed with Zen-master publically, on the discussion page of the R&I article, on every point on which I can find agreement with him. He still regards me as some kind of enemy. I watched another contributor (Nectarflowed, I think it was) patiently try to get him through the same fundamental flaw of reasoning that I saw, but Zen-master rejected all attempts at reason and kept pounding at his familiar assertions. Then I tried to set up a parallel problem in scientific inquiry that did not involve the same emotionally loaded issues, but all contributors including Zen-master ignored that attempt.

Since everyone has ignored it, the example has failed its original purpose, but let me use it here to describe what I think is causing the intellectual side of the problem. (What I see as Zen-master's set to see bad intentions in people who disagree with him is another matter.) When kuru, the human analog of mad cow disease, was discovered in New Guinea, the researchers did not investigate all members of the general population of that country. The researchers noticed almost almost immediately that all people affected by that disease were members of an ethnic group called the Fore. Their initial hypothesis was, "Something is causing disease among the Fore." Then the looked for characteristics of this ethnic group that might explain the fact that they had this problem. They very early on considered the possibility that it involved the genetic constitutions of this group. It would have been stupid for those doctors to look at non-Fore members of the general population. Now for the analogy I was setting up: Lower average IQ scores are the "disease," and there are three or four ethnic groups that have progressively lower average IQ scores in the US. The same questions need to be asked: Is this a matter of genetic constitution? (It wasn't a question of genetic constitution in the case of the Fore.) Is it a matter of culture? (It was in the case of the Fore, and they had to be convinced to change practices central to their cultural identity.) Zen-master wants people to not look at "race and intelligence" but to look at "nutrition and intelligence". Applied to the prion disease emergency his approach would have asked health officials to ignore the fact that it was the Fore who manifested the problem and look at all individuals in the country to see why a certain "random" set of indivuals got the disease.

I hope that's clear enough for you to understand what is puzzling me. One possible response to what has gone on so far is to do what Ed Poor did immediately after I wrote to him. Just say: Don't fight, or else. Doing so will prevent future outbreaks of the problem in this one place, but it doesn't strike me as an instance of either arbitration or mediation. It strikes the branches not the root of the problem. I sincerely believe that Zen-master's heart is in the right place. So is Rikurzhen's heart, and that of everybody else involved. At the root of the problem is an issue of dynamics, a dialog that is not taking place. I don't know whether to put any of this on the "workshop." It seems that nobody is interested or aware of what I see as the fundamental issue. P0M 07:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response on my talk page. I haven't seen anybody getting called Nazi, neo-Nazi, or racist for a while, thank goodness. Hitting somebody with a penalty may be the only thing that works when somebody is not truly penitent. One can always hope for sudden enlightenment to set it, but I haven't seen any signs of that. P0M 01:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"existing case"

is closed, this said eisting case. woudl that change your vote on that matter ( the arb thing) or would it remain unchanged?Gavin the Chosen 05:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re:Coolcat

I never asked him to get out of the Armenian genocide article for ever. We(I and another member), have asked in the past for him to read at least one work about the topic, revisionist if he want, but at least to come and have something to contribute in the article, but since he didn't do such, and came back again(without reading much) and wants again to get texts in the article to be deleted, also, to introduce what he believes in the article,(and not what is said about the topic) I requested him out of there. Of course, I have no authority to do that, but I also said that I will assume the consequences of my acts, because such harsh words seems to be the only way that people will start trying to act, and since nothing worked, for me it was the only option left. I agree that Wikipedia should not become an elitist hole, but neither should it become an anti-elitist one, and when a member comes there, and does even not know the names of those, the position he defend, and has not read a single work, or even an article from them, he has no business in the article, unless it is grammar corrections, or POV wordings. There are many people out there that can correct the grammar of the article, and Coolcat is the last to be able to differentiate from a POV wording and NPOV wording, and he doesn't know the subject at hand. Fadix 23:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Wayne

Howdy.

Test Two

For a second test I picked The Swan (1956). Only 14 actors members are listed. 8 have cause of death (or have died). 4 died of cancer. 50%......again....hummm...?

Filming Locations for The Swan (1956):
- Biltmore Estate - 1 Approach Road, Asheville, North Carolina, USA

Must have been downwind of a tobacco cigar rolling factory?

I am disputing the assertion put forward by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com that Wayne and others on the set of the movie The Conqueror died because of making that movie. I firmly belief Wayne died from, to quote Wayne: "smoking four to five packs a day for forty years." Now my opinion does not belong in the article, and neither does "The Conqueror's" pro-nuclear fall-out theorist. I would also guess that half of the actors that have passed away, who smoked heavily in the 1940's and 1950's, and lived to be 60 years old or older died from cancer.

WikiDon 02:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. JFK did not die in Switzerland in 1993 either.