User talk:Fred Bauder: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
ChrisO~enwiki (talk | contribs)
43,032 edits
== Barbara Schwarz again ==
Line 874: Line 874:


Barbara has refused to agree to comply with our [[WP:HA|harassment]] and [[WP:NPA|no personal attacks]] policies and has continued to "out" users on her talk page. In view of this, I'm left with no option but to leave her blocked indefinitely. I think we need to purge the "outing" edits from the database - do you have the oversight flag set on your account? If so, I can provide you with the relevant diffs. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 07:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Barbara has refused to agree to comply with our [[WP:HA|harassment]] and [[WP:NPA|no personal attacks]] policies and has continued to "out" users on her talk page. In view of this, I'm left with no option but to leave her blocked indefinitely. I think we need to purge the "outing" edits from the database - do you have the oversight flag set on your account? If so, I can provide you with the relevant diffs. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 07:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:Please give me a link to her User talk page. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 10:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:03, 17 August 2006

My associates and I have installed the GetWiki software at http://www.wikinfo.org, alternative address, http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/. It is hosted by ibiblio.org. The wikidata base dump was not installed. Software has been developed which allows easy importing of Wikipedia articles and to date about 30,000 have been imported. Certain policies have been changed from Wikipedia although the notion of using American English has been abandoned; International English is used and we are experimenting with articles in French and German. The concept of neutral point of view for each article has been changed to a policy of accepting a cluster of articles with differing points of view. Several policies which have been observed to cause tension on Wikipedia have been liberalized. See Wikinfo. Fred Bauder 13:51, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Fred_Bauder (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Hello Fred Bauder I came to your Talk page from Psychoanalysis and that TAlk page. I am a retired psychiatrist that reads used books and loved living in Denver 1949-1953 for my residency.I haven't made it to Wikinfo yet, but it's next on my schedule. Your intentions are impressive. I have rambled around Sigmund Freud, Aggression,On Aggression, Evolution, Evolutionary Psychology, and have written "A Fundamental Revision" in Psychoanalytic Theory. Perhaps you might be interested in reading the last of those.I certainly would be interested in your comments. Islandsage 19:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Sorry!! Did I put this in the wrong place? Islandsage 19:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Material has been removed here and placed in User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 1, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 2, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 3, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 4, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 5, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 6, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 7, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 8, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 9, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 10, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 11, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 12, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 13, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 14, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 15, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 16, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 17, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 18, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 19, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 20, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 21, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 22, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 23, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 24, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 25, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 26, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 27.

http://english.people.com.cn/200503/03/eng20050303_175406.html

Notes

Old notes

Deathrocker Arbitration

I am offering to mentor this user after their ArbCom case. It's a chance for me to try a new skill (mediation), so I'm offering myself for it. --Sunholm(talk) 19:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Sunholm/Deathrocker mentorship for details. --Sunholm(talk) 19:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed decision about Cesar Tort

Hi Fred Bauder:

Today I have proposed to remove the tag myself in Biological psychiatry’s talk page. Please take a look at my reasons there [2].

I only have a couple of questions.

(1) If the article I rewrote with Midgley [3] was a NPOV correction of the previous pov incarnation (in which Midgley, not I, removed the tag), how can this be considered "Tendentious editing by Cesar Tort [...]" in Proposed decision? [4].

(2) Re "Cesar Tort is cautioned to limit critical material to that supported by reliable scientific authority" [5] where have I not used reliable material?

Thank you for you attention. —Cesar Tort 23:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but...

I am starting to notice a potentially disturbing trend: over the past few months, incidences of your not-so-perfect spelling, grammar, formatting, etc. during the voting process has increased quite a bit.

For example: You authored this and didn't cast your vote for it. I assume you meant to support that item, is that right?

Even though I think you've been doing an excellent job as an arbitrator, and I believe you're the de facto Chief Arbitrator, my confidence in your efficiency is starting to erode substantially. I am afraid that if this trend continues you might not be able to survive the late 2007/early 2008 ArbCom elections (if you decide to run) or some other special vote involving your position between now and then (should that be necessary). If there is anything you can say to attempt to boost my confidence on this issue, feel free to answer me. Editor88 03:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative notice board

Fred, I fear this may be an alarming development. Maybe not. But since you're someone who has to clean up the messes around here, I thought you might have some useful input. This is not a spam, besides you, I've only solicited thoughts from TheronJ. Derex 08:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schuckardt Workshop page

If you have time, I have added some information Discussion Page you might find relevant regarding your section Scurrilous Charges of the [Francis Schuckardt] arbitration. Bernie Radecki 13:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your PDF contribution of Ceres, South Africa

Just a quick question, probably out of ignorance: What's the point of adding a PDF of the article itself to the article? It is surely not to make a "snapshot", since that's available in the page history? I'd appreciate being enlightened. dewet|✉ 18:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries mate, I was just wondering ;) dewet|✉ 07:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using wikipedia for political campaigns

Fred,

As I mention to you several times this [6] is not an isolated incident. This is very alarming that wikipedia can not implmenet and enforce WP:Not in such vigor as it does WP:3RR or edit war.

3RR, edit wars are all events that have no bearing on the real world while using wkipedia to promote political views in violation of WP:Not has an infulance on hiow this encyclopedia is viewed by the rest of the world. Zeq 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Might I add something here please. I have found an administrator, one of the Gregory Lauder-Frost demonisers, who has actually admitted that he is a Red on User talk:JzG.

I went through to the link he provided (rouge admin)for his description. At least he is honest about his political agenda. Sussexman 21:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For your comment. Sussexman 22:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my Strong Negative Point of View

I appreciate very much the substantial amount of time you are putting into the arbitration request that I filed on the [Francis Schuckardt] article. I had no idea one individual would be doing so much to address the concerns of the few editors that have concerns about this article. I did add a little text on the Proposed Decision Talk Page regarding my strong NPOV which I of course must admit to. I guess I am trying to demonstrate with published articles on Schuckardt that both my view and the majority view of Schuckardt really are primarily negative. I still think I keep my obvious bias out of the article itself. Thank you for your time and please ignore this if it is inappropriate. Bernie Radecki 00:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyering

Hello Fred Bauder. This is true... but is the term perjorative not a touch more encyclopedic? Netscott 16:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh... I might be Wikilawyering here but is it not true that when this term is used in describing someone's conduct it is most typically in a pejorative sense? :-) Netscott 16:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sussexman

I see that they have now banned Sussexman, one person saying he might be Lauder-Frost - Preposterous. Sussexman has valiantly defended the vitriolic attacks made by a very small group upon someone he knew years ago, liked, and felt a great injustice was being done to. He was quite right to tell people crossing legal boundaries that they were doing this and quite right to tell people that by doing so they would soon find out the consequences. That cannot constitute a legal threat, which can only realistically be made by the individual concerned, and banning everyone who points out simple facts is not the way forward for Wikipedia which should not be above the law. 81.131.37.101 07:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be a legal dispute. I'm afraid it's in the hands of the lawyers for now. I'll miss him. Hope the matter is quickly resolved so he can begin editing again. Fred Bauder 11:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think several of us will miss him. He made some interesting contibutions. 86.139.185.202 13:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration request for The Black Wall Street Records

I have revised the article stated above and this user by the name of Bwsadmin (or also known asMostWanted05) is reverting the article in one edit. This user has done sloppy work when editing articles. Another thing, is this Bwsadmin, an administrator? Cause if this user is an administrator and have this nonsense on the article. Here is the user page that suggest he is an administrator. I am kind of tired of editing this article to the best and this user always revert it and puts that spamming link for the Hurricane Game fan site and the Myspace links all over the article. Can there be a positive solution for this issue. Thanks for reading. LILVOKA 21 June 2006 01:33 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick

I particularly hate when people rush things but there is an issue arbitration commitee must look at urgently.

Moby Dick has ceased editing as of 7 june (Special:Contributions/Moby_Dick) and logs making checkuser posible will expire in about a week. These logs must be kept at least until the case closes. The fate of the logs will be depending on the outcome of the case.

I am just concerned about the posibility of moby dick returning with a new sock continuing the behaviour I complain about.

--Cat out 07:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homeontherange

Is now going after Sussexman's contributions. He has quietly flagged up Dr Mark Mayall for speedy deletion. Very sly and extremely nasty. I don't have time to check all of Sussexman's contributions (in his absence) but could you please advise just where one can make a formal complaint about this User who has such a clear agenda. 81.131.24.254 18:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the procedures in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Fred Bauder 20:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Homeontherange is currently going round to the article pages of many British right-wing conservatives and sneakily flagging up Deletion notices, as far as possible on the seven day rule. Had these people not been notable in Britain and in Conservative circles the articles would not have been there in the first place. What's going on here? He has for at least 6 months, conducted a relentless campaign against all articles and individuals connected with the Conservative Monday Club and the Western Goals Institute and his motives are clearly political rather than editorial. Urgent action is required here. I have followed your note above in the hope that something will be done. I had thought from the many refences pointing to you that you were an appropriate person to complain to. Apologies if that is not the case. Chelsea Tory 08:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A specious complaint. There are serveral ways to have an article deleted, speedy deletion, AFD or the delete after 5 days tag I used. Please familiarise yourself with the rules before throwing out accusations.Homey 04:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I give my full support to Chelsea Tory. Homeontherange is a sneak, with a ruthless, relentless political agenda. He is unfit to be an administrator. 86.139.185.202 13:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fred,

I wonder if you have failed to notice how Homeontherange is turning many parts of wikipedia into a battle field for pushing his political agenda in clear violation of WP:Not. I can't help but wonder: Does he enjoy some special impunity around here ? (he seems to by running around with a "get out of jail card" in his pocket. Anyone else would have been banned for good for what he did on Israeli Apartheid (such as 5 violation of 3RR and blocking users with whom he had disputes not to mention all the POV pushing) Zeq 20:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq is increasingly obsessed with me because a complaint by me got him banned from several articles. I am concerned that I am being wikistalked by him. Homey 05:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false accuastion (Homey in the past also accuased Humus, jayjg, Moshe and others he had a conflict with) but to the point: I follow a really limited number of articles and visit some other places (like this talk page). When I see in these pages something of interst I comment on it (no matter who made the edit or what POV the contect is) . Afater his accusation I looked at his contribution page and turns out I don't edit (or even look) at 97% of the article Homey edit. Zeq 06:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • To one thing I will admit freely:When I see POV pushing (by Homey or others) I try to NPOV it. Homey is indeed one the biggest POV pushers I ran into. I do all my work by legitimate edit and I am not vindictive to any one. Where I am not getting communicatio I try to find the way to get it. (even if the only way to do it is ask Arb Com for help) Zeq 06:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this were true you wouldn't have been banned from several articles. Homey 06:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Homey, I was not abnned for good cause. Also the banning admin clearly described your behaviour as at least as worse and said that if you were under probation he would ban you. the facts are that I was banned for making a a single edit in articles in which you made noumerous edit wars (in a 2nd article I made 3 edits where you made tens and tens). The banning admin just used my probation to try and create calm in the article (He could not remove you). And it is clear that since my bans you have continued the edit war and have been repeatdly banned for 3RR in thse articles (and that has nothing to do with me since I don;t edit there). Zeq 06:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) I suspect the admin who banned you would be rather alarmed to see the words and thoughts you are attributing to him. They are your thoughts, not his
  • 2) Yes, of course, no punishment you've ever been given is "for good cause". You've never done anything wrong. You're just a victim.
  • 3) And of course, the ArbComm was wrong to find you in breach and put you on probation.
    • I suggest you ask the admin(Tony_Sidaway) and if need I will bruing quotes.
    • I think that ArbCom decision on me was correct, it helped me improove my behaviour here. (and many can attest to that)Zeq 06:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you are so convinced of never being wrong how can you honestly say you aren't vindictive towards the evil person who complained about you and got you banned?Homey 06:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am just not a vindictive person. Zeq 06:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Pretty rich Homeontherange talking about someone else being "convinced of never being wrong". As a well-known adjudicator and administrator, Mr.Bauder, I appeal to you to halt the string of deletions of biographies of prominent right-wing UK Conservatives who deserve their biographical entries just as much as the string of entries on communists and Marxists. Homeontherange has already deleted Sam Swerling, one of England's leadling Law lecturers, a former chairman of the Conservative Monday Club, a former Conservative Party (UK) parliamentary candidate and Westminster City Councillor, and a well-known figure on the Tory Right. (Just how great does one have to be to have an entry here?) Now Homeontherange has flagged up others also for deletion, notably Dr Mark Mayall. Can nothing be done about this wrecker of other people's sourced work? 86.139.185.202 13:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether articles are deleted is up to the community which attends to votes for deletion. I gave up on that business long ago. Homeonetherange is entitled to make nominations. Fred Bauder 13:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My ban from Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

I'd like you to note, that by banning me from Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy you will support User:MX44 and User:Netscott, who consider it productive to avoid discussions and to display only a lunatic fringe minority "Muslim" POV on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. See [7] Raphael1 15:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear on this, Raphael1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is continuing to dwell almost solely on this article and I in effect counciled User:MX44 to no longer engage Raphael1's continuing "discussion" relative to it. Netscott 15:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How comes you agree with my position, but at the same time urge me to quit discussing that subject? Is it settled, that we won't display "that there exist sanity within Islam"? Raphael1 16:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If MX44 wishes to show that there can be sanity within Islam, how do you explain his recent edits? [8] [9] [10] Raphael1 00:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd very much appreciate a reply to my question above. Please note, that my prososed additions will probably never make it into Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy if you ban me from this article. Raphael1 14:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to just be editing, although his comparison of you to a Nazi soldier is totally uncalled for. I am afraid you have made too much trouble at that article to continue editing it. Being morally right is not enough. Fred Bauder 18:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that because I've caused trouble to editors who are not quite morally right, I have to be banned from this article? Is that because you could get in trouble for acting morally right yourself? Raphael1 20:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the images on my site and oppose having them here. Just a stick in the eye, as far as I can see. You edit warred over it after a consensus emerged to have them. That is the problem. Fred Bauder 20:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't done so since April after I've been blocked a week for it. Isn't there some WP policy, which prohibts being charged for the same "crime" twice? Raphael1 23:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why User:Mindspillage voted on my arbitration case, since she is not an active member of the Arbitration Commitee. Would you please look into this? Raphael1 14:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can I raise an objection against the votes of Jayjg, who is an obviously biased member of the Arbitration Commitee and voted yesterday after Briangotts made him/her aware of my comment? Raphael1 12:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg is Jewish and often edits from that point of view but as far as I know not biased on any issue which involves you. What make you think he is biased? Fred Bauder 13:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think, that his faith has anything to do with his voting, since no Jewish leader has embraced anti-Muslim bigotry. [11] OTOH this evidence doesn't fortify my confidence in Jayjgs fairness. Raphael1 01:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Jewish only road"

[12] - how can wikipedia allow such bletent lies ? Zeq 20:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCRGRad RfA clarification request

Per the Arbitration policy, I request that you provide a rationale for your vote of "Reject" in the UCRGrad RfA request. Thanks! --ElKevbo 21:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Popups

The chopping of text was caused due to an incompactibility issue with the Firefox browser and the Google toolbar. The text just dissapears from the box right before your eyes. A new warning message about this is now up on wikipedia. If you try to edit a long page (for example this), then you will see the notice alerting Firefox users. A bug ticket has also been opened at bugzilla. Its really irritating, as I cant afford to uninstall the google toolbar, as it is my only spell checking resource. :( Any particular reason you asked me about this? -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK 09:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, okay, thanks for the clarification. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK14:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


ArbCom case re Irishpunktom

I am not sure if anyone has actually noticed this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irishpunktom/Workshop#Irishpunktom_and_Maliki-sis. I made the request quite some time ago, and to my surprise there haven't been any responses from anyone there. Could you please consider my request? -- Karl Meier 13:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Fill Your Heart

The talk page of that obscure article is protected to keep the "Biff Rose vandal" - user:Jonah Ayers - away. That user was banned by the community in response to his vandalism and to his harassment of several editors both on WP and in real life. I can give you more information if you're interested. -Will Beback 19:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovan business

Dear Fred,

I've seen your reply on wikipedia-l, and thought that I would like your oppinion on the matter. I agree that I'm becoming a nuisance there for non-interested readers, but we (people that petition for the closing or freezing of the Moldovan wikipedia) need to know what we can do to advance our cause.

What we need is simply arbitration. We have simple proof of the fact that the only proponent of this wikipedia is pushing his point of view through extremely malicious ways.

Where should we go with our request?

Yours, Dpotop 14:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ps: Sorry for this spam, I will not come again on this matter.

Good edits

Thanks for the copy-editing on the text I added just before you on Wikipedia:Wikilawyering that reads much better. Cheers. Netscott 18:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Village pump

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Resolving_content_disputes. Please help me to find the answer to my questions. Thanks.--AndriyK 13:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Resolving_content_disputes. Could you please visit that page once more? The outcome of the discussion is still unclear. Thanks.--AndriyK 19:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alienus RfC

Fred, in this case there are a few controversial blocks, some of which were eventually overturned, hence the heated AN/I discussions. I do think an RFC is in order, as there are some legitimate concerns that need to be worked out. As a few users have noted, Alienus has been getting better as an editor, not getting worse. As such, I think it's premature to go straight into RFA. Al has indicated that he is willing to abide by the outcome of an RFC. I'd like to see that he is given that opportunity before resorting to arbitration. Tony has suggested he won't stand in the way of this proposal. [13] ^^James^^ 20:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^^James^^, there have been so many words written in the last few days on this topic that it is hard to track them all. Can you please show me where Alienus indicated he'd abide by an RfC? Thanks, -Will Beback 07:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure Will, that was on your talk page. Sophia: As I said before - for a fair system all you can do is ask that all editors will abide by the outcome of the process to valdate it. Something I'm sure Al will have no issue with. Al responded: I appreciate your emphasis on accepting the outcome of a fair process. It would be counterproductive to presume any particular conclusion, as such is to be determined by the process itself. ^^James^^ 08:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I'm not exactly sure how to interpret it. While you were gathering that I found this, though I'm not sure if it is more, or less, definitive.
  • If Alienus can assert that an RfC could result in him stopping his personal attacks and incivility, then I'd support it. However I don't see any evidence that there would be such an outcome. If a change in behavior doesn't result, then what's the purpose of an RfC? -Will Beback 23:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer Will's question directly, I can see how an RfC might affect my behavior. An RfAr, however, is guaranteed not to. - Alienus [14]
It's rather vague, but I'm all in favor of grasping at straws if there's nothing else at hand. -Will Beback 10:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An RfAr, however, is guaranteed not to. The problem with that statement is that it is an act of will. Why do you make such a choice? Fred Bauder 11:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that an RfC might affect his behaviour, since he's not willing to presuppose what the outcome of the process will be. An RfAr would not positvively affect his behaviour, since he is assuming it would effectively be the end of his wikipedia contributions. He has stated this numerous times, but I can find the diffs if you like. If there's any confusion, you could just ask. ^^James^^ 16:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fred, Just wanted to say thanks for considering my request. It's all for naught, however, as Alienus has decided to leave rather than face arbitration. Sophia has left as well. ^^James^^ 01:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of arbitration on Sathya Sai Baba and user:Andries versus user:SSS108

You chose to accept the case of abritration, but what is the scope of this arbitration, only the article Sathya Sai Baba, or category:Sathya Sai Baba or category:Sathya Sai Baba plus user:Andries? I would like to know because I want to know what I should comment on. I prefer that the arbitration deals with Sathya Sai Baba and closely related articles contained in category:Sathya Sai Baba Thanks. Andries 11:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We will, at a minimum, look at the articles affected by the conflict between the adversaries named in the arbitration. Fred Bauder 18:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recusal request

Fred, I request that you recuse yourself from the Israeli apartheid case. You've made a number of negative comments about me over time which give a perception of a bias. Nothing personal but I think it's necessary. Homey 23:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No basis for recusal. Fred Bauder 23:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one thing you told Zeq "I wish you could consider me your friend and supporter"[15] on 21 Feb 06. If Zeq is a party to this dispute then anyone who is a "friend and supporter" needs to recuse. Homey 23:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq tries so hard, but then so do you. Fred Bauder 23:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah but you're not my "friend and supporter":) And Zeq has also engaged in a rather strenous and personal campaign against me so I don't think it would be fair to have his friends involved in an ArbComm case in which either or both of us are involved. Homey 23:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have also written the following to Zeq in regards to the article at issue:

"I think you made some very good points on the talk page. I don't like that article. Apartheid really should be used only in the South African context. (Not that the Palestinians don't have legitimate complaints)."[16] Homey 23:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By saying you "don't like the article" and expressing the view that the term apartheid should not be used outside of the South African context you have expressed your sympathies for one side of the dispute being brought before the ArbComm. You clearly need to recuse yourself. Homey 00:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there were grounds to recuse (prejudice within me, rather than in your imagination) I would. Fred Bauder 03:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of prejudice in my imagination, it's a matter of a reasonable apprehension of prejudice based on your own words. In the real world judges recuse themselves not only when they concede they have a bias but when they see that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias. Since I cannot read your mind I can only ascertain whether or not you are prejudiced from your words and your words suggest a prejudice, clearly expressed, against the article and an affinity, clearly expressed, with someone who wishes to be a party to the AFD. That you are confident you can separate that from your role as an ArbComm is fine, perhaps you can, perhaps you can't, but it does not change the reasonable perception that you have a bias and thus the requirement that you recuse yourself. Surely you can see that based on your words it is reasonable to perceive a prejudcie?Homey 03:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Recusal: Justice not only needs to be, it must also appear to be done!

Homey: Regardless of the fact that you may have had good reasons, it is VERY bad form for an admin to block anyone when they are having a dispute with, when they (the admin) is involved in writing the article (besides I have never heard of a "3 minute block" -- is that meant to frighten and intimidate?) The correct thing would be to call on a one or two NEUTRAL admins, not involved with this article, and ask them for their input. If they feel that someone is overstepping the rules then they should give a warning to the person they feel is wrong and then if he disregards that warning take the needed action, by all means, as long as they can justify themselves. But you should not have acted as both advocate and editor of the article as well as the executioner admin and final arbiter. Justice not only needs to be, it must also appear to be done! And in this case it clearly was not. IZAK 19:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

. (copied by Zeq 09:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Well then, I expect IZAK will agree with me on my request that Fred recuse himself. Thank you for finding that Zeq, it's very helpful. Homey 14:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for justice Homey and I hope that what ever arbitors will be left after the recusals they will take a good look at your conduct in wikipedia - all of it (and you know what I mean) Zeq 16:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they will look at your conduct Zeq, particularly in the light of your violation of Wikipedia:Harassment? As well Zeq, your insistance on insinuating yourself in this RFA may have consequences you do not anticipate such as getting yourself banned from talk pages as well as articles and from all articles dealing with the MidEast not just a few. If the ArbComm looks at your posting of personal details after you'd already been warned once you may simply get yourself indefinitely blocked. Homey 19:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hanina

As a arbiter in Wikipedia I hope you will read the words of the Palestinian writer Hanina here: [17]especially the part about History which is where Wikipedia takes part. Best Zeq 10:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our mission is to disseminate information about history. However, the point is well taken. Someone who wants peace would be wise to not dwell on past wrongs. That's the way a bad marriage works, every past transgression comes out when there is an argument. Fred Bauder 11:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am all for "Our mission to disseminate information about history" but let;s be honest Fred: WP:NPOV and WP:RS are not enforced anywhere near other policy (Like WP:Spam and WP:3RR). What thats mean is that while there is a focus on behaviour, wikipedia is allowing itself (and it's popularity) to become a tool in distributing false propeganda which is used against world peace by intersted parties. If NPOV (and RS) were strongly enforced I don't think there was a problem since all sourced, major POV would be represented. Zeq 17:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We do our best, but there is a great deal of information which a benevolent dictator would find ought to be suppressed in the interests of peace. Fred Bauder 17:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what I meant. Not talking about suppressing. (Talking about 95% of the effort going to enforce "behavioral policies") at the same time Wikipedia is used as a tool to distribute propeganda by people who know how to "play the system" . The way to solve it is to make an effort to enforce WP:NPOV.
Clearly the fact that ArbCom washes it's hand and "avoid content only focus on behaviour" is part of the problem because only "measureable" behaviour (like 3RR, edit war etc..) become the focus. Maybe a way to address this is binding, forced mediations. Zeq 18:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that content could be arbitrated, however consensus is against it. Editorial arbitration would involve a number of policy changes. And be quite difficult. Fred Bauder 18:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, use the Hanina article above. It is one of the smartest articles about a tough, very tough subjects that exist. It clearly show us where wikipedia can help. Keeping NPOV is way beyond "dificulties" or "changing of few policies" - I can tell you that all i ever tried to do here is strive to NPOV and that is not only "hard" but mostly impossible in curent atmosphere. Zeq 18:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI:[18] Zeq 19:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dionyseus Arbcom

Hi Fred- I read your proposals regarding the [[19]], one of which was to block me for a week. I'm willing to accept the punishment if that's what you think is appropriate, but I am curious why Dionyseus got off with a warning, since he's the one reverting without discussion/consensus? I'm not trying to influence your decision. However, it seems to me that Dionyseus has commited the greater infraction, and I am obviously curious about the reasons behind your decision. Again, I'm not trying to question your decision, but I am trying to understand it.

Additionally, while you have cited links, what is your proposal vis-a-vis including cheating allegations on the page? I hasten to remind you that I have a large majority of support from the talk page, in addition to multiple sources (admittedly some are more difficult to access than others).Danny Pi 04:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Under the guidelines for biographies of living persons poorly sourced negative material may be removed from the biography of a living person. Removal is exempt from the three revert rule. Fred Bauder 12:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the way the Guardian handled the information was excellent. It raises the issue without making accusations, anonymous accusations for which there is no proof. Fred Bauder 12:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Fred- thanks for the expedient and thoughtful reply. Your points are well taken. I assume, however, that you aren't directly commenting on whether or not to include the cheating allegations, since this would be regarded as a content issue. Instead, you're citing relevant rules, which lead me to believe you think allegations ought not be included. If this is indeed the case, I'd appreciate your frank opinion. My original edit was "Furthermore, allegations and rumors of computer assistance and cheating during the FIDE World Chess Championship 2005 have become widespread, although no evidence has yet been produced to support the claim that Topalov had cheated." Is this improper? I also provided at least three good sources (including chessbase, chess today, and the Guardian), and someone else also dug up the NY Post, too. What would be the standard for sufficient documentation? I also had an 8 to 2 majority in the discussion page. So, you can understand if I'd be a bit confused as to why Dionyseus would have the right to RV in these circumstances. Again, these are questions I have vis-a-vis wiki policy, and I am not attempting to sway your opinion (much). :) Danny Pi 17:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred- fair enough. Thanks for your thoughts! Danny Pi 22:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PoolGuy - time for some action

I believe it may be time to run a CheckUser on PoolGuy's IP (or IP range) and block the IP(s) for some time. Over the past several days, he has created several accounts, all ending in the term -Marionette, for the sole purpose of vexatious litigation against selected administrators (see the recent history of WP:RFAR). I think there is no other way to stop this person except a CheckUser scan and block of his/her IP(s), and maybe reporting him to his ISP. 05:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It is time for some action. Time to address the issue about GoldToeMarionette being inappropriately blocked. It seems that everyone seems to ignore that. Blocking an IP range will just affect lots of Wikipedians or future Wikipedians. Why is there such hostility bred into Admins. Why can't they address the issue? The action taken by Admins thus far is hostile and does not try to work to resolve the issue. Perhaps one would try? DarkBlueAnkletMarionette 05:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DarkBlueAnkletMarionette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) You are allowed to designate one username and are required to use it. As you kept using PoolGuy we assumed you wanted to use that, but you could use GoldToeMarionette instead. Why don't you designate the username you want to use and we can go from there. Fred Bauder 12:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting suggestion, however being allowed to edit is fundamentally not the issue I am concerned with. I am concerned that GoldToeMarionette made posts in compliance with the Internal Spamming Guideline on WP:SPAM and was blocked "Clean up your mess. For example, after engaging in cross-posting to promote some election, be sure to remove those cross-posts after the election is complete.". The account did not violate a policy. The account did not do something that wasn't addressed by policy but was contrary to community consensus. Instead the account's posts (which debatably some users did not like) were in accord with an actual written down, and exists to this day, policy of Wikipedia. It does not matter if some users did not like the posts. The posts followed written policy. A user should not be blocked for doing something in accord with policy. In fact, I didn't vote in the AfD with any of my accounts.
I have written this many times to many people, and either Admins choose to ignore that fact (like you did in the RfAr) or they don't understand it and take administrative action. That should not have happened and needs to be undone, based on the merits of this account doing something in accord with a well established written policy. It does not matter how much debate the issue receives, the community has left this language in the policy, and has for a long time. In my estimation if it is worthy to remain, it is worthy to be adhered to. The people who should adhere to it most are the Admins. From my view, they are the ones who adhere to the policy the least, based upon the treatment I have received. If Admins would at a minimum follow the written policy, users could have a chance of not getting on their bad side and be ostracized in the community when the user has a disagreement with merit. I am unjustly on the bad side of the community and some Admin needs to undo that. I have been compared to Jason Gastrich for following a written policy... ridiculous.
If the policy is bad someone should change the policy. I don't care. Just don't think I should put up with Admin abuse for Admin error. I don't. I will find an Admin who is as adept as GRBerry to understand it [20]. I am surprised it is taking so long. It appears to me that following Wikipedia Policy is not a requirement for being an Admin, but certainly upping your block numbers is, since that is the preferred method of dealing with an issue rather than thinking about it. This is of course based on my observations of my experience with the group. I edited quite happily on all my accounts for a few years until the Admin onslaught started in March on a popular list.
I am happy to talk about this, and am glad you don't block out of habit like the others. I do think this is very important, and worthy of Admins to understand, because some of their treatment of users appears to promote hostility rather than growing the community. Thanks for reading. I can't wait to get this resolved. If you can't, hopefully one of the 800+ can. EcruAnkletMarionette 03:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppets?!?!?!

I have never used a sock puppet. 62.77.181.16 and Bazzajf are not sockpuppets of mine.--8bitJake 00:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Jones and CongressRecords

Jerry Jones was banned following a full discussion on AN/I (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive103#Jerry Jones/JJstroker.) He never acknowledged the gross plagiarism in which he engaged. The POV issues are also a problem, as is the editing while banned (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jerry Jones). I strenuously object to this user's unblocking unless he acknowledges his errors. Even then it should be discussed on AN/I or some other official forum. -Will Beback 03:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strenuously object to Jerry Jones being unblocked under any circumstances. He has consistently an unabashedly lied right from the start; about his plagiarism, sockpuppeting, etc. Even when I presented him with evidence of his actions, with diffs, he would still claim he hadn't done things, though the diffs were right there. Someone this dishonest has no place on Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation has now moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Jerry Jones and CongressRecords. -Will Beback 03:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lebaneese Nakba

Nakba (disaster) is now taking place in Lebanon. Lebanon is being demolished. Nassralla did not leave Israel with any other choice.

Zeq 15:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3276772,00.html

University of California, Riverside ongoing debate

  • Hello. I'm a user who got involved in the debate after the failed RfArb. Researching the problem turned up the vote in which you rejected the RfArb on the basis of UCRGrad presenting a "significant point of view". Could you elaborate on that, please? From my reading, it appears that UCRGrad's (and Insert-Belltower's) edits cast a pointedly negative slant on the university in violation of WP:NPOV. Please respond at your earliest convenience - the debate is currently being stonewalled. Thanks. :) Danny Lilithborne 06:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser results from a request for arbitration archived

Greetings. I help maintain Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser's archives and general maintainence for requests to checkusers as a volunteer clerk. Your completed use of the checkuser tool and public posting of the results has been archived here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ericsaindon2. Please feel free to reword your reply as you see fit. Check out WP:RFCU/SORT if you wish to write down that you've used the checkuser tool not in direct response to WP:RFCU. Last, this edit was seen and most definately not included in the archive I created. Kevin_b_er 07:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highways Arbcom Enforcement

Hi Fred, who is responsible for enforcing the ruling of the arbcom in this case if a party to it is violating the probation? An instance of blatant Highway edit warring involving User:SPUI, which is in direct violation of our probations, was brough to WP:AN/I and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement and both times were rejected by Tony Sideaway in favor of a polite warning. Hasn't the time for warnings passed? Or do Arbcom decisions not actually matter, because a block is proscribed for disruptive edits to highway articles in this instance and the only admin to respond doesn't seem to think the Arbcom ruling matter. I'm just asking because I want to know if I can start controversially editing again too or if this leinency is restricted to SPUI only. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

Hello, please help with a case about alleged adminship abuse by JzG, which had been rejected by three arbitrators before an administrator warned the accused one and undid part of his actions. The conflict is going on and I do not know how to find a solution. The only arbitrator who has sinced voted on the case is one who in my eyes is in a conflict of interest as he did a very similar block on me in the past that I think was abusive and that was undone by Theresa as it lacked any evidence of wrongdoing by me. I had suggested a change to the blocking policy but the discussion about it has up to now been inconclusive due to a lack of participants. Socafan 02:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Inaccessible to an ordinary reader"

(If you want to copy this to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hunger/Workshop or its talk page feel free; as I explain below it has some bearing on that, but I think it is tangential enough that I'd rather keep it out of there, unless you decide it is relevant.)

Fred, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hunger/Workshop you speak of a source being "inaccessible to an ordinary reader". I could imagine construing it a lot of ways, and most of them do not strike me as a problem with the source.

I have definitely based articles largely or entirely on books that are certainly not "accessible to an ordinary [English-language] reader". The extreme is probably one book I used extensively, in at least 30 articles: Israil Bercovici, O sută de ani de teatru evreiesc în România ("One hundred years of Yiddish/Jewish theater in Romania"). It was originally written in Yiddish, translated only into Romanian, probably out of print (I could be wrong). Living in Seattle, I had to get hold of a copy from Chicago on interlibrary loan, one of three known copies in North America. It is undoubtedly the definitive work on its topic. It is undoubtedly doubly inaccessible to the average English-language reader, because it has never been translated into English and almost no copies are to be found in the English-speaking world (actually, while I never thought about it until now, I bet there are more copies in the U.S. in Yiddish than in Romanian, but I don't read Yiddish).

Just looking around what I have within 10 feet as I write I find things like a 1904 Merriam-Webster, a dictionary of Venezuelan slang, a book on the history of quantum mechanics that probably came out in a single small edition from Birkhäuser, and a copy of this spring's Vanguardia Dossier (from Madrid, readily available there, but pretty scarce here). And a French-language history of Romania, and I could go on, but I imagine you get my point. None of these are, in any obvious sense, terribly "accessible", but I think they are all excellent reference material. I honestly believe that using sources like this add enormously to Wikipedia: they allow us to write about things that are probably not well covered anywhere else on the web, at least not in English.

This is slightly more relevant to the case than you might offhand imagine. I believe that Smeelgova was probably first directed by me to the Mother Jones article. She came to my user talk page saying, among other things "I also believe that all of the timeline and commentary on the connections with Werner Erhard and Erhard Seminars Training are relevant and of interest to the reader." I responded "I don't have the time or inclination to really wade into this, but I'd certainly agree that Erhard and est are crucial to any honest history of the Hunger Project. Is that being disputed? Is he claiming that this is false, or just that for some reason it isn't worth reporting? There is a Mother Jones article from December 1978 that documents the connection well (I read it at the time, it was a good article, worth tracking down), and that at that time est was using Hunger Project as a recruiting tool. Conversely, according to [21] 8 years later MJ conceded that the Hunger Project had severed those ties and was no longer recruiting for est." I remembered the article from when I read it; I did a web search to determine the exact date (I knew within a year because of where I was living when I read it, but couldn't have been so precise off the top of my head). You will notice that I referred her to it in a way that encouraged her to seek the original source, and that because I'd come up with a mitigating detail in the course of my web search I also passed that on.

I'm sure this is not a source that would have come to mind for the average contributor, because I'm a lot older the average contributor. And it's not "accessible" as in you can find it on line (at least not that I spotted), but it is "accessible" as in someone with access to a good university library or big-city public library should be able to get at it. It's a lot more accessible than any of the abovementioned.

Anyway: does this issue of "inaccessible" sources come from a policy or guideline? If so, does it actually say all sources should be "accessible to an ordinary reader"? Wikipedia:Reliable sources says only that sources should be "accessible in principle": nothing about "ordinary reader" (or even "ordinary Wikipedian"), nothing even about "readily accessible as a practical matter". And I think that is as it should be. - Jmabel | Talk 04:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors. And "Are the publications available for other editors to check? Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability.2C_not_truth. "We provide sources for our readers, so they must be accessible in principle, although not necessarily online." Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_sources. It was not so much the Mother Jones article, but some of the others at [22]. Go through them.... "One hundred years of Yiddish/Jewish theater in Romania" seems like an excellent source for articles that are not controversial. Fred Bauder 12:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that most leaps out at me is a lot of online references without access dates, some of which appear now to be dead or 404s. I'd have to assume that they were once good, and that they were added in good faith, but unless they can be found on the Internet Archive I agree they are going to be virtually impossible to verify. But one runs that risk every time one uses a strictly online reference (algthough matters are at least clarified a bit by an access date). Since the bulk of Wikipedia references are from online, I can't imagine we would ban online-only references. I usually try, when possible, for online references that also appeared in print (e.g. newspaper and magazine articles, old books available online, etc.) and I try to glean the actual print publication information (a typical example from the last 24 hours is the New York Times article I cited at Freeport, New York) but as I'm sure we both know, that cannot always be easily done (for example, I grabbed a web-only citation for a stub on Zongora; this came up because someone elsewhere seemed to be questioning whether there was such an instrument, or whether someone was being confused by the Hungarian word for piano). Writing articles would nearly grind to a halt if we didn't allow web-only citation, which is always at risk of "going dead". Whether those dead-link citations remain good enough now on a controversial article is certainly at least very questionable, but unless you think they were dead when they were put up (and weren't honest typos in a URL) then they don't reflect poorly on the conduct of the person who used them. And once again we are back on the case at hand; once again, feel free to copy over to the Workshop talk page if you think this is useful. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt they were good at the time. Fred Bauder 18:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

Fred,

To save everyone time I will accept the punishment you suggested in the motion.

As a side note, I would like to point out that so far accumulated time of the blocks imposed on me by Homey and his proxy Sceptre is totaling over 80 hours. Zeq 06:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the above I suggest monitoring Zeq in the future lest he resume his vendetta against me. Homey 13:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arb appeal

I've posted evidence at the link you gave me. thanks for agreeing to hear the case Dr. Trey 08:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i put my HEART into that evidence alright...

nah, kidding. thanks for letting me know. Dr. Trey 08:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia automatic diff tool

The wikipedia sofware which calculate the diif in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&diff=55752867&oldid=55752006 made it look like I removed the whole 1st section. I did not. Please review carefully what was actually done in this edit.

This is what the edit really was (if the diff toll was not making an error):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZeq&diff=65043312&oldid=65043198

Zeq 15:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Expect that you make a correction on the evidence page. The diff you linked create (due to a software bug) a false image of the edit I made. I never touched all the part that included sources. I was starting to NPOV the header and if you think otherwise I would like to discuss it. (as we actually started to do when I made that edit) I am always open to discussion and willing to change any edit I make. Zeq 19:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Fred, I was serious : The diff does not show my edit correctly and if you look at what I did I did exactly what the NPOV policy require: Describe the controversy. Some of the facts I put in are undsiputed (that those who use the expression use it as propeganda to delitimize Israel's right to exist - they wabt that the zionist regimn will have the same fate as the SA apartheid regimn) and that they use it while ignoring evidence that the analaogy is wrong.

Now, what could be POV ?

You can argue that Israel has (or does not have) a right to exist - this is POV (either way) You can argue that Israel should use an paratheid-like laws (or that it should not) - this would be POV (either way)

You could argue that Israel is anpartheid state (like the title actually suggest - that would be POV.

But what is POV in waht i did that you labled it "biased editing" is really beyond me - especially since we discussed this very edit before and you voted to delte the article. Certenly, describing the controversy (as I did) is less POV than deleting it. Please explain in a way that an uneducetd person like me can understand. Tnx. (and please correct the diff to show my real edit) Zeq 11:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should provide proof to your statement that Wikipedia (and you as part of it's ArbCom) was unable to enforce it's NPOV policy reualting in pro-zionsit bias. Such staements require proofs. How about correcting the diff you placed of my edit - surly you know it does not represent my edit correctly. Please at least get the facts present accuratly. I am willing to discuss the actual change I made (but I did not remove the section that apear in the diff as if it was deleted) this should be clarified. Zeq 05:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid and Anti-Semitism

This is a bried conversation I have had with User:Homeontherange, can you a) please confirm and if confirmed, b) please explain in light of the Criticism section of the article? Thank you. -- Avi 21:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation

I direct you to the first sentence of Allegations of Israeli apartheid#Criticism. It is obvious that anti-semitism belongs here, and that your edits are a backhanded way to push a WP:POV. Please, you are an intelligent person, you KNOW that the criticism is that it is anti-semetic, and that it is predominantly an Arab claim, so both of those categories are eminently logical and belong. -- Avi 21:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the ArbComm case on the article, Arbitrator Fred Bauder has cited an earlier edit which added the article to the cat Category:Anti-Semitism as an example of "extreme bias". That is why I removed the Islam and anti-Semitism cat and similar links, they seem to be an attempt to make a POV comment on the phrase.Homey 21:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will investigate, and then discuss it with Mr. Bauder if necessary. It seems completely selbst-verständlich from the article that it belongs. -- Avi 21:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

While your edits can be viewed as biased, categories are a special item. For example Golan heights can legitimately be included in both the geography of Syria and Israel. Inclusion in a category does not signify a fact, only that information regarding a matter may be found there. Certainly there is information extant which paints discussion of Israeli apartheid as anti-Semitism. I think use of the term is mostly by the Western left, particularly South African, English and Israeli. Arabs, who are practitioners of segregation and discrimination themselves, are unlikely to take such a tack. Fred Bauder 20:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

So, if I understand you correctly, since categories do not indicate facts, but collections of knowledge, and since, as you say “…there is information extant which paints discussion of Israeli apartheid as anti-Semitism,” are you in agreement with me that the categories should be there, or am I misunderstanding something? Thank you. -- Avi 16:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check user request - possible misuse on AfDs

Regarding this AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gangsters_In_Love#.5B.5BGangsters_In_Love.5D.5D. There has been a long drawn out conversation regarding the author proving the notability of this. He claimed he was going to, then suddenly disappeared after leaving a keep comment without editing the article to include the things he said he would. After doing so, two brand new users showed up to provide long statements about how the article should be kept. As such I suspect there is likely sockpuppetry going on. I've never done one of these so I'm not sure if I just ask you directly or what here. Essentially I want to know if these 3 are the same or any combination there of, maybe only one is a sock puppet.

The reason I also ask is because Bign2003 has shown that he's willing ot repeatedly ignore wikipedia rules by recreating deleted content, etc to get this information on the encyclopedia, so I wouldn't put it above him to use sock puppets. Thanks in advance.--Crossmr 20:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and if I don't ask you directly, is there somewhere I do ask for this?--Crossmr 16:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI 1

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid/Evidence#Comment_on_Zeq

FYI -2 (unrelated to FYI 1)

This require examonation as it is a clear bviolation of creating a safe environment for editing an encyclopedia:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid/Evidence#Threats_on_me Zeq 06:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

simple antisemitism

I have been, all my adult life, a strong activist against Likud governments. I support a full Israel withdrawal from all areas captured in 67, including e. jerusalem. I wish Israel will have peace with an independent strong Palestinian state next to it. I am, in the Israeli political map, considered to be "far left"

But there are those who dispute my right to live in my country. Hamas does not accept it, Hizbulla does not accpet it and some European and lefty intectulas who think Israel should become a country that is ruled by the combined majority Palestinian population (in Israel+ the occupied territory).

Such views, are not only anti-Semitic, but also cause great suffering to the Palestinian people because they make the real solution (two states) impossible to implement. A quick look at Lebanon shows us what happened in the ME when a country is designed without respecting different nationalities.


I strongly suggest you take a break from arbCom and learn about the subject of Zionism. somehow it seems to occupy you too much. Zeq 20:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was appointed because I am willing to deal with difficult matters (and difficult people). I do not have any fixed solution to the political problems faced by Israel other than adequate provision for the welfare of every person and group in Israel/Palestine and the surrounding area. Fred Bauder 21:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your distorted view of what Zionism is has made it difficult for you to deal with difficult siatuations. hence the "general amnesty" and "zionist bias" suggestion. None of them show an ability to deal with the situation head-on. You only "step" onm the weak in opposition to some wikipedia piolicy which i don't need to quote to you cause surly you know it.
Tackle the real problems, the stronger, exprianced editors who should know better: If you think Jay or Slim or Homey broke laws: deal with it. Instead this whole case is turning into banning me. ridiculus and shows lack of sense of judgment. Similarly your suggestion to use google hits as a measure for encyclopdic importance is completly reidiculus. see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FIsraeli_apartheid%2FEvidence&diff=65446481&oldid=65393627 Zeq 05:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "stronger, experienced" editors have been punished enough just by the existence of this trouble. Fred Bauder 14:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them are those who created this article as a propeganda against israel. They may have done it out of their frustrtaion at the "new antisemitism" article.

Is it possible for a person to be Jewish and antisemitic and yet not define himself as such ? In any case Wikipedia has policies which you as an arbitor need to uphold. Wikipedia should be able to implemnet it's own policies such WP:Not and WP:NPOV

Zeq 17:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dissident "evidence"

I'm not exactly sure what those edits to various articles over a lengthy period have to do with this case, nor, frankly, do I remember making them, but it looks like a stylistic thing to me. I'm also a little concerned that these cases seem to be turning into big complaint-fests where anyone with a beef can put up any "evidence" they want, from any time, and on any topic, to try to smear an editor they don't like. Jayjg (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ericsaindon2 Block

Hello, I was recently blocked by you (I believe it was on the 18th of July). Now, I was wondering if you would lift that block for I beleive I have learned my lesson. I am truely sorry for the edit I made, and it was childish and using bad faith. I would like to return to actively editing pages using a more proper and less controversial approach, and would like to add comments to my current Rfa. I am really sorry. I will try to make a plead in that if I make any edit you find that you do not particularly like, then you can put me back onto a ban starting my month over. That is how seriously I want to get back to defending my Rfa and working on pages. Now, I was not sure how to email you under a IP number, so I had to contact you this way for I found no other way to do so. Please consider, and leave a message on my IP page or here, for I will check both until a response is recieved. 

Thank You, --69.232.60.244 05:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is best to just let the month run out. Very dishonest edit. We probably have enough information to process the arbitration case. Fred Bauder 13:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

I stopped doing those things about a week ago —Min un Spiderman 10:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, see you in August, 2007. Fred Bauder 17:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFARB Eternal Equinox

Your proposed finding of fact that I restored a message on User talk:Eternal Equinox is misleading to put it mildly. As the page history shows, and as Bunchofgrapes has pointed out on the workshop page, my restoration of Jim62sch's message was accidental and immediately self-reverted. Bishonen | talk 18:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Oh Fred Bauder 18:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ericsaindon2 Block Reply

I was just frustrated with the whole situation. First, Will Beback tells me to go on a block for 24 hours for a split 3rr between me and OC31113 (I made 1 revert and he made 2 in 24 hours). Almost 9 days later, I was still blocked, but OC31113 was unblocked, it must have been filed wrong. So I emailed Will Beback, but he never returned my email, so OC31113 (which he was an internet friend, but I have never met him) decided to let me use his account after he sent me an email saying that he would be away, adn he wanted me to use it. So I did, and now, for Will Beback's mistake, I am being punished? I dont understand it. And that is why I was frustrated because Will rubbed it in my face when his error caused the whole issue (and I should not have even recieved a block for I only made 1 revert, and you must make 3 in 24 hours) --69.227.172.123 05:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Best to use just one account. And if you are blocked for a month, wait for the month to run out. Fred Bauder 11:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would not have had to use 2 accounts if Will had correctly punished me with the 24 hour ban. Why are you pinning this on me when I should have not even been banned in the first place (because last time I checked 1 and 3 are not the same number). It was Will who made the assumption that because a supporter of mine made 2 edits, and I made 1, that is good enough for a 3rr. It does not work like that. Are you even listening? --69.227.172.123 16:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your block is based on this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=64523719 Fred Bauder 17:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know what my ban is based upon, it just seemed like an injustice at the time, and I apologize. I knew it would come back positive, and I knew I would hear about it from the two users who like to bash me. I did not think that the statement made justice, for it made it sound like it "had" to be my sockpuppet, when I am sure there is a lot of account swapping going on. I apologize though.--69.227.172.123 17:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your apology. Fred Bauder 18:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respect

Fred,

I have a lot of respect for you although I disagree about your view of zionism and about Zio-bias in wiki. I made a motion, there is a discussion (see this [23] I think it is minimal respect to me and otherwikipedians that you back up your assertion of Zio bias in wiki with sytematic, wikipedia-wide conculsive evidence and that after you present this evidence all the arbitors rule on the motion. If indeed you will proove this bias this may not be needed cause i will remove the motion. Yours, (with respect) Zeq 19:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You should backup your accusations. Zeq 19:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zio wiki = [24] ? Zeq 14:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He also think Wikipedia is biased: [25]

am I going to get a respectable reply from you ? If not just say so. Zeq 14:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WordBomb

Should this be taken to ArbCom?? This user should be unblocked on condition that he only edits his user and user talk pages, and ArbCom case. Is this a suitable solution to the problem?? --TheM62Manchester 08:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, Fred. I was only trying to be helpful. Thanks for the constructive criticism, though. --TheM62Manchester 09:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WordBomb checkuser

Checkuser results you recently listed are archived at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/WordBomb. Kevin_b_er 10:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


My Arbcomm case

Hi. I've mentioned this several times, although you might have missed it...Publicola is the one suggesting the problem is a majority representing a pro-jewish bias. I don't believe that's the case. In the instances where Israeli-POV is a problem, I believe the Israeli/Palestinian drama may be being exploited to feed what is actually plain ol' Islamophobia. Timothy Usher is a Christian, not a Jew, and he has not been representing a pro-Jewish or pro-Israeli POV in anything that he's posted. His talk page discussion with Netscott suggests he may share an American POV ("we're in a war, you know"). None of the listed parties in this case is expressing or implying the Jewish POV is a problem. I am alleging there's an anti-Islamic mentality that's generating the Islam-bashing. Whether those sharing that mentality justify their prejudice citing American, Israeli, or secular interests is a matter I'm not involved in disputing. His Excellency... 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't missed it. If there is bias, the motivation for it is not that important; it is not in accord with our neutral point of view policy. Fred Bauder 17:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ericsaindon2 -Reply

Hello again, I really would like to add some infoboxes to the Los Angeles County pages as well as work on the ArbCom case against myself. I have not been able to do that, and I would appreciate it if you would unblock me. I have tried to make minor edits to the ArbCom case and my user page but was quickly blocked each time, and I would just like to continue making some constructive edits. I will not abuse good faith, if you give me a chance to show that I do have some. Please unblock me, at least until the conclusion of the ArbCom case, and I will show you that I like to make quality edits, and would like to continue. Just give me a chance. I have been on punishment for 16 days, and I really want to work on the infoboxes for cities that lack them, so I beg you, pleassseeee. Ericsaindon2 04:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After I start looking at the case I will consider it. Fred Bauder 12:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:LebanonChild turning userpage into blog

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LebanonChild

Please check it out.

He's editing too. Fred Bauder 00:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Can we start the voting on the Ericsaindon2 case. It is not getting any more additional information, and is getting dusty, and needs to start moving. Thank you. --69.238.59.209 04:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing His excellency. Fred Bauder 12:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Locus of Dispute

Please correct the following entry: Locus of dispute where you refer to me as "a disciple of the guru". I am not a disciple/devotee/follower and have already clarified this on the Workshop page: Ref. You can describe me as a proponent or advocate. Thank you. SSS108 talk-email 16:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mantanmoreland

Fred, can you please post your check user results re Mantanmoreland and Lastexit at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Unsorted results? Barbamama 16:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've had enough of that. Fred Bauder 18:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arb case:Kehrli

I have been waiting patiently for some response by the committee regarding this arbitration case Kehrli. I do not mean to solicit but it seems necessary or even helpful to bring this to the attention of the committee members directly.

Thank you--Nick Y. 18:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might get to new requests soon. Fred Bauder 18:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks--Nick Y. 21:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find your response to this case baffling. If taking on this case seems like a daunting task I understand however your suggestion makes no sense in any way. How am I supposed to sort out the uncivilized and disruptive behavior of another editor on the talk pages??? I think you may be lost in the content dispute smokescreen. I have not requested that the content dispute be resolved mearly the appropriate framework and behavior in which such could occur to be enforced. This is a serious behavior problem and has annoyed other people than me such that many have quit contributing to these articles, including the head of the IUPAC commitee that is the law on such matters. There is no other way to solve this problem other than serious attention by someone with the ability to enforce decisions consistent with the policies and spirit of wikipedia. --Nick Y. 16:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, it is now time that you realize that you are the person that is wrong. Wikipedia is not the place to change the rules established by the wider scientific community. You lost a request for deletion, you lost this case, now it is time to stop your vandalizm. Thanks. --Kehrli 18:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Polite, aren't you. What is the current practice in the technical literature? Fred Bauder 18:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Current practice within the field of mass spectrometry is m/z for the abcissa of a mass spectrum. m and q as independent variables within electrodynamics (physics problems) with units in SI units, sometimes in cgs (cm, gram, sec) rather than mks (meter, Kg, sec) and occasionally in atomic units. Within the broader physics field the same as the physics half of mass spectrometry. In defense of the other side the unit Th still sporatically appears in combination with m/z however the number of appearances is very very low relative to the IUPAC standard m/z or the physics standard m/q in SI units. Also it never appears in combination with m/q ever, not a single solitary time in all of history, except on wikipedia, if that counts. Most journals specifically require m/z for the abcissa of a mass spectrum. IUPAC has rejected the unit Th in favor of m/z for this purpose. I personally think the unit Th deserves its own page and mention on related pages but should be accurately represented. --Nick Y. 17:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the arb request User:Cacycle has added a much better argument for accepting the request than I did. Definately an impressive argument worth reading which vocalizes much more elequantly, accurately and succinctly what i was trying to say. Also I have added a note about Kehrli threatening me that hew will ban me from wikipedia if I continue to readd the dispute tags that he removes. --Nick Y. 17:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your careful reconsideration as to weather to accept the arb case. It is easy to get mired in the technical details and it does require careful consideration to understand the nature of the situation. I understand that the real decisions will be made later however I have faith in your integrity as an arbiter and your fidelity to the princples of wikipedia. Let me know how I can be of help.--Nick Y. 20:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPT arbitration

I had all but resigned myself to this case being closed as it stands, but your comment on the motion to close opens up a glimmer of hope. I stand willing to assist the committee, although I should tell you that my position on proposal no. 1 (article ban) remains unchanged: I do not accept any article ban of any length. I still want to consider myself a Wikipedian, but such an article ban as proposed is a vote of no confidence in all of my contributions and as such I could not in all conscience continue.

Should the committee decide on an article ban then there are several ways for me to express my displeasure. A lengthy ban (of the order of 1 year) would lead me to leave Wikipedia until it was repudiated. A shorter ban (of the order of 1 month) would not, although I would not edit while it was still in place (needless to say, use of admin functions is included in editing). Please get in touch if you would like me to help. David | Talk 13:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hello Fred : - ) Thank you for helping sort out the sock/meatpuppets related to WordBomb. It was obvious to me that they were not all WordBomb so I started marking my blocks as sock/meatpuppet. Good to have it backed up by you and Jayjg. Take care, FloNight talk 15:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case SG

Hi, thanks for responding to my request for arbitration, but Spahbod is not a sockpuppet. I've responded on my talk page. Could we get him unblocked and the arbitration back? ♠ SG →Talk 17:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have checked the block log. ♠ SG →Talk 21:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note from User:Minun on proposed decision page

Crossposted from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun/Proposed decision

Not to users: I don't know if this is the right place to state this, but I justthink its important you know this : I've stopped doing thesr things (about 1-2 weeks ago) and am making good edits, please ask a couple of other editors, particulary the ones who commented on my talk pahge (including the archives) and the Pokémon Collaborative Project. I am about to apologize to HighwayCello, im being truthful about this, so please read my contributions, cheers —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 18:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologized [26] —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 19:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crossposted to arbitrators' talk page —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 19:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Equinox case

Dear Mr Bauder, I appreciate you are very busy considering other cases, but I wonder if you've had time to check in on your suggestion to ban Giano and caution others in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox. It has illicited quite vociferous comment from a number of users, myself included. Particularly here. Whilst it can be acknowledged that Giano et.al conducted themselves in a not-quite exemplary fashion in dealing with Eternal equinox's trolling; it has come as quite a surprise to everyone that knows these users, that they may receive severe punishment for their responses. Giano, it must be said, can be prickly on occasion, but usually there is warmth and wit beneath his comments and for each damning jibe he may have made, I'm sure you will find 10 that will make you smile if you were to look further - not to mention many outstanding article contributions (Which presumably is the purpose of wikipedia) rather than dealing with trolls.

The purpose of my writing is to petition you to re-think and hopefully change your vote in the proposed decision section of the case in the light of strong character references from a number of other productive users. Secondly, I would like to question the process of the 'Workshop' - I note that you proposed the sanction on Giano at 17:13 on the 25th July and yet the proposal endorsing the ban was supported by you at 22:33 on the same day. The header of the workshop states:- "Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in proposed decisions". So the assumption here is that after only 7 hours of inviting general users to 'workshop' the decisions, your mind was made up and a decision made. I'm sure you have many cases where nobody ever comments, but in this case I would again ask you to review the comments the workshop has received and reconsider your position. Assuming that the lay user is entitled to some say in these matters. Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsed and seconded, for many of the reasons discussed on the Workshop page for the case (including in my own comment there). Let me add that I endorse only the substantive comments found there about the case and its subjects, and not the unnecessary comments about an individual arbitrator. I'm aware that recently, you've been pulling the laboring oar in most of the arbitration cases. Newyorkbrad 18:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked User:ExHomey

I blocked this account for imposter/username problems among other issues such as abusive sockpuppets. See AN/I: [27] ExHomey opened a RFAr then reverted it. Please comment on whether this account should stay blocked if it is determined to be the "real" Homey. --FloNight talk 02:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for your comment on FloNight's talk page; 'I also unblocked Homeonetherange. The password is lost and the only effect is to autoblock his new account.'; I suppose he can always email a password to himself. --TheM62Manchester 17:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When will it be over

I am looking at my ArbCom case, and I see noting being achieved. Someone adds one thing, and it sits there for days on end. Does that mean nothing will come out of it, or I really did not do as much wrong as the other users made it sound? Plus, I thought this was against me, so why is there all this positive stuff on there? I mean, it is good and all, but if your finding state that I really have not done much wrong (and the stuff I did wrong I apologized for) you seem to want to pursue a year of punishment? --Ericsaindon2 06:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for replying first, but I wouldn't expect anything better from this ArbCom. They couldn't be less responsive if they were passing all their messages from a lead lined room in a nuclear bunker built a mile underground and totally disconnected from any means of communication. Although one should still try to get through to them, if only for the sake of form. David | Talk 15:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPT arbitration (a reprise)

I have put a reply on my own talk page but you may not have had chance to read it. Since you're reconsidering a minor part of the decision, I don't see why you shouldn't reconsider the more important bit at the same time. It will not matter a jot what you decide about admin status if I am forced to leave Wikipedia by the insult of proposed decision no. 1, the article ban. However, I have indicated that I'm prepared to enter into negotiation to get the article ban removed and so indeed I am, without any preconditions.

It does seem a bit strange to me. I started at Wikipedia because I hate factual errors. I started correcting them and that was what I was doing on Thursday. I don't see why correcting a blatant obvious factual error is such a bad thing. Comment is free, facts are sacred, as C.P. Scott said, and a fact is just as factual whoever writes it. David | Talk 15:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without rushing to my dictionary, there is a fundamental difference between the word "righteous" and the word "right". In any case, whether or not the ban is "right" is not necessarily relevant. I want to negotiate to see if an alternative decision can be arrived at, which would presumably have to involve other forms of restrictions but not an article ban. If you are saying that there is absolutely nothing in existence which could possibly suffice then (a) that's an unbelievably pig-headed attitude and (b) I'm wasting my time. But if there is a possibility, then let us open negotiations without delay. I hope this is clear enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dbiv (talk • contribs) . (sorry, couldn't be arsed to log in)
I guess I use "righteous" to mean "well founded". The time to negotiate was when you were edit-warring. Fred Bauder 18:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried. My adversary refused to negotiate. But given you have got so many of the other facts wrong perhaps I should not be surprised that you should come up with such a feeble justification for pig-headedness. 80.177.212.6 19:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! (Pint of blood)

FB! You completely misunderstood me!

  • Yas and I have settled our differences earlier, see s/his talk.
  • I was completely uninvolved with Hamas and had s/his talk on my watchlist due to our previous disagreements over Cat:Anit-arab people
  • The comment was absolutely not a personal attack against s/him, particularly since I don't have any reason to believe s/he is palestinian, rather it was a friendly and and obviously preposterous comment, made with the intention of fostering dialogue on the extent of Jew-Zionist world domination of Wikipedia.
  • Finally, even if you were justified in suspending AGF and interpreting my facetious comment as a P.A., surely something like {{NPA}} would have sufficed!

Latest Tiscali range block

Hi. The latest Tiscali range block also blocked regular logged in users. Was this intentional? It may be possible to change this to an anon block/no new user. Otherwise keep me updated on the latest Tojo developments. Thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick/Proposed decision

Hey, you said you stored the checkuser data for further referance. Is it possible to spread that info to other checkusers? Or maybe another method such as the private arbcom/checuser mailing lists. I just want the checkuser logs to have backups. :) --Cat out 13:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gaza

I have provided links to numerous primary, secondary and tertiary sources of information. Please review and reconsider your vote for arbitration.

Carbonate 00:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cute 1 4 u

I noticed your post on AN/I. User:Cute 1 4 u is the puppet master of socks User:Raven Symone (a celeb. impersonator account of Raven Symone which fools Lindsay1980), User:Gemini531(who claimed on my talkpage [[28]]) Both have been proven by the below checkuser request [[29]]. Someone added an indef block template on Gemini531's userpage but according to the block log, no block was warranted.

In addition, I also crosspost this from AN/I in case you didn't notice posted by User:Phr, Cute 1 4 u (talk · contribs)'s page is pretty disturbing too. That user claims to be 11 on Wikipedia, 13 on Youtube [30], and 14 on blackplanet [31], with "Body type: Very Slim, Curvey, & Sexy 'cause I workout 6 days a week fo' a hour; Best Features: Lips, Face, Hips, booty, legs", and made a contact attempt on Lindsay1980's talk page [32] that could be seen as possibly unsavory depending on Cute 1 4 u's real situation (especially since I think "Raven Symone" turned out to be a sock of Cute 1 4 u).

Please take a look at the situation and see if a block for disruption is necessary. Thanks.--Bonafide.hustla 08:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M/z dispute

Fred, what is it that made you change your mind on this issue? I still think that I am defending the official notation and that Nick is defending a minority POV. --Kehrli 12:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that while you may be "correct" that you might not be following the practice followed in academic journals. Please research this for us. Fred Bauder 12:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fred, I did do a lot of research in this. Here are my conclusions:
  • The term mass-to-charge ratio is not used by mass spectrometrists only, but by very different scientific fields like Lithography, electron microscopy, cathode ray tubes, accelerator physics, nuclear physics, Auger spectroscopy, cosmology. All those fields use m/Q or m/q except for mass spectrometry where also m/z is inconsistently used (see below). Also, the IUPAC green book and the international standards in ISO 31 recommend m for mass and Q for charge.
  • within the mass spec community many different notations are used: m/q, m/e, m/z.
  • of those people that use the notation m/z there are at least 3 different incompatible usages: m/z used as mass-to-charge ratio, m/z used as mass per charge number, and m/z used as mass number per charge number. These three different usages and their "legistaltion" is explained in detail in my article m/z.
  • the important point is: the latest "legislation" (writen by a IUPAC mass spectrometrist) explicitly states that m/z is no longer considered a mass-to-charge ratio (please find this statement also in the article m/z or directly here[33]). And here is my first critique on Nick's mass spectrometry article where he repedetly uses m/z as a mass-to-charge ratio. My point is: either he uses m/z and drops mass-to-charge ratio or he keeps mass-to-charge ratio and uses another synonym (e.g. m/Q) that is not explicitly "depricated" for the use as a mass-to-charge ratio. m/z now is a quantity for mass per charge number and no longer a mass-to-charge ratio. (I am in no way a promoter of this new definition, but since it is made by IUPAC we should respect it on Wikipedia).
  • since this new rule (that m/z no longer is a mass-to-charge ratio) is only a few months old, it is of course still possible to find many (old or old style) papers where m/z is used as a mass-to-charge ratio. But I think this should not be a reason to stick to the outdated definition in the Wikipedia mass spectra article. (To make matters even more complicated: I think already the previous m/z "legislation" (see m/z) made clear that it is no longer a mass-to-charge ratio, but Nick would disagree with this.)
  • There are other points where I disagree with Nick, but I do not want to "overload" you. Please note that my point is backed by (in order of importance) the ISO 31, the IUPAC green book, and the most recent IUPAC mass spec legislation, whereas Nick's POV has no backing except some old papers from the time when m/z was still considered a mass-to-charge ratio. (Many of those are also listed in the m/z article).
I hope you find the time to research my arguments and I am awaiting your conclusions. --Kehrli 06:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred the Tojo Slayer

I dub thee Fred the Tojo Slayer

Good grief, Fred, I'm glad you don't have too many other hobbies! Thatcher131 (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On that subject. I think User:Les4555 is another of his/her sockpuppets. AlistairMcMillan 01:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Schwarz

Is your stubification and protection of Barbara Schwarz an office action or sanctioned by the wikimedia foundation? If not, I think it's best that the article be unprotected and selectively unstubified. Your protection comment was not particularly enlightening and the action was destructive and seemingly unilateral. I hope you reverse this. BrokenSegue 02:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might have something to do with the fact that Barbara is also known for filing a large number of lawsuits. :-) the real Steve Dufour 04:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She is also known for never winning a single one. Including against the SLC Tribune. --Tilman 05:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Bauder should also delete and lock the article about the Star Wars kid. It makes him look bad. It concentrates on a few minutes of an embarassing video, that was published illegally. He is a private citizen, he never wanted to be a public figure.--Tilman 05:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Lay should also be stubbed. The article makes it look as if he's guilty for something. He never wanted to be on Wikipedia. --Tilman 05:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at those. The reason given is the real reason. To make it possible to conform the article to the requirements of WP:BLP. Fred Bauder 08:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred. I've not seen the template you used on the article before, but I take it that it allows admins to edit the article while it's protected? In which case, since I know something of the background to this matter, I might have a go myself. -- ChrisO 15:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Biography protection

Template:Biography protection has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. BrokenSegue 01:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Schwarz or 216.190.11.33

On the Talk:Barbara Schwarz page, Ms. Schwarz (or rather 216.190.11.33 (talk · contribs) has attempted to identify the personal information including her guess at the real life name of another editor as well as what she alleges to be the personal court records of that editor. I have exchanged her guess at the name with XXXXXXXXXXXs but I believe each of her edits that are personal attacks on other editors and especially those that attempt to publish personal details about editors should be completely removed from Wiki. She has been warned not to do this on numerous IP addresses that she has used to post here, but she continues in the practice anyway. Thanks for your time and consideration of the matter. Vivaldi (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vivaldi. I'm sorry that Barbara is doing that. However that is kind of, well, the way she is. I'm glad you XX'ed out the names. On the other hand I don't think any harm would have been done to the persons named since the only people who would ever visit the page are Barbara herself, a small group of people who don't like seem to like her very much, myself, and a few Wikipedia do-gooders. Steve Dufour 16:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so if she alleges that her privacy is being violated by republishing what has already been published in newspapers and what she herself has chosen to publish on Usenet, she has to send you here to attempt to delete it, both through legitimate means (AfD) and illegitimate means (speedy delete process after the AfD fails, where speedy delete is only for cases so obvious that it would be a waste of time to put them through AfD) -- but, if Barbara is attempting to violate the privacy of others, "that is kind of, well, the way she is" and it really doesn't matter? Really nice person you've sacrificed your integrity for, Steve. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More BLP to take a look at

You should take a look at a few more BLPs while you are in the mood for culling information.

Sollog for a start. Why is this man's birth date, real-life name, and criminal record on Wikipedia? Why are posts that are only available on Usenet used to defame him? Not just his own posts, there are many claims attributed to 3rd party sources that are only available on Usenet.

Bill Gothard. Why should we allow him to be defamed using sources that are self-published and unreliable?

Fred Phelps. Why is this article allowed to stay? Nearly every single claim is sourced to the same unverifiable source. In fact, the source is UNPUBLISHED! You can't even verify if it is a legitimate source at all. You realize that Mr. Phelps is also a living person?

I would mention Kenneth Lay too, but since he's dead, Wikipedia can say whatever they want about him, just like Wikipedia does at Jack Hyles, who died a few years ago. Once a person is dead you can talk about how they were caught molesting a sheep and put it right in an article, using only the persons most-hated enemy's blog as source.

I sincerely hope you get to work and start culling all the BLPs. Vivaldi (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh My God! - Wikipedia killed Kenny! [34] --Tilman 05:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing Barbara Schwarz is challenge enough for now. Fred Bauder 02:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. Don't spend too much time on it or someone will accuse you of being obsessed with her! Vivaldi (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think everything should stop until Barbara has a accurate article. I am sure that there are millions of people who come to Wikipedia to find out about her. the real Steve Dufour 05:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, stopping everything until Barbara Schwarz has an accurate article is not the way Wikipedia usually works. However it would be good to write a draft version before posting it at the main name space. Feel free to use User:Andries/Barbara Schwarz for that, though I hardly know anything about her and have no interest to research her life and the sources for the article about her. Andries 09:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer Andries. I have excused myself from editing the article itself however. Steve Dufour 15:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can still find the article with all its sources through google cache and similar. --Tilman 10:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deir Yassin massacre and Palestinian exodus

Dear Fred, Would you have time to comment on whether this book is a reliable source for these articles? Thanks. --Ian Pitchford 09:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be interested if you have an opinion on the addition of these dubious, unsourced and/or irrelevant quotations to the article on the Palestinian exodus and how such material should be handled. The one from The Times is obviously fake as the actual article mentions the Haganah "advice" to the Arabs that they should "evacuate all women and children, because they would be strongly attacked from now on" (The Times, Thursday, Apr 22, 1948; pg. 4; Issue 51052; col D). --Ian Pitchford 23:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are no good because, unlike the Times article, they generally cannot be checked. However, this looks like government work. I would not be surprised if the "author" could come up with title of the article, day published, etc, if pressed. I don't doubt the point being made. The Arabs figured the ywould win easily. I would focus on verifiability. Fred Bauder 23:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Norman3412

Thanks for blocking this account. Based on his hoax vandalism to Brand X-related articles and libellous edits to biographies of black people, I believe he's actually a sockpuppet of Kenwood 3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Just thought I'd let you know in case you happen to see any more of them. (Unless Kenwood is Tojo as well... what a thought.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CoolKatt number 99999 Arbcom case

No mention in any voting proposals on his legal threats? --CFIF (talk to me) 15:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Arbcom Case

If you really intend on ignoring the offenses of the other parties here and only adressing my actions, please say so. I'll withdraw my participation from the case completely and delete all of my comments. I'm not interested a process that has never intended to serve as anything but a prosecution against one person. I've repeatedly asked if all parties will be looked at and addressed. The response was repeatedly "yes they will". The way you're setting things up ignores everything but my actions. As such, that robs the process of context and any degree of analysis. That's not 'dispute resolution'. His Excellency... 00:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you did is much more serious. Fred Bauder 00:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That what I did is "much more serious" doesn't justify you turning a blind eye to everything else going on in these articles. I don't think the fact that articles are being turned into anti-Islam propaganda is a minor problem. Certainly not one unworthy of at least consideration when evidence is brought forward before arbitration. You could always voice your findings that there is no such bias. That I and Bishonen and Zora and others are all imagining things. You haven't answered my question- do you have any intention of addressing any of the points I made, or are the arbitrators going to turn a blind eye to everything I've said regarding the other users? If so, say so. His Excellency... 04:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that they can't be sanctioned when there is an atmosphere of overt anti-semitism which you are creating by your attacks. That has to come first. So there is a slap on the wrist for you. Which, I can assure you, they are not satisfied with. Beyond that are a number of principles included in the decision which are directed toward them, particularly regarding allowing presentation of the Islamic point of view without quarreling endlessly over sources. Fred Bauder 09:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-semitism? I made two comments on my talk page, one which l deleted in less than a minute of posting it. Other than that, there's no 'anti-semitism' to speak of. There is, however, tons of evidence of anti-Islamic hatred pointed out in my evidences page, all of which you choose to neglect. On talk pages you admit to finding Pecher's works biased, but you choose to not reflect any of that in the Proposed Findings page. What you're suggesting is that you take 1 comment on Jews (ie the use of the phrase "those Jews") to be more serious than the scores of occasions where clear and obvious anti-Muslim hatred was shown. This in itself is an extreme bias on your part. You're suggesting that The Jewish Wikipedian warrants far greater protections for slights against him than the Muslim Wikipedian does, even when the attacks against the Muslim community here is far more derogatory and systemic. That's racist. Timothy Usher isn't a Jew. I don't know what Merzbow and Pecher are. "Anti-semitism" has no role in this dispute at all. Their actions weren't as a result of some anti-semetic atmosphere. His Excellency... 16:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Semitic remarks play a major role in this decision. Thus the 4 month block. As I suggested, next time may be for 6 months. The fact that you don't take the matter seriously just convinces me that the decision is correct in that respect. Fred Bauder 16:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have not contested the penalties for making those remarks. I do feel the 3 month ban for the second comment is excessive given I self-reverted immediately. That's clearly evidence that I feel I should be accountable for what I say. You're making the ridiculous arguement that you cannot hold more than 1 person accoutable at any given time. There is no logic or reason that can explain how two allegedly anti-semitic remarks on my part makes it impossible for you to take into account the many attacks against Muslims by these users. That holding me responsible for my actions means turning a blind eye to my entire evidences section reflecting Timothy Usher's frequent and merciless attacks on Muslims, on Pecher's abuse of sources to push propaganda (not merely a 'bias'), and on Merzbow's gaming of the system to silence me. You seemed fair enough in the Workshop page, asking for evidences when I listed proposed findings regarding Timothy Usher's actions. It's evident to me now that you were engaging in some sort of a joke. I have to question how seriously you're taking all of this. His Excellency... 16:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Schwarz

Fred, I really don't feel comfortable with unblocking Barbara Schwarz right now. After I'd put three warning templates on her talk page for three distinct serious violations of basic Wikiquette, I came to the view that her violations were so severe, repeated and egregrious that an indefinite block was the only satisfactory measure. The "outing" of another user was a particularly serious point, considering that the article is closely related to a subject - Scientology - in which being publicly known can have and has had dangerous consequences (stalking, anonymous threats, poison pen letters etc). In my experience, people who criticise Scientology anonymously often have very good reasons for doing so.

I don't mind Barbara contributing to Talk:Barbara Schwarz, of course, but she mustn't do so in a way that puts other users at risk. I've asked her to promise not to make personal attacks or expose other users' identities (see User talk:The real Barbara Schwarz). Complying with our harassment policy has got to be a minimum standard for anyone who uses Wikipedia. If she says she'll abide by it, fine, otherwise our users' safety has to come first. -- ChrisO 00:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-Homey

Could you please review the most recent developments in this situation. I believe that FeloniousMonk may have acted inappropriately. CJCurrie 04:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Felonious did the right thing in re-blocking Homeontherange. He was unblocked so that he could take part in the various arbitration cases against him (though to the best of my knowledge, all he has done is try to cause trouble on the talk pages). However, he today went through all his sockpuppet accounts and re-labeled them "alternate accounts," [35] having previously denied they had anything to do with him. It's disruptive and provocative behavior, and it's not what he was unblocked for. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


RfC/RfA?

In reading these, they seem to "primarily" be about dealing with 2 or more specific people. While that isn't always true, if it gets to Arbcom, typically it is. (You would know this better than I. I am merely going by what I've been reading.)

That said, there is a policy that I would like to see clarified. Rather than presume that there are those repeatedly abusing their priviledges, or fostering a unilateral attitude, even in the face of opposing concensus, I would like to presume that there is a misunderstanding.

I would make it an RfC (policy), except that this topic has become so pervasive, and riddled with controversy in the past, even though currently, it seems only a handful are "misunderstanding".

So I would like to skip some steps and have the "authority" of Arbcom make some choices about it.

The topic is about userboxes, and WP:GUS.

As I read it (the first text section by J. Wales, for example), and as I've consistantly read arbcom comments about it, the only ones to be userfied or speedied are those that are "divisive or inflammatory".

"Templates, particularly userboxes, which are divisive or inflammatory may be speedily deleted; see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Templates. For discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Comment on project page asked for links to Jimbo's opinions, and especially Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Regarding the new Template CSD. However, Jimbo Wales has urged both caution in deleting userboxes while the policy is discussed, and, in particular, restraint in reversing others' deletions or undeletions."

However there are several that are attempting to userfy ALL userboxes. Which goes counter to WP:GUS, WP:JOU, WP:USER, etc., etc. and is more even than the original admin was attempting in January. (I have many more examples and citations, if wanted, or necessary). In the interests of full disclosure, I've made similar comments on several TfDs, and directly asked an editor and an admin about it (one was neutral, the other interested in "ALL"). However, as far as I know there was no personal attacks/verbal dispute, except for this apparent misunderstanding. On the TfDs, when there was a result of "no concensus", it would be closed, with a note to userfy all userboxes in question. Which would seem to me to go directly against the process.

What do you think would be the best path to deal with all of this? As I said, I would rather not name editors/admins specifically, and to AGF. But I feel that the question of "ALL" vs. "divisive or inflammatory", is in need of being decided upon. I would appreciate any/all insight you can provide. I read above that the question of recusal can be an issue, so, while offering insight, please don't do anything that would cause you to need to recuse yourself in the future. : ) Thank you. (I'll be "watching" here : ) - Jc37 04:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I generally support userboxes but see no harm in userfying them or in deleting the most divisive. The ones that are fun; I just like. Fred Bauder 00:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but that's the trouble. What's being userfied, and deleted are ones that are *not* divisive. Template:User DAoC was one, and that was after there was a TfD on the individual DAoC templates, since an editor has combined them into a single template. Later, an admin deleted the merged template. There are many other examples (which I can share with you, if you wish), but I'm trying to stay away from specifics. My concern is that it's been stated to me that the userboxes listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Media is next "on their list".
To me, there are two aspects of how someone or something on/at Wikipedia can be considered "encyclopedic": 1.) active - active writing/typing/editing of articles 2.) passive - work providing a good and positive environment for such active work. THis include the wikipedia community, and communication. And is, I believe, why we have environmental "release valves", such as protection, blocks, 3RR, and so on. Those deal with the negatives. The positives are things like The Signpost, the Pump, and userboxes.
I also feel that by removing all userboxes from template space, we run into several separate issues.
  • The 2 or 3 users who have volunteered to have their userspace become the "new" wikipedia:userboxes subpages could intentionally, or even unintentionally, be straying into WP:OWN. The whole question of de facto vs de jure. These are becoming de facto mini wiki reserviors within wikipedia.
  • multi-user editing, and transclusion. If they remain in template space, userboxes will benefit from multi-user editing (among other things, not everyone is a professional coder, or even knows things like noinclude).
  • broken categories. Categories are throughout the userboxes. Imagine 100 users with 100 slightly different versions of "This user is interested in Harry Potter". You now have the possibility of 100 separate categories, populated by 1, or perhaps even several people. Eventually, as they are found, they can be merged. If the userbox was in template space, listed on a wikipedia:userboxes subpage, all of that could be rather easily (and painlessly) prevented.
So all of that said. I believe that "they" are attempting to delete or userfy ANY userbox that they arbitrarily decide is not "encyclopedic" (I have a link to someone giving their very narrow definition of that). Before this "goes too far", I would like an official "proclamation" (by whatever process would be most appropriate) reaffirming that WP:GUS only applies to divisive or inflammatory. What would you think is my best recourse? (including "cease and desist" if that is your opinion.) - Jc37 03:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would avoid the war on userboxes, at least until Jimbo comes around to supporting them; although, I agree they add to community feeling. Fred Bauder 03:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting response. (I was unaware that he was not supporting them - WP:JOU). It will be a shame if all that pre-existing work is lost. And another shame that 3-4 editors are making policy for the rest of us : (
Anyway, thank, you, I sincerely appreciate your insight. It's enough that it's causing me to go through my thought process again, and the pros and cons of pursuing this one aspect of the userbox discussion.
(PS - You'll have to pardon me if the sight of my loong sections compared to your concise answers struck me funny enough to laugh : )
Thanks again : ) - Jc37 03:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

A Barnstar!
The Minor Barnstar
For of few words are made great men. It is the minor actions, the small subtleties, that can show the greatest valor, the deepest insight, the discerning thought. Thank you : ) Jc37 03:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schuckardt article

Hello Fred. Athanasius303 and I having a difference of opinion on the ground rules the ArbCom developed for this article which is still under probation. One part of the ground rules reads "The second rule to be observed is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: this policy contemplates fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject. Applied to this article it means fairly representing Bishop Schuckardt's life and doctrinal positions ...and the criticisms that have been made of him and his church, including a summary and links to published newspaper reports." There is a website ttp://www.theroguebishop.com/forums/ www.TheRogueBishop.com that holds criticism of Schuckardt. Athanasius303 has written on the talk page that this site holds objectionalble material and cannot be referenced so he removes it. This site has many scans of newspaper articles and other third party publications that are cited from in the Francis Schuckardt article ttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Francis_Schuckardt&oldid=69339379 as this old version shows. There are links in 13 places to the actual articles like this ttp://theroguebishop.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=49 example link. When I click on these links, just the article appears for the reader to peruse if they want. Athanasius303 keeps removing all 13 links and adding "citation needed" ttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Francis_Schuckardt&oldid=69625192 as you can see in this version of the article]. He wrote that the links can't be used because, although they are published articles, they appear on ttp://www.theroguebishop.com/forums/ TheRogueBishop.com and therefore are contraband. Any input? Bernie Radecki 23:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The website is dedicated to attacking Bishop Schuckardt and his church and constitutes hate speech. In my opinion any link to it would be malicious. It is analogous to repeatedly linking the article on the Roman Catholic Church to a KKK site. The material on it, if published, or otherwise a reliable source, can be used by citing it as a reference: name of article, author, date, name of original publication. Fred Bauder 23:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, not what I expected. Thanks. In my defense, a better analogy might be linking an article on one hate group to another hate group's site, but I'll follow your suggestion and just cite the published articles instead of prividing a link to them on the other website.Bernie Radecki 23:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fred, I just have one more question: I have a booklet written in 1980 about Bishop Schuckardt and his church. The author, Bob Cubbage, was the editor of the 'Inland Register', the diocesan paper of the Catholic Diocese of Spokane. I think the booklet is comprised of articles that ran over 8 or 9 consecutive issues of the paper. It is listed on Amazon although it is out of print. Athanasius303 has written this about the usage of the booklet as a third party source: "I don’t have immediate access to this work, although I am familiar with Cubbage.I am familiar with Cubbage. Cubbage is a vociferous critic of Bishop Schuckardt and does not fairly analyze or report either about the Bishop or the TLRCC." and "The Cubbage booklet does not stand up to the reliable source standard for bios of living persons." I think the booklet attempts to do a decent job of covering both sides of the issues. There are many direct quotes from Bishop Schuckardt in it. Due to my bias and my inability to successfully dialog with Athanasius303, I was hoping to get your opinion on the fitness of this source to be used as a supporting document. Bernie Radecki 00:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say without seeing it, but peer review is probably lacking so it probably should only be used for non-controversial information. Fred Bauder 01:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're an imbecile

Clearly you have no respect for the responsibilities you were given. Editors should have been able to expect that you'd be fair and even handed. Clearly you think being an arbitrator means "be arbitrary". I made a bloody huge mistake wasting my time thinking the likes of you could be trusted to judge anything fairly. His Excellency... 00:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What?

My only crime with regard to arbitration pages is properly formatting items and fixing spelling/grammar errors, as well as reverting votes of non-arbitrators. If that's enough to bar me, where has common sense gone? Editor88 02:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Schwarz again

Barbara has refused to agree to comply with our harassment and no personal attacks policies and has continued to "out" users on her talk page. In view of this, I'm left with no option but to leave her blocked indefinitely. I think we need to purge the "outing" edits from the database - do you have the oversight flag set on your account? If so, I can provide you with the relevant diffs. -- ChrisO 07:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me a link to her User talk page. Fred Bauder 10:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Bauder&oldid=70198291"