Jump to content

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
→Yaksha: - added sentence
→Yaksha: I concur
Line 511: Line 511:
::I'm not encouraging anything, I'm simply pointing out that the existence of an arbitration case is no grounds for stopping various kinds of wikiactivity while it's ongoing. I should also note that none of the remaining moves are in fact controversial. Indeed, the Lost episodes, where Elonka's dispute originates, have already been moved by consensus. It is shown in the evidence to the Arb case that her claims of an earlier consensus regarding television episode names have been shown to be incorrect. ([[User_talk:Radiant!|<font color="orange">Radiant</font>]]) 22:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
::I'm not encouraging anything, I'm simply pointing out that the existence of an arbitration case is no grounds for stopping various kinds of wikiactivity while it's ongoing. I should also note that none of the remaining moves are in fact controversial. Indeed, the Lost episodes, where Elonka's dispute originates, have already been moved by consensus. It is shown in the evidence to the Arb case that her claims of an earlier consensus regarding television episode names have been shown to be incorrect. ([[User_talk:Radiant!|<font color="orange">Radiant</font>]]) 22:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
::: Radiant, how exactly are you claiming that these moves are not controversial? Yaksha has received requests from multiple editors to stop moving pages, including Arbitration clerk Thatcher131. I have requested an injunction, and there is an ''open ArbCom case'' about the matter. Further, the guidelines at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy/Episodes]] state a different naming convention than what Yaksha is moving pages to. If all of those are not evidence of controversy, what is? --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 23:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
::: Radiant, how exactly are you claiming that these moves are not controversial? Yaksha has received requests from multiple editors to stop moving pages, including Arbitration clerk Thatcher131. I have requested an injunction, and there is an ''open ArbCom case'' about the matter. Further, the guidelines at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy/Episodes]] state a different naming convention than what Yaksha is moving pages to. If all of those are not evidence of controversy, what is? --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 23:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


== Are [[User:Fred_Bauder|you]] and [[User:MONGO|MONGO]] planning a [[Sex_tourism|weekend getaway?]] ==
You little devils you ;-). Bon voyage.

Revision as of 23:49, 20 December 2006

  • Just a note ... delete when cooked. My gratitude for your comment in "Same old Larry". I suspect we're nearly of an age; I was 14 when a good ham friend invited me onto the bus in '68. Anyhow, please see my scribble there; I won't subject you to the rants in my LiveJournal but please do drop a note on my UserPage or in my MozDawg blog. Best to you and all there. --BenTremblay 06:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)


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 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 28 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 29 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 30 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 31 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 32 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 33 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 34 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 35 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 36 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 37 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 38 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 39 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 40.

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]

New notes

Fred, nice list, but is it possible to decipher the meaning of the notes. If it was a test on my intelligence I have to admit I have failed. Alex Bakharev 02:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Alex Bakharev 02:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Old notes

Hmm/Sorry

My bad. Figured with most new proposals the users themselves would add the templates in. (Although, admitedly, I have no clue how the automatic templating systems here work, since even the most nonsensical entries on WP:AFC typically use the proper template)... well, hopefully someone reverted me. I apoligize for my error, usually seeing something repeated 20 times is a bad thing (Again, admitedly, I have no experience on arbitration case pages either). Sorry again. 24.89.197.136/Logical2u on enforced Wikibreak

PS: I just undid my changes per your message on my talk page. Thanks for the note. 24.89.197.136/Logical2u on enforced Wikibreak 01:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Israeli Apartheid

Can you look at the improper reverts and review the Talk page? Thanks. It appears the allied group that affected HomeontheRange is hurting me. Kindly review the content of the edits that are reverted on sight, without discussion. Thanks.Kiyosaki 12:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent motion in Hkelkar case

As one of the ArbCom partaking in this case, your input/co-operation into this temporary injunction would be greatly appreciated. I wouldn't have sent you a message, but given the nature of what has occured, and the potential to stall this ArbCom case, everyone involved needs a speedy resolution or else I suspect the case will break down. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hkelkar has been unblocked; BhaiSaab admitted to attempting to contact him in real life. There may be other important issues here but I have removed the motion for emergency unblock as moot. Thatcher131 01:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

thanks for accepting my case in the ArbComm Thanks a lot Arsath 15:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn attica

The article in which that picture appears is pretty funny; thanks for the link. I didn't realize you were a reader there, too. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 20:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for explanation

I am seriously rather confused about the arbitration case, could you please comment here.--Konstable II 11:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New antisemitism

I hope you don't mind me contacting you about this. I remember you commenting before (in a proposed arbitration which was not taken up by arbs except you), that this page had been a forum for POV-pushing for too long. I am also very frustrated with it. I wondered if you would be able to advise me about the workability of a suggestion which I made on the talk page without response. That is, that what is really needed is a page or pages on the history of antisemitism in recent times. Then all the manifestations could be mentioned there, including such issues as Bans on ritual slaughter and the New antisemitism page, if it remained, would just deal with New antisemitism as a theoretical construct used by some writers. I would also be grateful for any suggestions you might have about periodization, i.e. would it be most appropriate to have one page for the 20th century and another for the 21st, or would some other break date be advisable? Thanks in advance. Itsmejudith 15:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I obviously need to go away and reflect again on how best to move this and related articles towards better quality and consensus. And to read some more sources. Regards. Itsmejudith 12:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am User:SuperDeng and have been indef blocked by an admin

To make a long story short

The admin who has a personal grudge against me, had made up some very nice stories about me and has continuously blocked for me 6 months. And a few months ago one of blocks ended and I made a grand total of 0 edits, but then a new char whos ip was not possbile to check appeared started makeing similar edits to mine so he was accussed of beeing a sockpuppet and I got blocked again. Now this can not be a sock puppet since I Superdeng did not do any edits and even if we were the same person then that dosent matter since superdeng was makeing zero edits the new account was created one week after my block was lifted. Bahh this is not a short story it is long. Anyway all I want is a fair trial on the arb com board where I have a chans of defending myself and not where everyone of the imaginasions of the admin is percieved as fact.

So what ever policy i violated has been served in full after 6 months.

The evidence against you appears quite strong. If you ever edit Wikipedia again, please avoid the mistakes you made this time. Fred Bauder 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Yes but can you remove my perma ban? I have been blocked for 6 months --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.102.38 (talk • contribs)
Indeed, there has been no community consensus to ban this user forever. He has been blocked for six months already, with no particular offense in view. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banned one month for sockpuppetry with the understanding he would be mentored after the ban was up [3] [4]. Ban extended to two months for more sockpuppetry. After the 2 month ban expired, it was discovered that he had returned as Lokqs (talk · contribs) (only after the ban) but also as The Green Fish (talk · contribs) (edited during the ban). I reblocked for one month (beginning Nov 5). Following more proven sockpuppetry, Woohookitty applied an indef ban, apparently without consultation. If the block is reviewed at the admin noticeboard, the choice seems to be between an indef ban for exhausting community patience, or a return to the one month ban followed by mentorship, assuming he can keep out of the sock drawer for a whole month. (In other words, if I overturned Woohookitty's indef ban and reinstated the one month ban, could Deng keep still for a month or would a series of one month bans amount to a defacto site ban.)

note SuperDeng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
note Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SuperDeng

Sorry about using your talk page, Fred, but it seems most of the interested parties are reading it. I don't have a strong opinion either way but it is telling that his sock puppets are so easily detected. I think the complaint that Woohookitty has a personal grudge against him shows a lack of awareness of his own problematic editing behavior. Thatcher131 18:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello, I was about to put in a complaint against SPA Hal(dane) Fisher regarding a personal attack he posted to my talk page here. I notice that a lot is going on and I am wondering where the correct place is to lodge a complaint for this violation. TIA --DrL 19:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hkelkar, continuance, still editing

A thread at WP:AN has called attention to the fact that despite the request for a continuance, Hkelkar (talk · contribs) continues to edit. Thatcher131 20:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration workshop pages

Hi, Fred. I appreciate that workshop pages are only for suggestions, and are much less "official" than proposed decision pages. Nevertheless, when a proposal on the workshop page comes from one of the arbitrators, it's obvious that it will seem more official than a proposal from a lowly admin or an even lowlier user! With that in mind, I wonder would you consider reflecting for a bit longer before you make calls to have heavy punitive blocks or desysoppings. I'm just typing this without going over all the evidence, but it seems that in recent months you've called for desysoppings of respected administrators for being argumentative or for one single undoing of another admin's action, temporary bannings of respected administrators for a single undoing of another admin's action, a one-month ban of someone who said something like "make sure you try the puffer fish; it's delicious", and other remedies that seem, to say the least, rather punitive and even frivolous. I'm concerned that the subjects of these suggestions may have the existence of these suggestiongs used against them in the future. For example, your latest suggestion concerning FeloniousMonk could be used by some future troll in a dispute against FM in order to undermine his judgment — "a respected arbitrator proposed that he be desysopped" etc. No offence meant — just something to think about. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 13:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Having posted something slightly critical, I'll sweeten it a bit by adding that although I'm not directly affected, I do appreciate the time you took in removing ED links. AnnH ♫ 13:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BhaiSaab has returned

Fred, In re: Hkelkar, BhaiSaab has returned. [5]. Thatcher131 20:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You also skipped voting on principle #12. Thatcher131 20:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I will be here until at least the end of this arbitration. I kindly ask that you not delay the proceedings as has been done already. BhaiSaab talk 02:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seabhcan arbitration

I just wanted to make sure you were aware that Seabhcan is away until Monday December 3, and won't be able to offer evidence or respond to the workshop until then. Thatcher131 14:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment from Hal(dane) Fisher

This speculation from Haldane Fisher is continuing to cross the line. Is there anything we can do to stop this harassment and speculation regarding my identity IRL? This violates several policies including WP:PRIVACY and WP:STALK. --DrL 17:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blocked pending final outcome. Thatcher131 18:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:Too slow Fred Bauder 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What? Thatcher131 18:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have both Hal(dane) Fisher accounts been blocked then? --DrL 18:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hal is indef blocked as a sockpuppet account (one per customer, please). Haldane is blocked for 5 days; I expect it will be extended before it expires, but I didn't want to be too precipitous on the spur of the moment. Thatcher131 18:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. Okay, thanks. He has started a wave of this behavior and even other administrators are engaging in this speculation. What is disturbing about this edit is that it comes from an administrator and that it was prompted by anonymous sources apparently trying to use Wikipedia as a tool of attack or revenge. The point about privacy being so fundamental to the rules here is to avoid this kind of intimidation. Do I have the right to redact speculation on this article's talk page that is designed to invade privacy, subject editors to harassment, and encourage future harassment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrL (talk • contribs)
I don't think you interpreted my comment on the Arb page as I meant it. You may want to look at my clarification. JoshuaZ 20:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has Arbcom banded some URL from being posted?

Hi Fred, you probably don't remember me bu we go back a long time. I was wondering what is up with url concerning wikipedia.[6] I noticed some possible vandalism on a users page and gave a warning to Harison.[7] Some administrator removed some links about wikipedia. Tbeaty indicated that per ARBCom they may be removed. Can you link to this presidence or at lest second what Tbeaty is saying! Thank you. (take note: I am representing cplot as an advocate and I believe he is being unjustly blocked) --CyclePat 18:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for the response on my user page. I'm sorry Fred but I don't understand the relevance of the example you have given. It actually shows user cplot adding information, specifically URL links and his opinion on CIA stuff regarding wikipedia, to is own user talk page. I really don't see what is wrong with that, but, allegedly, according to Tbeatty, this can be removed. However, removing the information from cplot's talk page, as I have pointed out, violated WP:VAND and should be considered vandlism. Hence, I would like to see the Arbcom decission that indicates these urls should be removed. Can you please give me a link to the precedence. We could then fix the WP:VAND page to explain this exception. --CyclePat 21:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've answered Pat on my Talk. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom open tasks fixed

Please see if there is a way we can signal that there is a motion to vote on. Fred Bauder 16:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fred: fixed it. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Administration where I explained the change. I modified the {{Evidence}} template so instead of using two or three single quotes ('' and ''') to trigger the injunction label, use i and ii for injunctions and m and mm for proposed and passed motions. I couldn't think of a felicitious abbreviation for "Motion" so I left it spelled out. I don't think its too big on the template, but if you want to use some other text to indicate the motion let me know or change it yourself. (The switch function is kind of tricky, I played around in a sandbox until I got it right). Thatcher131 02:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you meant that...

...when you made this edit, you seem to have inadvertently duplicated the content of the page and reposted it below the original content. 68.39.174.238 19:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobs01=Nobs02 account

Hi, I have accepted to advocate User:Nobs01 on his request and know he is acting with your permission through User:Nobs02. My question is how much is he allowed to do with that account, in other words: how much will he be able to participate on the process (using talk pages, commenting and presenting evidence, etc.) or can he only act through me? --Neigel von Teighen 13:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply! --Neigel von Teighen 19:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist RfAr

Hello, Fred. I just took a look at the "Proposed Decision" page for the ScienceApologist RfAr. Some of the proposals which have been included, and your votes on those proposals, appear to me to be totally disconnected from the evidence thus far presented (this may be a function of my own "POV", but forgive me for expressing my doubts). In particular, it appears to me that ScienceApologist and FeloniousMonk have been tacitly exempted from WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:LIVING, and that further participation here may be a total waste of my time. Therefore, I have a question: can the Langan bio be permanently locked? I already have reason to believe that Langan has suffered real-life damage from the misrepresentations included there by ScienceApologist and the members of WikiProject Intelligent Design, and I do not believe that the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has any right to subject him to such negative real-world consequences. (An additional question, if I may. Do those whom you vote to censure have any right of response on the Proposed Decision page?) Thanks, Asmodeus 15:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Please see my response to your response(s) here. Asmodeus 16:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

(Please see my last response here regarding threats to add litigious misinformation to the Langan bio by parties involved in the ScienceApologist RfAr. Asmodeus 17:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Asmodeus, please see WP:LEGAL. Legal threats are frowned upon and can get you blocked. JoshuaZ 17:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No legal threat was made or implied. I was talking about the express intention of certain parties to add material regarding (potentially ongoing) litigation to a biography article in which it plainly does not belong, and the need to keep the article locked against those making the threats. After all, Wikipedia does not involve itself in irrelevant legal disputes. Asmodeus 17:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you mean to say "litigious misinformation." Do you mean "information about legal disputes" or "inaccurate information about legal disputes"? JoshuaZ 18:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why, yes I do indeed, JoshuaZ! Thank you for the attempt at clarification, and have a nice day. Asmodeus 18:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Fred

I am wondering why you proposed that I edit in a disruptive way. I stick to verifiable facts and encourage others not to post opinion and conjecture or misrepresent sources. I would appreciate it if you would examine my actual edits and tell me which ones you feel are disruptive and why. I just don't think you will find any truly improper edits. If there is something specific in my editing behavior that you can point out to me then I can consider your feedback. Otherwise it is too vague to be helpful. --DrL 17:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fred, I think "agressive" is a bit strong. I was certainly no more aggressive than SA or FM. I was blocked after not making an edit for 10 hours - after SA and others made several edits (so much for WP:OWN). All I did was put back reliable sources that had been dropped out without explanation. When an article is being attacked to skew the POV, it is important that at least one editor try to maintain balance. I was assertively editing to maintain balance, 'not' aggresively editing to push POV. Why don't you really examine my edits and see. You were a lawyer and should have some ability to neutrally examine evidence. I would really like your objective opinion. --DrL 19:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist cautioned

I can find nothing on what it means to be "cautioned" in an Arbitration case,[8] which makes it difficult to know how to identify possible infractions, and what action may or may not be taken. Here are a couple of post-arbitration edits from ScienceApologist I think are not in the spirit of the final decision. Note that I declare an interest, having been involved in the same arbitration case.

  • "Plasma cosmology advocates themselves are pretty ignorant of the current state of the field,"[9]. Unsubstantiated, unverifiable opinion. There may well be peer reviewed criticisms, and he may well consider inaccuracies or omission in various papers. But how can he possible guess what plasma cosmologists know, or don't know. This over-generalization is uncivil towards Plasma cosmology advocates such as editors like myself, and deprecating towards non-editors as described in WP:LIVING.
  • Plasma cosmology is a "bunch of amateurish drivel"[10]. As largely peer-reviewed material from professional scientists with impeccable credentials, this does seem somewhat "deprecating" (cf. WP:LIVING). ScienceApologist is entitled to his own personal viewpoint, but this is not constructive.

When I described the Big Bang as dogmatic, I presume I was being criticized, even though it a verifiable viewpoint,[11] [12] [13], and I was not shown to have made any inappropriate edits. Yet I am also concerned that ScienceApologist's criticisms are not even supported by WP:V and WP:RS, and do seem to affect his editing decisions.[14] --Iantresman 20:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fair comments are surely based on verifiable information from reliable sources. If I was to comment that the advocates of the Arbitration process were "pretty ignorant", and the decision a "bunch of amateurish drivel", you would rightly have cause for rebuke, and it certainly wouldn't be constructive? --Iantresman 16:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threats of vandalism to the Langan biography

Hello again, Fred. Above, I reported on vandalism threats made to the Langan bio by Jim62sch, FeloniousMonk, Guy/JzG, JoshuaZ, and Arthur Rubin. Several of these people have already edited the article in violation of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR, so it can be reasonably inferred that their threats are real. Unfortunately, you recently moved to tie the hands of the one and only person who was protecting the article from this kind of destructive POV-driven attack (DrL), thus helping to create a dangerously skewed situation that can only encourage the attackers. Unless you plan to ban all of these people from editing the article, along with others who have repeatedly attacked it in the past, it is virtually certain that the article will be systematically abused. I hope you'll pardon my frankness, but I find this situation unacceptable. Accordingly, if and when you manage to take a look at these threats, I'd greatly appreciate some form of acknowledgement. Thanks, Asmodeus 04:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Proposal

Hi, Fred. I am having trouble understanding this. You proposed to ban an editor (Asmodeus) from editing an article that he has not edited since July. He has only edited it a couple of times and never violated policy. Can you elaborate on the reason for your ban or perhaps review this user's contributions to the article in question and reconsider the proposed ban and its wording? --DrL 17:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this unrelated to the article?

You have voted to support that my comments on the Tipu Sultan talk page are unrelated to the topic are trolls.I would like you to read my edit again and see that it was written in the context of the article itself and on the negative portrayal of Tipu Sultan by Hindutva supporters scholars recently..The edit reads as "Another important anecdote narrated in the book, not as a main text, exposes the bias of the communal historians. This is regarding author's encounter with Prof. Hariprasad of Calcutta University, about the veracity of his claims that 3,000 Brahmins committed suicide protesting Tipu Sultan's order to convert to Islam. When Dr. Pandey enquires him about the source of that information, Prof. Prasad cites Mysore Gazetteer as the source. But the author relentlessly pursues the matter with Prof. Shreekantayya of Mysore University about the said source and seeks further information about Tipu's religious intolerance. But Prof. Shreekantayya categorically rejects any such documentation in any Gazetteer and provides him with lots of original sources describing Tipu as a great Dharma Sahishnu (religious tolerant). When Dr. Pandey takes up the case with Prof. Prasad citing the sources provided by Prof. Shreekantayya, Prof. Prasad honestly admits that he is unaware of the sources. "..HKelkar removed my edit from the talk page in contravention of the WP policies. MerryJ-Ho 21:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, all my sources in that article are from scholarly works, academic journals, and other similar material, not "Hindutva texts". Since TerryJ-Ho's merrily casting aspersions, let me point out the real motivations behind trying to bash Hindus and Indians in general on wikipedia:
  1. School Books That Teach Children To Hate- in Pakistan:

Muslims alone have the right to rule the world and are allowed to kill infidels that stand in the way of Islam. This is the message being taught to schoolchildren through textbooks used in the network of institutions run by Jamaat ud-Daawa, according to a research report on Hate Speech complied by the Liberal Forum Pakistan.

"Infidels are cowards by nature," claims the Urdu textbook used in the second grade (for seven-year-olds). "When a holy warrior attacks them, they scream with terror and fear." Mujahideen are glorified as the alpha male on a mission from God. They are the superheroes that kill Hindus, fashion all sorts of gadgets from found material, and make the infidel world cower in fear.

  1. Pakistani social studies textbooks creating havoc:

An alumnus of the University of Texas at Austin, Rosser is a South Asia expert with special interest in the educational structure in India and its tangential impact on the curriculum in the U.S. To legitimise Pakistan as a Muslim homeland, "historians had to nurture the image of the Muslims as a monolithic entity, acting in unison and committed specifically to Islamic values and norms", she says. "In the past few decades," she says, "social studies textbooks in Pakistan have been used as locations to articulate the hatred that Pakistani policy makers have attempted to inculcate towards their Hindu neighbours.

  1. The subtle subversion in Pakistan:

scholars A M Nayyar and Ahmed Salim laboriously went through Pakistani textbooks in Social Studies, English, Urdu and Civic Studies prescribed for children studying from class I to XII and have come the conclusion 'that for over two decades the curricula and the officially mandated textbooks in these subjects have contained material that is directly contrary to the goals and values of a progressive, moderate and democratic Pakistan'.According to Nayyar and Salim the Pakistani textbooks narrated history 'with distortions and omissions'. They found:

Inaccuracies of fact and omissions that serve to substantially distort the nature and significance of actual events in our history.

Insensitivity to the actually existing religious diversity of the nation.

Incitement to militancy and violence, including encouragement of Jihad and Shahadat.

Perspectives that encourage prejudice, bigotry and discrimination towards fellow citizens, especially women and religious minorities and other nations.

A glorification of war and the use of force and

Omission of concepts, events and material that could encourage critical self-awareness among students.


Now, as for Tipu Sultan, my references cited therein are:

  1. Sharma, H.D (January 16, 1991). The Real Tipu (in English). Rishi Publications, Varanasi.Sharma is an established and accredited scholar at BHU University in India, one of the top ten schools in the country
  2. Lewis Rice Mysore and Coorg (a Gazetteer) Vol I Bangalore 1878
  3. Meersman, Achilles [1972]. Annual reports of the Portuguese Franciscans in India, 1713-1833 p238. Centro de Estudos Históricos Ultramarinos.
  4. George M. Moraes "Muslim Rules of Mysore and their Christian subjects" in Irfan Habib (Ed.) Confronting Colonialism. Resistance and modernisation under Haidar Ali & Tipu Sultan Indian History Congress (Delhi: Tulika) 1999 p135
  5. Kareem, C.K [1973] (1973). Kerala Under Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan P187. Kerala History Association : distributors, Paico Pub. House, 322. (This guy Kareem is a Muslim btw)
  6. Lee-Warner, William [1894]. “3”, The Protected Princes of India. Macmillan and Co..
  7. Rao, Hayavadana C.. History of Mysore 1399-1799: Incorporating the latest Epigraphical, Literary and Historical Researches Vol. 3 pgs 1047-53. Bangalore Government Press.Historian Hayavadana C. Rao has written the most encyclopedic work on Mysore history to date.

So, Kareem, Sharma and Rao are all "Hindutvaadis" according to TerryJ-Ho. This should demonstrate the paranoid mentality of madrassa-brainwashed fanatics quite adequately I think.

TerryJ-Ho's attempts to assign motives to my well-sourced and scholarly edits should adequately expose his trollish behavious in this context. Hkelkar 09:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I sent you an email, perhaps you missed it? Or your email is not working? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, but did not want to engage in an extended discussion about a simple observation. Fred Bauder 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking for an extended discussion, I asked three simple questions. Are you saying you'd prefer not to answer them? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul August oppose?

Wow, worse than Geogre. I thought I knew your problems with Geogre, related to turning up the heat in the Giano case ... but what has Paul August done? He seems quite innocuous, dedicated, and non-controversial. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking the problem may be that Paul August doesn't seem to see the negative aspects of Geogre's behavior (especially the agitating), and if it happens with Geogre, it might happen with other people he happens to be friends with. Arbitrators are supposed to be impartial and see all sides of a case. --Cyde Weys 15:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. Fred Bauder 15:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from AEM talk)

He said Geogre was better than him. I think he is a bit of an enabler. Fred Bauder 15:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick response. It's a tough issue, I'll have to think about this. I worry about judging a person by their association, and used to value the ability to be friends with people of a wide range of views. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness, don't change your vote. He'll be an arbitrator and and a pretty good one. Fred Bauder 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So he'll be a pretty good arbitrator, but he's worse than someone you consider totally unacceptable, and you voted to oppose him. I'm sorry but I'm a bit confused here. Newyorkbrad 16:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that; It was just a protest vote. He'll do fine. Fred Bauder 16:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzled

Fred, I supposed that the active arbitrators are not expected to vote for/against their future colleagues. To be honest, I am puzzled by your opposing vote against Paul August and your support for a user who makes about 200 edits per month (most of them mechanic vandal reverts) and occasionally shuffles some papers around on mediation cabal (rather than actually mediating disputes). By casting this vote, you seem to support the philosophy of "everything untraceable on IRC so you can be as mean as you want" and "everything in a private tab, too." Or am I mistaken here? Is IRC chit-chatting really so much more precious than writing articles? What in Kylu's experience qualifies her for arbitrating some of the most serious disputes in the project? --Ghirla -трёп- 16:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've always voted. I'm trying to reduce nasty comments in addition to my voting, and have made some progress. I like Kylu. She will probably need to reduce her habit of chatting on IRC if she is elected. Paul August said that Geogre was a better candidate then he was. I agree with him. I think he'll make a good enough arbitrator though. Fit right in with a couple of others. Fred Bauder 18:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your meaningful reply. I indeed hope that Kylu will revise her chit-chatting ways in case she succeeds. Otherwise, it would be tough for her to stay impartial in settling disputes that involve her chat buddies. I suppose that, when appointing arbitrators, Jimbo would like to hear advice from the sitting ArbCom and I hope that your advice will be sound! Best, Ghirla -трёп- 14:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully we will have clear winners with substantial community support and low negative votes. Within the committee we are always on the lookout for potential arbitrators and encourage folks we like to apply. Generally we are in broad agreement. Users like Paul August receive general approval. I have not idea why he thinks a troublemaker like Geogre is so wonderful, but that he does raises a red flag. My only thought is that he is not aware of the agitation campaign Geogre engaged in. Fred Bauder 14:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ScienceApologist RfAr (Again)

Hello, Fred. Please read my most recent edits to the ScienceApologist RfAr Workshop page. [1,2,3,4] and particularly this one right here. I hate to seem impertinent, but may I ask who you people think you are, that you can define the class of articles relating to the work of Christopher Michael Langan to include Crank (person)? Do you really think that this is appropriate? And if not, then why are you voting on proposals without understanding exactly what they say? For that matter, why are you ignoring over five months of background on this case, including a long history of vicious personal attacks made against me and DrL? Regardless of any opinion to the contrary, we've tried very hard to address our problems within the bounds of WP at the expense of vast amounts of our own time, and I'm still trying very hard to avoid reaching some extremely unpleasant conclusions here. But in view of the above observations, it appears to me that your decisions may contain substantial elements of personal bias and antipathy. Thanks in advance for your considered response. Asmodeus 18:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom/Seabhcan/Workshop

Hi Fred,

I'd like you to explain this statement fully on my ArbCom workshop page:

This does not address the root of the problem, which is repeated insertion and mischaracterization of information from unreliable sources by Seabhcan. Fred Bauder 12:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
This from the King of mischaracterizing unrliable and unsupportable information. --ItsALostCause 16:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen no evidence which backs this statement up, and in fact, you seem to be the only one making this allegation. Perhaps you can explain what you are talking about? Thanks ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 13:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed_decision#Background_issues. Fred Bauder 13:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer the question at all. The only diff of mine there is to a talk page post. Exactly how is that evidence of "repeated insertion and mischaracterization of information from unreliable sources"? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 13:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It remains the underlying issue, I think. Fred Bauder 14:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you just 'think' it, but have no evidence? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 14:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, ItsALostCause admitted being a sock puppet of a permanently banned user on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#More_Cplot_socks, (and has been permanently banned). AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist cautioned [2]

  • Just to keep you in the loop, I've complained to an Arbitrator (User:JzG) about ScienceApologist, after calling me a "bean counter" and a "liar", and refusing to consider alternative views. JzG has been moderating our discussion on the Wolf effect here. A copy of the complaint is below:

I feel like I'm telling tales, but I feel that ScienceApologist's behaviour has demonstrably failed to meet those standards described in the recent Arbitration case,[15]

  • In the discussions on the Wolf effect, I've just been called a "bean counter",[16]
  • In another discussion on William G. Tifft, I've just been called a liar,[17]
  • He's also confirmed that those who model quasars are the "ultimate authority over what is significant" and he's "not budging from that position", when the Arbitration case noted that he should "respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science" [18]
  • I also note that he's now trying to remove the Wolf effect from the Redshift article,[19], again in defiance of the Arbitration case.
  • I don't think I'm being aggressive, or unreasonable myself, and am providing sufficient verifiable, reliable sources.
  • This is in additional to ScienceApologist's original complain against me, where he took my peer reviewed sources, and deprecated a number of researchers as "a self-employed crystal technician" and "employee of Xerox Corp", again noted in the arbitration case,[20]. --Iantresman 16:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request

Hi Fred. I see that you have checkuser permission. What is the process for making a request in private? Or should I just do it publicly here? Another user has expressed concern that a known user may be inserting libel repeatedly using IP sockpuppets, to skirt the BLP warnings that they have been issued recently. - Crockspot 19:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seabhcan

I've reviewed Seabhcan's additional evidence. I'm ready to move the case to voting whenever you are, so feel free to do so either now, or after you add any proposals you are working on. Dmcdevit·t 07:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry

I'm sorry for switching the link out, that was for my own reference and didn't think it would be a big deal. Does that really need to be dragged into that decision? I'm not going to do it again now that I know how serious it is, and it doesn't seem important to the case. Milto LOL pia 21:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question...

Let me explain to you a problem I am involved in, I would like your opinion: User:A Man In Black removed all historical logos from the article on television station WNBC. After debate, it became clear that several people, including myself, supported adding the images, and only a few did not. A Man In Black kept citing a policy (I don't recall which, but it has to do with fair use of images), paraphrasing that it said no image should be used under fair use unless it has a legitimate reason, depicting what is said in the article. The article explained the station's history, and depicted the station's past. This seems like a reason to me. However, A Man In Black eventually deleted all the images, he is a sysop. I then re-uploaded them, as there was no reason to delete, and more people favored keeping than deleting, but he deleted them again. So, I would like to know what you think about this situation, if I should report him to the Arbitration committee (I came to you for your personal opinion, not to report this to the Arb. Com.), or anything I should do. Thanks. aido2002 23:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward5Thank you for all your hard work. It's the closest thing I could find to a plate of cookies.NinaEliza 06:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second the thanks. Your hard work amongst the slings and arrows is noted. The conclusions are not always agreed with, but the impressive effort is appreciated. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: ed

Hi, Fred. I wonder if you could have a look at a recent edit of mine regarding dem attic. I admit not knowing a whole lot about their history with the project, other than they seem to be somewhat seething with anger in this direction. And so, when I noticed this recent fracas involving the, uh, "craigslist sting" involving livejournal (and others), I wondered whether there were articles here in regards to some of the actors therein. I was somewhat surprised to find that there are not. I asked Xoloz, as he and I are somewhat familiar, and I figured he would know as he was involved in the the talk page.

Could you unearth for me the discussion that is alluded to here? I haven't heard from Xoloz, but last I heard he was ill.

I wonder also whether you could speculate as to the notability (notoriety, infamy, &c...) situation with respect to ED. As I don't know when the original situation occurred, I don't know whether that is different. It seems somewhat noteworthy to me that the BBC has covered them.

Lastly, I'm not especially friendly with most of the machinations of the authority structure of Wikipedia. I came to your talk page because CSCWEM mentioned that you are instrumental in the arbcom processes. I also looked over the arbcom page and found no venue to simply "question the arbcom" (rather than, say, lodging a request for arbitration).

Thanks for your time, I'm sure you're a busy dude. ... aa:talk 23:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred. Without going into details of the substance of the arbitration decision, do you have suggestions as to how I may find out about such things? Until Crockspot mention today's arbcom case, I had no idea that it was going on (to say nothing of the previous ED "drama"). I'm not really aware of a quick way to see these sorts of edicts (as opposed to reading the entire decision, which is invariably voluminous). thanks ... aa:talk 02:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration

I have found that you are part of the Arbitration Committee and would want to make a request for arbitration between me and user Freepsbane. The dispute is over the number of American servicmen killed during the first battle of Fallujah. So I would like to ask you the procedure in this. Hope you will reply. Thank you.Top Gun 03:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan motion to close

Before moving to close, I think it would be good for the project if you reviewed Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed decision. There is considerable dissent that the decision to desysop MONGO and Seabhcan is the right direction to go. I'm not asking you to change your votes on that RfAr, but rather to consider that this matter is under ongoing, rapid fire discussion. There's been nearly a hundred edits to that talk page in the last 48 hours alone, and that is just one fora where this is being debated among many. Respectfully submitted, --Durin 20:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please read your mail and answer it

Please read your mail and answer it 220.84.182.251 05:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

For making your order of preferences known in the Seabhcan case, this is much easier to get behind. I still think you should try civility parole for a hwile first, and maybe review in a few months, but it's not my call. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous evidence for Seabhcab

Fred-- seeing that anonymous evidence is allowed, I took the liberty of presenting some and create an account for the purpose. Since the main evidence page is semiprotected, I went ahead and added it to the talk page: [21]. Unless it is inappropriate, could you or one of the other Arbiters move it to the main evidence page for me? --AvoidingRetaliation 18:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. I also unprotected the page; hopefully the trolls have gotten it out of their system. Thatcher131 18:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan

Please be aware that there is active, ongoing work on proposed decisions regarding this case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop. Closing may be premature. Please review that page. Thank you. --Durin 13:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Well Done

</sarcasm> - Well, the scum over at ED (Encyclopedia Dramatica) are certainly lapping up the ArbCom decision to desysop MONGO. Hope your very happy with the situation you've helped create over there, and which I do hope you and the other members of ArbCom will be happy to clean up on your own when it spills over to Wikipedia. If it wasn't impossible, I'd take the ArbCom to Arbitration since you may have made one of the most damaging decisions on Wikipedia and are in danger of causing more damage to the site than MONGO ever could. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 02:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Deletion Problem

Hello Fred. I haven't talk with you since last years Arb Com election but thought maybe you could help. I wrote an article on Jeremy Hammond the young man who got in trouble with his hacktivism in Chicago. I didn't know It had been previously deleted but strongly believe it is a proper article. Today a template appears on the article that says it will be deleted unless the template is removed. I tried to remove it with ordinary editing but it stayed put. Next I thought I would talk to the editor who placed the template but he is an IP with no talk page. Must be deep wiki magic at work here. I explained my reasons for believing it should not be deleted here. I know you are busy but can you please advise? Thanks.Edivorce 00:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, I think I got it figured out. Don't know why it (prod) did not appear to edit. Maybe my browser cached the edited page. Maybe some wiki side glitch. I guess when some artifact occurs I assume it's some arcane wiki stuff. Sometimes it is. Still if you get a moment let me know if I need to do anything else to contest deletion Edivorce 16:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standards of verifiability in articles about Waldorf education and associated topics

Is it not reasonable to apply a single standard of verifiability for all points of view? Can this not be expressed neutrally? Are you saying, to pose an extreme case, that anyone (regardless of qualifications) publishing anything anywhere (web or print) can be cited on Waldorf education, so long as he or she is not a Waldorf teacher or philosophically aligned with Waldorf education?

I'm a little puzzled as to how a neutral stance can be achieved if the intention is to include critics, no matter how extreme, but to exclude even mild supporters. This is probably my misunderstanding, but it seems to me some clarification would be helpful. Hgilbert 01:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critical sites or writings can also be unreliable. I think the ones you are worried about are. Fred Bauder 01:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prompt clarification. Hgilbert 01:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Injunction for Brahma Kumaris

I have requested an injunction at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris/Workshop banning all listed parties from editing, due to an ongoing sterile edit war and ownership issues that are preventing uninvolved outside editors from trying to clean up the article. (Protection would just lock it in one of two bad states.) Also, can you nudge the rest of the arbitrators on the Midnight Syndicate injunction? That article is also fully protected due to edit warring by the parties, preventing interested uninvolved editors (if there are any) from working on it. Thanks. Thatcher131 02:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If only the other arbitrators were that quick to respond to injunctions and motions! Thatcher131 02:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

On Waldorf/Proposed decision, you opposed one of your own principles. Thatcher131 20:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Gathering

In this edit you removed, using a bot, links to several videos which nicely illustrate the article. I see no basis for their removal. Fred Bauder 01:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first three videos are produced by ArtNetwork Productions - this appears to be a commerical company [22] and the copyright of the videos appears to belong to them. Are they not copyvios if we link to them via youtube? I didn't notice that the uploader to youtube has the same name as the production company so arguably they have released the content to the web - but then the anonymity of the internet makes it hard to know if this is correct. On reflection I may have been over hasty deleting them but then its a judgement call. On reviewing the last video, I was clearly wrong. Thank you for correcting my mistake. --Spartaz 06:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Jeff Rosenbaum

I don't know Wikipedia well and am always putting my foot in my mouth. But I want to ask you a question, since I am very anxious. I noticed that you signed as arbitrator in the Starwood/Ace et al links arbitration case. Also you voted to keep in AFD the Jeff Rosenbaum article, the article at the center of the dispute in the Starwood mediation case and central also in the arbitration. This is confusing to me. Perhaps you could help me to understand. Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse 15:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering and explaining! Sincerely, Mattisse 22:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist

Yaksha

Hiya, I see that Yaksha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is back to moving dozens of articles without going through RM. May I please request enforcement of an injunction to get this behavior to stop, at least for the duration of the ArbCom case? Thanks, --Elonka 21:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a heads-up, Admin Radiant seems to be actively encouraging Yaksha to proceed [23]. --Elonka 21:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not encouraging anything, I'm simply pointing out that the existence of an arbitration case is no grounds for stopping various kinds of wikiactivity while it's ongoing. I should also note that none of the remaining moves are in fact controversial. Indeed, the Lost episodes, where Elonka's dispute originates, have already been moved by consensus. It is shown in the evidence to the Arb case that her claims of an earlier consensus regarding television episode names have been shown to be incorrect. (Radiant) 22:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Radiant, how exactly are you claiming that these moves are not controversial? Yaksha has received requests from multiple editors to stop moving pages, including Arbitration clerk Thatcher131. I have requested an injunction, and there is an open ArbCom case about the matter. Further, the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy/Episodes state a different naming convention than what Yaksha is moving pages to. If all of those are not evidence of controversy, what is? --Elonka 23:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Are you and MONGO planning a weekend getaway?

You little devils you ;-). Bon voyage.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Bauder&oldid=95621335"