Jump to content

User talk:Fred Bauder

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Woohookitty (talk | contribs) at 12:42, 5 January 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

It may be useful when trying to locate information on a book to try the search engine at Redbaud.com

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,

Chooserr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) AustinKnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

university of miami page HELP

I am wondering if you would be willing to take up arbitration for the University of Miami page, which has been repeatedly vandalized. Over the last two weeks, four different individuals have deleted the "criticism" section of the university of miami, while differnt members of continually had to put it back up. None of these people have tried to use the talk page, and they have been repeatedly warned. I am beginning to suspect they are the same person, and possibly someone who does not feel that the UM should be criticized...Please help us, becuase I'm not really sure what we can do, and its becoming a growing problem. Thanks,

-Jake

Sorry, just noticed this. Please put new stuff at the bottom. Fred Bauder 20:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged harassment of Cberlet

Fred - With all due respect, if you are going to propose findings of fact and penalties against me that state that I've somehow harassed or wronged User:Cberlet in the two Arbcom cases, you owe it to me to at least specify when and where this occured, and what policies it violated. Right now your proposals simply assert it to be so, and only link to the RfC I filed against Cberlet when he was making personal attacks against me [1] back in July. Quite frankly, this leaves me at a loss of understanding of what I'm even being accused of in any of these findings, much less how they merit the penalties you are suggesting. Since [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy requires transparency in proceedings where Arbitrators are to "make detailed rationale for all their decisions public," I believe it is fair of me to ask this of you. Thanks in advance. Rangerdude 09:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fred - The link you added on the harrassment allegation shows nothing more than Cberlet's list of diffs that I edited the article about him. Not a single one of these diffs shows any editing impropriety, and all edits were fully sourced and mindful of NPOV. If you're going to make allegations, you need to back them up with specific and conclusive evidence. The fact that you have not done so and instead can only link to diffs of me engaging in normal legitimate editing of articles suggests that your charge is severely flawed. Rangerdude 19:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Question

Now that we have confirmed that I'm not Pigsonthewing would it be appropriate or allowed for me to add myself as a 'Party' in his arbitration? While I wasn't involved in the original dispute I have obviously been heavily involved on the 'evidence' page and should probably be held to account for my actions like everyone else. Also, the text on the evidence page says not to place edits in other users' evidence sections, but not the procedure if someone does. Should I respond on the page, move the comments to the workshop or evidence talk pages and respond there, or something else? Thanks. --CBD T C @ 11:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That block

Just to explain myself, it was part of the AFD on the FSM, which got heavily sock-infested. So I went around and blocked a bunch of sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Then somebody pointed out on ANI that this doesn't actually help and I believe he said he'd unblocked them, so I just figured I'd drop the issue and not do that again. Radiant_>|< 16:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A question on the Rangerdude case

Fred, I know this case is so tangled and voluminous as to be rather daunting (even for me), but I just wanted to inquire whether you've had a chance to evaluate the evidence I've contributed. Best · Katefan0(scribble) 16:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cberlet, Nobs et. al. case

At Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#External_activities_of_users: might you consider rewording? I think I understand what you are saying, but it is (rather atypically) worded in such a way that I can't be sure.

You wrote: "The policies of Wikipedia apply on Wikipedia;…" (OK, so far pretty much a tautology) "…use in external activities of such tactics as 'links & ties',…" (now you're beginning to lose me, in what sense are "links and ties" a "tactic", maybe there is a verb missing, doing something with links and ties?) "…or guilt by association may be properly reported in a[n] article concerning them,…" (I'm getting lost in the passive voice, who may report what in an article concerning whom?) "…but do not justify their use by any party on Wikipedia…" (the use of what? The referent of their is very unclear) "which requires actual verification of information by a reliable source, Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research." (OK, you seem to be saying again that use of things in Wikipedia requires that Wikipedia policies be followed. But in between, where you presumably were stating the substance of the matter, you completely lost me.) -- Jmabel | Talk 02:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fred

For letting me know. I find it odd that WP takes me right back to 16/17 century politics and war - my only WP defence is the definition of one canon of Canon Law . I guess I'll have to drag it into the open , and it isn't one I was referring to historical events , but the one that refers to WP users . Thanks anyway, I suppose it will all distract from injecting source. I begin to think some people do not know how to read , only edit. Maybe I get a chance to ask the Jimbo question, mark 2 to do with classification of source. Now now, I'll stop. Mind yourself. EffK 21:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Reply required as per Wikipedia:Arbitration policy for Requests

I have not yet seen your reply as required by Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Requests to my request here as of 15:39, November 24, 2005 re with respect to this process. Please provide a rationale for your vote that was rendered while I was prevented from responding on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone in accordance with Wikipedia:Arbitration policy for Requests which states "Individual Arbitrators will provide a rationale for their vote if so moved, or if specifically requested." Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 23:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you, but the question I had asked here was: On what authority did you base your decision to deny me due process and render an opinion? - Ted Wilkes 23:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but you continue to avoid answering the question. Please do so. - Ted Wilkes 00:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Wilkes, Wyss, 141

Why did you accept this RfAr when no efforts, nor evidence of any efforts, to remedy the alleged issue by other means have been made or presented? I ask because this seems to be contrary to both the template instructions and WP policy. Could you please cite the documented section of Wikipedia's written policy which you used to make this extraordinary exception? Thanks. Wyss 00:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To substantiate your implied claim that I did not respect the decision, please cite diffs showing that I made any edits whatsoever to the articles in question after you made that post. Furthermore, why isn't this single post listed in the RfAr as evidence of a prior effort and what documented section of Wikipedia's written policy did you use to make the extraordinary exception of basing your decision on alleged evidence not placed into the template on the RfAr page as required by the template instructions and WP policy? Thank you. Wyss 00:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration re-opened

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 has been re-opened. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Workshop. (SEWilco 03:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]


Blocking disrupter at INC

I've been blocking a disrupter of the Iglesia ni Cristo.Advice?Regards.--Jondel 11:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UK Schools range block

Looks like we're getting some collateral damage from the block. I posted here, but since it's in the middle of the page and the board is high traffic, I thought I'd let you know. Looking for some input from somebody more experienced with dealing with blocks. --GraemeL (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to provide voting rationale

Please see [2]. Thank you. Rangerdude 18:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Bauder: You stated here:

  • "I am upset, but all of the accusations by Ted Wilkes came after the case was accepted."

Please explain this fabrication. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 20:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone Fred Bauder 21:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Committee procedure re RedWolf request

Please note that it appears you failed to follow standard procedure as seen here and notify User:RedWolf that his "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone has been accepted" and that he "Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone/Evidence." Kindly correct this matter. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 22:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wikiowl.gif license

Hi,

We'd like to use this image in HuWiki, but couldn't figure out the precise license for it. Could you help us out?

Thanks, nyenyec ☎ 22:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. I copied the discussion to Image talk:Wikiowl.gif and also posted my reply there. -- nyenyec ☎ 13:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EffK/workshop

Sorry to bother you Fred, I note that all 'parties' comments were removed from workshop . Do we, McClenon and I, get a chance to re-insert ? I assume this is normal admin roll-back, but do not in the least understand.

While I am here can I mention : I revert to unsigned-in on all talk pages now:

History function on WP has always worked illogically -previous can mean later etc. This is unsigned in , EffK

second post here :I always seem to get it arse-ways, now I go in there from the RFA and its all there. Separate things I don't get . Could be a waste of your time, so I am sorry. Other things are real, if this first is not, of which I'm not sure. EffK

Extremism

Dear Sir: Let me call your attention to this verifiable citation,

"It's certainly true there are right-wingers who have intolerant ideas about opponents and who would like to silence them, or worse. However, Berlet's analysis omits any mention of the same behavior on the extreme left, not to mention by himself."

Strong language from an author cited in the Military Law Review as the "foremost expert in extremism" [3]. nobs 22:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How long does arbitration go on for

Hello Fred. I feel I should add a statement to the FuelWagon/Ed Poor case, as I was a witness to many of the events mentioned by FuelWagon and SlimVirgin, and was also a witness to the behaviour on the Terri Schiavo talk page long before SlimVirgin came near it. However, I am rather busy at the moment. So my question is — how much time do I have? I'm not very familiar with arbitration cases. Do they end suddenly, or do they drag on for months? Should I treat this with more urgency than other Wikipedian business? Thanks. AnnH (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Close Rex071404 4 please...

I really hope to see you casting the closing vote for the 4th Rex071404 case and officially close it, preferably no later than Christmas.

Last call

You wrote:

"I am about done with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Workshop."
Nice start, although you should wait for all the evidence. As the arbitrators haven't even finished supplying their required rationale, so there didn't seem to be a hurry. Not that evidence is easy for this case. (SEWilco 04:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Some of my material is visible here and here. It will be moved to the case when it is ready, and you should act based on the official version. I've seen problems take place when decisions are made based on partial evidence. (SEWilco 15:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Wilkes, Wyss, 141

Hello Fred. After reviewing a bit more, I've realized Wyss hasn't been anywhere near as malicious as Wilkes. I would like it if Wyss is taken out of the remedies (which may not have a point as she's apparently left) but I think we should separate them as a package and deal with them separately. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 03:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chooserr (talk · contribs)

  • See contributions, on the verge of spam, not to mention keeps creating bizarre religion related POV forks, in between 'welcoming' new users, he's been doing this non stop ever since his block expired--Aolanonawanabe 01:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probation

Hello Fred. I'm interested to know the rationale behind the reason why the decision of probation: " may ban them from any article which relates to China which they disrupt by inappropriate editing " [4], as part of the ArbCom remedies, is extended to cover any article relates to China that are not relevant to the case itself [5]. I did not expect an ArbCom decision made within the context of the case would be applicable to matters beyond the case. Meanwhile, FYI, you may be interested to take a look at user:Jiang's query at the talk page [6]. Thanks very much. — Instantnood 06:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probationary bans

Hi Fred, you put a small template [7] on the Proposed Decision page of the Instantnood (and myself) arbitration case. Yesterday I made a generic probationary ban template: Template:User article ban and linked it to Wikipedia:Probation. You might consider editing your notice to just point at the wp:probation page for enforcement.

It'd probably be better for continued discussion to happen under the main article of that case where the Final Decision is, rather than the previous talk pages considering the minor differences between them, it's just less confusion and a consolidated talk. SchmuckyTheCat 16:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood_2

Replied here Alai 17:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WSI Arbitration

Any idea on when a decision might be reached? TDC 23:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of an Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct

Do you support the creation of a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at User talk:Jimbo Wales#A sincere question? - Ted Wilkes 18:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. It would be helpful to all. Fred Bauder 19:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stalled arbitration

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine appears to have stalled. In the meantime, wholly independently, and coming upon this dispute by another route entirely, I have proposed a solution to the perennial neutrality dispute that appears to underpin this conflict on Talk:Criticisms of communism#NPOV. Both sides appear to have at least accepted the idea in principle, but have become stalled. The Arbitration Committee giving them a little encouragement, and perhaps a tiny push to get them over the initial hump and into the process of actually working, might help. Uncle G 04:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

i appreciate your decision, esp. after the irritated email i sent you. Stoned Trey 06:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IPs from Canada?

Just a question. Are the IPs 66.186.250.106 and 66.61.69.65, which have deleted some of my contributions and denigrated my sources, also logging in from Canada? See [8], [9], [10], [11] and [12]. Onefortyone 13:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jguk

Jguk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SmokeDog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 212.134.22.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

User:Jguk, who, per the second arbcom case against him is prohibited from changing BCE/CE to BC/AD has done so again at Pakistan [13] (edit is also marked as minor, with no edit summary). This is his third violation.

From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/jguk_2:

Jguk banned from changing BCE to BC or CE to AD
1) Jguk is indefinitely prohibited from changing BCE to BC or CE to AD in any article, for any reason.
Enforcement by ban
1) Jguk may be briefly banned, up to a week in the case of repeated offenses, should he attempt to change the era notation in any article.

He has also activated one of his sockepuppets, User:SmokeDog, to make further edits to Pakistan. Sortan 21:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We've got a blue-light special on 4 day blocks today. jguk just got one. What evidence do you have that User:SmokeDog is a sockpuppet? Nandesuka 22:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jguk himself [14]. It might be useful to run a full sockpuppet check on him though, as he probably intended to make this change as SmokeDog, and thereby avoid notice. He may also have other sockpuppets used for the same purpose. Sortan 22:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Given that SmokeDog edited immediately after jguk, and that he hadn't made an edit for months before that, I'm inclined to agree. Nandesuka 22:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note (I fully support the four-day block): I think Pakistan probably should remain BC, not BCE. It's hard to tell, but I've done some digging in the history. Before November 27, there was no ancient history information, but there were a few instances of BC, and none of BCE. During a very busy November 27th, ancient history went in, which at various points used BC, BCE, or both. Probably should have all been BC to begin with, based on the pre-November 27th page. Of course, I could have easily missed some earlier back-and-forthing. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think its perfectly fine for article contributors to change optional styles if there is a general consensus to do so. In this case it was done by User:Tombseye, a regular contributor to the Pakistan article as part of a good faith copyedit [15]. None of the other editors objected, so it doesn't strike me as bad. Of course, if there is any objection or there is no consensus for a change, then the current style should be left alone. My opinion of course ;) Sortan 22:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that BC/BCE should be left strictly alone once an article demonstrates one consistent style or the other. Distiguishing "good-faith" changes from bad is impossible (heck, even Jguk is doing it, AFAICT, in "good faith": he either thinks it makes a better encyclopedia or that it pleases his God) and every change of styles is an open invitation to start edit-warring. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed. Smokedog (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Jguk (talk · contribs). Kelly Martin (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He's now editing by ip to evade his block -> [16], etc. Sortan 23:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Dan100 has reduced the block to 1 day. Nandesuka 23:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Russian states

Regarding this edit, referring to Ukraine as a "modern Russian state" can be found offensive by many Ukrainians who do not consider Ukraine to be a Russian state. --Wojsyl (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what language to use. I tried russian state. Fred Bauder 00:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You did very well with "historical predecessor of Russia and Ukraine". Thanks. --Wojsyl (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
More precise would be "historical predecessor of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus".--AndriyK 19:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AndriyK case (error?)

You added the following under "remedies" on the Proposed Decision page:

Reversal of irreversible page moves

5} Moved pages which have become irreversible by adding to the page history of the redirect page may be moved back without the necessity of a vote at Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Did you mean to place this under "findings of fact"? Ral315 (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a remedy. I thought to trying to make it apply to any Wikipedia page which has been moved in this way. It just means that that those pages AndriyK moved can be moved back without a vote. Fred Bauder 14:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed an administrator can simply revert an article move without the necessity of a vote anyway, as: Requested moves is used to request, and vote on, article moves that are not straightforward, or that require the assistance of Wikipedia administrators. So I'd rather see it as a "finding of fact" as well. I may be wrong of course. --Wojsyl (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered this dialog. I was not sure whether the parties are allowed to talk to the arbitrators outside the arbitration pages, so I was not keeping an eye on this page. I only stopped by to followup on Wojsyl's. If the very fact of this message is considered unethical or undesirable, please delete and ignore it.
Having said that, I view the undoing of all frivolous page moves is a remedy that only ArbCom can prescribe until we get the automatic undoing of such moves into a policy. As per our guidelines, currently admins cannot move pages on the whim, simply deciding that the move is undeserving even a discussion at WP:RM. In some cases admins do so anyway (see [17]) but only when they are bulletproof confident that there is a nonsense move. More often an admin has no idea on the subject to decide and the issue should go to WP:RM. The ruling explicitly allowing to revert the moves based purely on the fact that move was made with a bad-faith trick would give admins a clear authority to do so. I would prefer the policy that would mandate rather than allow undoing such moves in order to strictly discourage the quick-fix POV pushers to impose their view on the community and create a huge amount of work for admins to merge the histories once the mess is sorted out. Thank you. --Irpen 22:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Should it be found appropriate to move this to the Arbitration pages, I have no objection either. --Irpen 22:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johnski Arbitration

I just wanted to let someone know we are done posting evidence in the Johnski arbitration case. I know there are a lot of cases waiting and it would probably help get the backlog cleared up the quicker your able to close cases. Please let me know if you have any questions. Davidpdx 15:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How am I supposed to talk to the arbcom?

Also what do you know about flamekeeper, or User:EffK? An educated conversation regarding who he is and how to best fascilitate his interaction with the wikipedia could be functional. I want to discuss my conversation w him @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Your_care._Arbs_strange_ways. Sam Spade 00:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He edits on Wikinfo so I am recused Fred Bauder 00:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and that means you won't comment or provide advice? Can you at least tell me a functional place to dialogue w the arbcom? random talk pages havn't worked, nor has the mailing list... Is there an IRC room? Sam Spade 00:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You voted to reject ...

... accepting the request for arbitration that I filed against SlimVirgin for abuse of adminitrator priviledges. Would you please tell me your reason? Marsden 15:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Marsden's guilty plea

Please stop removing references to Marsden's guilty plea. In Canadian law a conditional discharge involves a judge finding an offender guilty. Though there is no conviction there is still a verdict of guilt. Please read the conditional discharge article. Since conditional discharges are usually offered only in a plea bargain, they usually involve a plea of guilt from the offender (there's no such plea as "no contest" in Canada). This was the case with Marsden:

"Marsden, a right-wing political pundit who has made several appearances on the U.S. network Fox News, pleaded guilty last October to criminal harassment of former Vancouver radio personality Michael Morgan.
The Vancouver radio host received a conditional discharge with one year of probation.
Police said the pair were involved in a sexual relationship for about a year, but when it ended, Marsden began a barrage of unwanted phone calls and e-mails.
Part of her conditional discharge involved an agreement she would not write about Morgan or his family on the Internet, as the pundit has her own website." (You've got (threatening) mail! Online harassment followed romances gone wrong in these cyberstalking cases By Dave Breakenridge -- Sun Mediahttp://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/TechNews/TechAtHome/2005/01/31/915660-sun.html

Again, please stop removing references to Marsden's guilty plea. Homey 15:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking info on the workshop page by Ghirlandajo

Dear Fred, As I already informed you by e-mail, User:Ghirlandajo blanked the comment of Yakudza on the Workshop page. Later he also blanked the section in "Proposed findings of fact" I added. My attempts to restore the information were reverted by User:Ghirlandajo. Could you please solve the problem somehow?

A minor problem: Ghirlandajo plased his section #13 between #8 and #9. I do not know whether I am allowed to move it to the right place.

Thanks in advance.--AndriyK 19:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that one party of the dispute may enter into private correspondance with an arbitrator. That said, I find it annoying that AndriyK attempts to turn his own RfAr into mine or Irpen's. If he is not satisfied wth our actions, he should launch a separate RfAr against us and not to make a circus from his own RfAr. --Ghirlandajo 21:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification. AndriyK was playing with the Workshop for a while as if this was his talk page. Creating new sections, moving his comments around, etc. Then Yakudza copy/pasted a piece already at evidence to the workshop. While I am not sure that needs removed by another party, there should be some clarity about how it is proper and how it's not proper to deal with the Workshop page. Making it a mess to further a cause of one of the sides is something that is not supposed to happen. There is a "statement" section at the main arbitration page for the parties to make their cases. There is also a special "evidence" page from which stuff should not be pasted blindly to the workshop. Workshop, as it says on top, should be a set of structured suggestions for the arbitrators rather than the place for more rant spilled over from elsewhere. --Irpen 20:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Irpen, please do not establish your own rules. I asked Frad, what I am permitted to do and did nothing what is forbidden.--AndriyK 20:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If one party is "permitted" to arbitrarily copy some pieces of evidence verbatim from the Evidence page to the Workshop, let's merge the Evidence with the Workshop. --Ghirlandajo 21:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What "my own rules"? Read the top of the workshop page and talk to me at my own talk. --Irpen 21:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments would be welcome at Treatment Advocacy Center

The Treatment Advocacy Center page is now protected. Your comments would be welcome.--24.55.228.56 14:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EffK is forced to Abandon a Corrupted Wikipedia

I refer you to my response of a few moments ago at 15 December [[18]],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005 EffK 02:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New evidence posted to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2

Hi - I have added new evidence for your consideration. SEWilco and his bot is currently modifying a climate article [19] to his footnote style without discussion. Seems to be a bit contemptuous to me in view of the ongoing proceedings. Thanks, Vsmith 17:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mcfly85

Hi there Fred, Im SWD316. I am informing all the users with the checkuser ability under "advice" given by Celestianpower to run a CheckUser on Mcfly85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user "claims" to have NEVER once opened an IP address to vandalize; list of IP addresses that vandalized my user page are suspects. I also suspect he created/opened accounts to vandalize too. (ex. Rock09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 4benson3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Capnoh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Oneandon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Sigma995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Sven66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Pwner (talk · contribs).) A few days ago I was running for adminship and he got on there and edited. Mcfly85, Rock09 and Sigma995 all voted oppose when well noted administrators and others voted support. I suspect Mcfly has vandalized my user page 9 times. You can see conflicts there at my talk page, my RFA. I posted these accusations at the Administrators' noticeboard and nothing was done because of lack of evidence. Well, today Banes noticed something interesting. He posted:

You may want to look at the history of Frank Beard. And, less interestingly, the history of Wayne Newton. I just thought this might interest you.

It was where Mcfly85 and Rock09 edited the same articles simultaneously. Rock09 vandalized the articles and Mcfly85 does clean-up. Suspicious that an article like Frank Beard, an article with 11 edits has edits by Rock09 and Mcfly85 simultaneously. Can you please run a CheckUser on him? SWD316 18:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SEWilco bot

Fred, FYI, I've left a request that the committee reconsider the proposed decision regarding SEWilco's bot, as I feel it may cause problems in the future. [20] Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:/Workshop

I did not remove the comment (which had been posted by Yakudza verbatim three times before that on my RfC and elsewhere) but moved it to /Evidence, where imho it rightfully belongs. If one party is allowed to paste some pieces of evidence to /Workshop, may I do the same? --Ghirlandajo 13:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent nomination at WP:RFD

Greetings:

I just noticed that you had listed a nomination for List of People suggested to have been involved in the Kennedy Assassination → Kennedy assassination theories at WP:RFD. However, you inadvertently placed the nomination in a suboptimal spot. I have refactored your comments into a more appropriate spot on the page. This is just a heads up so that you won't go looking for it later and wonder what happened to it.

All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 15:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KAT

Ive reported you to the authorities. [21] ;) -Ste|vertigo 19:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xed 2

Regarding your notice on my talk page: I've checked the evidence page, as well as the workshop page, and find nothing referring to "masking of POV editing under the guise of citing NPOV and demanding sources". Could you point me in the direction of the evidence, please? Thank you. --Viriditas 00:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. From what I can tell, I twice restored a citation request [22] [23], and removed false citations as well as unsupported and irrelevant content [24] [25]. Xed reverted, and I added a totally disputed tag. [26]. I fail to see any alleged "POV editing under the guise of citing NPOV and demanding sources". --Viriditas 00:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you show me where I removed "any mention of occupation"? Maybe I'm just not seeing it. Regarding Xed's references, they didn't claim what he said they did, namely "a vigorous campaign by Zionist activists" I don't see where I've stripped the "Palestinian point of view" out of the film, although it does appear that Tariq Shadid is a Palestinian. The original comment stated, "Tariq Shadid, a medical doctor, claimed that the Academy's decision was based on political considerations." I don't think his medical doctor status has any bearing on the article. But, revisiting his website [27], I'm wondering if he should have been credited as a writer for the Palestine Chronicle. Unfortunately, Dr. Shadid's article seems to fall under the Guilt by association section of WP:V, hence its exclusion. I find myself agreeing with much of what Dr. Shadid writes, however. I can't personally comment on the films distribution, as I don't have that information; I can only go on what I've been able to verify. --Viriditas 01:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Based on your latest addition to my page, I can't comment on Jay's edits. However, I can comment that Xed's use of the term "occupation" in that context appears to have as many problems as the term "terrorist". As Jay has pointed out in the past, the word "occupied" is a legal opinion, and should be avoided. [28] --Viriditas 02:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again. I don't see any references to Xed's POV, here. The word "occupied" isn't even used on the film's official website. [29]. I don't think the NPOV policy protects Xed's POV. --Viriditas 02:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the pain I had to go through just to put in some uncontroversial facts... - Xed 02:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copperchair

Is he allowed to continue his vandalism now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Copperchair

He's now reverted the War on Terror article to his version (ignoring consensus that the Iraq War should be covered) and his user talk page (including his ban on editing) as if nothing has happened. Shouldn't he be blocked as a condition of his RFA temp decision now? Thank you. JG of Borg 06:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know this message is about two weeks old, but I've been on vacation and I peeked in to see that Copperchair had been blocked for a month. It appears either the block has been lifted or you did not block him for a month initially; it's been far less than a month since the above violation and less than a month since your original warning on his Talk page. Meanwhile, he continues blanking his Talk page to remove all mention of warnings, etc. that countless Wikipedians have given him.--chris.lawson 02:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right-o. I've been out for about a month and I hadn't checked his contributions. It appears it's entirely Talk, which we'll just have to keep reverting. Thanks again.--chris.lawson 16:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I keep a vigilant eye on his talkpage, and just recently, I left a comment regarding that behavior. Its up to him wether or not he continues to revert. Ethier way, I'll keep reverting if he doesn't stop. -MegamanZero|Talk 16:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification from HK

Regarding Nobs01 et al: I am asking for clarification regarding the proposed penalty of indefinite probation to be imposed on myself. Given that there is no finding of fact against me, and that even the allegations against me in Cberlet's complaint boil down to nothing more than a few edits that he disapproved of in the article Chip Berlet, one and one half years ago, I hope that you can understand how I might have a lack of insight into any role my behavior played in the creation and aggravation of the problems which gave rise to this case -- it appears to me that my behavior is not an issue in this case. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me much more likely that the proposed penalty is purely in response to "the dissatisfaction expressed ...with the decisions reached in this case." This would seem to be an offense akin to Lese majesty. --HK 18:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second these concerns, and have no intention to edit under these restrictions. Sam Spade 18:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the sort of thing we want to get at [30]. Fred Bauder 18:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your concern about statements such as that which you link to. I cannot understand placing a contributor of over 2 years and 30,000 edits on probation due to his opposition to your judgement. Sam Spade 20:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chooserr sockpuppet?

Hello,

You blocked Chooserr for a week, however FCYTravis unblocked him on his promise not to edit war over dates[31]. Just now a brand new user, IMaRocketMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), started date-reverting to BC/AD with intentionally misleading edit summaries, and has been blocked. Perhaps you might wish to do a checkuser and investigate if this is Chooserr breaking his promise. -- Curps 02:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Different Fred Bauder 02:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deeceevoice RfA

I saw that you voted to accept the Deeceevoice RfA. While I disagree with you on this decision, it is yours to make. However, I am curious how the fact that an admin posted false info on the RfA prior to your vote, then admitted that this info was false, plays into your decision? (For more on this, see User:Robchurch/deeceevoice. In my opinion, this RfA is a witchhunt and, like the RfC, has so devolved into nothing but a shouting match that I fail to see how anything can be decided from it. Finally, does your vote for acceptance mean you also are voting that Justforasecond is harassing Deeceevoice (as many users believe)? Best, --Alabamaboy 14:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just an alert

I know the arbcom is very busy right now, but just alerting you that we do have a temp injunction request in the Ben Gatti case. Been there for a week now. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johnski Arbitration

Mr. Bauder, there are some comments that have been written on the arbitration proposed decision talk page. I would hope you get a chance to read them. The comments are not made to undermine your authority as an arbitrator, but instead they are aimed at coming up with a solution that will truly solve the problem.

It is my opinion and others that the proposal being offered will not help alievate the current situation. I guess the other option then is to let them just revert whatever they want. Having to constantly revert an article becomes a waste of time and takes away from trying to improve so many other articles that need to be fixed. It is my sincere hope you will take these things into consideration. Thank you for your time! Davidpdx 07:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an eye on the Chair made of copper

I'll be on wikivacation in the states with my girlfriend for the rest of the month, and I don't know if I will have access to the internet or not... Anywho, I;m just leaving you this to remind you to keep an eye on User:Copperchair, he keeps reverting his userpage to blank out context he doesn't want there. Anyway, I won't be around 24/7 to revert when he does, so...I just wanted you to ber aware of the fact. Finally, Merry christmas! -MegamanZero|Talk 08:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

Hi Fred — if you have the time at all, I wounder if you could run a sockpuppet check on L'Omnivore_Sobriquet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and JohD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The first was indefinately blocked after being accused of being a sock puppet of the latter. I'm unblocking him for now, but it would be good to see for sure one way or the other. Thanks, — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 14:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 15:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neuro-Linguistic evidence

Fred, I got your comment via another user.

Life here has taken a major hit on my time, and the NLP case is a complex one since theres apparently about a dozen people sock/meat-puppeting on it and a lot to document. I'll try to sort that out, you are right, it needs to be finished. Thanks for the nudge. FT2 10:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, I've posted my evidence to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming/Evidence. If I get time I'll improve the formating and comments to make it clear and concise. --Comaze 17:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser (Please)

I know you get this a lot but could you check an user. Brazil4Linux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was disruptive and he was banned along with his sockpuppet Quackshot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Now a new user GroundZero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has appeared who uses the same English, immediatly contributed to the same pages at the sametime, supports the same edits and has a vast knowledge of Wikipedia uncommon for new users. I don't want to blame an innocent user. Thanks! Jedi6 12:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Jedi6 20:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karmafist

[32] Kmweber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't see a place to comment on this at WP:RFAr so I will do so here. While I have been a repeated critic of Karmafist I don't think this is the best course of action. I don't think what Karmafist is doing is right, but I do think that he believes it to be right. That's why I have tried to get other admins on AN/I to comment on better ways for him to handle these things. Hopefully the mere existence of this motion will serve to convince Karmafist to re-examine the role of adminship. However, in general I think Wikipedia could be well served by less of a focus on preventing problems through punitive measures and more efforts towards suggesting different behaviours. That's actually one of the primary issues on which Karmafist and I disagree, but it's a widespread concern. People make mistakes. Slapping them down and taking away their ability to do so is a quick and efficient solution, but inevitably increases tensions and leads to hostility. Convincing people to act differently is admittedly much more difficult, but I think a better solution and sometimes not given enough effort due to all the other stresses of Wikipedia. --CBD ☎ ✉ 18:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Sockpuppet checkuser request

I've been trying to get someone with CheckUser powers to do some sockpuppet checks, but apparently my making such requests makes people fall off the face of the earth. Beware! Nevertheless, here is the request I have been making:


To make a long story short, a couple of us were suspecting that some users that suddenly appeared out of nowhere making trouble and backing each other up were sockpuppets, and, it turns out, they more or less incriminated themselves. Read all about the festivities at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#Dispute tags for Positive and Critical Links Sections, something one of them started in support of the other (sorry that there's a lot of unrelated stuff there), and the initial suspicions at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#"Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files". But now that these first two basically incriminated themselves, we need to check on a few other users that also aroused suspicion before going around slapping sockpuppet tags on pages. I simply request a yes or no answer to a simple question: are these people from Denver (or the surrounding area in Colorado) too? Of course, if you do find some kind of smoking gun, that would be of utmost interest. Following is the list:

Retcon
Missionary
Netministrator
Cairoi
bUcKaRoO
Duffer1
Kool8
DannyMuse
IP law girl
Cobaltbluetony
Elgoodo
Steven Wingerter
Lucille S

I would personally doubt that every single one of those is actually a sockpuppet, but I only seek the yes or no answer to that one question (barring a smoking gun(s) of some kind), nothing that is especially useful to anybody for anything other than confirming or quelling suspicions of sockpuppetry. Thanks.Tommstein 11:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection of Bogdanov Affair

Not sure it's going to do you any good at the moment, because there's a bug. It's supposed to stop any accounts newer than 4 days from posting to S-P pages, but it's not working. It is stopping anons though. Note has been left on Brion's page. Who knows. It might be fixed by the end of the day. The vandalism on George W. Bush has gone way way down since it came into effect. For now, I'd just keep the tag on BA. Just a heads up really. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And btw Fred, you did do it right. :) It is semi protected. I tried going into it as an IP and it wouldn't let me doing anything but view the source. I know though. The new interface is a bit funky. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fairness to both sides

Dear Fred, So anyone that tries to edit out bias, mis-quotes, expand controversial articles is a member of the entity that is the subject of the article, and those that join the editing, reverting are too? Why would anyone want to edit articles at Wikipedia if he would be subject to such allegations? I request that the arbcom also deal with the issues that I and others have raised. I look forward to a solution that is fair to both sides of this debate. Sincerely, Johnski 19:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note

Mr. Bauder: I did not particiapate in any recusal requests or discussions of conflict of interest, as the histories will reflect. I waited patiently on several motion requests that affected the process, which never came. I reserved judgement on many of questionable actions throughout this hearing, and note, did not speak of them publicly until after the Committee voted. Trashing me to Jimbo is unwarranted, and unfair. But I have a story to tell, even if this sitting Committee doesn't want to hear it. All I ask is a fair hearing, from somebody. And trust me, there is enough interest in the story. nobs 21:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phroziac and Karmafist

Fred, I understand the reluctance to take on something so ostensibly petty, but I think you already understand a little the potential of poisoning regarding Karmafist. I have seen some of the brief discussion that ArbCom members have had regarding desysoping him, and there is no mystery why. There are a lot of legit editors who mostly want to create a great science library which doesn't usually have much POV issues. But when those of us are bullied by the likes of Karmafest, WP is in danger of losing some important talent. No one has offered me any apology and, in fact, 3 hours after I left the flap alone and walked away from it, Karmafest, at Phroziac's bequest, continued to harrass me about it. What gives??

There are lots of small towns in the U.S. where the school bully (who might also be a lineman on the football team) grows up to be one of the town cops. But he's still a bully. What happens if the town government does nothing about the bully with the badge and gun, people get fed up and move out. Or they leave out of fear. (it's probably nothing, but Karmafest is just down the road, I-89, a couple of hours from me.) Jimbo is sorta like the founder and mayor of the town and you and ArbCom are like the town council. You need to be careful about the bad cops in your employ. Please do not under-react regarding their behavior.

This is a serious issue of systemic admin bullying and misbehavior. Many/most admins are good, but you know, statistically, that some have to be bad apples. Some of these admins are kids with the maturity level of college freshman, and they're carring badges (the admin status) and guns (power to block, etc.). It is to WP's detriment if these bad apples are not identified as early as possible and removed. It's not just a justice issue, but one regarding WP health. Thanks for looking at this. r b-j 17:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DrBat proposal

The suggested motion is:

  • "Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) is prevented indefinitely from editing Zoophilia or any article or page which concerns zoophilia, including their talk pages. Whether an article or page concerns zoophilia shall be determined by the enforcing administrator."
  • "If Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) edits Zoophilia, any page which relates to Zoophobia, or their talk pages..."

I am concerned thast this does not yet address DrBat's activities. I would strongly ask, may this wording be changed as follows:

  • "Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) is prevented indefinitely from editing Zoophilia and its closely-related articles, or any editing related to the subjects of zoophilia, bestiality, animal sexuality, or human-animal relationships in any article, including their talk pages. Whether an article or page concerns these subjects shall be determined by the enforcing administrator."
  • "If Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) edits Zoophilia or its closely related articles, or makes any edit which relates to zoophilia, bestiality, animal sexuality, or human-animal relationships in any article, or their talk pages...."

My reason is as before, the South Park article or page does not "concern zoophilia". It concerns animal sexuality and human-animal relationships as a discussed theme of a cartoon series. Ditto at least one other edit of this kind.

I've stated my position several times on why animal sexuality is not a recurring theme in the series South Park, which you would know if you actually watched the show (furthermore, the first sentence of the topic mentioned that "sexual activity with animals" was a recurring theme, with a link to the zoophilia article). You have yet to debunk any of it. --DrBat 02:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask strongly that it is specific subjects which are outlined, not just "zoophilia", and that the ruling wording is changed to prevent the editing on these subjects in any page, not just any page "concerning zoophilia". At present the proposed change will not address DrBat. Only a list of forbidden subjects will do that, and the above is a minimal list of 4 subjects that will probably do the job.

The above subject list is very tightly drafted, and does not unduely restrict DrBat in other edits. It is these subjects he has edited in this dispute, and hence these subjects it would be asked to prevent him editing on.

FT2(Talk) 23:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice/Workshop. Fred Bauder 21:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to simply refuse

Ben Gatti case

Look at this. Very POV edit on Price-Anderson from today. We also have several from nuclear power over the last few days. Please act. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Note

Can you check and see if 203.206.87.165 is really Grace Note? On Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Haizum 203.206.87.165 is claiming to be her and is telling everyone, rather erroneously, to "chillout". freestylefrappe 20:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, Fred Bauder! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final statement

I have revised my final statement in regards to Nobs01 and others, please have a look if you have the interest. Cheers, Sam Spade 07:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DrBat

Thank you for your help on the above. It's appreciated.

I have one last request on the DrBat case, to ask if it may be considered, or what you'd think?

Ciz/DrBat/ShadowH has now used sock-puppets twice that we know of, and each time for abusive purposes. So any violative editings in future are likely to be via sockpuppet too. Spotting his actions is really hard if he's allowed to use sock-puppets this way in future. Is it possible to have a heavy duty summary deterrent for abusive sock-puppet use, something like a summary prevention (and strong enforcement) that he may not use a sock-puppet to violate the ruling, or may not use a sock-puppet without permission? The thinking here is that this will probably not deter any legitimate activities, but will make him really think twice about the cost if he uses sock-puppets in future this way, as opposed to "I can get away with it".

(On that note, might it be a useful ruling in future for sock-puppet abusers, in general, or add to WP:SOCK, that abuse of sock-puppets may result in a user being prevented from using them on pain of heavy punishment? Rationale: Sock-puppets aren't much loved unless there's a fair motive, and are not essential for editing, so withdrawal of sock privilege is not a restriction on editing. Perhaps a regular punishment for their abuse should be forbidding the user to use one (or requiring them to justify it first), on pain of heavy summary punishment. That would make it easier to track abusive sock-users too, reasonable in light of the complexity and problems that a new sock-ID costs bona fide editors trying to prevent abuse. Just a $0.02 thought)

Last, I am aware of the lingering Neuro-linguistic programming RFArb and plan get down to that during Christmas/New Year week. It's messy and complex and to present it simply for arbitration is not easy, but it'll be done.

Thank you for your understanding and help in all this. It's much appreciated (and a happy new year!)

FT2 (Talk) 12:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed enforcement includes blocks of up to a year, blocks of socks count toward the 5 ban threshold. Fred Bauder 14:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deeceevoice Arbitration

I just wanted to let you know that while I remain opposed to the events that lead to Deeceevoice's current arbitration, I have been very impressed with your impartiality and work on the issue. While I wish this issue had not been pushed to arbitration, it does reassure me that arbitrators such as yourself are working here. Best, --Alabamaboy 15:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

INFINITE CRISIS crisis

Dear Mr. Bauder,

Comic book fans are notoriously territorial. What else have they got to do (jk!).

In the articles entitled Crisis on Infinite Earths and Infinite Crisis, a new user posted this statement:

!Similarly to how the original Crisis on Infinite Earths was an effort to clear the perceived confusion of multi-universes in DC Comics' continuity, Infinite Crisis is possibly the answer to some people's perception that the DC Universe has become too dark and "gritty". "

I am actually a comics professional. My name is Dennis Calero and I draw X-factor for Marvel comics. In my professional opinion as someone extremely familiar with comics, this is a reasonable statement.

At some point, there was an argument about whether or not this statment was too "speculative", this in an article about a series that is not yet completed.

It was removed and replaced by several users several times. The original poster (anonymous) suggested that the question go to mediation and that the statement remain as an act of good faith and it was, for a time, cordoned in an area entitled "Speculation" along with some other tidbits that were in question. Many posters, whether they agreed with the statement or not, agreed that it was not a glaringly innappropriate addition.

This area was removed and the page blocked from anon and new users.

The sysop "Phil Sandifer", someone who boasts on his user page that his tactics are "jackbooted", in my opinion, made the situation worse by simply deleting changes, and made no attempt to form a consensus. Even though other articles on art pieces that include speculative analysis (what is the meaning of this picture etc), that have been cited to him, he simply recites that WIKI rules don;t make room for any analysis, only facts, even though statements in the article currently are analytical in nature. He simply refuses to listen!

Further, he sites "vandalism" as a reason for blocking the page, when the only real act of vandalism, a wholesale marring of the page, was done anonymously by a user who was against the change, not for it, who obviously became frustrated that it was being added back in by just asmany frustrated users.

The main question is to get an opinion on this contribution.

The second is whether or not Phil Sandifer should be advised on the use of his priveleges.

I apologize for any mispellings.

Thank you!


Dear Mr. Bauder,

Could you please advise me as to what negotiation entails. I'm not being sarcastic. Discussion has gone back and forth regarding this issue. I'm not sure what talking to one other user might accomplish. Could you elaborate?

Thank you very much.

Atomiceo 17:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Bauder,

It's been made very clear to me that there is a clique of users who've taken it upon themselves to delete any change the four or five of them have not personally contributed. Despite this site's very laudible goals, it just seems too easy for a small group of like minded individuals to completely monopolize the system and current safegaurds are inadequate. Of course, we're all human.

I don't think I have anything I can contribute. Thank you for your time though!

Atomiceo 01:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sock check request - User:Jonah Ayers

In connection to the incidents reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jonah Ayers, I am requesting a sock check to confirm whether these accounts use the same IP addresses.

Some of these haven't been used in months, so I understand that they might not show up. Let me know if this is request isn't made correctly, or if I should ask another ArbCom member. Thanks for this and all you do. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Some involved editors will be making a formal filing about this user soon. Given the nature of the violations and the use of so many socks, it appears that an ArbCom case is necessary. Fortunately this seems to be fairly straightforward. You'll be hearing more about this. In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if you could keep your own notes on whatever the sock check turned up, in case any of it becomes germane later. Best wishes, -Willmcw 08:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous Vandal Tags

Hi Fred. I write regarding the vandal tag you added to my name in the NLP arbitration case. It seems you've been played a fool by one of your accused. I'd appreciate your removing the tag as it's based on zero evidence and the original accusations seem to be more mal-intended rather than merely misinformed. The amount of hassle your accused is giving me is really getting quite out of control. Peace. Metta Bubble 01:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request in Min Zhu and WebEx arb case

I made a request on the Min Zhu and WebEx arb case talk page to expand the case to include 8 related articles [33]Please let me know if this request is properly framed or if I need to make it in some other way. Thanks for your help with this matter--FloNight 18:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Several comments from AndriyK concerning the arbitration

  1. The Arbitration Committee is going to punish me for something what was (and stil is!) not forbidden by any rules (creating artificial histories of redirect pages). I did it to prevent disrupting Wikipedia and violating the Policies. Why not simply to say "do not do it anymore" instead of punish me for something which is not forbidden? How could I know that I was not allowed to do it if none of the policies forbids it?
  2. In view of the Arbitration Committee, the existing policy about Ukrainian geografic names do not address the question of names associated with the Kievan Rus. How could I know it? There is no any restrictions to particular historical period in the policy about Ukrainian names. How could I know that spelling of Ukrainian names in Wikipedia should be different from Britannica and other English language encyclopedias? Which policy says it? It seem the policy states the opposite.
  3. It's very funny that for a single revert of copivio article made by mistake I will get the same punishment ("Warning") as Ghirlandago will get for multiple insultigs and personal attack made on purpose!
  4. It's very surprising if I will be forbidden to correct Ukrainian names and those who were distorting them and ignoring the naming convention are allowed to do it further.
  5. It's very strange that multiple edist of my opponents that disrupted Wikipedia: broken links, sneaky vandalism, POV-pushing etc. were completely ignored by the Arbitration Committee.
  6. The group of users that has been squeezing Ukrainian editors out of the Community by persisting and scoffing trolling, insulting and personal attacks now is about to succseed to use the Arbitration Committee for this purpose. I called this group "Russian Mafia". It was not a personal attack. It was merely a stating of the fact. Is there a more appropriate name? I do not think so.
  7. The Arbitration Committee voted for decissions that were not discussed in the Worshop. And if any of them were discussed, the discussion has been ignored. As the result, the decissions contradict each other. The proposed enforcement #1 refers to Russian names, while #2 refers to Ukrainian names. What have I to do with Russian names? I did not change a single Russian name since I am here. What is the reason for this strange decision about Russian names? Can somebody explain me?
  8. Nearly all my statements, comments, evidence, proposal were ignored. It would be OK if the Arbitration Committee would discuss them and then reject. At least I would see a fair procedure. But I did not see anything but silent voting.

Even a killer morder has a right to be heard in the court. You deprive me of this right just for the attempt to protect Wikipedia against pushing of Russian POV and distorting Ukrainian names!--AndriyK 21:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your valuable feedback Fred Bauder 21:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration policy

The Arbitration policy makes it appear that the Arbitration committee has more power than they actually do, and sets tem up for a power grab when an opportunity avails itself. The arbitration policy should be dictated to the arbitration committee, not established by it. Hackwrench 20:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

195.92.168.165

This IP isn't in one of the AOL ranges listed at Special:Blockip. If there are other ranges that need shorter block duration this needs to be documented somewhere. -- Curps 21:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting (or lack thereof) on Reddi 2

It appears that while you authored the last two items on the voting page (Remedy #3, Extensions of Parole and Probation; and Enforcement #1, Enforcement by Block), you did not officially cast your vote for them. Did you intend to vote for these items? --TML1988 05:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communist revision

Hi- there is allready a section about Soviet revision. I dont want to just revert your addition, is there some way you can incorporate it into the existing section? --Stbalbach 21:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet problem

Hi there. I have my first sock puppet to report, and I'm stuck with what to do next after tagging the user(s) and collecting evidence. They told me on the Help Desk to ask on WP:AN/I. I did, but nobody responded. Then they told me (on the Help Desk, and later on the WP:AN/I) to contact an ArbCom member. So I contacted Mindspillage 3 days ago, but she didn't respond. Now I'm contacting User:Raul654 and you. Hope to hear from somebody, at last... :-\ --Dijxtra 09:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking this user and supporting my suspicion with evidence, but I still don't know what to do next to get this guy blocked indefinitly (WP:SOCK says that's what's done with sock puppets). So, this guy is still at large and is still vandalising articles. What is to be done to make some admin block this guy? --Dijxtra 20:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected Sockpuppet

I have suspected that accounts User:Brian Brockmeyer,User:Almeidaisgod, and User:Flavius Aetius are sock puppets for some time now. I have gathered the evidence here [34] I tried to get someone to checkuser the accounts to make sure, but nobody answers me (or they are all busy) :(

If you have time, please check them, thank you for your attention. --Ichiro 17:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I just posted a similar request at User talk:Jayjg, don't want to duplicate any effort. I'll place a notice of this request on his talk page as well. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 18:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Fred. This helps. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 18:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

They may be fun and so on, but they're getting out of control. In the Catholic Allaience project deletion, the page's creator used a Userbox category to find over 40 Catholic target users whom he spammed with an appeal to save the page from deletion. Of 11 who voted to keep, 9 of them had been contacted in this way. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Tony said. The problem is more widespread than I think you realize; writing off Zscout's proposed injunction with a "just don't use fair use images in userboxes" isn't helpful if no one listens to it. See, for example, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Mozilla, and its previous nomination at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/November 2005#Template:Fair use-firefox, where local consensus that the images are "plainly kawaii (cute)" was allowed to override our foundation issues. —Cryptic (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely, and that's my point - that the fair use policy is being very widely ignored, and those trying to enforce it are being buried under an avalanche of userbox users. —Cryptic (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one of the main WikiProject Userboxes tass at the moment is to remove fair-use images. And I continue to reove them. Ian13ID:540053 18:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Healing Wikipedia

I wonder if there is a way to heal the issues and differences that DCV's arbitration has brought to the foreground? In some ways, this entire affair has been bad for racial relations here at Wikipedia. Those who don't like how DCV acts have said that their actions are solely in response to DCV not being "nice" (so to speak). Those who don't like what has happened to DCV (like me) see the affair as being driven by racism and bigotry. The funny thing is that there is overlap between the two sides. A number of those pushing to sanction DCV admit that some of actions against her have been wrong and haven't helped racial issues here (and that some of the users pushing the issue against her are doing so for possibly racist reasons). Almost all of us opposed to the actions against DCV admit that she is abrasive and has violated Wikipedia guidelines and should be more civil in her discussions here. What we see, though, is a double-standard at work, with users appearing to gang up against non-minority editors like DCV for being less than civil but not doing the same to white editors. If this subject interest you, I'd encourage you to post you thoughts here on a special talk page I created.--Alabamaboy 21:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for rejecting the "userbox" RFAR request

Hi, Fred Bauder, could I ask you to expand upon your reasoning for rejecting this arbitration request? I'm just interested in knowing your reasoning. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 23:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (it's fine to reply here, I have your talk page on my watchlist). I think what the case is about is whether admins should delete a load of pages outside of the normal speedy criteria, rather on the merits of the userboxes themselves. Could you possibly reconsider your decision? Talrias (t | e | c) 23:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your consideration

I added 2 more prposed remedies in the Ben Gatti case. I really feel as though we need some sort of "symbolic" blocking here or else he's liable not to "get the message" that the arbcom wants to send. He's completely unrepetent. I just don't see just probation altering his behavior. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also added to the workshop about him being blocked from Price-Anderson Act. Anyway, knowing Ben as I do, I'm just not sure probation is going to alter his behavior. I always have hope, but...just not sure. But hey. Your the arbcom member and I ain't. :) So. Hopefully you are correct. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I withdrew the motions for Ben to be banned for a day or a week. I kept the Price-Anderson bans. I just struck out the banishment motions. If that is not correct, please correct it. I had no idea how to withdraw it. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Bauder&oldid=33968678"