Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Wikisunn (talk | contribs)
189 edits
Questions regarding wikipedia policies to Fred
Woohookitty (talk | contribs)
Administrators
611,194 edits
Line 763: Line 763:
I have seen a general rules under Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons” which states "We must get the article right. [1] Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives.". Please, can you help with the policies related to references / claims which are ridiculous and makes no sense or by naïve authors. Thanks.
I have seen a general rules under Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons” which states "We must get the article right. [1] Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives.". Please, can you help with the policies related to references / claims which are ridiculous and makes no sense or by naïve authors. Thanks.
[[User:Wikisunn|Wikisunn]] 22nd January 2007
[[User:Wikisunn|Wikisunn]] 22nd January 2007

== Deng ==
And he's what? Deserved an appeal because he [[User:Woohookitty/SuperDeng|keeps on violating policy]]? If his appeal is upheld, that says to others...hey...just keep violating policy and we'll let you back in? --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|Woohoo!]]</sup> 19:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:04, 22 January 2007

  • 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.

REQUEST to Omura entry Arbitrators: THAT THE VERSION CURRENTLY PROTECTED NOT REMAIN DURING THIS PROCESS

I have spoken with Dr Omura today. He is deeply upset and troubled because of how he is being misrepresented on WP (by GenghizRat and Crum375). Dr Omura told me that many of the statements made by GenghizRat about him are gross misrepresentations that have no basis in reality. He wonders how someone who can remain without identity can be allowed to make such comments about him without him being able to address them via a lawyer as necessary.Richardmalter 07:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

Abuse of Power by Admin (Gamaliel)

Good morning. I am writing to express my concern on the abuse of power by the Wikipedia Gamaliel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). This user has in the past few days sent me around 7 threatening and profane messages, and has registered me for around 27 messages of spam e-mail. It was after this that the user stated that he/she did this on purpose.

This concerns me because as this user is an admin, I am concerned that he/she is not only using his/her position to intimidate wikipedians that do not agree with him/her, the user may very well be working to intimidate other users as well. I am requesting that the arbitration committee investigate this, as I feel my experience as a wikipedia editor is being compromised. Thank you. Have a nice day.EnglishEfternamn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:49, 21 December 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 [15] [16]. 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. [17]. 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.[18] I noticed some possible vandalism on a users page and gave a warning to Harison.[19] 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,[20] 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,"[21]. 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"[22]. 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,[23] [24] [25], 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.[26] --Iantresman 20:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm afraid he's just making fair comment. Straight talk about how he sees the situation. Fred Bauder 02:55, 5 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]
  • Ok with me. Strong criticism is appreciated. We did the best we could, but I admit the result is not to my liking. Fred Bauder 17:18, 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]

  • Wow, a roll call of Wikipedia's most notorious vandals and POV pushers, from a famously neutral user :-) Guy (Help!) 17:28, 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,[27]

  • In the discussions on the Wolf effect, I've just been called a "bean counter",[28]
  • In another discussion on William G. Tifft, I've just been called a liar,[29]
  • 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" [30]
  • I also note that he's now trying to remove the Wolf effect from the Redshift article,[31], 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,[32]. --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: [33]. 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]

Another issue has come up. Does material critical of Waldorf published in a Waldorf journal rate any higher on the verifiability standard than any other material (i.e. more positive material)? Or is all controversial material published by Waldorf/anthroposophical sources to be avoided? Hgilbert 16:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At issue here is an independent report that was published in a Waldorf source. The Waldorf supporters claim that this report, for the reason it was published in an Anthroposophical journal, cannot be used. It is my understanding that we are excluding Waldorf soruces because of the obvious bias they promote. If a report that is critical of Waldorf is published in a Waldorf source, there is no reason to exclude it on the basis of bias. Pete K 16:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend on the particular situation, but obviously criticism which is vetted by an anthroposophical editor is inferior to a scholarly analysis of how well the schools deliver on their stated vision. There was a lot of "criticism" which went on inside the Chinese Communist Party, and it is useful data, but taking it at face value would be ridiculous. A campaign of criticism, perhaps regarding vestiges of racial attitudes, is evidence of a problem, but is essentially a primary source. Drawing conclusions based on such internal attempts to solve problems would be original research. Fred Bauder 17:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't the source that is in question. The source is independent. The only issue is that the independent study was published on an Anthroposophical site - so the Anthroposophical site is being referenced. The pro-Waldorf people want to use this as a loophole to exclude the independent study. Here is the study. It is also found here. If I point to the Waldorfcritics site, they call "foul", if I point to the Waldorflibary site, they call "foul". It's an independent report by two independent researchers (at the Waldorf site, Ida Oberman's name has been removed from the report) based on the findings of a team of educational experts: "In the Spring of 1994, we gathered a team of classroom experts to visit the Urban Waldorf School in Milwaukee where Waldorf pedagogy was being used to teach the children of the inner city. Some of us had extensive experience with Waldorf schooling, others not, but we were all eager to observe the effects of a gentle and well-structured learning environment on children from difficult circumstances." I think this report qualifies as exactly the type of report we are looking for as a reference - an independent study. I think it is appropriate for me to defend this particular reference unless I am told otherwise. Pete K 17:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that might be the article. Was it not published outside the Waldorf system? It looks like a genuine effort to air the issue out, not particularly influenced by editorial discretion. I think the source with the reply is probably better to use. I would certainly include it as an external link. Fred Bauder 17:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Fred. I agree, but I'll leave it up to the Waldorf-support people which source they prefer. Pete K 17:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not published outside the Waldorf system. I agree that it is appropriate as an external link. Are you saying, as I understand, that it should be included as an external link but not used to support arguments internally? It will be helpful to be clear. (If it is usable, are other articles in anthroposophical publications also usable?) Hgilbert 18:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, generally not, that particular article represents, to a certain extent, a look inside by outside observers. I think a complete listing of the publications at the Waldorf library site might be useful to our readers together with links to them as would links to the critical sites. Probably in the article there ought to be something about all the internal publishing and research as well as something about the critical community. Far more important to our readers is third party research, so long as it is not tendentious itself. Fred Bauder 19:09, 1 January 2007 (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 [34] 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]
Did you ever get a response to your email? --Spartaz 09:40, 27 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 [35]. --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]
  • It's not controversial because whenever a Requested Move was made on any of these items, it had a strong consensus in favor of Yaksha's naming. A vocal minority disagreeing with consensus is not a controversy. (Radiant) 09:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


New editor on Brahma Kumaris

I hate to be the guy who can't assume good faith, but since the injunction was passed blocking the parties from editing Brahma Kumaris, there is a new single purpose account, Amasintay (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). I'd like to suggest a quick peek may be in order just in case. Thatcher131 13:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba

Clarification here would be appreciated, since there are two admins (myself and Pjacobi) interpreting the decision in opposite ways. Thatcher131 22:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Requests for arbitration

This is being discussed on User_talk:Dmcdevit#Sorry. I would appreciate your opinion, as usual. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you deal with this?

This sounds rather serious. Would you be able to take a look at it and decide what needs doing? I've posted to the talk pages of some of the arbitrators and one of the clerks as well, but not any further. Thanks. Carcharoth 23:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Block extension on User:nobs01

I would like you, or some other admin(s), to comment on the year-long extension of nobs01's block, discussed here: User talk:Dmcdevit#Your block of User:nobs01. I really think this was an unjust decision on Dmcdevit's part. KarlBunker 11:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It really matters very little, but...

...and off the IRC channel.

Kelly is still active on the IRC, both the open channel and (last I was aware) the pseudo-admin channel. Again, not important really; but either you weren't specfic enough in what you meant, or have information more than a few hours old, or were mistaken. I'll get back in my box, now.
brenneman 01:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blurg. I had to read that three more times before I got that (I think) you meant the ArbCom IRC channel? *shakes head* I think I'll go edit some articles or something, this is making me dizzy. - brenneman 02:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grateful for your help

Thanks again, Fred, for your help on the WP:RS Talk page. I was really having trouble understanding the points about primary sources. Your explanation helped it clear. Next week we'll begin dispute procedures to try to address the problematic use of primary sources in the article on Transcendental Meditation.

I was surprised you found the Roark letter. : ) I noted that he described himself as being dean of faculty and head of the physics department 1975-1980. Neither is true.

Regarding Sethie's comments in that thread on the WP:RS Talk page: the JAMA article had nothing to do with research on Transcendental Meditation. It made no allegations of research fraud. It discussed misleading practices relating to the marketing of Ayur-Veda and herbal products. I think it made some good points. (JAMA and the author of the article were sued for $194 million, and the suit was settled out of court.) TimidGuy 02:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like you?

What makes you say that? [36] I've spoken of you in rather laudatory terms on several occasions and have long thought that you are an important part of the Arbitration Committee. I often disagree with you, but dislike you? No, I would not say that. If you ever happen to find yourself in Chicagoland, please stop in for a drink. We have a fully stocked bar. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to do this weeks ago

But I didn't read the instructions!

Congratulations! You have been nominated for a Wikihalo award. The details of your nomination can be found here. If you accept or decline the nomination, then please express this in the space provided on the page.

Good luck!

Nina Odell 11:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)aka NinaEliza[reply]

Well dang it, I still think you're incredibly hard-working, so there:).Nina Odell 16:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BKWSU Riveros11

Hi Fred,


I do not know how this arbitration process works. Obviously it has been spun into an entirely different orbit from the one I originally sought to address matters within. I hoped to keep it free from the levelling of personal attacks, and my self from having to go through the effort of compiling a case on the basis of attacks made against me. But as they have not stopped I must defend myself. From my point of view, from the very beginning, the first offense was not mine and I have been defending myself.

As it was key to the acceptance of the arbitration, can I therefore ask you to include the use of a secondary and tertiary identity by Riveros11 in the Proposed findings of fact as it is very clear that I was deliberately locked and blocked from editing through this strategy in order that his edit would take precedence.


Thanks. 195.82.106.244 06:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Marsden

You probably have it on your watchlist at the moment, but in case you don't, I draw your attention to Talk:Rachel Marsden#Sources. I've reviewed all of the three prior AFD discussions. None of them have actually demonstrated with citations of articles about Marsden (as opposed to citations of articles by Marsden) that this person satisfies the Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. I'm pressing hard for editors to cite some actual sources. Uncle G 07:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming Conventions case

Just a question: [37] seems to be a little ambiguous - does any user mean any party to this request, or every single user on Wikipedia? Further to this, and to potentially the answer to my question, does violates the consensus decision in this matter mean naming conventions of the disputed articles, or any articles in particular?

Violates the consensus decision in this matter means disputed articles related to the ArbCom request Violates the consensus decision in this matter means any article naming under dispute
Any user means parties to the arbitration Deals with situation concisely, however means wikilawyering possible regarding what articles are "related to the arbitration" Means that the parties are prohibited from violating concensus in relation to moves on any article; may be too broad for some
Any user means every user on Wikipedia Prevents sockpuppets etc. because cases are defined, however suffers same problem as in the cell directly above Extremely broad, may mean biting the newbies, ridiculous for every user on Wikipedia to be subject to the ArbCom remedy/enforcement

Maybe I've gone off on a tagent here, and missed the implied meaning of this, but I'm confused at present. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 09:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third party?

Hi Fred,

I'm not sure I understand why you sugggest that Ellis' most recent IP is a third-party. Isn't it more likely that some of the edits of 209.217.79.235 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) are simply non-malicious? (I may not have understood what is going on here.) Bucketsofg 16:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, I blocked the IP for 24 hours anon-only. Will this be a problem? (As far as I know, Ellis can change IPs pretty much at will, maybe the good edits were when the IP belonged to someone else? Thatcher131 16:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist cautioned [4]

  • I mentioned this at Arbitration enforcement, here, but the admins decided not to investigate.
  • I included all the necessarily diffs, and it seems to be a simply matter to establish possible contravention of policy, and irregularities in a particular AfD. --Iantresman 20:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned for one year? For what? I thought I had complete amnesty

I thought that I had received a complete amnesty for my possibly bad edits in Sathya Sai Baba and related articles in the first arbitration case. Now you support to have me banned for one year. For what? I would be surprized if anybody can find just one single edit that seriously violated Wikipedia policies after the first arbitration case. And I would very surprized if somebody was able to find that I repeatedly seriously violated Wikipedia policies after the first abritration case. Andries 01:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A block for that long seems extreme, unless there was vandalism or personal attacks involved. Albeit I was not involved in this matter at all. However, in most of my observations of User:Andries on talk pages and articles, he has comported himself in a manner, well, at least more polite than myself usualy on contentious articles, I hope that is saying something. Smeelgova 05:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Fred Bauder's stated issue with my behavior seems to be activism (which I deny) in violation of WP:NOT, and repeated failure of the dispute resolution process (which I admit). The issue is not something uncomplicated and clear, like personal attacks, vandalism, removal of relevant sourced contents, original research, edit warring without trying dispute resolution, or something like that. If it were that simple then, I guess, it would have not have come to a second arbitration case. Nevertheless, I hope that Fred Bauder or another arbitration committee member who supports the ban for one year can give examples of my behavior that they consider unacceptable, because now their objections to my behavior are a mystery for me. May be it is just that they have grown tired of this tedious conflict on the Sathya Sai Baba article without any end in sight. I have some understanding for this, but I would rather be told about it. Or may be someone sent an e-mail about me. Andries 10:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC) amended 11:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo revisited

Hi Fred. The meaning of Principle 7 of the Kosovo arbitration, proposed by you, has been the object of looooong discussion. It would be great if you could add a short comment on it "here", for I hope that a few words by you could save us another month of endless talk and edit warring over "According to the news media it is widely expected that the talks will lead to some form of independence", "Most international observers believe these negotiations will lead to some form of independence" or its equivalents... *sigh* - Thanks already :-) Best regards, Evv 02:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to leave me any reply regarding this message, please do it here. I have this page on my watch list. - Evv 02:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at Talk:Kosovo Status Process.

Waldorf Woes

  • Hi Fred. Here's our friend HGilbert controlling the Waldorf article content again. If nobody else is allowed to edit the article, this will never get cleaned up. As you remember, he is a Waldorf teacher and has a COI here. Pete K 13:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our friend Professor Marginalia is interested in naming each of the members known to her that she believes are on the board of PLANS. This adds nothing to the article and is part of a vendetta that this particular editor participates in. As one of five principals of Americans for Waldorf education she has helped promote a very vile perception of PLANS even using language that describes PLANS as a "hate group" here. That this person is able to defame an organization to this degree on their (5-person) website and then post the names of persons they believe are board members is in incredibly poor taste - especially since the addition of these names, again, adds nothing to the article. Wikipedia, in my view, should not be a place where people can carry out vendettas. It would be helpful if you found some time to look at this issue. Also, is there a page that the arbitrators are watching for this sort of thing? I hate to bother you each time something like this happens. Thanks! Pete K 23:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The members of the board of PLANS were added to the article on 31 Oct. 2006 by now former board member Diana W of the group. Who the editor Professor Marginalia is has - as far as I'm aware of - not been told at Wikipedia by the editor, but is an unverified assumption by Pete K. Thebee 00:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter AT ALL who introduced the information (unless you believe everyone here has to pick a team) - the question is whether it is appropriate or needed. That YOU are here defending it, and we know who YOU are is plain enough - and we know that you are equally responsible for the "hate" language at the AWE site and also tried to introduce it in Wikipedia several times. Just because Professor Marginalia chooses to use a nom-de-plume (in order to disguise an obvious bias), doesn't mean those of us who have dealt with her for years don't know who she is. The question, however, remains - whether or not the naming of persons is necessary or appropriate. Pete K 00:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On:
"Our friend Professor Marginalia is interested in naming each of the members known to her that she believes are on the board of PLANS."
It has little to do with belief. They are listed at the site of the group.
On:
"the question is whether it is appropriate or needed."
It was added by Diana W as former member of the board, at a time when the article was not that very much different from what it is now. She seems to have thought it was appropriate and important to name them. According to Professor Marginalia the reason for continuing to name them is that the officers are referred to throughout article. Just curious: What is the reason for getting upset about it specifically now, after it has been in the article for more than two months? Regards, Thebee 01:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for "getting upset" is the dishonset claims made by you about the nature of PLANS, not just on your own websites, but here at Wikipedia in the very article. You call a PLANS a "hate group" (something you cannot support AT ALL) and then identify its members by name? That's not what Wikipedia is for, my friend... in fact as I have said many times, it should get you banned completely. We don't need to mention anyone in the article other than Ms. Snell and Mr. Dugan. I've asked Fred for a ruling here and I would appreciate it if you would let him rule on this. Thanks. Pete K 01:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article (PLANS) says nothing about "hate group". And your answer does not answer the question: Why get upset specifically now about the naming of the members of the board of the group, added by a former member of the board to the article two months ago? Regards, Thebee 12:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to be brief as I really don't believe this warrants arguing over. I do not have the time it would take to reconstruct why I added PLANS board member names to that article at one point. I believe I was trying to counter the wide perception (due mainly to mailing list activity) that "PLANS is Dan Dugan." PLANS is a bunch more people. (In fact, their web site listing isn't even accurate at the moment, it needs updating.) I can't really recall just what I was thinking. This may have been happening when thebee was busy inserting slander into the "Dan Dugan" article about Dan. (Copious irrelevant, vendetta-style material on Dan - completely unrelated to his Waldorf activities, just personal "dirt" - had been added and was later removed after it was vigorously opposed.) I agree, overall, with Pete that it's a huge problem that wikipedia allows defamation of individuals in the manner that thebee has repeatedly attempted. There's been never a word about his "hate group" rhetoric and its potential legal ramifications. It's essentially a criminal accusation. (Now he notes disingenuously that the article does not refer to PLANS as a "hate group"; um, no, it doesn't, does it? but he doesn't mention that that's only because he lost his campaign to keep that language, and nothing, obviously, stops him or his chums from re-inserting this or other slander when he thinks we're not looking.) But I don't really think it's a big deal if board member names stay or go. It would be nice if it was accurate, but it's not that big a deal.

As often, I ruefully conclude that while it's a shame the article as written is so stupidly biased and polemical, another part of me thinks, "So what?" because ironically it makes them look far worse than they apparently realize, to carry on like this in public. It may not be worth wasting the arbitrators' time, risking getting ourselves banned too, and anyway, the more crap like this they try, the more the article becomes self-evidently a huge vendetta; in a sick way, it's almost better when it reads openly as bullshit than when it reads *better* but not quite right, if you KWIM. Pete, why not just let them have the names.DianaW 13:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thebee wrote: "Who the editor Professor Marginalia is has - as far as I'm aware of - not been told at Wikipedia by the editor, but is an unverified assumption by Pete K." Again trying to be brief, but this whole issue is just a joke, and it makes wikipedia a joke when it is not addressed. We're caught in the dilemma that it's a big web site, supposedly the fourteenth largest in existence? and lots of people read it, and it matters what it says on wikipedia, but wikipedia lacks credibility in this basic sense when it allows these shenanigans. It's important to "Professor Marginalia" that individuals, associated with what her organization dubs a "hate group," have their names in the wikipedia article on this group. This makes them searchable, googlable, it pinpoints them in real life. It has potential real-life effects. But there's no requirement that Professor Marginalia tell us who she is, or what she represents? That's called cowardice and lack of integrity. Pete and I are are here writing under our own names, and discussing whether board members at PLANS need to be named? This makes it really not worth 5 minutes of anyone's time. It doesn't matter, to me, whether Professor Marginalia has "confirmed" or verified who she - the issue TO ME is that we do know who she is, and that she isn't being honest here. That's what I call a bunch of bullshit.DianaW 13:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, let's refrain from saying things like, "You did that two months ago," when 5 or 6 weeks of that 2 months was an arbitration, during which it didn't make sense to do much to these articles. Also two major holidays intervened, not to mention personal life, and mine's kinda busy. Obviously, many things have been in these articles for months that neither side is pleased with. Everyone is picking their battles. Let's not argue based on either who put something somewhere or when.DianaW 16:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Fred is not answering, I'm inclined to remove the names (again) and see where this goes. Again, they add nothing to the article and if the AWE group insists on naming names, I'll be happy to start an article about Waldorf fanatics and their internet tactics and start naming names too. Pete K 16:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next Waldorf Woe... can we please get a ruling about TheBee continually trying to direct readers to his own original research (and defamatory) websites? I've started deleting his references where they occur because they are not only inappropate, they represent advertising and promotion of Waldorf. When TheBee links to these, it is no different than spamming these pages with advertisements for Waldorf education. I think the intention is to try to get away from using Wikipedia as a Waldorf brochure. Unless I am directed not to do so, I'll keep removing TheBee's spam as I encounter it. Pete K 22:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What Pete K refers to is that he three times (so far) 1, 2, 3 has deleted links by me to research on or related to Waldorf education in a one month old posting in an answer to a question by someone. In a comment, Pete K tells that he will go through all discussions related to the Waldorf and related articles - also the archived discussions - and delete all links in them to the site of Waldorf Answers.
Pete K also has deleted a link in one posting by me in one discussion to an academic paper I wrote on the concept of Science as part of studies of the Philosophy of Science at the University of Gothenburg some 25 years ago, that I publish at my site. I gave the link as a contribution to a discussion at the Talks page about whether and if yes, in what sense Anthroposophy can be considered to be an expression of s scientific striving in a similar sense as what has developed as Natural Science the last centuries. The paper describes this in an affirmative sense, and my professor at the time, a Håkan Törnebohm, one of the main founders of the subject of Philosophy of Science as an academic subject in Sweden, gave the paper "excellent" marks.
From a posting by me in the same Waldorf Talks page discussion - not Wikipedia article - Pete K also has deleted a linked reference to a discussion of how Science is approached in Waldorf education on three points, as a contribution to an understanding of the issue.
The deletion of the the links from two one month old postings in the discussion - to me - seems to lack support in the Arbitration and constitute vandalism and repeated pure personal harassment. Thebee 00:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I hope to get permission to delete ALL instances where you have linked to your own websites. It isn't allowed. Pete K 00:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I:
"The deletion of the the links from two one month old postings in the discussion - to me - seems to lack support in the Arbitration and constitute vandalism and repeated pure personal harassment."
Pete K:
"Yep. I hope to get permission to delete ALL instances where you have linked to your own websites."
Linking to sites you've been involved in is prohibited in Wikipedia articles, not for discussions of the articles at Talks pages, penetrating the issues related to the articles and how to describe them. Thebee 01:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - but you're abusing this to a great degree - SPAMMING the talk pages with your POV, OR and defamatory material. I would like a ruling. If you are permitted to do this - I'm happy to follow you around and post up links to sites that refute what you claim in your OR. No problem - I've got lots of time and patience - and it gives me an opportunity to present a lot of material that isn't appropriate for the articles. I think we'll be seeing every anonymous letter from the PLANS page up here eventually - and discussions about the abusive Waldorf teacher who duct-taped children to their chairs. It's completely up to you how we approach this. Pete K 01:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you write tells that if you're not allowed to go through all existing Talks pages related to Waldorf education so far and delete all links you find to Waldorf Answers in postings, you will wage a war on them instead by following me around and every time I post a link to Waldorf Answers, you will post "a lot of material that isn't appropriate for the articles". Would that not violate the WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a battleground) policy, that you during the Arbitration regarding Waldorf related articles a month ago, 15 Dec. 2006, stated that you support? It seems to me that it also would violate the Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point guideline. Thebee 12:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. If you are allowed to insert non-approved research here, I'll be doing the same. I follow you around anyway as I'm always keeping an eye on your edits to these articles (no big surprise to anyone, right? - And you do the same to me.) and if you're free to add links to your stuff, I'm free to add stuff links to my stuff - and I will. It's disrupting Wikipedia when YOU add a lot of links to your own pontifications - and that's EXACTLY the point and what I'm trying to get a ruling on. Pete K 14:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check user request relating to Brahma Kumaris

Hi Fred,

I've left a checkuser request relating to the Brahma Kumaris arbitration case [38]. I would be greatful if you, or another suitable arbitrator, could attend to it or comment on it.

Thanks & regards. Bksimonb 19:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence question

Hello, I had a question about the current Naming Conventions case. I was in the process of supplying evidence a couple weeks ago, when my wiki-time was interrupted by the holidays (and the fact that I got stuck in the New Mexico snowstorm for a few days). Upon my return to Wikipedia, I see that the voting phase on the case has already started, before I was able to finish supplying evidence, and before some of the other involved editors had returned from their own holiday break.  :/ May I continue with supplying the rest of my evidence? Or would it be too late at this point? I'd posted alerts about my upcoming absence and return on the ArbCom talk pages, such as at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Evidence#Christmas and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Proposed decision#Additional evidence, but I'm not sure if anyone saw them. Thanks for your time, Elonka 19:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My additional evidence would mostly be related to user conduct - incivility, harassment, and personal attacks, against both me and other editors. I noticed that on the proposed decision page you commented that there had been insufficient evidence of some of these [39][40][41]. I feel that your finding was simply because I was not yet finished presenting my evidence. Now that I am back, with your permission, I would like to finish presenting my case. --Elonka 21:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, my section is now completed. Please accept my profuse apologies for the multiple delays! It's a been a really tough winter so far, with many power outages[42]. I'm getting caught up now though, and have been able to finish presenting my own evidence, as well as a few extra proposed principles and findings of fact on the Workshop page. If you have time, I would appreciate if you could review them. If not though, I understand. To be honest, I feel better just knowing that I was able to complete my section, since its half-finished status was on my mind during the last couple weeks.
For what it's worth, I have no intention of challenging the final ArbCom decision, whichever way it goes. I see ArbCom as a useful part of the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution process. And just as with an AfD or DRV discussion, I may not always agree with the decision of the closing admin, but I will respect it.  :)
Despite some of the other comments that have been made about my behavior throughout this process, it is my hope that ultimately it will be clear that I am a longtime hardworking Wikipedian, that I believe strongly in the project, and that in general I'm not groundzero for various disputes. In this one particular case though, I felt strongly that I had an obligation to speak up. But I will be glad when the matter is finally resolved, as I am very much looking forward to getting back to writing articles! :) Elonka 04:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that a significant part of Elonka's evidence is either misleading or downright false, as noted here. >Radiant< 14:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to revise this add

I restated some stuff I wrote in an (member's advocacy) email last evening to user:Zeraeph about unintended consequences, too narrow a focus, and something which seems to me to be an unheralded frequent cause of friction, acts which hurry others itself being a form of incivility, and such. Feel free to revert and mercilessly edit. But these points seemed to fit in with this. Good essay. Happy New Year // FrankB 20:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions ArbCom case

I propose that all involved in the case are forced to use Requested moves before doing controversial moves. Is this a decent suggestion?? --SunStar Nettalk 18:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not when there is an established naming convention established by consensus. Fred Bauder 18:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think my idea was bad. But is putting some/all of the participants on probation a remedy?? --SunStar Nettalk 23:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindness Award

I noticed the kindness you offered to Chris is me with a barnstar. That barnstar might soothe that editors feelings about Wikipedia. Now I'm returning your kindness by giving you Ed's Kindness Award.

*Ed spins the wheel of random food...and Fred Bauder gets bread!*

A Barnstar!
The Kindness Award of Ed
This Wikipedian has received the Kindness Award from Ed for going the extra mile to be kind to another person. Kindness is important so that there may be an improved sense of community here on Wikipedia. As a reward, I offer this user a random piece of food. (I will never give the same food item out twice, so don't be jealous.) Thanks again! --Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 04:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I love stollen! Thanks so much!--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 15:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A tag has been placed on Callum richards, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Chris 73 | Talk 18:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION ON POLICY

User:Siobhan Hansa has a very rude greeting on their user page and talk page. I Have received a complaint from a new user whose contributions were reverted by this user, and they visited the talk page to discuss why, only to find the comments in question. In my opinion this is a premeditated 'biting of the newbies'. Is there a proper facility to report this within wikipedia? Jerry lavoie 23:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this user seems to have two monikers SiobhanHansa (talk · contribs · count)
Jerry lavoie 00:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it enough that we did not credit it?

Normally, I'd say so, but this is an excessive case. A user who is simply mistaken or has a different understanding is one thing; a user who intentionally and repeatedly makes claims known and proven to be false in an attempt to disparage other users or to get them blocked is a different matter entirely. The point is that unless the falsehood is made explicit, there is nothing to stop her from persisting in the same behavior. See the RFAr page for details. >Radiant< 09:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to Close (Naming Conventions ArbCom Case)

I noticed the motion to close for this ArbCom case. I hope i'm not too late in asking the ArbCom members actively voting in this case to take a look at this request and consider it before closing the case? Thank you. --`/aksha 10:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violations of verifiability clause of arbitration in Waldorf education article

Despite a clear warning by clerk Thatcher, PeteK continues to insert sources that violate the verification clause of the arbitration. These include a quote from a Waldorf teacher's Waldorf-published manual as quoted in the Worldnetdaily, and additional Waldorf-published and anthroposophic sources; see the Waldorf education#Lucifer_and_Ahriman section. This appears to be a clear violation of both the spirit and the letter of the verifiability clauses of the arbitration. I have also notified Thatcher, but his talk page announces that he may be too busy to deal with Wikipedia issues for some time. Hgilbert 01:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section is under discussion. Please join in. Pete K 01:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the discussion and you will note that editors are on both sides of this issue. This is, once again {sigh} HGilbert's way of shoving his POV down everyone's throats. Other editors are trying to work through the issue but HGilbert is apparently the anonymous editor who has ripped the entire section out while discussions are taking place. A peek at the history of the page indicates that HGilbert has done the most editing and the least discussing of anyone in the past few days - his intention apparently is to frustrate the editors who are actually trying to act on the ArbCom's decisions. Pete K 01:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the arbitration also mentioned the WP:Good faith principle. Hgilbert 10:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith need not be applied when it isn't demonstrated. Ripping out a huge, contested section anonomously doesn't sound like good faith to me. Pete K 14:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The clerk of the arbitration has stated that the material is inappropriate. Why is it still there? Hgilbert 14:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alkalada

Fred, you unblocked this user to give him a second chance. I was requested at my talk page to re-block him, and saw that you had unblocked him. I'm loathe to re-block him without consulting with you. I'd like for you to take a look at his contributions since you unblocked him. He has returned to contentious editing, violating the spirit of WP:3RR and acting very much as he did before. Have a look at [43] and observe, for example, his contentious editing and revert warring on Bosnia and Herzegovina. This editor has not reformed his ways. I recommend he be re-blocked indefinitely. --Durin 13:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please... for gods sake... I have put source on my articles havent I?

And During, it isnt me who are using vandalism, it is Ivan. I am begging you Durin and Fred, that you block Ivan because it is him who is making vandalism. This is so unfair, please... I put up sourced articles and he is taking it away. How can it be me who are using vandalism?

How??????

Please.. this is so unfair, I am begging you to look at justice and block Ivan.

Please!!! I put sources and he is taking them away. This is so unfair. Alkalada 14:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, I really want you to check at Ivans contribution and you will see that he is taking away sources articles on Bosnia and Herzegovina pages, and he is writing that Vladimir Prelog is a Croatian chemist. How can somebody born in Bosnia be Croatian? He can be a croat, but not Croatian. And he said that Bosnia never been a modern state? How? Bosnia was an independent kingdom before 1500!

Please... look at his contribution and then block him for constant vandalism. Alkalada 15:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okey, I said to Durin that I will write on talk page before I edit and put source on the talk page and reason for editing and so on...

I think this is okey. Alkalada 15:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is Alkalada seems to have reverted back to the same sort of editing that got him blocked as Hahahihihoho. Basically POV edit warring and calling it "reverting vandalism". I'm not familiar with the ArbCom case here, but I've run across Hahahihihoho before and honestly it doesn't appear he has learned anything. The fact that Ivan Kricancic appears incapable of using talkpages to discuss edits and likes to call content disputes "vandalism" doesn't absolve Hahahihihoho... it just means his conduct should probably be reviewed too. I'm going to close the WP:SOCK case because it is pretty clear that Alkalada is a sock, but I'm leaving it to you and Bishonen to decide what to do with him as you've got more history here.--Isotope23 15:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's some interchange between myself and Alkalada at User_talk:Durin#User:Alkalada. --Durin 15:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've closed the sockpuppet case without a finding that he is a sock, just that he is Hahahihihoho. Regardless, I'm not nearly familiar enough with the situation that I was comfortable issuing a block here myself.--Isotope23 16:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions related to Wikipedia Policies

Hi Fred,

I saw that, you have added me to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2. I will give a detailed explanation related to my edits very soon in the /Workshop page. I have been very busy lately with my personal stuff. Also, I would like to add that I had discussed about these edits nearly a month in Thatcher’s page, also had detailed discussion with Andries related to these edits, before changing the article. There is a whole section of discussions related to these edits in *User talk:Thatcher131/SSB.I have 2 important questions related to wikipedia policy. Please could you answer these 2 questions related to wikipedia policy.

1) Can an editor add a reference in the article of biography of living person just because the reference was published in a newspaper but the reference does not make any sense or it raises questions like this cannot be true as it sounds ridiculous or there is something fishy or wrong here?. Can such reference be challenged?

2) Can an editor add a reference by naïve author who has no clue or knowledge on the subject he is talking about or gives his ridiculous perspective on the subject? What is Wikipedia’s policy on such references?

I have seen a general rules under Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons” which states "We must get the article right. [1] Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives.". Please, can you help with the policies related to references / claims which are ridiculous and makes no sense or by naïve authors. Thanks. Wikisunn 22nd January 2007

Deng

And he's what? Deserved an appeal because he keeps on violating policy? If his appeal is upheld, that says to others...hey...just keep violating policy and we'll let you back in? --WoohookittyWoohoo! 19:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFred_Bauder&diff=102485931&oldid=102465932

Leave a Reply