Misplaced Pages

User talk:Fred Bauder: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:19, 27 October 2006 edit74.98.232.18 (talk) →Homey← Previous edit Revision as of 01:21, 27 October 2006 edit undo74.98.232.18 (talk) As per BenNext edit →
Line 505: Line 505:
He was not allowed to edit using additional sockpuppets (sockpuppets that used open proxies) and IPs, was he? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC) He was not allowed to edit using additional sockpuppets (sockpuppets that used open proxies) and IPs, was he? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
:Me too, Fred, believe me. I'll try to think of a more rational way of working this out. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC) :Me too, Fred, believe me. I'll try to think of a more rational way of working this out. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a catch-22, I am not a banned user yet if I open a new account Jay declares it a "sockpuppet" of Homeontherange despite the fact that the Homeontherange account is defunct, inaccessible and not under a ban. Indeed, he will probably declare this IP address a sockpuppet and block it. If Jay wants to act in a "rational way" he should address the content of posts rather than conduct witchhunts against someone because they are in a *content dispute* with either himself, SlimVirgin, or any of his other friends. I will not be opening more than one account (nor have I since talking to Jimmy in the summer - Farnsworth J and Farnsworth J. were clearly a single entity with the second being opened after the password for the first was lost), nor will I be using serial single purpose accounts which I was criticized for earlier in the summer. If Jay wants to crosscheck accounts to see if I am using more than one he can but to go on a withhunt and ban an account because it is a "sockpuppet" of the defunct Homeontherange is an abuse of Jay's position and unacceptable. Homeontherange is defunct and inaccessible, one cannot have a sockpuppet of it. I have not been using more than one account (except for losing the FarnsworthJ password and transparently opening FarnsworthJ. with a period as a replacement) so there should be no more specious accusations of sockpuppetry. Jay must back off and cease treating content disputes as if they are administrative matters requiring bans or other administrative sanctions. ] 00:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:21, 27 October 2006

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

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 Misplaced Pages articles and to date about 30,000 have been imported. Certain policies have been changed from Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

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)

Notes

Old notes

Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball but...

...I think you must have one. I was about to propose that principle too :o) (See my last comment at Talk:Kosovo. Regards, Asterion 19:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom Case

I would like you to reconsider one fo your votes in section "Zer0faults has removed sourced information" located here

Per WP:OR it states:

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Nescio never provided proof that the Information Operations Roadmap and Zarqawi PSYOP Program were linked. He then links Smith-Mundt through the Informations Operations Roadmap making it a violation of WP:OR. As for the first piece I am removing it because if you review the article, its mentioned 3 times already. However the second is clearly a vioaltion as Smith-Mundt is only linked to Information Operations Roadmap and Zarqawi program is not linked to either in any source. Thank you. --User:Zer0faults 12:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

RfAr: New anti-Semitism

Greetings. You recently opined to "accept" the case for arbitration concerning editors in the New anti-Semitism article. Several editors (myself included) have expressed confusion about your acceptance message. You stated your opinion about the content of the article, but, as I understand it, the ArbCom is not usually involved in content disputes. As well, the Request for Arbitration was not about the content of the article, but (it seems) about the conduct of users on the talk page. Could you elaborate? All the best, – Quadell 20:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


Eatonsh=Continueddonations=Returnoftheman

With literally no break at all, permanently blocked user Eatonsh aka Continueddonations is back, this time exclusively focusing on the main Schizophrenia and the Talk:Schizophrenia page. That they all are the same user is obvious if you look at his writing style, interpunction, topics, timing, appearance, mode of reasoning, etc. that IMHO it does not need any further proof. However, I am not sure how to deal with it any further; I admit I am somehow involved in this by now (he has called me a Nazi perhaps once too often by now), and reverting him all the time is a drag and looks, in spite of my explanations, odd to some other users on the page in question, some of which are helping him. Thus, I am herewith asking some of the users, admins and ArbCom members who were involved in this case previously to check and to either suggest what to do or to initiate some remedial course of action. Many thanks in advance. Ebbinghaus 23:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Wikinfo

Hello. This is to inform you that I have nominated an article you have created, Wikinfo, for deletion a second time, at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (2nd nomination). Best regards, Sandstein 20:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Help!

Fred, I need some advice and I'd like to shoot you an e-mail. Let me know if that's OK. Thanks. Lucky 6.9 02:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are you harassing me?

No. The arbcom decision, based on a lie, said I could only operate under one account. I was continually harassed so I switched to a new account and stopped editing under this one.

I have not broken any policies. I have not edited any of the pages I used to edit because I knew you and Mackensen would immediately seek out confrontation.

Why do you have to prove to the world that you are right, and no other opinion is allowed, after I stopped editing under Ya ya ya ya ya ya?

Similarly you refuse to accept criticism so you vandalize my talkpage and revert every attempt to start an arbcom case on a blatant series of policy violations, and then you act like I'm not permanently banned.

I let it (the arbcom case I tried to file three times) go when you began wikistalking me.

I'm switching accounts again.

You don't like it? Too bad. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 02:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's true. It's a conspiracy and we're all out to get you. Mackensen (talk) 03:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

About Spammy Links

Hi I have already did an edit in Yoga category and there seems to be keep adding their spammy links. I hope you could help us out there. Thanks.

SpinyNorman

Fred, your comment about it not mattering that Spiny is JonGwynne: first, the evidence is pretty compelling that they're the same person. Second, the reason I added it as evidence is that it makes a considerable difference that this same person has been on personal attack parole and (as I recall) revert parole before; and yet even before the ArbCom case was closed, had started to engage in the same behavior with a different user name. SlimVirgin 20:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

5th sockpuppet of User:Eatonsh

User:Londheart is the new sockpuppet of User:Etaonsh, who was indefinitely banned by you for extremely offensive behavior. His subsequent sockuppets, including User:Continueddonations, User:Cestlogique, and User:Returnoftheman, were all banned as well, either as socks or for the repeated offense.

However, the current sock, which User:Etaonsh has admitted to be one (as well as the later ones), is not only not banned, but Cowman109, has stated that for him, the previous multiple bans do not matter so much (even after he then checked the details): "Well I'm not sure of the details of the previous blocks, but I won't go on blocking you unless something you go on to break policy."

I would disagree with him on this, I think, overly friendly attitude. What this would mean, in effect, is that a multiply perma-banned user (with a proven track record of racism, homophobia, physical threats, and vandalism) is allowed to come back as a sock if he only tries long enough and creates one fake identity after the next. Perhaps you can look into this case and react accordingly. Sorry for bothering you with this. Ebbinghaus 22:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, Cowman misread the history here. Londheart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently indef-blocked, but appealing the block. Guy 11:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sites attacking Wikipedians

I noticed in ArbCom deliberations that there is a move to disallow links to sites which make personal attacks against Wikipedians. A while back there was a dispute on Simon Wessely (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in which the One Click Group, a ME/CFS activist group in the UK who have a bitter and abiding hatred of the subject, posted a particularly blatant hatchet job. As a result of my attempts to neutralise this - initially just by rephrasing, it was only later that I discovered many of their "facts" were falsehoods or distortions - they launched some exceptionally vitriolic attacks on me (the story is here). I notice that we currently have a link to their website, to a paper attacking Wessely, in fact, on that article. Given my past history with the one-clickers it's probably not prudent for me to remove it, but I wonder if you have a view here? Guy 11:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

GetWiki

This article is up for deletion, you have done some wonderful work with it so just wondered if you will be interested on the vote. Unitedroad 12:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for explanation

May one ask .. why? David | Talk 21:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

wrongful identification as banned user

Adrian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Hi. I am asking for your opinion concerning my wrongful identification as permanently banned Dabljuh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). user:Nandesuka has been reverting all my edits to articles, their respective discussion pages and user talk pages, stating on User_talk:Lordkazan#Why_I_reverted_that that despite my assertion that I am not Dabljuh, who apparently comes from Germany like me, I am him. I posted the following to User_talk:Jayjg#Your_view.3F.

Hi there. Well, I'm sorry for all the fuzz I caused, running in a blind rage. There is no good reason for my behaviour, I just went on a rant. This said I just wanted to give you my word on two things: 1. Although I am German, I am not the person that used the banned user account Dabljuh. 2. I am not especially familiar with Misplaced Pages. Prior to my bad crushing in on the ongoing dispute on articles associated with circumcision, my contributions to Misplaced Pages were confined without exception to minor spelling and grammar corrections, adding Misplaced Pages-internal links to articles and two or three times asking questions on article talk pages. That's where my familiarity with Misplaced Pages comes from. I am not familiar enough with it, though, to effectively search through Arbitration Committee decisions. User:Nandesuka commented a deletion of a comment to user:Lordkazan on user_talk:lordkazan "(rm edit from user banned by order of the arbitration committee)". He since has explained on that talk page that, despite my protests, I am the sockpuppet of a banned user (Dabljuh). I seriously don't know what to do now, especially since the ban enforcement imposed on me by Nandesuka has taken place in a moment, when I already had apologized for my initial very bad behaviour and went on to partake in civil discussion on article talks and refrained from any further stupid vandalism. Now, it seems, Nandesuka won't reply to anything I say, he just deleted comments on his own talk page and also in all articles and on other users home pages stating that a banned user may not edit. I understand that user:Dabljuh has been banned indefinitely. So my only way out of this seems to be giving valid proof or sufficient assertion that I am not him. Hmmm... out of words... I am not him, have never talked to him in Misplaced Pages or in person. I'm just not Dabljuh. What else could I do? Do you have any suggestions? yours sincerely, Adrian 87.78.158.150 14:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason I am posting this to your talk page is that Jayjg has also reverted some edits I made index.php?title=Gliding_action&action=history and protected Gliding action asserting that my edits were "extremely aggressive edit-warring by extremely rude IP editor". In my opinion especially the latest two of those edits were not harmful to the article (added Misplaced Pages-internal links and changed words in accordance with a debate on the discussion that hasn't had contributions since July) and in spite of the fact that I had since apologized for my behaviour and had confined my edits to civil discussion and such (perceived) harmless minor changes. So I'm in fear Jayjg has a bad opinion of me and might not enter any discussion. But to get this right: I WAS behaving badly in the first place before stopping it, and I am sorry for that and tried to sincerely show it. I know that at least part of all this is on me and I accept that. I have since read though the applying Misplaced Pages guidelines and recognized severe mistakes I made (like not abiding from editing articles for a while). But I am not Dabljuh or a sockpuppet of him or anyone else. I have never had a Misplaced Pages account and have never before engaged in edit-war or any such thing before the past week. I am trying not to make any implications, just asking for your opinion on the whole thing. yours sincerely, Adrian 87.78.186.67 15:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You are being identified as a disruptive anti-circumcision activist. Just avoid the topic, Fred Bauder 20:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time. I have some more questions arising from your reply, though.
  • So I am being identified as Dabljuh, as Nandesuka said?
  • For how long do I have to / should I avoid the topic, aside from me currently avoiding it and going to do so indefinitely because it seems to be a pointless effort? Must I also stay out of (civilized) discussion on the respective talk pages?
  • Wouldn't a partial block/ban have been sufficient?
Thanks again. 84.44.171.5 22:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

added PS: while waiting for the preview of this edit to load, I checked user_talk:Nandesuka only to find my assertion that I am not Dabljuh and my pointing to Jayjg's talk page removed. On Jayjg,s talk page he is telling me to simply stop evading my block. I will now have to re-log into my ISP to get a different IP so I can even post this. I know I am evading a block thereby, but one that has been imposed on me for a false reason (although, I admit I may have given reasons different from that which could justify a ban). 87.78.186.67 15:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I just got back from town and am too tired to figure any of this out tonight. I'll try tomorrow morning Fred Bauder 21:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop

Hello. Could I ask that you use edit summaries, please? This page is bound to get busy, particularly when editors as prolix as Tony and I are involved.
brenneman 03:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giano Your post

Your message to carnildo: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giano has been opened. It concerns you to a certain degree. However other than point out how your RfA might be appealed I doubt there will be any direct effect on you. You can always apologize some more, or even grovel a bit, but that is up to you. Fred Bauder 17:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"apologize some more" - SOME MORE? Do you have a diff for the first appology to me? Giano 17:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You know all I know. He said it was a mistake and should have consulted on the Administrators Noticeboard. Fred Bauder 18:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Have you the remotest idea how despicable "hate speech" is regarded by most decent people? Giano 18:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and having just participated in the indefinite blocking of Rookiee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am quite conscious of the issues involved. Fred Bauder 18:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I never even, personally, saw what he thought was "a mistake," and that's a crucial ambiguity/silence. The blocking based on personal opinion was the heart of the matter, and the individuals involved and issues surrouding that decision were/are unimportant: it's deciding that you know better, that there are no rights to others. Geogre 18:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

tendentious

Your edit

I found this statement very disappointing. Your views on the matter appear fixed to some degree: Everything was fine with the promotion. Your edit here suggests that bias is a problem only when other people have it. - brenneman 13:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You will look in vain for my Support vote on that RfA. Fred Bauder 13:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how that's relevant to the comment I made above? My thrust is that you've made several edits to the page that appear to support the b'cat's independance in decision making, yet choose to dismiss my edit as partisan. I'm sure you are busy and I'll not take up more of your time with this, I'd simply ask that you consider what I've said. - brenneman 13:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

71.111.117.99

Hi Fred!

Request for Arbitration I hope I am doing this right. I would like to request arbitration and report gross abuses by the user/ adminstrator "Gwernol" who conducted a 1 WEEK block for an editor who made a good faith attempt to improve the "Jodie Foster" by adding just 3 words. Furthermore Gwenol proceeded to use page protection to gag the user from using his or her own talk page! Gwenol (or his allies) then took the extraordinary, unethical and unusual step of changing the history page record of the Jodie Foster article to erase even the hisotry of the attempt at improving the page and his revisions. Gwernol then threatened this user/editor, who was acting in good faith, with an lifetime ban! (Which I do not believe that he has the authority to do).

I hope the Committee will look into this along with the sarcastic, belittling and needling comments Gwendol puts about edits he does not like with the comment (to many good faith edits). "Thank you for experimenting with the page Jodie Foster on Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed" He shuld know perfectly well these edits are not "experiments" but the hard work of peopkle trying to improve articles.

I believe Gwernol has abused his power as administrator to punish editors for content he does not like regardless of its relevance and truthfulness. I ask that Gwendol's SYSOPS and administrative powers be revoked or at the very least be suspended for 6 months. I also belive Mr. Gwernol owes me an apology for the intentional infliction of emotional distress he has caused me. Please consider my request for the betterment of the Wikicommunity and Misplaced Pages. Thank you very much. 71.111.117.99 09:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Notice

I've got it covered. I posted links on the WP:BN. Thanks. - Taxman 12:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I need some advice regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Intangible

Fred, would you be willing to give me some guidance regarding this remedy in the Intangible case?

Intangible is placed on Probation. He may be banned for appropriate periods from any article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing.

It's in response to arbitration enforcement. Either one of our talk pages or e-mail would be fine if you prefer. Thanks. Thatcher131 17:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Message sent

I sent you an email and any thoughts you might have on the matter would be appreciated. Thank you.--MONGO 17:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Colorado tolerance

Colorado has 50% more (typically anti-gay) fundamentalists than mainline (typically tolerant) protestants, same as the national average. However, the Roman Catholics (anti-gay) have more members than both groups of protestants combined. There are only 5 MCC (pro-gay) churches in Colorado with 587 members, but 85,000 Southern Baptists, and the SBC is about as anti-gay as it gets. http://thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/state/08_2000.asp

Wyoming has a slightly higher proportion of mainline protestants. I'd expect them to be more tolerant than Colorado, but Matthew Shepard didn't find them to be that way.

I have no personal experience to go on, so maybe I'm all wet, but I think of urban blue states as being tolerant, and the rural red states in the bible belt as being extremely hostile, with the other rural red states fitting into the slightly hostile ("we won't beat you up, as long as you keep your sexuality in the closet") category. We could all be a little more kind to each other, no matter where we live. ClairSamoht - Help make Misplaced Pages the most authoritative source of information in the world 19:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Citizendium

That's a new one to me. I'm not sure what you are saying by "top down command structure" though? Care to elaborate? I ask in this space because I don't know how appropriate a sidebar is on the workshop page. Regards, Hamster Sandwich 23:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The first year I was here Larry was pretty much in charge. In all fairness, I suppose, Misplaced Pages:Consensus was probably his policy. Fred Bauder 00:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
To me Jimbo is the God-head from which all things Wikipedian flow. I just try to tow the line, is all. Thanks for pointing that article out though! Peace! Hamster Sandwich 00:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is Larry's perspective http://www.memoryarchive.org/en/The_Origins_of_Wikipedia,_2001,_by_Larry_Sanger Fred Bauder 00:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Bookmarked. Thanks again! Hamster Sandwich 00:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I seem to be saying sorry a lot lately.

Hi Fred, I blanked one of your comments. I won't link to it here but I'm sure you can find it. If you don't feel it was the right thing to do, do please revert. Thanks, Ben Aveling 10:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano arbitration

Please follow up on the comment Giano left on my talk page. --Mgm| 11:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

My move of Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship

Sorry for unknowingly breaking the diffs of an ArbCom case by moving the target page. I didn't know there was an ArbCom case with diffs into the history of Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship. Too bad that diffs aren't redirected automatically by MediaWiki, as the revision ID's seem to be preserved over page moves.

I also tested doing a move protection in my sandbox, so that pages that have diffs into them from ArbCom cases could be protected against moving. But that wouldn't have helped either, because there is no warning for admins when doing the move (so that wouldn't have helped me, because I'm an admin).

Maybe a tag template reading "This page may not be moved due to diffs into the page history from ArbCom cases" could help—although the work for tagging and untagging would be enormous. As a side note, partial-history moving of pages is possible, but complicated (tested here). Sorry again and best regards, --Ligulem 16:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Supression of Falun Gong

Hi Fred, Back on September 13 you unprotected the Supression of Falun Gong article (named Persecution of Falun Gong at the time), according to your edit summary this was "for arbitration research." The situation on the article seems to be back to the edit war that was going on before it was protected. Though editors do not cross the letter of 3RR, they certainly aren't sticking to the spirit, with the same edits and reverts taking place each day - but no posts to the talk page to discuss disagreements and try to build a consensus. This doesn't seem like a good situation for the article. Is there anything that can be done to stabalize this page while the arbitration process continues? Thanks --Siobhan Hansa 14:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hard work

Wow, you've been working very hard on the RfArs! I was looking over this case (being as sucker for drama, and not having a TV), and I noticed your fast and thorough beginnings of a proposed decision. That's quite thorough, and you should be commended for your hard work. – Quadell 20:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Blocked me (dormantfascist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) with no explanation it just says (go away) and a link to a new zealand college (69.69.163.91 01:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC))

links

I don't know if this is directly related to the blocking, but considering the situations that User:Konstable has apparently been dealing with concerning the "American fascist", etc...

- jc37 05:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Readminship

While I agree with the sentiment that RFA is too harsh on people, I do not agree with the persistent assumption that it would be even harsher to renoms of ex-admins, since this evidence points to the contrary (that if renoms fail, they fail for reasons entirely unrelated to the earlier demotion). For instance, from reading the oppose-!votes, it is obvious that the reason Carnildo's re-RFA didn't reach consensus is that he never apologized; if he had, people would have forgiven him. I would really appreciate your opinion and response to this issue. >Radiant< 11:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are correct. Fred Bauder 12:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocking policy

If you find it necessary to point out that Kelly has "a long record of devoted service to Misplaced Pages" (which is nowhere made apparent during the arbitration), why not say the same (if not more) about Giano? People may see plain bias in such different treatment of wikipedians. Concerning this edit. It's a pity that you couldn't find a passage in the blocking policy which provides for the blocks of those indulging in insults and personal attacks and readily found the one providing for blocks of long-standing contributors like Giano. Apparently, we read different policy pages and edit in different wikidimensions. I actually regret the amount of time I wasted on following the workshop page. Sigh... Ghirla 16:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo arbitration update

Hi Fred,

FYI, I've added a new proposed finding and proposed remedy to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Workshop (see , ). Your views would be appreciated. You may also wish to have a look at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Evidence#Editors involved after start of Arbitration for a useful summary of what's been going on recently.

Any idea when the other arbitrators are likely to be able to give their views on the proposed decision? -- ChrisO 19:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


Request from Bosna

Dear Mr. Bauder,

I believe User:Ew is using sockpuppet User:Naconkantari to make morer than three reverts to Kosovo article. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kosovo&action=history

You can see that he switch from Ew to Naconkantari and make same revert. Reason I believe that he use sockpuppet is also because both Ew and Naconkantari contribs have strange habit to make all edit m minor edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=Evv http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=Naconkantari

At very least, could you please inform user:Ew that is it not proper to make edits that change whole meaning of articles and call it minor edit.

Thank you

Checkuser shows these are different people. I suggest you ask Evv to provide an adequate edit summary and not mark major edits as minor. Fred Bauder 11:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sending email to Arb Com mailing list

Hello Fred :-) I'm going to send an email to the Arb Com mailing list regarding my injunction on the Giano case. Want to make it clear that this is done as an user not a clerk. FloNight 14:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

We goofed up?

Fred, few days ago you and I received an email from this user regarding wiki stalking and what sounded like real life threats of blackmail. I assumed more experienced people from ArbCom and such like you would deal with this - but today he contacted me again saying that nothing has been done, he got no reply and he is disappointed at this failure to react to his request. So am I, and I'd like to ask you why nothing has been done? Did everyone assumed - like me - that others will do that? PS. Clossius wanted to keep low profile and didn't post it on ANI or in other places.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Email

Tried to send you email, don't know if it got through. If it didn't, please send me email. --Ideogram 13:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Hi, Fred. I note that the vote is deadlocked on the arbcom proposal for probation re:

  • disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, edits against consensus, and POV forking.

I think I've done pretty well on my self-imposed 40-day "no edit-warring" period. I've only rarely made a 1RR or 2RR edit in the last 6 to 8 weeks.

How about putting me under Mentorship instead of probation? If an experienced user could guide me when I lapse into OR or "POV forking", that would help me a lot more than be slapped with a block. I need to understand why a particular edit is Misplaced Pages:Original research, and coaching would help me here. Also, I'm really unclear on what the criteria are for Misplaced Pages:POV forks. Surely it's more than an overwhelming majority vote. If someone could point out why a particular article is evading NPOV or otherwise violating the "no POV forks" rule, that would be a big help too.

Anyway, whatever the committee decides is fine with me. I just thought I'd make a suggestion. Thanks for listening. --Uncle Ed 15:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I find Ed's above comment to be interesting since he seems to continue with his earlier behavior, including which seems to be more of the same tendentious editing, in this case either a major misunderstanding or deliberate misinterpretation of what another editor said on the Global warming talk page. He also seems to be continuing to involve himself in pretty much anything related to FM to the point that might constitute wikistalking. See most recently thisJoshuaZ 17:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
And is now trying to get the same RfC deleted after it has been endorsed by multiple users: See . JoshuaZ 17:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ed has arrived at Talk:Paul Weyrich and has engaged FM. I would appreciate it if an admin kept a close watch on their interaction. --Ideogram 19:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fez

Well, Fred, we've had a spirited workshop and I hope some good can come out of it. There's really very little I can do except stir the pot but I did see one place where a technical solution may address some concerns. With this in mind, I've created {{fez}}, {{User wikipedia/Clerk}}, and of course the fez itself. I'm sure it all seems a bit silly but in some way a silly fez has been required of minor functionaries down through the ages; it's how we know they're minor functionaries. I think it's way out of range for the RfArb itself but you might sort of slip it to Clerks, if not outright require its use to avoid any possibility of confusion. Perhaps they will themselves edit it a little to suit their taste but there doesn't seem to be much occasion for a personal custom note. Don't you agree?

You'll recognize another user's comment that prompted this petty effort of mine; he's against the very notion of Clerks but then, we have always had petty officers wearing fezzes of one sort or another. May as well accept it. Good luck with the RfArb. John Reid 09:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a simple "Tony Sidaway, clerk of the Arbitration Committee" would serve. Fred Bauder 10:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No, no, the fez is important. People live for symbols. Have Clerks wear the fez and you'll see: much less annoyance directed at them just for doing their official duties. Trust me on this one. John Reid 11:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Honda S2000 ArbCom case

Any chance of getting other arbitrators to contribute? This case really ought to be sorted out asap, and it's been almost a month since it opened, AND no other arbitrators have even left a comment on the page. I hope you can help move this case forward to a conclusion asap, thanks!! Jsw663 17:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin

SlimVirgin is apparently so upset with my comments on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Proposed decision that he chose to revert them off the page rather than responding or simply ignoring them. I ask all interested parties to advise him to stop this unproductive behaviour. --Ideogram 04:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Sussexman, User:Robert I et al

Now that the Gregory Lauder-Frost page has been deleted will the numerous Users who supported his position be unblocked? I mean, they cannot all be accused of sending the same letter can they? From what I can see their "legal threats" amounted to what they saw as firm advice. Has any clear evidence been provided showing they sent letters to anyone at all? But anyway, given that the GLF article has now vanished presumably they could be placed upon probation again? 81.131.14.8 08:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How about a list of blocked users? Fred Bauder 11:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka

Nandesuka is now reverting my comments off the page. --Ideogram 17:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Harrassment, talk page vandalism, and non-consensus changes to guideline"

I wish to point out that the issue specified in this arb case (the proposal Misplaced Pages:Non-notability) has been resolved about a week ago through a straw poll which found 71% in opposition to the proposal. It has been marked as 'rejected' by an uninvolved party, and debate has died down and moved to some essays on the matter. >Radiant< 18:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Development

Sorry is posting here is improper, but I just wanted to make sure you noticed this post from today (now reverted) . I've presented it as new evidence of a continued problem . It supplements evidence already submitted . I make no further comment. --Doc 01:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder whether it is ethical to engage into personal communication with the arbitrators on the issues of the ongoing case. There are reasons why the public pages of the case are there and the reason is that all comments and rebuttals are highly visible to all parties. Therefore, I refrained from contacting the arbitrators directly like Doc just did above. But if I was wrong and such contacts are allowed, I will then follow up with my thoughts. Thanks, --Irpen 02:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
You, or anyone else, is free to contact the arbitration committee. The wholesale way is to mail to the arbcom-l list, arbcom-l@Misplaced Pages.org Fred Bauder 11:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Fred, thanks for response. IMO, sending a private communication to the arbitrators is only appropriate in few exceptional cases such as submitting the evidence whose nature does not allow to make it public. Otherwise, I would consider such communication unfair as private statements related to a specific case cannot be rebutted by the other side. You may remember that I expressed support earlier towards the greater transparency on how ArbCom cases are decided, such as making the recusals meaningful (currently recused arbitrators privately discuss the case with the non-recuses ones at arbcom-l). Because of my view that secret communications with the arbcom members are unfair, I will not follow on your suggestion of contacting the arbitrators by email about the ongoing case. The only time I emailed to all arbitrators was when I was trying to implement a sensible, IMO, ammendment to ArbPolicy on the very same issue (meaningful removal of recused Arbs from the case).

Anyway, since contacting itself is not a problem, as I thought, here is one of my conserns. I am expressing it publicly at your talk, so anyone can see. IMO, there is a certain inconsistensy in the current version of the final page of the case. The "Finding of fact" section contains a statement related with InkSplotch's being or not being a sockpuppet. However, it is unclear from the decision page why her being a sock or not (and of Kelly or not) is at all so important as to warrant a special clause in the finding of fact section. There was a proposal at the work shop on the principle about using socks for ArbCom matters. This proposal did not make it to the final version of proposed decision. However, without something said on the matter in the principles section, there is a confusion of what this "finding of fact" doing there in the firs place. Thanks, --Irpen 17:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My post here is hardly a private communication. However, since it has attracted criticism, next time I'll use e-mail, for which I will not be criticised.--Doc 13:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
While I prefer open transparent discussion, that is fine. Fred Bauder 13:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Fred, I totally agree with you regarding the preference for transparent discussion. This is exactly why I think that communication to arbitrators in relation to the ongoing cases has to take place at the case page and its subpages rather than by trying to contact arbitrators directly, either by email or at their talk pages. Emailing, IMO, is only appropriate when submitting the private evidence. Here Doc posted something at the page and to add weight to his statement chose to attract the Arb's attention to it by contacting him directly. I saw that an attempt to give an opinion an undue weight. In real courts no party of the case are allowed to talk to jurors or judges in private, except in very limited circumstances. I've read of several mistrials declared when such communication was discovered. --Irpen 03:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Naked short selling - authoritative reference

It's long, but it is the position of all fifty state securities regulators on the matter. If you have an interest in a full and honest treatment of the topic, this letter from the North American Securities Administrators Association is worth reading. Thank you for your time.

http://sec.gov/comments/s7-12-06/jpborg7410.pdf

72.192.56.93 05:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)securities professional

Thanking Kelly

Fred, Am I right in thinking that thanking Kelly specifically for her positive contributions is a way of not saying anything about her other contributions? Regards, Ben Aveling 05:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think an in depth analysis of her role in the Userbox war would result in an expression of gratitude. Fred Bauder 12:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, I don't remember thanking Everyking during desysopping despite the unquestionable multitude of positive contribution. --Irpen 06:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I generally supported him, voted for him to be an arbitrator in the last election, but no we did not properly thank him. This had to do with what he did though; attack sites are not real popular. Fred Bauder 12:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
If you handle disagreement by affiliating with those who are trying to harm Misplaced Pages, it is to be expected that Misplaced Pages will withdraw trust. Fred Bauder 12:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that his affiliation with an attack site was totally inapropriate. In deciding to desysop him, the ArbCom saw no need to "thank" him for his great work around here (the fact that he did a whole lot of great work as well is unquestionable). We have a very symmetrical case here. Multitude of Kelly's actions were highly inappropriate as well. At the same time ArbCom unprecedently makes a separate statement of thanking her. This simply seems strange. She is not the first user who has both good and bad sides. She is the first one who, while punished for the bad sides, is also thanked for the good ones. Isn't it a strange action? --Irpen 03:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No, she was an arbitrator. Fred Bauder 12:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see how this makes a difference. --Irpen 19:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone understand the machinations of the reigning Arbcom? Giano 19:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Not machinations, genuine gratitude. Fred Bauder 19:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
So, if I understand correctly, Everyking deserves less gratitude, and that's why the kick in the ass he got did not have to be sugar-coated, unlike the Kelly's one. --Irpen 19:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know to what extent, if any, the /Proposed Decision is based on any user-proposed language in the /Workshop, but I will take the credit and/or blame for being the first one to propose thanking Kelly Martin for her service here - which I proposed to do in the context of and secondary to a sentence taking note of her departure. It frankly didn't strike me as being something controversial (though of course I don't claim familiarity with everything she ever said or did here or elsewhere). Net net, the current /Proposed Decision is more strongly directed against Kelly Martin than my proposal, by making express that she left amidst controversy and may not regain her admin status on WP:EN without going through a new RfA. In the current draft, the "thank you" stands out a bit because it's isolated in a separate paragraph, rather than being combined with the substantive remedy, which I think is a result of drafting by committee (literally) more than anything else, but I still don't think it's intended as a controversial part of the decision (as opposed to the one-week ban of John Reid, which still troubles me enormously and which I may bring before Jimbo). Newyorkbrad 19:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Stalin_exile_1915.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Stalin_exile_1915.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 10:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I took care of it. --Irpen 19:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Ellis blocked

I have blocked Arthur Ellis for making personal attacks on the Rachel MArsden arbitration case; most specifically reverting this edit after TheronJ removed it and warned him. (There are other attacks in the recent history of the page, I believe). The block is for 24 hours, but feel free to release it early if you wish to allow him to continue to particpate on the workshop page. Thatcher131 16:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

He didn't take it well. . Thatcher131 16:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


Thank You

 For offering your opinion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Rachel Marsden

Thank you for your comment. I have already been much more careful about blocks since then (the Ellis block was actually just in my first week as an admin and I was perhaps too quick on the block button in some instances).--Konst.able 23:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

RFAr GreekWarrior

Hello :-) Does the GreekWarrior case need Proposed enforcement to log the ban if it becomes necessary? FloNight 23:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

ED Links

So this link in that context is a bannable offense? Humbug. SchmuckyTheCat 18:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Link deletions

Thanks, Fred. Much reduction in controversy if someone far uninvolved from the original fracas makes the link changes. Georgewilliamherbert 08:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have duplicated the whole page. Software bug? I've tried to fix it, but you might just take a look to check that what I did was what you intended. I removed the second half, in the assumption that it was identical to the first half, but of course I didn't do a word-by-word comparison. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 09:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I reverted a page doubling on my talk page as well, this seemed to happen on a few places. Also, what's the point in removing a letter from "ED", rather than simply delinking everything? I sure hope we're all still allowed to write it? --Conti|✉ 14:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Fred, if you want to disable links to ED from my talk page, super. If you want to go through my talk page and insert a bunch of spelling errors, not so super. I'm fixing the spelling back up, and I'll be sure not to leave any live links. Please let me know if this is a problem, thanks. -GTBacchus 18:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, my talk page has all the correct spellings back now, and no links to ED; all it took was a couple of "nowiki" tags. Thanks for pointing out those links; I had forgotten all about them. Cheers. -GTBacchus 18:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica links

Why are you modifying dozens of pages that aren't even in article space to invalidate links to this website? I understand the efforts to avoid importing ED problems over to here, but you're modifying archived discussions, which has no effect but to break things for people reading them later. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I went and found the RFAr after I made that comment -- you might want to make a more explicit note somewhere of the justification for your actions--I was tempted to call the misdirection of dozens of links to invalid pages vandalism. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination) is in pretty messed up shape after your edit; the page got duplicated and filled with misspellings. Could you run your filter so it only affects links instead of every mention of the site? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

asking for you opinion

As this diff shows, user:Jayjg actually reverted a post I made to WP:AMA member user:Amerique. He also reverted a communication attempt I made on his own talk page . While he may claim that "blocked users are not allowed to edit", I believe that just deleting sincere and civil attempts to communicate from his own and especially on any other user's talk page is extremely rude and very dubious, taking into account the nature of my message to Amerique. I'd appreciate your comment. blocked user:Subversive_element, editing from IP address: 84.44.175.97 15:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Am I off base here?

I trust your opinion, in particular on this matter. Have I been stalking or harrassing Mongo? He is claiming so and threatening to do something about it.

I think I'm on the "attemptedly constructive and legitimate criticism" side of the line, but I'd like a third party opinion. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 22:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Links to ED

Instead of linking to encyclopediadamatica.com, which is a parked ad site, could you remove the links altogether? I ask particularly regarding the Misplaced Pages Signpost pages you changed, but also all pages that link (used to link) to ED. Ral315 (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Also looking over the changes... whatever you used to make them also changed the word "dramatic" to "damatic" in a bunch of unrelated text in some of those articles. That would appear to be a potential oops... Georgewilliamherbert 22:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the actual changes to the phrase "Encyclopedia Dramatica", I mean accidental catching variations on the word "dramatic" elsewhere in articles.
Look at (for first example on my open taskbar...)
The changes for ED proper further down are all as expected, but the first change listed was an unrelated instance of the word "dramatically", which also got changed. I spot-checked a bunch of things, and found a bunch of instances of this. Whatever your algorithm was reached a bit too far... Georgewilliamherbert 22:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Your block of IP address 193.253.29.71

I noticed that you blocked that IP address for a month, over a single edit to Bogdanov Affair. According to the decision regarding that article, a first offence shouldn't result in a block longer than a week.

Please reconsider the length of the block to the IP address. Eli Falk 17:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Homey

He was not allowed to edit using additional sockpuppets (sockpuppets that used open proxies) and IPs, was he? Jayjg 00:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Me too, Fred, believe me. I'll try to think of a more rational way of working this out. Jayjg 00:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
User talk:Fred Bauder: Difference between revisions Add topic