User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 36

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,[1]

• In the discussions on the Wolf effect, I've just been called a "bean counter",[2]
• In another discussion on William G. Tifft, I've just been called a liar,[3]
• 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" [4]
• I also note that he's now trying to remove the Wolf effect from the Redshift article,[5], 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,[6]. --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: [7]. 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]

New citations

Some more, seemingly problematic citations have been introduced to the anthroposophy article.

1. Doyletics (sp?) seems to be a curious splinter group and surely not what we want to be citing here.
2. Are Steiner citations allowed or not? They keep recurring but I thought we were avoiding these in favor of third-party sources. Hgilbert 19:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, use of the Doyletics website is questionable. The use made of the Steiner quotations seems Ok though, as I don't think they are controversial, at least in the sense that he used the Michael metaphor in that way. Fred Bauder 19:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]