User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 51

Reference

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/


Updating sigs

Hi, there is still a claim that sig updating edits are controversial. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Computer (05) was declined almost instantly. I was wondering what to do to "gain" requested consensus. What do you recommend? I had taken the contribution of one of the sig reverter to RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ned Scott. So what should I do next? Take the mater to ArbCom or Jimbo? What do you recommend? -- Cat chi? 13:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Updating signatures is a waste. Fred Bauder 13:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That may be (we are at a disagreement), but you yourself said it isn't prohibited behavior. Even people who write vandal bots are given this courtesy, why am I not? -- Cat chi? 14:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
People who write bots that vandalize the project are given bot flags? Please provide an example. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People who write vandal bots are given the courtesy as described in m:Right to Vanish. -- Cat chi? 17:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

checkuser

Hi,

would you pleace check whether User:Specialjane is/was indeed a sockpuppet of User:Dereks1x. I can't find User:Specialjane on Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Dereks1x. Thank you. --Raphael1 10:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please inquire of User talk:Jpgordon. He is the one up to speed on this user. Fred Bauder 16:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jpgordon claims that User:Specialjane is/was indeed a sockpuppet of User:Dereks1x. Would you please doublecheck that for me. Thank you. --Raphael1 10:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Miltopia

I didn't see where Miltopia checkuser was done. Ziggy88 was the BA sock over the weekend that I reported. I didn't request a CU though. Did someone do one? If not, Ziggy88 would be a candidate to run. --Tbeatty 19:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miltopia ArbReq initiated

I posted it on his behalf. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Miltopia —Crazytales (t.) 02:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like nonsense to me. I've interacted with Miltopia and Blu at the very same time on IRC. I'm pretty sure I've even seen Blu kick Miltopia from the channel. I'd like to see evidence that they're the same. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem 1 Poorly sourced controversial materialcan be inserted into articles by gaming the system. [1] Aatomic1 22:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, references need to be up to date. In this area reverences a few years old may be seriously out of date. Fred Bauder 23:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem 2 [2] team editing with no wish to contribue to Mediation angers conscientious editors Aatomic1 23:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation may not be required, but good faith negotiation is. Fred Bauder 00:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation vs. Arbitation

I have a question about when things can go to arbitration based on your recent vote. I've been involved with several disputes before that went through mediation without much luck. I noticed that you voted to accept the Liancourt Rocks arbitration case even though it has not gone through any of these other dispute resolution steps. Wikimachine said he did not want to do them because he thought he would not have much progress because we are all "nationalists" somehow here. As a general policy, then, can I skip going through the earlier steps of dispute resolution if I felt (as he does in this case) that they would not meet with satisfactory results for me? —LactoseTIT 19:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for accepting the case. I see another lobbying here, but it wouldn't have been good for me if nobody were to accept it when I made such a big deal out of it & spent so much on the writing. Again, I'm emphasizing the root cause of the problem that needs to be solved, instead of the individual problems & disputes that arise inevitably due to that root cause. (Wikimachine 22:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wikimachine, the only one lobbying is you (when you asked the two arbitrators who have declined the case so far to change their votes). I'm not asking Fred Bauder to necessarily change his vote, I'm simply asking if it is in general acceptable to skip all mediation steps if you feel they won't be helpful (as you have done here--we haven't been through mediation on either the content issues or anything else, you simply said it wouldn't be helpful because you think the editors are "nationalists" and said you wanted to skip straight to arbitration here). —LactoseTIT 22:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've considered arbitration many times in the past, Lactose. (Wikimachine 23:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
You folks should continue to talk to one another on talk pages, negotiate; ask others to help you negotiate, mediation. The result of arbitration is not likely to be pleasant, basically we will treat you as immature editors whose editing must be restricted for the good of the project. It makes no sense at all to come to us like children to their parents asking us to settle a dispute most of us know little or nothing about. Fred Bauder 23:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THF arbitration

I believe that I agree with you on the point that the personalities (THF, Shankbone) in this case are not so important, and that the bigger issue is that policies need clarification. In your opinion, did User:Picaroon act properly in deleting my statement? --Marvin Diode 13:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanished user

(will copy this note to my talkpage to make transparency easier)

You've got my trust, unblock as you see fit. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is going on at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Durin. ElinorD (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the user and talk page, there doesn't seem to be a solid version to restore to. I've deleted the user page as there was no restorable version that wasn't in contravention of something, and unprotected but left the talk page. I am loath to restore the last version of the talk page as it contained a personal attack in the header against Durin, but I'm happy to accept any decision you come to on it. Orderinchaos 23:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THF arbitration

Hello Fred, I would like to decline to comment on the arbitration page. I think my edits speak for themselves, and as I made clear in them, I want nothing more to do with ex-editors. Wikidea 06:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed my comment and your "Not done" explanation since it applied to your earlier version of the statement of fact. --David Shankbone 15:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon

[3] My name is Peter Lundgren. I am contacting you because we placed this morning a polite message at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. For no reason, two administrators have chosen to delete our message and block our diverse VPN-IP access. We have tried many times to call them to reason politely with no results. As this looks like harassment and abuse, please would you talk to them? We mean no harm, only clarification and we just left information about that, if they delete it other people will not see it, please just leave it a couple of days, that is all. You will recognize the reverts because we always left the message "please be polite" We have also contacted another administrator of name Dan, we will not contact anyone else, we don't want to generate debate or conflicts. Thank you. Peter Lundgren (Ref to UNNET slander message) 85.240.215.26 12:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats are a form of initimidation and run counter to Wikipedia's philosophy of open collaborative editing. See No legal threats. If you are concerned about article content you can either register an account and fix the article (adhering to the various rules for behavior) or you can contact the Wikimedia Foundation about your legal concerns, but you can't do both. Go to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem and choose the correct link and follow the instructions to email your complaint. It will be handled by a team of volunteers who specialize in these sorts of problems. Thatcher131 15:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment again

I am again harassed and slandered by Pascal Teson at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Can someone tell him to let go please? Vanished user 15:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of Vanished user

Fred, with no disrespect to you personally, I find it absolutely unconscionable that you would unblock [4] this user without making any attempt to discuss the matter with me in any respect. This is not to say that I feel I should have a say in whether the user remains blocked, but that unblocking without consulting with me to find out the particulars from my view was an unconscionable act and quite in error. I have written more extensively about this at User:Durin/Departure#With_regards_to_the_events_on_and_about_August_31.2C_2007 point #2. At least one administrator feels that your unblock was in error as well (see last line of [5]). I am most disappointed. --Durin 16:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, Vanished user is involved in a fraud. This is not about the licenses on the images, it's about the reports she claimed to have made to a non-existent regulatory agency. We (those of us who congregate on IRC and discuss issues in real-time) are not fully certain of the precise nature, goal, or intended victim of the scam, but we are certain that it is a scam. To unblock her would be to encourage further actions of this nature. I am reluctant, for obvious reasons, to go into detail in public; you may wish to join us there for more information. DS 17:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, I provided you with extensive details on this case by e-mail which fully supports the continued block of Vanished user. I have compiled further (sensitive) information, which is readily available to you on request, which further strengthens to position of DragonflySixtyseven, Durin and myself with regards to this issue. Nick 17:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image bot

The Angela Davis picture ha been removed by some sort of Image bot. Its not a big deal to me but I thought you should know just in case its a glitch of some kind and you do not have the article on your watch list Albion moonlight 17:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Albion moonlight 17:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Frank article

Yeah, I'll do that. These edits were nothing like the savage attacks in the old deleted article, but I can see how they would be confusing. Cool Hand Luke 02:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred. Re your question, please see User_talk:Tcstart75. Your fellow ibiblio contributor, Una Smith 16:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hey Fred

Since you wrote the proposed decision, I want to know if I should perhaps request another Arbitration case or a review of AA2? The subject, you ask? It's user Atabek once more. I have a feeling this guy just wants to dominate the discussion page. Every single disagreement he is unable to overcome in him reporting us to the ArbCom. Just see here: [6]. Thanks dude, --Marshal Bagramyan 17:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't see any violation on part of Atabek there. I would suggest Marshall be more specific and provide diffs of what he considers to be a violation. Grandmaster 19:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reported specific violations at AE, those of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, the accusations above are not based on any policy. And I would like to ask User:MarshallBagramyan to also stop attacking me, like here [7], [8] before I am forced to report his behavior at AE as well. All three users (two reported at AE and Marshall) need to calm down, assume good faith, and continue editing in constructive manner without concentrating on me as a user.Atabek 19:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case. The most superfluous of edits are immediately flagged as "attacks" and "incivility".--Marshal Bagramyan 20:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Your deplorable and unprofessionall behaviour!

As you know I have never had a great deal of respect or time for you and your opinions, but I never go behind a bush, so please see this edit [9]. I find it hard to believe a member of the Arbcom can behave in such an impartial way - you should be silent! In all places on this matter, unless it is a discussion between other members of the Arbcom or on the Arbcom page itself. Do American lawyers have no code of conduct, professionalism, or behaviour? Giano 20:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Allegations of apartheid" workshop page

As the clerk working on the case, I have had inquiries on my talk from two users asking the basis for and meaning of your blanking the workshop page in the Allegations of apartheid case. I have had to respond that I have no information about this and referred them to you. It would probably be helpful if you were to offer some further explanation. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troubles ArbCom

I have sent you an email with links to recent submissions in the ArbCom case. Could you let me know when you get it? It's rather important (on and off wikipedia harassment of an admin, including outing of private medical information on WP). Thank you. SirFozzie 21:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal ArbCom

I have a seemingly stupid question, but if you could answer it would be of great help (as people dispute it).

In the ArbCom decision on the paranormal you wrote "...there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way..."

This was passed passed 8-0. Question: was it the consensus of the ArbCom that there really is an (academic) "scientific discipline of parapsychology?" ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Status_of_parapsychology Fred Bauder 14:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Thanks (-: ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing signature

Hi, did you intend to place your signature under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Proposed decision#Additional participants? Picaroon (t) 01:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites/Proposed decision

Given the controversial nature of links to "attack sites" such as Making Light, I don't think it's a good idea to link to [10] in an arbitration ruling. Is that link really necessary? Melsaran (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is useful. I'm thinking about linking to the ED article too. Maybe people need a taste. Fred Bauder 14:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, Fred, what do you mean? Are you trying to make a point here? I'm confused. Melsaran (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the spam blacklist anyway, a link is impossible. Fred Bauder 14:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name has been removed, but the link (multiple links, actually) to ED is (are) still there: http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/008953.html --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also seems it is not on the spam blacklist - a link works, as can be seen. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, this is your talk page, so feel free to remove these posts after you've read them if you don't want to link to Making Light on it. However you probably don't want to write that ML has removed the link to ED in the proposed decision.
All that said, though, Theresa Nielsen Hayden is a notable SF writer, editor, and, yes, blogger. No way about it. I strongly support linking to Making Light, the blog, in her article. If she sometimes gets upset with Wikipedia, or even specific Wikipedians, and is nasty about it, unfortunately that is part of writing an encyclopedia. I wish it weren't, but we are first an encyclopedia, and only second a community. There are countless forums that are communities first that happen to have some useful information; we're not just another one of them. We're an encyclopedia that happens to have a community. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, of course, I just wondered why he wanted to link to the site in question in the arbitration decision, because this is a particularly contentious matter. Melsaran (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prominent conservative research groups in the United States

Hello, I just thought you might like to know that Category:Prominent conservative research groups in the United States is up for possible deletion at CFD. I don't know why it's not mandatory to notify creators of categories (like it is for articles at AFD), but I usually make a point of leaving a note like this when I participate in a CFD discussion, even if I wasn't the person who started the CFD. Cgingold 16:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]