User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 29

Hello Fred Bauder I came to your Talk page from Psychoanalysis and that TAlk page. I am a retired psychiatrist that reads used books and loved living in Denver 1949-1953 for my residency.I haven't made it to Wikinfo yet, but it's next on my schedule. Your intentions are impressive. I have rambled around Sigmund Freud, Aggression,On Aggression, Evolution, Evolutionary Psychology, and have written "A Fundamental Revision" in Psychoanalytic Theory. Perhaps you might be interested in reading the last of those.I certainly would be interested in your comments. Islandsage 19:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Sorry!! Did I put this in the wrong place? Islandsage 19:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schuckardt article

Hello Fred. Athanasius303 and I having a difference of opinion on the ground rules the ArbCom developed for this article which is still under probation. One part of the ground rules reads "The second rule to be observed is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: this policy contemplates fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject. Applied to this article it means fairly representing Bishop Schuckardt's life and doctrinal positions ...and the criticisms that have been made of him and his church, including a summary and links to published newspaper reports." There is a website ttp://www.theroguebishop.com/forums/ www.TheRogueBishop.com that holds criticism of Schuckardt. Athanasius303 has written on the talk page that this site holds objectionalble material and cannot be referenced so he removes it. This site has many scans of newspaper articles and other third party publications that are cited from in the Francis Schuckardt article ttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Francis_Schuckardt&oldid=69339379 as this old version shows. There are links in 13 places to the actual articles like this ttp://theroguebishop.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=49 example link. When I click on these links, just the article appears for the reader to peruse if they want. Athanasius303 keeps removing all 13 links and adding "citation needed" ttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Francis_Schuckardt&oldid=69625192 as you can see in this version of the article]. He wrote that the links can't be used because, although they are published articles, they appear on ttp://www.theroguebishop.com/forums/ TheRogueBishop.com and therefore are contraband. Any input? Bernie Radecki 23:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The website is dedicated to attacking Bishop Schuckardt and his church and constitutes hate speech. In my opinion any link to it would be malicious. It is analogous to repeatedly linking the article on the Roman Catholic Church to a KKK site. The material on it, if published, or otherwise a reliable source, can be used by citing it as a reference: name of article, author, date, name of original publication. Fred Bauder 23:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, not what I expected. Thanks. In my defense, a better analogy might be linking an article on one hate group to another hate group's site, but I'll follow your suggestion and just cite the published articles instead of prividing a link to them on the other website.Bernie Radecki 23:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fred, I just have one more question: I have a booklet written in 1980 about Bishop Schuckardt and his church. The author, Bob Cubbage, was the editor of the 'Inland Register', the diocesan paper of the Catholic Diocese of Spokane. I think the booklet is comprised of articles that ran over 8 or 9 consecutive issues of the paper. It is listed on Amazon although it is out of print. Athanasius303 has written this about the usage of the booklet as a third party source: "I don’t have immediate access to this work, although I am familiar with Cubbage.I am familiar with Cubbage. Cubbage is a vociferous critic of Bishop Schuckardt and does not fairly analyze or report either about the Bishop or the TLRCC." and "The Cubbage booklet does not stand up to the reliable source standard for bios of living persons." I think the booklet attempts to do a decent job of covering both sides of the issues. There are many direct quotes from Bishop Schuckardt in it. Due to my bias and my inability to successfully dialog with Athanasius303, I was hoping to get your opinion on the fitness of this source to be used as a supporting document. Bernie Radecki 00:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say without seeing it, but peer review is probably lacking so it probably should only be used for non-controversial information. Fred Bauder 01:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. It is difficult to obtain peer reviewed material on such a minor figure. Until the creation of his website about 5 months ago, he never published anything. I don't mean to complain, but this poses a challenge to balance the article since his follower can use the website to source information in the Wikipedia article regarding his beliefs, but I have to find published material. I understand the reason that this is how it has to be that way. Bernie Radecki 19:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're an imbecile

Clearly you have no respect for the responsibilities you were given. Editors should have been able to expect that you'd be fair and even handed. Clearly you think being an arbitrator means "be arbitrary". I made a bloody huge mistake wasting my time thinking the likes of you could be trusted to judge anything fairly. His Excellency... 00:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over this arbitrator's talk page, I'm inclined to agree. "Who will guard the guardians?" starkt 05:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What?

My only crime with regard to arbitration pages is properly formatting items and fixing spelling/grammar errors, as well as reverting votes of non-arbitrators. If that's enough to bar me, where has common sense gone? Editor88 02:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, I noticed that on the same day as you had this exchange with Editor88, he archived his userpage and left the project. This may or may not be related, and would certainly be an overreaction to a misunderstanding if it was related, but I hate to see someone leave over a miscommunication. Of course if there's no way to reach him it's academic anyway but thought I'd give you a head's up to the situation. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Schwarz again

Barbara has refused to agree to comply with our harassment and no personal attacks policies and has continued to "out" users on her talk page. In view of this, I'm left with no option but to leave her blocked indefinitely. I think we need to purge the "outing" edits from the database - do you have the oversight flag set on your account? If so, I can provide you with the relevant diffs. -- ChrisO 07:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me a link to her User talk page. Fred Bauder 10:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid

Hello Fred :-) Looking through the this arb case and noticed that you proposed this findings of fact but did not vote on it. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Proposed decision#Biased editing. The whole case is close to closing and your vote might make a difference one way or the other.

At least on my end, the situations with WordBomb and Homey has quieted to low roar. My sanity is returning as I haven't had an email from them or Amorrow in over 24hours. Even had time to write some article. :-) Take care, FloNight ^talk 23:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The His Excellency case

I am wondering if you and the arbcom can clarify something on the proposed decisions page. Do these sanctions cover just the His excellency account or do they cover the His excellency account and the previous account that the user edited under? Otherwise, I'm afraid of H.E. simply switching accounts. What's on the page now is not clear. --Woohookitty^(meow) 19:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration info

Hi there. I've been having problems over a page that have become impossible to resolve. I tried mediation, but one of the parties dug their heels in and refused to play ball because they think they're 100% right. I just wanted to check, does arbitration deal with disputes over content and things like that of an article, or does it have to be like a personal attack or something? I just ask because if someone won't agree to mediation then there isn't anything else, other than arbitration, that one can use officially. Thanks, John Smith's 22:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Personal Info

I know I've read it somewhere, but I can't seem to find the specific policies at the moment. Please look at Talk:United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. There are only 2 edits, and you are welcome to delete my response/edit on that talk page. - Jc37 01:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion, is there a better place to ask about this? - Jc37 23:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any more to be said. It is up to her to contact HEW for what she seeks. Putting her name in the open is a non-event. Generally it makes no difference; no one is interested. But perhaps someone who can tell her how to get the information she seeks will write or call her. Fred Bauder 23:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I obviously thought that personal information in the main encyclopedia was not acceptable for various reasons. But if it's a "non-event" that "makes no difference", then k. (One will never know anything unless one asks : ) - Jc37 23:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fuss is over disclosing the identity of anonymous users. Fred Bauder 23:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thank you : ) - Jc37 23:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Editing your guru's article"

Fred, RE ArbCom case: Editing your guru's article

Are you aware of the implications of this ruling?

Tibetan Buddhists will be discouraged from editing the Dalai_lama and Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama articles
Sikhs will be discouraged from editing Ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak Dev to Guru Gobind Singh
Ravidasis will be discouraged from editing Raidas
Followers of Vedānta, yoga, tantra and bhakti schools will be discouraged from editing articles about their teachers
and so on

All this when there are no discouragement or limitations for

Roman Catholics from editing the Pope_Benedict_XVI or Jesus articles
Orthodox Jews from editing articles about their rabbis
Sufis from editing articles about Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi
and so on

Don't you think that this ruling could be construed as a dangerous precendent of discriminating against followers of Eastern faiths? What do you think Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhist and others will feel about Wikipedia when they learn about this... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 07:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question is the quality of the relationship, not the content of the teaching or tradition. Fred Bauder 07:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you saying that the "quality of the relationship" between a Sikh as it relates to Guru Nanak, or between a Tibetan Buddhist as it reates to Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama, is different from the relationship between a Hassidic jew and Menachem Mendel Schneerson or from a Sufi and Rumi? Upon which basis are you making that assertion, may I ask? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's always a factual question: are we dealing with an independent personality or a parrot? Fred Bauder 21:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you asserting that each case has to be judged on its merits? That a certain "Orthodox Jew editor" maybe "a parrot" as it relates to editing his rabbi's article, and in other cases, a Ravidasi may be not such "a parrot" when editing the Ravidas article? If that is the case, the wording of the proposed principle is still off the mark, as it is making a wide ranging and generic assessment of "disciples of gurus" as being unable to have an "independent personality." I hope you can see that this is incompatible with your last statement. If your assessment of the evidence provided in this ArbCom case is that user SS108 has that kind of "parrot personality" then you ought to say that in the proposed principle (with the likely possibility of violating WP:NPA in the process ...) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above

Please see above re User:Editor88. I just wanted to put a cross-reference here in case you missed the note I added to mid-page, which can be easy to miss. Just FYI, no response required. Newyorkbrad 21:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration

I have asked User:FeloniusMonk, User:KillerChihauhua, User:Jim62sch to agree upon language in the Paul Weyrich article that accurately represents Mr. Weyrich's views and that does not resort to editorializing. Those efforts have failed. I am asking you to have the Wikipedia arbitration committee impose a solution to this problem. I have done my best to be accurate. I dispute the neutrality of their defended additions to the article.--Pravknight 22:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2/Proposed decision

New items have been added to the proposed decision portion of the case regarding the merged user, Coolcaesar. Please vote on those topics. Ericsaindon2 04:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that Ericsaindon2 here added his own stuff to the proposed decision page of his ArbCom case. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] I have reverted it [6], iirc, only you and other ArbCom members should only add stuff to those type of pages, not a party in the case itself. I will leave it up to you whatever consequence, if any, should be given to him. Regards. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration and help

(a) I have been accused of "sockpuppetry". This is totally unjust. I am not the same as any ot the Wikipedia-editors to whom I have been linked. I seek an arbiter who will listen to reason and logic. Contributors named Bioinformaticist, M&M Peace (i think), Philly Student...they are not I, at all --I do not know who they are, I vow as if in court! (b) Why are articles (bios of living people) on Marion Cohen, Roberta Wenocur, Elaine Zanutto, Linda Zhao, and other female mathematicians being held to standards different from male mathematicians like Herbert Wilf, Dennis DeTurck, &c .? (c) What is the problem with the corp, Daniel H. Wagner Associates? (d) All right, maybe articles need improvement, but deletion? and some with prompt deletion? (e) Wikipedia should be fun, not so contentious.

Please help. I want to be nice, but it is difficult when being unjustly accused and bulliied.

I hope you are understanding, and believe me. I am not lying. This is the truth.

MathStatWoman 16:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked into this User:Ksingh20 seems different from you. Fred Bauder 18:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unjust, and please help

I am not MxM Peace nor what you claim is his/her "sockpuppet".

No, that is a sock of Ksingh20. Fred Bauder 20:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have accused me of being Ksingh20. I disagree and would like proof of this as I am sure you would have checked before actually making this statement to a third person. As this is a serious allegation and I would like to clear this matter. Could you please forward your evidence asap. --MxM Peace 04:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going by IP address, I use a computer network and WiFi that is used by scores (perhaps hundreds) of people -- office mate, students, friends, children, friends of children, so I am not "Philly Student". I do not even know who that is. No disrespect, but aren't you assuming "guilty until proven innocent" or even "guilty without any possibility of being proven innocent?" What does one do if one shares computers/ wifi to avoid the nomenclature "sockpuppet"? This is a problem, don't you agree? 71.242.164.228 19:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Sorry forgot to sign in. MathStatWoman 19:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, confirmed by checkuser. Fred Bauder 20:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm presumably one of the wicked folks referred to by MathStatWoman. In regards to Mxm Peace=Ksingh20, the latter somehow managed to recreate an article of MathStatWoman's with the same text, even though it had been speedied and was unavailable, so presumably there is some sort of meatpuppetry or logrolling involved even if those two aren't actually her. I'm a great believer in inertia, and hopefully these problem folks will become moot once the various AfDs close. BTW, she appears to have copied the same appeal to most ARBCOM members; feel free to point them to my collected notes on all this here. - David Oberst 03:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your message

You wrote: As you are well aware, Philly Student and WomanTreatedUnfairly are you while M&M Peace is a sock of Ksingh20. If you feel arbitration would be worthwhile, made a request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Fred Bauder 18:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No, they are probably using the same computer network and wifi. Not I. This is unjust. MathStatWoman 19:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the proof that User:Ksingh20 is me. We know each other but he lives in the next district so his IP address should be different. I await your checks MxM Peace 02:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You posted: "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MathStatWoman&curid=3442632&diff=71310863&oldid=71278278 Fred Bauder 12:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)"

What's the point of posting a useless link which has no benefit to anyone but you - I need proof by way of IP addresses and other research to show how you get to this wrong conclusion. Please - answering a simple question like that with a useless link show the calibre of your argument. Please don't waste your and my time. I do have better things to do then read these pointless links to edits which are nothing to do with the evidence that is required. I have told you what is required – if you can't provide that, then please just don't bother!! MxM Peace 18:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said "You are entitled to use more than one user account. Fred Bauder 20:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

We are NOT discussing the use of multiple accounts - We discussing the accusation without proof of "imitation of another person"! No one is allowed to accuse another person of any offence without evidence. That is what we are discussing. It's pretty simple. When several users in high places go on an "accusation spree" and fail to produce proof, that I think has to be dealt with in a serious manner and stopped urgently. Further, various new users have been "blocked" by this system without any action by management. This is a violation of the Human Rights Act in the UK and EU. And I am going to put an end to this soon. --MxM Peace 21:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found Philly Student

See page for Philly Student. What do you do, at Wikipedia, when people share the same IP address? Or the same computer? Or the same computer lab? Or share Wifi? I would like to know. Philly Student 19:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Philly Student is sitting right next to me now. She just signed out, and I signed in. We both want to know about all this. We feel like this is the inquisition. MathStatWoman 19:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I just, again, wanted to say how sorry I was for making that dishonest edit that got me a 1 month ban. I greatly apologize, and realize how childish it was of me. There were no excuses for my actions, and I would be willing to commit to not doing such childish actions again. I can't stress how apologetic I am for manipulating the results of the checkuser, and I just wanted to apologize again. I hope you can forgive me. Ericsaindon2 02:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification

Hi Fred. Regarding [7], could you clarify what you meant? I'm not sure what second policy you are talking about. Thanks. JoshuaZ 18:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Clarification

Dear Fred, I respectfully ask that you offer some more wise words of advise for the ongoing Rainbow Gathering issue. Thank you. Bstone 16:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser backlog

Hi there,

I'm sending this message out to the 6 active admin with CheckUser priveleges. Just wanted to let you all know that there is a lengthy backlog on the CheckUser page and it has not been checked since August 21, 2006. According to the CheckUser site, it says that user records expire within a week or so, so it would be great if one of you could go through it sometime soon. Thanks, --Palffy 20:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting

In the case of articles which chronicle a developing current event it is not a violation of Wikipedia policy to temporarily include links to blogs which contain contemporary opinion and observations about the event. A diverse mix is recommended, but the extent and selection of specific blogs is a matter of content to be determined by the editors of the article.

Um. Does this not erode the distinction between us and Wikinews? And does it not undermine WP:V and possibly WP:NPOV? This may be a dangerous precedent; I'm not happy about setting a different standard for references in current events. What am I missing here Just zis Guy you know? 20:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on current events are usually based on news reports, not on our own reporting. That is the distinction. Making a external link to a contemporary blog is not endorsement of the truth of its contents, but a service to the reader who might wish to view a variety of blogs about an event. Linking to a diversity of blogs satisfies NPOV. An external link to a blog is not a reference nor held out to be one. They go in the References section. Fred Bauder 21:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I still don't much like the idea of opening the Pandora's box lof links to blogs, though. Just zis Guy you know? 15:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check Jimbo quote

At Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises, I moved a quote supposedly from Jimbo Wales to the talk page, because it didn't actually match what he said at the cited reference. He may have said that in some other place; not sure if it's a bad quote or a bad cite. --John Nagle 19:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/CoolKatt_number_99999/Proposed_decision#Motions_and_requests_by_the_parties

Maybe it's just me, but shouldn't the finding of the facts also include that this username is too similar to that of CoolCat? Please answer on my talk. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When are you/arbcom going to stop His Excellency... and his attacks

His Excellency... has continued his racist attacks, now he has forced Pecher a longtime editor to leave completely, are you going to do something or should i start using the same tactics to force His Excellency... and like off wikipedia. He's posting his hate via the abrimori sock puppet at the moment, again do something.Hypnosadist 11:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Heres the correct name Amibidhrohi sorry for that.Hypnosadist 11:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats another user has left because of H.E. keep up the good work! Its User:Timothy Usher if you are interested!Hypnosadist 12:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your query

Your query: it's Amibidhrohi, a well-advertised alternate account. Bishonen | talk 15:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, User:Ericsaindon2

Hi. I was wondering why no arbitrators have added the information from the workshop to the proposed decision about Coolcaesar. I know that we are two different people, but you said that you would consider what he has done in making this decision (since he did initiate the whole thing). Yet, only the stuff presented against me is open for voting. I think you need to add the other stuff that pertains to Coolcaesar that was left out. Plus, I apologize, and have been very productive the past few weeks. Since my ban ended, I have not engaged in edit warring, and have been constructine in my edits. Please reconsider your votes, for I know I did do all that stuff, and I am truely sorry, but know that I have changed from doing that, and I do not get into personal conflicts with others, edit wars, etc. Thank you. Ericsaindon2 00:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ED Poor RFAr

I'd say you're missing at least half a dozen people from this list. Guettarda 18:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note

Hi there. We've had our disagreements in the past, but I wanted to give my heartfelt support to this bit of inspiration. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, you used AD instead of ED a bunch of times here so I changed it. Your fellow musketeer :), NoSeptember 16:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre

Hello Fred Bauder :-) This RFAr is close to closing. It appears that you proposed this remedy but skipped the vote. [8] FloNight 16:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll appreciate this as a lawyer

Here is a great case. Dismissed Sua Ponte. Much like the Schwarz person. But Mary Smith Tyler, while a very interesting person needs no biography on Wikipedia even though it would be a spectacle and just as entertaining as Scwharz. --Tbeatty 07:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if you could...

Use your oversight powers to delete my user page history? There is sensitive personal information on there that I would like removed. Everything up to the most recent edit? Magic Window 14:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is "excessive zeal" Fred?

What exactly is "excessive zeal" Fred? Can I propose that rootology not be punished for his "excessive zeal too? I would like to propose this right now. Since you are an admin, can you add this as a proposal?: "No action is taken against rootology for any excessive zeal he has displayed." Travb (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize

To help diffuse the situation on the ANI which MONDO has initiated, I wanted to apolgize for my comments on the ArbCom. I am sorry for calling you a lawyer, if you are not a lawyer, and pointing out a template on your user page.

I hope you are not as offended by my comments to you as MONDO appears to be offended by my comments to you. Again, I apologize. Happy editing.

I remember you did a checkuser on two people for me once, I think that makes us best friends now ;-) Travb (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question was this one, in particular.--MONGO 08:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize again

On further review of some of your work as an admin, my comments about your conservative affilation was, "Wrong on all counts", as you stated. Although this does not justify my actions, my "conservative affilation" comments were a hastily prepared defense: a last hour, last ditch effort to save Rootology, who was a staunch ally on Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America, but who did some things which were really stupid and suicidal, which I told him repeatedly to stop doing.

I agreed with the 24 hour boot, as I mentioned before. Reading the case more in depth, it appears like rootology's indefinate boot was justifiable. In his last day here, he decided to die via "death by cop": he committed suicide and let you, a wikicop, pull the trigger. But I am still uncomforable with him being infinitely booted and not being able to defend himself.

Rootology will be missed at Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America, but posting private information about MONGO should not be tolerated. No one needs this kind of harrassment. Like Rootology, Encyclopedicadramatica, despite my pleas there not to post personal information on users, are also deciding to die via "death by cop". I will miss my template links to them, but I understand why they must be blocked.

I want to emphasize again that my conservative affilation claim were, "Wrong on all counts". MONGO was right, I should have apologized to you. I deleted or struck out these comments on the Arbcom page.

I was wrong. Sorry. Travb (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please verify this statement?

Fred, the comments here are somewhat disturbing, considering the reasons for the ban being applied. Can you please verify what is said here is your position on this matter?

Wikipedia_talk:Suspected_sock_puppets/The_real_Barbara_Schwarz_(2nd)

Thanks. Orsini 14:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO case Rootology ban not in workshop, only in proposed decision

I just noticed that your proposed remedy to ban Rootology indefinitely is only in the proposed decision, not in the workshop. Georgewilliamherbert 19:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Dramatica & Blacklist

If you say that links to ED should be removed on sight, would you also recommend adding ED to the Wikimedia spam blacklist? Scobell302 01:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the remedy passes Fred Bauder 01:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what you did

Hi, I just wanted you to know what your actions regarding rootology have accomplished. Essentially, you chose to get rid of a productive, intelligent, insightful, and (until very recently) determinedly civil editor in order to uphold some sort of admin clique based on non-accountability. In supporting a disruptive, belligerent, and entirely unilateral editor who insists on turning all discussion into a personal battleground, you have sent the message that Wikipedia is about ego and reputation, rather than writing (and finding better wasy to write) an encyclopedia. You know, I really really hate it when people pull the WP:ENC card because it's such an overused TRUMP CARD!!!!!, but in this case it's pretty much the most applicable thing I can think of. And now, any link to Encyclopedia Dramatica is considered spam. That is ludicrous. Do you have any idea how many people link to ED in userpages? Or even essays/subpages they write, to highlight flawed logic or actions taken by Wikipedians. A current arbitrator (correct?) recommends reading another user's subpage, where he has written an essay referencing an ED article. Obviously rootology's posting of links to harassment articles was unwise, but to ban any ED links outright across all namespaces is nonsense. Now, the cliquey, "uphold admins at all cost" system promoted by too many Wikipedians have caused the departure of at least two editors, both of whom had positive, if not extraordinary, contribs to the project.

So, here's the run-down of what you've promoted with your decisions:

Advocating policy changes that are grounded in bad experiences with well-known editors is trolling. Oops.
Links that Wikipedians don't like or that criticize Wikipedia are not acceptable on any namespace. Oops.
Sites that the community decides are "worthwhile" sites need articles; notable sites that Wikipedians don't like don't. Oops.
Anyone openly disagreeing with "bold" administrative action, even if they are disagreeing with the decision and not the boldness, is a troll. Oops again.
Civility and mutual respect are not necessary if the other person is wrong and you are right. Bummer.
Anyone without X edits to this namespace and Y edits to that namespace who makes a comment critical of an administrator is a troll. Ouch.

These policies/guidelines aren't just in place to make newbies feel better, like they're in a benevolent community. They're in place because they help write the encyclopedia. I'm not making that up, most of them explain the benefits right in the policy. But there's no problem in them being ignored for the purpose of personal grudges and angry, overzealous paranoia that has no place in deciding encyclopedic content, nor in judging an editor's value. So here's the deal: rootology and my concerns over MONGO and a few others are and always were about the encyclopedia: namely, about who determines encyclopedic value, the freedom of editors to edit without being harassed/blocked unfairly, and about bringing greater acocuntability to those who disrupt encyclopedic value and free editing with the use of administrator tools. MONGO's concerns have all been about himself and a website that ticked him off: people liking ED, people promoting an article about ED, people being involved with ED, and people being uncomfortable with his actions. You chose the personally-motivated grievances over the encyclopedia related ones. You can keep your MONGO and similar editors. I still love Wikipedia and think it's one of the greatest websites out there (and the quicksearch for Firefox was the second biggest reason I switched to it.) I hope that in time you and other influential Wikipedians will turn your sights on open editing, free discussion of Wikipedia's processes, and fundamental accountability for all editors, rather than alienating new and unexperienced editors, branding anyone who persistently pursues change as trolls, and free passes for popular and administrative editors. Karwynn (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I haven't edited in a good while. Not at all during this ArbCom case, in fact. I hope you're not as embarassingly predictable as other editors that have been involved in this conflict. In case you are, however, and conclude that I'm a sockpuppet of rootology, I say Checkuser and be done with it. Karwynn (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive, belligerent[9]--MONGO 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. [10] Karwynn (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser?

Has there been a checkuser to see if Etaonsh and londheart are the same or did JzG base it off edit similarities? If you decide to archive the request, please drop a link on my talk page, so I can keep an eye on the article for possible block evasion and more questionable editing. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no user named Londheart. That's just Etaonsh's signature. Dmcdevit·t 22:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't believe I didn't see that. That means they didn't initiate the request correctly either. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, thanks for blocking Etaonsh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I was just off to do the same and you beat me to it :-) As you say, an open and shut case which can be dealt with under normal administrative discretion. Guy 10:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Kraepelin RfAr

Fred, reminder that to implement your proposed disposition, you need to formally change your vote on the RfAr from "accept" to "reject." Newyorkbrad 13:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I realized today that this can probably just be treated as a withdrawn case and archived. See my comment on the page. Newyorkbrad 01:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Respect privacy

Whilst you may have being intending to point out that my proposal is already policy under oversight, I didn't see any harm in getting this explicitly detailed as seperate policy. Indeed, this way people who winge won't end up automatically right at the top of the complaints chain (typicially those with oversight access), which should be a benifit. As such, you can find the preliminary draft at Wikipedia:Respect privacy. I appreciate that you're probably an overly busy man, but I'd appreciate it if you were able to take a glance over this before I subject it to the hounds at the village pump. LinaMishima 19:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argh

If this person who I reverted had anything to say that was worth hearing, then their cowardly ass would have used their real account...otherwise, looks like someone from a banned account and checkuser is worthless if it's aol.--MONGO 04:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As was plainly obvious.[11]--MONGO 08:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etaonsh

I just saw User:Continueddonations complaining on the Etaonsh arbcom case with a variety of accusations. [12] I'm not sure if blocking this user is the way to go (it may spark new sockpuppets), but we may need to keep an eye on the account. Perhaps a checkuser is in order? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He also commented in another case and User:Newyorkbrad (sp?) thinks he needs to be sanctioned even if he's not a sockpuppet because of the nature of the comments he made. - 131.211.210.12 07:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly the same guy, and still very active in the same field, and in his old ways - see Talk:Schizophrenia. I agree, however, that any blocking will very likely lead to more puppetry. Ebbinghaus 08:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser was filed by Mgm and is pending but it's an open-and-shut sockpuppetry case and the user has learned nothing from his block. His comments in the Krepelin arbitration case (now archived by ArbClerk Tony Sidaway in light of the indef block) were uncivil and one of them anti-Semitic. His comments on the Schizophrenia talk page are a continuation of the same attitude that led you to block and User:JzG to opine that he would have blocked if you hadn't. Newyorkbrad 22:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have indef-blocked with an explanatory note on Talk in the unlikely event it's challenged. Guy 22:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And already he is back as Returnoftheman, see again Talk:Schizophrenia. Anything one can do about more sockpuppets? Ebbinghaus 02:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RfCU on Etaonsh and Continueddonations came up confirmed (no surprise) and dynamic IP's per User:Mackensen. Newyorkbrad 02:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice Request re Hunger Project Ruling

Fred - I'd like your advice. The ArbCom ruled that negative material on THP needed to be in context to be included, but that has not been done. Smeelgova's team continues to use the page as a bibliography of incidents of old media attacks that basically just quote each other - providing no context at all - just plenty of insinuation. I propose replacing the whole page with a simpler article, more in keeping with the actual intent of Wikipedia and the size of THP in the scheme of things - which I've drafted at User:Jcoonrod/sandbox. Given your understanding of the ruling, is there any reason I should not be able to simply replace what's there with this?--Jcoonrod 21:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not replace it with a stub, but edit the criticism section so that the time those criticisms were made is plain. Fred Bauder 23:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not the timing, but the fact that the very inclusion of the timeline implies that these are all distinct meaningful criticisms when - in fact - they are virtually all rehashes of the same disproven criticism, and - frankly - all generated through the anti-cult activism of one or two individuals. As I read the ArbCom ruling, negative material needs to be in context, namely that the article says what the criticism is, not just that someone was able to get an article in a local paper with a defamatory headline. So - if proposing a far shorter article is, for some reason, inappropriate then I will want to push for a format for criticism that meets the ruling. I had earlier proposed the format in the Unicef article which I think is a fair standard for how to do criticism - would you agree? --Jcoonrod 15:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. There are no one or two anti-cultists who have been running all over North America since 1977 getting Newsweek, Forbes, Canadian Broadcasing, the Center for Investigative Journalism, and others to do critical pieces on The Hunger Project. All those pieces were generated by the publications themselves. They did, in some instances, refer to previously published articles or interview previous critics. I can email Fred copies of some of the articles that aren't on the Internet, if he'd like to see them for himself.

What disturbs me is the current article's revisionist history (I was there). It portrays Werner Erhard as just one of many founders and just one of many Board members, when, in fact, he was essentially the guru of The Hunger Project. I've been working on a history of THP's early years (1977-1990) on my sandbox. It's just the highlights, there were other criticisms/allegations that I didn't mention, most notably that THP engaged in money-laundering (I haven't seen clear evidence of that myself) and that people involved in THP recruited other volunteers for the est training (that did happen, but I think it was a matter of naivete). I would have liked to include more favorable information, but I went through the history section of THP's website (which consists entirely of "headlines") and didn't find anything else I'd call a highlight. It's difficult to find published favorable articles during this period, other than those covering THP's celebrities and awards.

I'd like to propose that what I've been working on be included in the article, with adjustments made as necessary. Additionally, I'd propose to eliminate the "Timeline of Criticism" section, and move the bibliography to a "Further reading" section at the bottom of the article. The more current criticism that John Coonrod is attempting to eliminate criticism from the Internet would have to be dealt with elsewhere in the article. Kat'n'Yarn 09:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]