User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 47

Alkalada

Indeed he did, although it's probably moot as he's probably going to register a new account to get around the six month block.--Hadžija 22:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this seriously and dealing with it. I guess it says something about Wikipedia that it comes as a pleasant surprise, that these repeated nationalistic insults are taken seriously for once.--Hadžija 23:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Could you please delete and lock my userpage and user talk (per WP:USER), as I wish to leave Wikipedia. --Hadžija 04:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today is Nakba day

many people will be looking in wkipedia for Nakba. Can I get an excpetion to revert this blant POV :

[1] (he is edit-warying for that for a while ) Tnx, Zeq 08:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias

Do you really mean to limit blocks for revert parole violations to an hour as well as blocks for incivility? That would be quite unusual considering the history of past revert paroles. Thatcher131 19:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely and I would expect many blocks. It may take quite a while to train this user. Fred Bauder 20:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight

Thanks, Fred. Bishonen | talk 10:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Transnistrian arbitration

I saw that you already accepted a proposal regarding William Mauco in the Transnistrian arbitration where I am involved. I was not aware that you are an arbitrator on this case, as you didn't sign as "accept" at main page of arbitration case. As the proposal that you accepted don't include the mention of some facts of Mauco as: previous blocks evasions, fake accusations against opponents, bad faith, habit of misquoting sources, I wonder if you consider that evidence presented is not enough or that those facts are not notable. Please let me know about any questions you have regarding the evidence presented by me in the arbitration case and what part of the evidence you consider not reliable. Thanks.--MariusM 23:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the proposed decision. Fred Bauder 00:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN posting

It's been suggested that I draw your attention to the posting on WP:AN about a possible User:Jim_Burton sock. It's a bit suspicious even if it isn't him. Thanks. EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:(c)2006aaevp-concerns with wikipedia small.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:(c)2006aaevp-concerns with wikipedia small.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Crackbrained nature of Falun Gong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jsw663#Wiki_Rules_applied_inconsistently.3F__Seeking_clarification

I wanted not to engage you in this, but just to tell you that Falun Dafa has on the whole only taught me to be a simpler and better person, and allowed me to appreciate my life in a deeper sense. I understand myself in a different way and have a mucher clearer mind now. This is something I could not at all have expected, and I feel extremely grateful and content. It is simple to me. I remember reading what one practitioner said in China before the persecution, which is that Falun Dafa just teaches people to be good, and that being a practitioner is essentially the matter of preparing for, or coming to terms with, one's own inevitable death. In this sense, if it has not harmed anyone and since the people who do it say that it is great and helps them a lot in this way, I think that a reasonable person should conclude that personally they have nothing against it. I only write this now to express this, with the expectation that you have nothing against Falun Dafa.--Asdfg12345 23:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel satisfied at your response.--Asdfg12345 19:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waldorf Education Article

Hey Fred... how do you like the Waldorf Education article these days? My predictions came true - the article is back to a Waldorf brochure, and the owners of the article, HGilbert and TheBee primarily, have ensured that nothing critical is included by neutral editors - all of which have given up. The ArbCom specifically asked that a NPOV should be developed in this article - the opposite has happened. Is there any desire on the ArbCom's part to review what has happened since I was banned? Is it time to look at perhaps banning HGilbert and TheBee yet - so that neutral editors might have a go at the article? Pete K 01:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now they are preparing to remove the NPOV tags. Fred, you allowed this to happen... it's your responsibility to take some interest in what HAS happened. If there is some review board available that I can petition, please let me know. This is a shameful misrepresentation of the subject and proof that aggressive editors can alter what is represented on Wikipedia as "truth". --Pete K 15:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit history

I have a question: when I try to look at the edit history of an article now, the display is totally different than it used to be, and it doesn't show the two text blocks with the changes in red like it used to. I see this on all the articles I attempt to view the changes of. Has there been some major change recently in the way this is done, or did I do something that caused the display toi change? Is there some way to change it back? For instance, I looked at many changes an editor did to Timothy Leary, and can't see a before and after version. I tried making changes myself, and can't see before and after versions of them, either. Did I miss something going on in Wikipedia while working on List of Marvel Comics mutants?

Gwen Gale

OK, I missed the line in the case Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed, Wyss's probation shall automatically end. I wonder if that can be fairly applied if she was editing from a hidden account, so that no one knew there was an enforceable remedy against any disruptive or edit-warring type behavior. However it appears from the letter of the law that I should unblock. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thatcher131 (talk • contribs).

I also missed the same sentence in the decision, sorry. I guess I've gotten used to the standard formulas for the decisions and this was one was written using a nonstandard, or perhaps an older, wording. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Badlydrawnjeff arbitration case

Re your acceptance opinion:

I think we should establish a policy that Wikipedia is not a drama site (Those that want to consult or contribute to such a site know where to go). I think we could make that policy, but a pronouncement from the Arbitration Committee does not do that.

Although it feels a bit like teaching one's grandmother to suck eggs, I thought it worth pointing out that Wikipedia is not a battleground, which seems to me to be identical in meaning to your suggestion, is already policy and (I assume) fully enforcable by Arbcom. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drama is fun and there is a place for it, just not at old sobersided Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 14:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could I request changing the statement from "to consider only the behavior of BadlydrawnJeff" to "to consider the behavior of the parties involved"? Otherwise it seems a bit biased, before much consideration has taken place.

Also, if I could urge restraint and kindness - please remember that Bdj isn't the fascist guy who kept bringing the same arbcom case until arbcom got tired; he's a well intentioned, prolific, experienced contributor, with three FA's, and a fourth coming, and his RFC/AFD/DRV position is supported ... at least to some extent ... by a number of seasoned editors and admins. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The block of user Alkalada

Greetings,

I would like to comment on the block of user:Alkalada, although I am not familiar with any of his edits, I somehow still have a clear oppinion on the case. My conclusion is that the punishment was a bit to harsh on him, I can agree on his temperate behaviour, but then again what rookie users aren't? Give him a chance to gather experience. Again, I am not familiar with the case, but I however suspect that he came into conflict with more expirienced serbian/croatian users. And in my experience these users, in their turn, have done quite some foolish things in their early days without ever being punsihed to this serious extent. Now, the reason for this is obviously because they are majority and often provocate Bosnian users by constantly reverting since it's no big deal for them (they are 100 vs. 1), the feeling of being helpless that user Alkada (and many other bosnians) felt made him act irrationally. But can you really blame him? The version of any article on Wikipedia is after all not ment to be decided solely by what ethnicity the majority of editors belong to, common sense should prevail otherwise it is not sane. And just a gentle reminder: Bosnian and Serbian users are in rivalry becasue of the recent conflict in Bosnia (which ended in genocide of the Bosniaks), so whenever reaching a conclusion of blocking someone, think twice and double check all facts. Dealing with matters like these demand a "6th sense" so to speak. Most humbly, Ancient Land of Bosoni

One month blocks made no impression. Fred Bauder 02:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still an unresolved problem

As you were an arbcom member in the former cases concerning Onefortyone and Ted Wilkes, may I ask you to have a look at [2]. To my mind, there can be no doubt that User:Northmeister is identical with Ted Wilkes alias multiple-hardbanned User:DW, as he constantly removes the same content from Elvis-related article pages that Wilkes removed in the past. There may also be some further sockpuppets at work as in the recent case of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo, because there are too many editors now removing well-sourced material I have contributed to article pages. See, for instance, this edit that deleted well-sourced information and even removed a discussion of important sources concerning Elvis Presley, another edit that also removed blocks of well-sourced material and put relatively unimportant information about Bush's and Koizumi's visit to Graceland in first place of the article, and this one which again removed blocks of well-sourced information I have contributed. Furthermore, if Northmeister is actually identical with Wilkes, then this sockpuppet has clearly violated Wilkes's probation. Some administrators were also of the opinion that there is something fishy about the matter and they suggested that this material be removed to WP:SSP for thorough investigation. However, I am at a loss what to do. Perhaps you can help. 80.141.216.40 18:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Majority view versus skeptical view

Hi,

On the Arbcom paranormal section here I meant exactly what it says. Several editors such as Minderbinder actually want to equate "majority" and "skeptical." They don't even try to source this, and it's caused no end of trouble. They do it even when it's quite obvious that the majority view is pro-paranormal. See EVP talk page, and archives thereof: EVP is not considered by science, and is considered by a lot of fans, but editors insist that the "majority" is skeptical. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible article?

Is there any rule that forbids this from becoming a regular article/list?:

Greenland nature galleries

The title can be changed if necessary. Other encyclopedias have such galleries as a resource. Please reply on my talk page. -- Fyslee/talk 07:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HOW CAN I HELP

The article Angela Davis does not deserve being tagged. It seems to be as neutral as an article on a controversial figure can be.

I AM A WIKI NEWCOMER, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT TAG REMOVED. IT SEEMS TO BE A DRIVE BY TAGGING. HOW CAN I HELP ? Albion moonlight 08:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hkelkar 2

Dear Fred, I would like you to consider the evidence that was added by me after jpgordon and Kirill Loshkin voted on the Proposed decision page. There has been severe abuse of admin tools by Rama's Arrow, which must be taken into consideration. These are the relevant links, please consider them – [3], [4]. I am, yours most sincerely. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Fred, I noticed you are the first to comment on the Paranormal case...but where are the other arbitrators? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 23:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I inquired about the idea of an ARBCOM on Chinese Wikipedia, they still reject any proposal to set up an ARBCOM. But Chinese-speaking people in the world is not much less than English-speaking people, wonder how did they handle disputes. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 00:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Informal request for clarification

I have been informally attempting to bring the often-vitriolic debate at WT:NPA toward some sort of consensus over the last month. A lot of discussion gets cited back to the MONGO ArbCom case. What I am hoping for, if you have the time and inclination, is some insight into one of the principles in that case, Principle 11: "Outing sites as attack sites".

The attack pages/attack sites contrast is one of many loci of dispute at NPA. In the Workshop, when this topic was raised, your response ("No, game over.") was certainly definitive. Setting aside any discussion of the complex relationship between consensus, policy, "best practice" and ArbCom's determinations, I am interested in how you felt the community should view two aspects of this principle.

First, the determination of whether a website "engages in the practice" of outing. Within the context of MONGO, did you envision single incidents being sufficient, or was this intended to apply to websites demonstrating a pattern of abuse? Second, this principle related to the private information of "Wikipedia participants." Again within the context of MONGO, did you intend for this to be restricted to pages and sites that revealed personal information of Wikipedians because they were Wikipedians? Alternatively, was this thought to be expansive and include sites that reveal information about people whose Wikipedian status is incidental to the outing?

I don't want you to think that I'm going to rush off to WT:NPA or AN/I and cite your response, should you offer one. This isn't an effort to win an argument by playing the "but the ArbCom guy says..." card. On the contrary, I know that research into policy and practice goes into the writing of ArbCom case elements and that you have substantial experience in crafting their verbiage. By understanding what you intended then, and why, I hope to be better prepared to negotiate a middle ground in the current conflict, hopefully well before any of the individual editor disputes therein make their ways to ArbCom's purview (or any of dispute resolution, really).

Regards, Serpent's Choice 08:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making it up

I appears that admins are now making up rules on the fly. Andy Mabbett 15:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did you propose?

I changed the proposal you agreed with, seemingly at nearly the exact same time you edited- I'm not sure if you were agreeing with the new version? I would rather put it back the way it originally was, if that's what you're agreeing with. here Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]