User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 49

?

Canvassing?

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are those a violation if these are not? Ante lan ^talk 00:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You think Bauder was in violation on his own talk page? Somehow? [9]

It may be nothing with Wikidudeman, but it does seem a bit pushy. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 'not' link was to the diff where Fred Bauder explained why the previous edits were not violations. I should have been more clear. Ante lan ^talk 05:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, OK. Let Bauder decide whether there is any problem. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LordPathogen

I saw your note on my talk page. As I said earlier:

It is disengenuous of LP to complain that I have resorted to personal attacks. Before posting the email, I went and checked wikimedia:Privacy policy and did not see a prohibition from posting the email. If there is a violation of a policy, I will edit my comments. He's the one who has gone out and posted to almost every venue available, and made this into some sort of edit war. Additionally, he was the one to send harassing emails to my personal account. --evrik ^(talk) 04:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC) [10]

Now I have read through Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes and several other pages (including Wikipedia:Requests for oversight). As I said before, "If there is a violation of a policy, I will edit my comments." So, please elucidate me:

When blocked editor starts sending harassing emails to other editors, where can it be reported?
Where is the that says that publicly posting the email address and name of someone who is harassing you privately is a violation of policy?

In one week, he accused me of Suspicious editing behavior and harassment on WP:ANI – both times the complaints were turned aside. Also in that same week, he accused me of 3RR and another user of the same thing. There has been the failed mediation and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration the RfA. At each step there have been a whole host of Admins involved, but still, Lordpathogen persists.

Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 17:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Evrik does not clearly see that an editorial dispute should not invalidate a reasonable expectation of privacy on Wikipedia says it all... LordPathogen 18:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not addressing the editorial dispute. That should have been resolved on the talk page of the article.

First, my name and email address were not publicly available via Wikipedia as you have now done. Secondly, Fred, kindly note that he is now using my initials to try and circumvent your prior warning and has added yet another link to the page showing my email address and complete header info. At what point do the warnings stop and he get sanctioned? Thank you. LordPathogen 19:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

evrik (talk · contribs)

Evrik claims that he did not again post the private information again after being asked not to. Can you clarify (1) whether or not this is an accurate statement on his part and (2) whether the post was potentially innocent (ie, blindly copying an entire email that happened to have a signature or some such thing)? If the answer to either of these two questions is no, and someone doesn't beat me to it, I will go ahead and mark his unblock request as rejected. (I would encourage, though, that a month may be a bit excessive. He is a valued contributor to articles and definitely a good-faith user, although sometimes he doesn't adequately understand our policies/procedures.) --BigDT 02:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He posted a link to it on this page together with personal identifying information, after being warned, but it has been oversighted. Fred Bauder 02:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ... thanks ... I have marked the unblock request as declined. I would still encourage a reduction in the block length (to something like a week), particularly if he is willing to (1) apologize and (2) promise not to do it again. --BigDT 02:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFAr question

Sorry to bother you with this, but there are several people at Badlydrawnjeff's RFAr that consider the remedy too harsh. In particular, BDJ's editing of articles has never been problematic. Would you consider limiting said remedy to, e.g., deletion discussions on BLP articles, rather than the articles themselves? The remedy as written boils down to banning one of our most prolific editors from a very substantial set of articles, and that seems hardly worthwhile. Yours, >Radiant< 08:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the position repeatedly, in a wide variety of contexts, that we have NO ethical responsibility toward the subjects of our articles is a serious matter. Fred Bauder 09:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is very serious. However, Jeff takes this position in deletion debates, rather than in article editing. This issue is better solved by saying "any uninvolved admin can ban Jeff from an article where he's being disruptive" than by a priori banning him from all articles on all people. It's a matter of babies and bathwater. >Radiant< 10:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has the potential to mislead other users into thinking a nihilist position is acceptable. Fred Bauder 10:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so ban him from making such propaganda, removing it and blocking if he makes it anyway. The point is that 95% of Jeff's edits are not controversial, although I realize the remaining 5% are very much problematic. >Radiant< 10:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time. >Radiant< 09:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

If it isn't confidential, can you tell me what happended to users Kindo kinda and 00a00a0aa ? I also see that all Kinda's edits to the talk page for Child sexual abuse are gone but not 00a00a00a's. thanks. DPeterson^talk 12:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. I'd suspected their being an SPPA's as you describe and have no problem with the administrative action take. Thanks. If I can be of any help in the future, please let me know. DPeterson^talk 18:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martinphi and Paranormal RfArb

Hi Fred, I'd like to request that attention be brought to Martinphi's editing conduct for the paranormal RfArb. He was one of the main reasons the request was made, but no proposed decision concerning his conduct has been written. As a convenience, I have compiled most of the complaints leveled against him at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop#Martinphi.27s conduct. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 20:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Simões. Apparently Martinphi's disruptive and POV edits have been overlooked and no proposed decision has yet been introduced for arbitrators to vote on remedies concerning his edits. Here is a proposed decision from the workshop area that you can copy [[11]] or you can simply write up a new one advocating his total ban from wikipedia for his disruptive editing and sockpuppets, etc. I also want to remind you of Davkal and request you add this user as well to the "proposed decision" area for a ban from paranormal articles or a total ban from wikipedia for their disruptive edits. Here is one drawn up already in the workshop area [[12]] or again alternatively you can make one yourself for the arbitrators to vote on. Also please add [[13]] and [[14]] to the proposed decision area for remedies. Both Tom Butler and Reddi have similarly disruptive edits and I would like to see the arbitrators have a chance to vote on remedies concerning their future here on wikipedia. Thanks.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, it just keeps on coming. I put in time this evening going through the Mediumship article and fixing up the header. Originally, the article attributed claims to sources such as dictionary.com, but these claims weren't actually present in the sources. I found similar statements from the same sources, updated the article appropriately, and [rearranged the header in a way that I consider to at the least be reasonable. Martinphi made this change (mostly restoring the header to the previous version), which is dubiously edit-summarized, and I reverted, noting that his version misattributes statements. I ask that we continue on the talk page. Instead, he reverts to his version, claiming it to be a copy edit when in fact he has made considerable substantive changes, including sourced statements. If this isn't an example of WP:OWN, I have no idea what is. This isn't even about POV - unless Martinphi agrees with your understanding of citations and page layout, your edits will be reverted. Ante lan ^talk 01:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antelan was basically right, and if he hadn't resorted to edit warring so fast I got an edit conflict, and if he had just worked things out a bit, I'm sure things would have been fine. As it is, the versions are very similar. here and here. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur with Antelan. I asked Martinphi to refrain from edits that appear to be based on a personal interpretation of a yet-to-be-decided Arbcom finding and have received only ad hom remarks and citation of his personal policy in reply. Martin continues to make nonconsensual edits such as removing "qualifying words" to highly controversial articles. - LuckyLouie 02:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to expose Bauder to this stuff, because to understand it he'd have to review a lot of stuff on the talk page. My edits were not "non-consensual;" they were just edits. You LL mis-represented them in spite of my factual corrections. In other words, Bauder, if you want to review things fine, but don't think you're being told the truth here. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result

Please also note that we won't be able to revert stuff like this, either. Reverting is an essential tool. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting is not forbidden, just severely limited. Fred Bauder 10:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1RR per week

why did you vote for putting me on 1RR per week? I never even violated 3RR. Even if one admin claimed so in the block log - my first block I received. And the first in a long row of false blocks. Pls tell what User:Tobias Conradi did, that made you think 1RR per week is helping Wikipedia. Tobias did never even violate 3RR and was always there to talk if his edits were questioned. Yes, he got blocked with the claim of 3RR violation - but this was only the first in a long list of out of policy blocks he received. Admins massively abused him. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why ruling about others, but not explain the ruling?

Email

Replied to the email... Cheers. --Dark Falls ^talk 08:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diyako checkuser logs

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zanyar (Possible sockpuppets)
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyako (Diyako is stale)
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/71.222.81.30 (Diyako is still stale so no check was made to compare him)

You are receiving this because your username either appears on the checkuser list or you were one of the arbitrators that participated in the relevant Arbcom case (User:Dmcdevit, User:Jdforrester, User:The Epopt, User:Charles Matthews, User:Sam Korn, User:Fred Bauder, User:Jayjg, User:Morven, User:Neutrality).

Currently User:Diyako/User:Xebat is at a stale state for not editing over a month. User hasn't edited for slightly over a year due to an arbcom sanctioned ban. I have a reason to believe ([15], [16], [17]) there may be a connection as the edit pattern seems similar in many ways. Diyako's wikipedia ban has recently expired but if he is continuing a similar behavior as User:D.Kurdistani, there needs to be a further consideration either by ARBCOM or Community Sanction board (latter seems more appropriate IMHO). A successful checkuser would be very helpful in the decision making process on this issue.

This inquiry is to request if you have "personal logs" of Diyako/Xebat's IP's to compare with User:D.Kurdistani and possible other socks. This is NOT a request for the logs themselves but on weather or not you have them. Please reply on my talk page to confirm if you have the logs or not. User:Mackensen appears to be the only person to have preformed a successful checkuser but others may also have this info.

-- Cat ^chi? 10:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am absolutely begging you

I spent a long time on the Mediumship article last night -remembering why I liked Wikipedia in the first place, that is to edit and not to quarrel. Now I see that all my good faith edits were summarily reverted [18]- with an edit summary saying the lead was POV (I changed mostly other parts). I am begging you to do something about this kind of behavior. I thought things might be a little better now, that maybe I won't have to entirely leave Wikipedia. But things on Mediumship are going on EXACTLY as things in general have gone on for months now, with the same people (see evidence). Please, please please do something. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now I just saw this, too. Do you see any POV pushing there? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see good editing. Fred Bauder 23:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Changing 'believe' to 'say' is questionable, but probably reasonable. Changing 'investigation' to 'enthusiast' does seem to be a bit of an NPOV representation of a viewpoint. We are supposed to give fair representation to the viewpoint: if they 'believe', thats how it should be reported and if they feel they are 'investigating' then thats how it should be reported. My reading of WP:NPOV leads me to believe we should report viewpoints from the perspective of the viewpoint. note: My comment is based only on the single DIFF provided. That notwitstanding: we must accurately reflect what the cited source says. Lsi john 00:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Across the nation, people like Franz are using modern technology to answer an age-old question: Do ghosts exist? These paranormal enthusiasts are harnessing Web sites to share their hair-raising stories, just like kids swap spooky tales around a crackling campfire."

The source uses 'enthusiasts'. I should have dug deeper before responding. My apologies Fred. Lsi john 00:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lsi john, The sources use several words:

"Research" and "investigating"

"Paranormal investigators"

"enthusiasts", and also says " Most of the associations share a mission "to investigate the paranormal using scientific methods,""

So, the sources on that paragraph say 3 words, but in context, "enthusaiasts" is the one which makes them sound worst, so that's why it was there. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A slight correction:

Most of the associations share a mission "to investigate the paranormal using scientific methods," says Cody Polston, president of the Southwest Ghost Hunters Association.'

The source actually attributes the above statement to a "ghost hunter", it is not an editorial statement. - LuckyLouie 01:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gents, with greatest respect, may we move this to the EVP talk page? Perhaps even copying your content-related comments over to the talk page so that all who are interested can contribute? With your permission, I'll copy your comments over, if that is the preference. Ante lan ^talk 01:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred.... you have a knack for the cryptic. When you say "good editing," do you mean my editing of Mediumship and/or EVP, or Minderbinder's reverts? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I play an oracle on the internet... Mindbender's reverts, although I'm sure you have your brilliant moments too. Fred Bauder 02:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're really calling this a good edit? It's Ok just to revert someone after all that work on the whole article, citing unexplained POV in the lead? If that's the case, I might as well stop editing completely. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, saying flatly that a medium is in contact with the spirit world is inappropriate. Fred Bauder 02:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denotes: "Have as a meaning". That's what "Mediumship" means. And what about your ArbCom proposal that psychic and paranormal should serve to warn the reader? We all need to have this clarified. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Admin

Please see my User talk:68.110.8.21 and User_talk:Akhilleus#WP:POINT.2C_WP:HOAX.2C_WP:PN.2C_WP:BIAS. Wikipedia seriously needs your help Fred. Thanks. 68.110.8.21 03:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Angela Davis Article

If I had of known then what I know now I would have simply removed that neutrality tag without asking you how I could help. I thought that it took an administrator to make such a revert. I wasn't able to find any useful 3rd party sources but I did notice that the tag was reverted. That article is and was as neutral as any article on wikipedia. You should be proud of your work on it. Albion moonlight 09:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So now we know....

...who the illustrious Fred Bauder really is! :-P Ryan Postlethwaite 01:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming merge

Hi, I just want to let you know that the article "naming" is up for a merge with "brand." As the original author, I figure you might have something to add to this discussion. If not, then just consider this a courtesy call. --Cjs56 04:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh heh

We love your caption on that Sabine women pic (: Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not original with me, copied from User talk:Abu badali. Fred Bauder 22:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add me to the amused. (In fact, it sent coffee all over my computer screen.) Bucketsofg 21:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If only I looked so good in a toga. Thatcher131 16:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of the funniest things I have seen in a long time. Maybe a collection of genuine Wikipedia humour is possible - coming to a movie theater near you soon, Wikipedia - The Movie (really a slideshow of annotated free pictures). Though actually, someone has almost certainly done this already, probably at one of the Wikimanias, and if not, they should have done! Carcharoth 16:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the "Proposed decision" (and the Sabine clerk)

Hi, Fred. I don't know if I it's o.k. withing the arb case process, but I added some concerns about some of your proposals to my arb case in it's Proposed decision's talk page. Is this the right place to do so? Is it even acceptable to do so? (If it's so, I would appreciate your input there).

p.s.: I'm glad you liked the image and caption! ;) Such a surprise to see it being copied here. --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't reword my comments.

Removing the link is enough. Kamryn Matika 01:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adopting User Bus stop

Hello Mr. Bauder. Durova, the blocking admin, offered to unblock Bus stop if he were adopted and agreed to stay away from List of notable people who converted to Christianity for three months.[19] [20] In answer to your question, this was the only article that Durova told Bus stop to avoid during that period. I believe some concerned editors have assumed that user Bus stop should also stay away from the article Bob Dylan as well. Nick Graves 19:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it looks like Durova modified his offer to include avoidance of two articles, not just one.[21] The Bob Dylan article is probably what he's referring to, since the disruptive editing Bus stop was blocked for related to material on Wikipedia that reported Dylan's earlier conversion to Christianity. Nick Graves 19:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of ArbCom ruling on BLP policy

This ruling in the recent Badlydrawnjeff RfAR may be significant:

“

4) Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. This deletion may be contested via the usual means; however, the article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so. The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy.

”

Does this ruling apply to all of en.Wikipedia and therefore should be considered as project-wide policy, or does it apply only to this ArbCom case? If it applies project-wide, does this wording need to be added by someone to the current BLP policy page? CLA 22:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It applies to all articles or material which presents a serious BLP problem. It is based on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, not our decision. Fred Bauder 00:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The line, "The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy." isn't stated in the current policy. CLA 01:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It probably should be. Fred Bauder 01:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bring it up on the talk page and see what happens. CLA 01:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop discussion.

I'm not sure why you're so harsh in your comment on Bus stop's page, but I've replied to your comment anyhow. If you are unaware, this discussion has been covered numerous, numerous times in the past, and the only individuals who still refuse to accept the reliability of the sources are Bus stop, and his editing cohort (they've worked together before on a separate article) Cleo123.

Arguing against the inclusion of such individuals on the List of notable people who converted to Christianity is one thing, and is a perfectly reasonable argument, but rejecting 3 biographies, written by Dylan experts, while accepting Geocities-quality personal websites which vaguely attest to Dylan's 'return' to Judaism (with e-mail rumors as a primary source, no less) seems a bit hypocritical, and hints at how agenda can warp an editor's actions.

Bus stop's current argument is rather nonsensical once you read what the biographies themselves say. Even without reading these sources, his argument comes up short: as he says that the sources do not claim religious conversion, imagine if were to say that "He went to the store", and Bus stop subsequently argued that no real "travel" was implied, and that he merely "flirted with the idea of a store". That, as far as I can discern, is original research. Taking what a source says for what it actually says is not. Clear statements and explanations should not be deliberated in such a manner.

So, if there is some sort of misunderstanding between you and I concerning my involvement here, I'd be glad to correct it.--C.Logan 14:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Baca Ranch

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Baca Ranch, by CultureDrone (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Baca Ranch is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Baca Ranch, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Baca Ranch itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martinphi

This diff with regards to the perspective that the parapsychology article should take pretty much gets at the heart of the problem. Ante lan ^talk 00:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antelan- stop being dishonest. What a disgusting way to act. Stop harassing me. You can't pull a con job on Bauder. You found a diff that looks bad out of context. Good for you.

Bauder: "whole thing" in Antelan's diff refers to a tiny section in the article which lists the things parapsychologists study; I think we should just quote their definitions and say it is from them. Here's the section. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I followed your lead by presenting evidence here. The context only more fully fleshes out what to me looks like doublespeak, but it doesn't controvert anything I've said. I'm not being dishonest, I'm not harassing you, and I'm not trying to con Fred Bauder. Remember, the RfC came about before I even got involved in this, and I'm only now beginning to appreciate the profundity of the situation. Ante lan ^talk 18:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you need to educate yourself on the context. You've been harassing me and other editors for ages now, and presenting a diff like that out of context is plain dishonest, because -in POF- you surely must have the context by now.

As I've said all through the arbitration, I don't mind going down, but I want to go down for the right reasons: As long as the Arbitrators do their research, and read the parapsychology talk page section where your diff comes from, and the section to which that diff is referring, and know the history of that section in former articles (especially this, since my suggestion was merely a restoration), that's fine. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got me a bit confused, but I'm tired. The original diff seems to advocate Sympathetic point of view. I like that, but it is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 02:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That small section's about Scope- what subjects do they study? I advocated saying "here's what they say that they study" (per ATT). Debate about whether the subjects of study exist is in other sections. I would never advocate writing the article from a sympathetic or oppositional POV. That's the simplest version of the debate I can think up.

That's exactly the impression Antelan wanted you to get. Totally out of context. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got that, and the scope of parapsychology is what those who hold themselves out as parapsychologists study, not the general grabbag. Fred Bauder 03:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It's like "I study unicorns and elves, which I define as X and Y." As long as we attribute the statement to them, we can say what they say. Then the debate on whether unicorns and elves are real is for another section. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, what you say is true. In contrast, what Martinphi says is not compatible with the fact that we shouldn't be presenting this from the parapsychologists' POV. Indeed, Martinphi's very next diff on that talk page is this ("I only said, make the definitions from the PA perspective. Use the PA glossary for the definitions of what parapsychologists study."), which to me is still incorrect. Yes, we accept what they say they study, but we still ought not write about it from their perspective. This is the subtle problem that keeps manifesting itself in paranormal-related articles. Ante lan ^talk 04:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for concern is this: Martinphi is a user who already thinks that the unfinished ArbCom proceedings have "essentially instituted (his) understanding of NPOV", as he believes that "Bauder's main substantive proposals ... are directly from my essay", which is the previously deleted and now off-site paranormal primer. His corpus of statements, including but by no means limited to these, are what lead me to be concerned about his push for a particular "perspective", and his editing overall. Ante lan ^talk 04:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pushing a particular perspective. The proposals are consistent with my understanding of NPOV. The Paranormal primer probably has some stuff wrong. I'm not going to argue here. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, I'd appreciate some clarification here, and I'm sure Martinphi would, too. If I'm wrong, I need to know it so I won't continue thinking Martinphi is out of bounds if he's really not. If I'm right, Martinphi needs to know it so he can avoid similar missteps in the future. Either way, your input would be invaluable. I don't think either of us want to leave this in ambiguity. Ante lan ^talk 04:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]