User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 52

Cyde proposals on Attack Sites case

I don't see evidence that Cyde acted in bad faith regarding posting that evidence, and at the time he posted it, he didn't know what the results would be of doing the detailed investigations into the specific conflict of interest claims made at the remote site.

I think you're overreacting; IMHO, he was wrong, but not wrong, just incorrect. Calling the claim to the community's attention was reasonable, once he was aware of it. He probably should have been more skeptical of it, but...

AGF? Georgewilliamherbert 00:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

He acted without knowing Fred Bauder 00:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Was it wrong because of what he posted, or where it came from, or both? I recall that it was mentioned that Arbcom and Jimmy and SV and Jay spent a while talking it out privately to determine whether anything had been done wrong with the Oversight logs and that everyone was taking it seriously. How could he have known what the results would be of that ahead of time? Obviously, if you all took it seriously, it was worth taking seriously.

I don't have all his edits in the time period in front of me, so perhaps some of what he said was otherwise over the line, but it seems wrong to me to judge him in retrospect, for info he didn't have and could not reasonably have had.

I haven't seen enough specific evidence posted on this point yet; I would like to at least see hte case that he made a serious error in judgement somehow laid out in more detail. Maybe he did, I'm not seeing it yet though, and I was pretty involved in discussions right at the time (I did what I thing was the first detailed history look through edits of the SV second account, and found that it wasn't actually doing anything wrong of note). Georgewilliamherbert 01:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, How could he have known ahead of time? I think the evidence will show he was ready to pounce. Fred Bauder 01:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

See [1] Fred Bauder 01:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, so what? Cyde my have jumped the gun in notifying people, but I have yet to see any evidence that wordbomb was incorrect, and therefore that blocking SBW was incorrect. He may have acted hastily and without tact (which is the conclusion the ani discussion came to) but since when has that been a case for desysoping? Viridae^Talk 01:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

We expect administrators to investigate before they act, and to not use their powers to pounce on those they have been engaged in disputes with. Fred Bauder 01:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is the evidence of the history of abuse of administrator tools? You want to desysop cyde for abuse of his powers then start a new arbitration case, and outline his systematic abuse of his power there. At the moment your proposals rest on one mistake. Thats hardly in line with any other punishments the arbs have dealt in the past. Viridae^Talk 03:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on this matter also underway at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites/Proposed decision#New proposals concerning Cyde. Newyorkbrad 02:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fred. Viridae, I'm going to pretend for a moment that I believe the SlimVirgin engaged in abusive sockpuppetry. The account had not been used for two years, so there was no urgency. There is a precedent for letting people in similar situations give a private explanation, and only to sanction them if they refuse or fail. It was not possible to provide public evidence without giving further publicity to a website which engages in stalking, and which gave speculation about not only SlimVirgin's identity, but also another contributor's. And you seem to be overlooking the fact that Cyde was in a longstanding dispute with SlimVirgin, so obviously should not have been the one to block. See also [2]. This is not a question of making a mistake in believing WordBomb. This is a question of believing WordBomb, and then, instead of reporting it privately to the ArbCom, or asking SlimVirgin privately for an explanation, engaging in extremely inappropriate, hasty, behaviour, even crowing over the person he was accusing of sockpuppetry, and showing most clearly that he had a grudge against her. Additionally, in another case which is being heard at the moment, a user who had originally registered with his real name requested a name change, and repeatedly asked people not to keep referring to him by his old name, and Cyde responded by provocatively posting a link to the user rename log. Unnecessary, inflammatory. Discourteous. ElinorD (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Worth desysopping? Jesus, I can think of a few people that we could get rid of if we are going to make this so easy? Viridae^Talk 03:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it appropriate. I think the case can be made that Cyde did this as a form of sexual humiliation, or at the very least in support of sexual humiliation. Fred is in the right, as usual. 47.230.77.150 03:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

...! Viridae^Talk 04:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What I said is that grudge settling was apparently involved. Fred Bauder 08:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Fred, I am very disappointed by your actions. If you disagree with Cyde's block during that incident, take it up with him, open a separate arbitration case for what it's worth, but don't abuse your status as an arbitrator for settling personal grudges. Melsaran (talk) 10:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Melseran, but I don't see how you can say that Fred is "settling personal grudges". Fred hasn't posted things like:

It's funny Cyde, all those times you impugned my integrity. And now it comes out what you've truly been up to. I never stooped nearly so low, Cyde.[3]

or

"Cyde isn't perfect" is a freaking understatement. I guess you don't know what happens to editors who get in his way, but I've tasted it. [4]

You're making your accusation against the wrong person. ElinorD (talk) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Two wrong Elinor, do not make a right. Regardless of cydes actions, it is inappropriate for an arbitrator to even attempt to get him sanctioned in an unrelated arbcom case without evidence of systematic misuse of his administrator tools. Viridae^Talk 22:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's both true that Cyde jumped on the evidence, and that it's possible that the nature of the evidence explains the reaction by itself. The devil was in the details; the diffs provided by wordbomb were true, but not accurate in full context. One had to go review the context of the edit series to see whether the secondary account edits had in fact been policy problems or not.

I think it's clear from the context that Cyde objected to SV somehow, but that and jumping to an ultimately falsified conclusion given what appeared to be legitimate evidence don't rise to the level of desysopping. Cyde did not, after more investigation went in, apparently try to defend the true but subtly wrong claims Wordbomb put forth.

If Cyde had been involved in an intentional conspiracy to utilize known false evidence to frame SV then that would be one thing. Having fallen for an outside agitators' trick is another.

What happened to SV here was ... unfair, unfortunate, and wrong. Blaming Cyde to this degree doesn't seem justified. We can't expect WP admins to not be human; humans develop and carry grudges. If the Wordbomb claims had turned out to be true on closer inspection, Cyde's actions would have been widely thought to be justified. In legal terms, he had reasonable probable cause. We don't hold police responsible if someone forges evidence in a criminal case, they don't know that, they believe the evidence and act on that belief.

This doesn't right what happened to SV. SV became controversial enough that outside agitators found a thread of truth of a case to lay at her feet, and then carefully maliciously constructed a spiderweb of truth and falsity to entrap others into thinking there was a credible serious case against her. Cyde fell for it, and it played into his preconceived notions.

Cyde could have been more careful, or more polite. But fundamentally, he fell for a very well constructed troll. The level of care and impoliteness was not good, but also something that does happen regularly among admins, as much as we try to discourage it. Hitting Cyde over the head with a hammer for it doesn't actually help. IMHO. Georgewilliamherbert 23:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Did I miss something? How was it wrong? As I remember the information was absoloutely correct, but fairly irrelevant considering the amount of time had passed. The was evidence of at least one incident of double voting, but it was minor. Viridae^Talk 23:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I did the first complete workup on the details right after Cyde posted, so... (from memory...)

The claims were that there'd been a bunch of the prohibited sockpuppet stuff (one case of double voting, a bunch of 3RR or using socks to generate false impression of broad support in a discussion).

On inspection:

• The details of the cases showed that the second account was not used to generate a false sense of broad support in any debates. They had not other than tangentally touched on the same matters of fact or editing in any given article.
• There were no 3RR violations trading off with the second account.
• There was one double-vote, on an advisory poll, not an AFD or RFA or such, and it could easily have been user error rather than malign. It was not a controversial poll nor is there any sign the outcome would have changed absent either or both of the two votes.

In short, other than the apparently harmless and mistaken double vote, there were no WP:SOCK violations by the combined accounts, and thus no case for user sanction. The Wordbomb claims were carefully constructed to look like clear WP:SOCK violations - the facts of the matter were that all but one was on close inspection clearly not a violation, and the one violation was a technicality - harmless, didn't change anything, and credibly likely was a mistake on SVs part. Georgewilliamherbert 00:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly Fred Bauder 01:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats not wrong. Wordbombs interpretation was wrong, Cydes handling of it lacked sensitivity and decorum, but NOTHING has elevated this to the level of him losing his +sysop - and don't get me wrong, I'm all for a easier system of getting rid of abusive admins, but this is hardly the systematic abuse or gross violation that is ussually required for someone to even be considered for having their admin tools removed. Viridae^Talk 01:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sensible real world laws

Sure; but that doesn't mean that merely stating points of law in a decision is either appropriate or productive. Kirill 18:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

So we should make that point directly, if we want to. Burying it under legal terminology is unhelpful. Kirill 18:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll think about how to do that. I can get quite abstract. Fred Bauder 18:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think some of the proposals are so tangential as to be of minimal relevance. I'd prefer to stay at least somewhat focused on the central issues, rather than going into exhaustive detail on the background of every incident mentioned in the evidence. Kirill 18:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Attack sites proposed decision

Here you modified a proposed finding of fat that other arbitrators had already voted on. Wouldn't it be better to leave the original wording intact and to propose the new version as a separate FoF (2.1)? Melsaran (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

We were unable to use the workshop page in this case, thus changes must occasionally be made to the live proposal. The user who voted was notified that changes had been made. Fred Bauder 18:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed arbitration decision 10 on the Badsites Arbitration Case

Fred, now, please don't take this the wrong way, I know you work very hard on arbitration cases and I'm sure we all appreciate that (I know I do) but the Clown proposal is the last straw and I respectfully ask that you either stand down from the Arbitration Committee forthwith, or agree to recuse yourself from all future cases until your time expires. I'm afraid that your proposed decision to ask that operators of attack sites have their articles redirected to Clown is frankly, demeaning, and has a whole number of legal implications (possibly including libel, I should think). This, together with your proposal on desysopping Cyde, and a number of other, smaller problems, such as the Shinsho case, have left me with no confidence in your ability to arbitrate fairly and sensibly. I know it seems rather cheeky or such and I really don't intend it to be, but I'm going to go with your new essay and stop being a chickenshit, stand up and be counted. Best Wishes. Nick 20:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I will endorse this call to stand down per Nick's reasoning. Recent events have left me disturbed and with little to no confidence in your ability to arbitrate to the standards we expect. Moreschi ^Talk 20:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I also endorse this call as per Moreschi. No reflection on your overall status on wikipedia, but I feel that perhaps you have sat over too many arbitrations have have lost touch with the community. Viridae^Talk 21:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to join the lynch mob, but please either stand down or listen to the community. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the above as well. --ST47Talk·Desk 21:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

WHY???? MessedRocker (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I urge you to consider recusing yourself from further participation in the BADSITES ArbCom proceedings, per the above concerns. You indicated earlier that you had already concluded that "This is all that is necessary or appropriate." and perhaps now is the time to step away from this case. LessHeard vanU 21:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Regretfully, I too must concur that you should recuse yourself from RFAr:Attack Sites and future cases involving attack sites. Unlike the others, I don't know that I'd go so far to request your resignation from ALL arbcom cases-- I think it's quite conceivable your judgment in other cases would be unimpaired. But I too have lost confidence in your ability to fairly arbitrate THIS kind of case. Clown Proposal and Don't be a chickenshit are either bad-faith instances of Disrupting Wikipedia to Prove a Point or good-faith edits that represent incredibly compromised judgement. Either way, I think it would be best if you passed this job on to the 10 other arbiters, as your participation is not helping the situation. Respectfully, --Alecmconroy 21:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay folks, people make smart ass comments, it is not the end of the world. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 23:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No, but its not just one comment. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Smart ass comments are one thing, but smart ass comments from an arbitrator in the form of a proposed decision are something entirely different. --Cyde Weys 03:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That and the serious lack of judgment shown when intorducing proposed remedies that involve desysopping cyde, before any evidence was posted, without him being a party to the case, without any evidence of long term abuse of the tools and over an incident that was resolved months ago... Viridae^Talk 03:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

But was it just a smart ass comment? As scary as it would to be to have an arbiter lose his cool to the point that he starts making smart-ass jokes, even scarier is his insistence that he's not joking. Now hopefully, Fred was just joking when he said he wasn't joking. But maybe he seriously is proposing retribution against our critics by redirecting their biographies to Clown-- I honestly can't tell anymore. And that shouldn't happen. What time is it when you can't tell if the judge is being jester-like or lunatic-like? Time to get a new judge. --Alecmconroy 03:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The concerns already brought up here echo my feelings about your judgment as well. I too am alarmed by the redirecting proposal and even more by the fact that it was intended to be serious. Mr.Z-man 04:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I share the above concerns. The behavior on the attack sites case is quite disturbing, and whether the proposal to redirect to clown was serious or not, it shows poor judgement. Everyking 06:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, think that arbitrators ought to be able to propose anything they damn well please. If it's stupid, it will get voted down; that's why they vote. If the clown proposal was surprising, it has been lost in the glare of the response to it. ←Ben^B4 12:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read up on the whole thing, the clown thing was just the last straw. There are other issues here as well. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 12:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I too, request that you consider to step down. The Cyde desysopping proposal, the "clown" silliness, the "case closed" thing on the Allegiations of Apartheid workshop, and several other incidents, unfortunately caused me to believe that the community may not have the confidence that you will arbitrate further cases with the best judgement. Don't take the comments on this page as an attack, please, take this as a request from the community. Melsaran (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I too echo the above concerns. That you posted the clown remedy is one thing; that you defended it is another. I was disturbed that supported the block of KamrynMatika, who without a doubt edited Essjay controversy in good faith, and yet you were inconsistent in saying, to the effect, "ArbCom decision ought not be generalised" and "The MONGO decision is enforceable" (archive). Then, your incredibly inappropriate and uncollegial treatment of Kelly Martin on the Attack sites talk page (diff). I'm sorry, this has gone on far too long. You seem to be inconsistent in your discussion about attack sites, support blocking editors editing in good faith, insult editors to discredit their arguments instead of engaging in discussion, and now the clown proposal? I recommend that you reconsider your participation as an arbitrator. --Iamunknown 15:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I too share the sentiments of my fellow editors and administrators above, Mr. Bauder -- I think your resignation, or at least recusal from this Attack Sites RfAR, would probably be both in your best interest as well as that of the community at large. =/ --krimpet⟲ 00:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Fred. Don't let it get you down. We strongly disagree on the issues, but I've seen you also offering some sensible proposals from 'my side' of the divide to the decision page and other arbitrators are always free to do so as well. Nothing is going to be 'left out' of consideration and ultimately the committee will decide what it decides. You've got your views, I've got mine... everyone has gotten worked up because there are some very emotional issues and lofty ideals involved. No big deal. Please stick with the case. The most difficult problems are those where every 'positive' has a concomitant 'negative'. We can only work through them by understanding and carefully weighing that balance. Your views are an important part of that and should remain in the mix. You are wrong of course :], but that's ok. --CBD 10:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to pile-on, but I do think it would be in the best interests of everyone in the attack sites RfAr if you recused yourself from that case. —[[Animum | talk]] 00:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this proposal. I am sorry, but I too have lost confidence in your ability to fairly arbitrate. This is less about the Clown thing than everything else leading up to it. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Did any of you wonderful people notice that there were 2 other arbitrators who voted the same as Fred Bauder did. ?? Please stop whining and learn too accept the fact that sarcasm is a an acceptable form of communication. Please ignore these people Mr Bauder. Wikipedia needs you. : Albion moonlight 07:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The calls for recusal aren't caused by votes on those issues-- if it were, people would be calling for recusals of arbiters who agree with him. Which they're not. Fred's behavior has just gone well beyond a mere debate that "reasonable people can disagree about". --Alecmconroy 18:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Calls for recusal in this case seems to be an attempt to exact revenge and send a message to the rest of the arbitration committee. It is not like this call for recusal has any official status. It is just a few whiners making something out of nothing in a sad attempt to feel powerful. Assume good faith and stop taking yourselves so seriously. Sarcasm is not a reasonable cause for alarm. You can trust me on that or perhaps research it with a web browser. Google has a pretty good one or at least that's what I heard.  : Albion moonlight 07:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My Arbitration

I noticed the item you added was kind of vague, well someone noticed before me. Fayassal apologized for blocking against consensus which was established on the Request for Arbitration Enforcement page. I think that should be noted, the items seems to imply no second judgment was given. I also was not unblocked to participate in the arbitration. I was unblocked because he was wrong to act as he did. He left it on MONGO to pursue and told him he would have to file an Arbcom, MONGO refused and Theresa then filed. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I seen you clarified the statement. Thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I see, your in a bad mood because of attack sites, and I pay the brunt. Nice. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

cute

I hope that i read correctly from your recent edit to the 'badsites' arb. that you are retaining your sense of humor, and in a broad sense continuing to enjoy your wikipedia role/s. I'll continue to criticize your actions that I disagree with, but also would like you to know that your efforts are much appreciated, useless though they may be. (see, my tongue's in my cheek too.) Privatemusings 12:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal issue concern

• Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Public domain license

There is a concern that deleting the category would lead to legal issues. Could you comment to help clarify this? I'm asking you and User:Newyorkbrad as you were the first two I could think of that I would presume are fluent in legalese : ) - Please invite anyone else you wish to join in the discussion as well. Thanks in advance. - jc37 22:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

please check out the angela davis page

It was vandalized by User 72.22.138.131 and I am not clear that it was reverted back to an acceptable version. I did not revert it but a brand newbie did. : Albion moonlight 10:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternative solution to the Dalmatia issue

My first impulse upon seeing the proposed decision by the Arbitration Committee, was to protest by saying it is unfair to simplify matters thusly and equate User:Giovanni Giove with myself (because of my being on the "defensive" in the edit-warring, because of my numerous attempts at dicussion). I realised, though, that that kind of stuff is probably often heard in such situations, and that my protests will be disregarded (due to my obvious personal interest). This is why I tried a different approach.
User:Giovanni Giove and I have reached an agreement that should do the trick to first stop, and then finally "dismantle" the conflict (see Giovanni Giove's talkpage). Such attempts at discussion have been made before and have proven effective in resolving several issues with Users PIO and Brunodam (on the Albania Veneta, Istrian exodus and Foibe massacres articles, for example). Even though our previous record may lead someone to question the credibility of this effort, one must remeber that thanks to the Arbitration, we now face a very real possibility of severe restrictions lasting an entire year. This finally changed the overall situation in a way that finally lead to a lasting agreement. The question, of course, is would you support such a solution to the problem at hand? (I, for one, truly hope so, since the proposed restriction would effectively put an end to my work on Wiki, something I'll do my best to prevent.) DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Serious issues with user Leuko

Fred, I come to you as we have worked together in the past on articles and with problem users. I come to you again and beg for assistance. User:Leuko is wrecking havoc in a few articles about medical schools located in the Caribbean. In the Caribbean Medical University article, Leuko has accused me of a conflict of interest, has indicated he believes I may have something to do with an anonymous IP editing the article and has been generally unpleasant and bullying. User:DrGladwin is experiencing similar incivility and bullying. Moreover, Leuko is implying that he has the ability to block users. If you look at DrGladwin's talk page you will see a very clear message from Leuko that DrGladwin will be blocked if he makes certain types of edits. Nowhere does Leuko indicate that an admin may block DrGladwin, but clearly implies that he (Leuko) has such abilities. This bullying and incivility has lead me to come to you in hopes of obtaining some sort of mediation and, in my opinion, reprimand of Leuko for incivility, bullying and implying he is an admin. Bstone 18:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fred,

I, too, need your help with Leuko, who is vandalising an article on American University of Antigua. I feel that Leuko is extremely biased against a medical school called University of Health Sciences Antigua, and has added an unnecessary line worded as, "For the unaccredited medical school with a similar name disapproved by many U.S. states, see University of Health Sciences Antigua" at the beginning of the American University of Antigua article. I have made an edit and he threatened to ban me. He tries to edit most medical school articles, and in the end, all that is left is "[a certain medical school] according to Leuko". Would it be possible for you to help me?

Thanks DrGladwin 18:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: That line I'm talking about has been removed by an admin. But I still support Bstone's efforts on the CMU Wikipage - especially InfoBox. DrGladwin 18:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't an admin, and we are still trying to determine consensus, as should have been done in the first place without making "reports" all over the place. Mr. Bauder, you may wish to review Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wiki admin going out of bounds before commenting. Thanks, Leuko 19:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus?! Are you kidding me? I left a message on AUA Talk page that was left unanswered for 24 hours. It was apparent you weren't ready for any kind of consensus for whatever reasons, so I had to resort to my choices. Basically, if I change the page, I'll be threatened with banning. If I post on the Talk page, my request goes unanswered. If you were in my place, what would have you done? By the way, we did a consensus and the results were as expected - the majority was against you. DrGladwin 01:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Fred, the issue isn't Leuko's editing. It's his incivility and bullying, coupled with him claiming we will be blocked from editing when he doesn't have this authority. Bstone 22:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Leuko needs to cool it. The accreditation of each school can be handled in their own article. I suggest mutual linking between the articles would serve to alert the reader that there are two medical schools on Antigua. Fred Bauder 12:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Ebionites arbitration

Fred, with all respect, I noticed that you recused yourself from arbitration and I wondered why. It's not the length of the article that has been in dispute but the reduction in quality. Even though the information from primary sources is limited, as you say, secondary sources have plenty to say about the Ebionites. And that is what we have a duty to report accurately. I don't see how the interests of Wikipedia are served by letting what once was a well-researched and well-sourced article slide back into mediocrity. I hope you will reconsider your position and help us out. Ovadyah 14:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Jumping on the bandwagon as well here. The previous FA draft of the article was thought to be a well-balanced, well-constructed article about a comparatively little-known group. The current article cannot be said to be either of those things. There is also, as at least indicated by Dbachmann in his edit summary when removing his earlier comment from the arbitration page, the matter of either the good faith, or possibly even competency, of one of the editors involved, which is a concern which could well extend beyond just this article. However, I cannot fault you for recusing yourself if you honestly believe that you may have personal beliefs which would disqualify you from being objective. In fact, if that is the case, I believe you deserve our thanks for your honesty. John Carter 15:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent oversight help

Hi,

Thanks for your help with the edits of User:Dattorro, I appreciate it.

However, there are still a few of the relevant edit summaries remaining; namely:

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

When you have a moment, could you remove these also?

Best regards, Oli Filth^(talk) 21:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Your support

Take a look at User Talk:Kirill_Lokshin ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kirill_Lokshin/Archive_6#Your_vote_.40_Liancourt_Rocks_to_ban_me archive link) & User:Wikimachine/Arbitration_Evidence. Could you defend your vote even with the two links here? (Wikimachine 21:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Protection_of_Bible

Hi. Can you clarify what you mean by "Accept to make the statement that the Christian Bible, is a notable subject"? I don't think that is in dispute. The only question was whether an admin should have reverted to her preferred version of Bible then protected that version. In any event, it's moot since the protection has now expired, nobody really cared before, and even fewer people care now. I'm just curious what you mean by your comment. Thanks. --B 02:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood. Fred Bauder 02:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

Gonzo fan2007 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion regarding The Troubles

Hello Fred. I wonder if you would mind reading the short discussion here and opining? For the record, while I was surprised at what appeared to be to be dramatic change of opinion, I fully respect that. I am simply familiar enough with the way things pan out with this group of editors that I would appreciate explicit confirmation of your intention with that proposal. Thanks for your consideration. Rockpocket 01:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Fred. I appreciate it, and hope I'm proved wrong on this one! Rockpocket 03:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for protect tag

Thanks for adding the protect tag on the Diamond Bar High school wiki page. We have been getting numerous anonymous edits in the past few months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igeoffi (talk • contribs) 04:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

About your Armenia-Azerbaijan2 RfA remedy

Thatcher131 has created a template that seems to have substantially changed the wording and the extent of the remedy you voted for at [[8]]. I am currently discussing this at [[9]] and I would welcome you input. I have posted this same message on the talk pages of the other 5 arbritrators who voted for remedy 2. Meowy 16:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Tenth Graders

Long time, no hear. Hope you are doing well.

I was hoping you would review the history of User:199.250.191.253 [10]and the multiple calls for this address to be blocked. According to the info on the talk page, this address is used by a number of members of a tenth grade class, and as far as I can see it is only being used to vandalize articles. I don't know what the proper process is to handle this kind of thing, but I'm sure you do, or you know just who to forward the issue to. Thanks for your attention. Rosencomet 18:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Stalin exile 1915.gif

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Stalin exile 1915.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn 13:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing a lot of posts by other people

Discussion regarding pedophile activism should be by email directly to the arbitration committee at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org Fred Bauder 03:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Please see User_talk:Jpgordon#RfC_request for what prompted this question.

My apologies if this has been asked/said elsewhere.

I was wondering if you're at least thinking about running for re-election to arbcom. - jc37 00:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No Fred Bauder 00:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

While I'm disappointed, I understand. Thank you for the clarification. I hope you're having a great day. - jc37 00:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)