User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 41

Indefblock of IP

I don't mean to sound silly, but I thought shared IPs should not be blocked indef, as you did with 64.59.144.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Given the last block was one week, indef seems a little harsh. Perhaps there is a past history of major abuse from that IP? Cheers. `Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. BTW, you posted on my editor review - perhaps you wanted my talk page? I moved your message there. Cheers, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Michael Langan/ScienceApologist RFAR

Hi Fred. Regarding Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist#DrL_2 which says "All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern." Since I seem to remember you wrote this I thought you should know that we have two new disruptive editors at Talk:Christopher Michael Langan, Sheerfirepower (talk · contribs) and 204.73.177.254 (talk · contribs), who are definitely exhibiting a 'a similar editing pattern'. And since Sheerfirepower after several words of caution is already bandying about terms like "making matters worse for himself by using his sysop powers to threaten me" and implied legal threats like "Asmodeus up there sounds like he might be getting ready to sue your asses off" I thought you'd like to have a word with him before others assume these are Langan meat puppets and they are blocked under the provision provided above. FeloniousMonk 20:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are involved parties prevented by policy or convention from issuing blocks in such instances? FeloniousMonk 21:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the policy answer, but the better practice would be to post to WP:AE or WP:ANI. Thatcher131 17:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Reversion

Hey. Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page.

Kriak 01:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

request for clarification on the Kosovo arbcom's decision

Hi, I have entered a request for clarification regarding remedies that were taken against me (sorry if that's incorrect grammar) in the Kosovo arbitration case in October last year. As you were one of the administrators on the Kosovo arbitration committee I would very much appreciate if you could take a look at my entry and answer my questions. RegardsOsli73 13:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for filing a motion to revoke Osli73's sanctions. A shifting ip address has been using these as a pretext to harass and censor Osli73. Curiously, Osli73 was not even around during the arbitration case, and like yourself, I've been wandering how he became involved. El_C 23:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, please note my recent comments to dmcdevit's reply relating to the Kosovo arbcom's decision. Regards Osli73 10:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, although Dmcdevit was a member of the ARBCOM at the time of the Kosovo arbcom process (which endedin October 2006), I see that has now resigned and is no longer a member of the Arbcom. Is he still entitled to vote on the motion to revoke the remedies? Regards Osli73 08:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His comment makes clear what the thinking was. I don't agree. His vote is good. He was an arbitrator when he made it. Fred Bauder 14:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Regards Osli73 15:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Schwarz

Hi Fred, given your past involvement with this article I would be grateful if you could drop in at Talk:Barbara Schwarz. A new user (BabyDweezil) has been edit warring on the article, wants it deleted and doesn't seem to be willing to follow WP:V and WP:RS. I've had to protect the article temporarily to "encourage" the disputants to settle the issue on the talk page. Unfortunately BabyDweezil seems to be quite intransigent, and the discussion is going round in circles. Your input would be appreciated. -- ChrisO 18:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosencomet

Dear Sir,

I don't want to say anything inappropriate here while the decisions are still being made, but whatever happens, I did want you to know that I appreciate seeing someone involved in this matter say "His editing has improved significantly and his range of editing has broadened." I will never please everyone, and I have certainly made mistakes (and may make more), but I am heartened that someone can recognize my efforts to change. If I can continue editing, I hope to avoid conflicts and learn alternative methods of dealing with any disagreements that may arise with other editors. When all this is over, I hope to have the opportunity to ask for your advice and guidance. Sincerely, Rosencomet 01:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed Ban for me even commenting on Alternative Medicine matters

I am unclear why your propose that I not even be able to comment on alternative medicine related articles. Since I have been on Wikipedia, virtually every edit of mine was removed by Fyslee and others close to Barrett and I understand that I have been quite defensive . For that I apologize. However, I do have a wealth of experience and information that could benefit this encyclopedia. I would request you modify your proposal to include my editing at least on talk pages, articles relating to my legal case, and certainly on alternative medical modalities. Thank you. Ilena (chat) 18:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to correct a repetition (myriad times here) of some charges that are false or misleading:

I have not "removed" "virtually every edit" of Ilena's. I have been only one of many who have at times edited or reverted Ilena's edits that were disputed because of policy violations. Among them were issues related to spamlinking of her vanity (because SHE did it) sites, her attack sites, promotional edits, praising edits, non NPOV edits, OR, notability, deletions of very well sourced opposing POV (even government sources), etc. etc.. Her interpretation reveals an assumption of bad faith, because the reasons have been explained to her numerous times, but she insists its all a conspiracy against her and her POV. I believe that there are some other editors who have removed and reverted her edits far more than I have, including Ronz, admin Arthur Rubin, and several others. She just chooses to pick me out of the crowd of editors with whom she has been in conflict. During this RFARB I have stayed away from her, and yet she has carried on long edit wars, even getting blocked again. She has also deleted many of mine and others edits that were well sourced and within policy.
The second charge is without a shred of relation to reality: "...removed by Fyslee and others close to Barrett..." Just because some editors share Barrett's mainstream views does not mean we are "close to" him. That's a part of Ilena's conspiracy theory, and a gross example of assuming bad faith. That's all, and I do not intend to debate her here. Just setting the record straight. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 20:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banning for off-Wikipedia affiliations

Kirill stated on my talk page that banning a contributor for off-Wikipedia affiliations is fine and that seems to be his main reason for his support of banning me. See thread.

With regards to your comments, I deny that I engaged in advocacy. I you think otherwises then please produce some recent diffs (<1 year old) that show that I engaged in advocacy. Andries 06:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Brownback article

Dear Fred Bauder: I have been working on the Sam Brownback article and for several days I have been in a push an pull match with an editor who believes that he must remove three of the fully sourced, fully cited quotes and information about Senator Brownback. Both the other editor and I have violated the 3RR rule today. I admit I have violated the rule; however, so has the other editor. Now, I have been willing to compromise and I have used the talk page to do that, I can show you the edit history where I attempted to compromise. Could you please take a look at the situation? I have been putting back in the quotes and information and editor Jerimee has been taking them out The edit history of where he takes them out, just today only, looks like this: First Removal Today and Second Removal Today and Third Removal Today and Fourth Removal Today and Fifth Removal Today and Sixth Removal Today and Seventh Removal Today and Eighth Removal Today and Ninth Removal Today and Tenth Removal Today.--Getaway 19:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message for Ptmccain

I was wanting to leave a message for Ptmccain that one of his/her images was up for deletion, but the user talk page is fully protected and the user is indefinitely banned. Would such a notification be beating a dead horse? Andjam 02:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia-Azerbaijan

Dear Mr. Bauder. I'm writing you with regard to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Armenia-Azerbaijan. In my opinion, if the case is going to be accepted, the list of involved parties should include additional persons, whom I would like to add to the list. These are Azerbaijani, Mardavich, ROOB323. I explained the reasons on RFA page. Please advise. Sincerely, Grandmaster 13:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred, please see my comment here, I'm not an involved party in the Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute, I've only had disagreements with User:Grandmaster on a totally unrelated article Safavids, could you please remove my name from the list of involved parties?. Cheers. --Mardavich 04:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please also see my comment here. I have not gotten involved in this whole Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute and I want to keep it that way. I have only been involved in Iran related topics. I believe Grandmaster has put me on the list for the same reason he has put Mardavich on, because we have had disagreements in the past regarding certain articles. Again, I have kept myself out of this whole dispute and stuck to Iran related articles only. Grandmaster only brings up two articles as "proof" that I was involved in the dispute, yet I only made one edit on each, and both those articles are Iran related as well. Please take my name off. I am not an involved party and I stayed out the Armenia-Azerbaijan edit wars. Thanks.Azerbaijani 16:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser, Hi Fred, can you order a checkuser now? There are chances that Tabib won't be contributing and his last edit could be too late to request one. I will not be providing my evidence right now, since there are just too much abuses and will be unfortunitly huge (not because of text but diff.). A checkuser on every users involved will be ordered, but I need it as soon as possible for it to not be too late to find anything about Tabib. Fad (ix) 18:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were his last couple of edits in the same geographic location as the others? Fad (ix) 19:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... what does that mean it is a yes or a no? Fad (ix) 19:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So basically checkusers can not compare selective sets of edits by a user with a selective set of edits by the same user? My aim in asking this is to know if Tabib who change location for his job got his recent edits in the American continent. Fad (ix) 20:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A concern concerning the Barret Case.

In the proposed decision it is stated that "Fyslee has repeatedly used Quackwatch and similar partisan sites as references" and then refer to this edit. I'm concerned that a) the edit given is an example where Barret's expertise is relevant b) since the edit attributes the matter to Barret as a relevant source, not as a given statement it is relevant and not a use of an unreliable source (especially given, the independent coverage and notability that Quackwatch has recieved, (as discussed in the article on Quackwatch)). Now, Fyslee certainly pushed references to Quackwatch, but the dif given is one of the best examples where such a comment might be justified in some form. Therefore, I would greatly appreciate if you would clarify what precisely the ArbCom is saying about using Quackwatch in general and mentioning Barret's opinions. In particular, would the edit given have been possibly acceptable if it had been made by somoene else? Thanks, JoshuaZ 20:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have produced more examples. Biased sources such as Barret or Quackwatch should be considered unreliable sources for most purposes. Fred Bauder 20:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devastating article. Fred Bauder 20:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may not have been clear enough in what I was hoping would be clarified. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association Quackwatch is one of the "select sites that provide reliable health information and resources" and has received praise from U.S. News & World Report among others. Now, I agree that this doesn't make it a reliable source and for Wikipedia purposes is not a reliable source for most purposes. What I'm hoping can be clarified is whether quoting Barret or Quackwatch as essentially notable opinions (as one might quote a prominent newspaper columnist such as George Will or Paul Krugman) is acceptable as long as who Barret is and what his biases are is made clear. Since the given dif seems to be a use of that, I'd like to know(as an editor who has added notes about Quackwatch opinions in that context to articles in the past) whether that is acceptable. JoshuaZ 20:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of it is the name, "Quack". I'm not sure what community consensus would be. Obviously lives are saved if people use evidence based medicine, but that is true about many potentially dangerous things where a paternalistic determination could be made about what is more likely to be safe or sensible. We could advocate universal medical insurance if lives saved was the criteria or prompt intervention in Durfur. The American Medical Association is a business competitor of alternative medicine, but who else would you go to as an authority on medicine? The question of global warming keeps coming up in my mind. Just as in this case, there is no rational advocate for the other side. What is the reliable source which says that Bach Flower Therapy is safe and effective? What kind of a reference is this? I think you may be safe enough using such references. What we are dealing with in the case of Fyslee is someone who has made quackbusting an avocation. I think you can see that there are contradictions. Fred Bauder 01:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. JoshuaZ 03:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request

Dear Fred, I have never done this, so I don't know how to go about it. How can I request a checkuser on User:BackMaun and User:Alien666? The former has been specifically visiting articles I, and others who have been involved in the Starwood arbitration and certain other issues, have edited, and making unexplained and often IMO nonsensical edits (like breaking links or duplicating material and revert-warring over it). The latter is, I believe, a former suspected sockpuppet of Mattisse who reappeared for one day (Feb. 19th - so far) after 6 months of inactivity, and edited some of the same pages. From the style, the choice of edits, and the line on Alien666's userpage "Wish me luck this time!", I suspect both of being sock puppets. Certainly the behavior doesn't match someone new to Wikipedia, as BackMaun claims to be.

Thank you, Rosencomet 18:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know I have had my own issues in the past. How serious this is depends on whether you tack this activity on to the incredible history Mattisse has with sockpuppetry. It seems to be ongoing. At the moment, I'd say User:Khabs is having more problems than I have, but I'd hate to see him/her whipped into the frenzy of revert-warring that was instigated with me. See BackMaun's activity on List of Thelemites, List of UFO researchers, Allen H. Greenfield and Anodea Judith; this looks like a "ramp up" to me. I do find it strange that Hanuman Das, Ekajati and 999 were so swiftly dealt with while Mattisse has been allowed to continue with only talk of action. But I am not proposing any punishment, living in a bit of a glass house (though I've never used a sock or visited the articles others edit regularly and messed with their work); I'd just like to avoid vote-stacking and similar behavior. (I have enough problems with the 3-person tag-team that keeps challenging my edits.) I'd also hate to see anyone treated like User:Jefferson Anderson was recently. Rosencomet 19:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred

I don't know what you guys do, or even read the evidence page. Because I am seriously thinking that you all are ignoring it. Valid evidences are lost in this mud slinging war, everyone answering in others section and turning this into a discussion board. Is it too much asking to get an injonction on this too? Something such as "Every parties involved shall only write in their own evidence section also they shall not directly address others." Fad (ix) 18:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, Newyorkbrad warned them. Fad (ix) 18:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Smart ArbCom case

Fred, a suggestion for the Proposed Decision page: the article should go on article probation.

This is a useful suggestion, I feel, because, it may mean less conflict amongst editors, if people can use the talk page more rather than revert-warring. Your opinion is appreciated. --sunstar net^talk 23:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Osli73

Fred, in the Kosovo arbitration case, you voted to put Osli73 on revert parole. I wish to bring to your attention that he has been violating his parole with impunity for some time now. On February 24, this behavior was brought to the attention of the arb enforcement board (see link below), but there has not been any action or comment since. Meanwhile, edit warring is heating up again at the Srebrenica article. If those who have been put on parole can violate the limits put upon them with little or no consequence, it puts us at risk of the article falling back into a free-for-all. Could you either respond to this or contact the appropriate administrator? Thank you. Fairview360 01:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#.5B.5BUser:Osli73.5D.5D[reply]

Pakistan-India arbcomm case

Its pretty much decided what is going to happen to me. So I just wanted to ask for a quick and urgent favour.
Could you point out to the committee that I am on a shared IP used by many people. If my account only could be banned, and if anyone discovers I am editing again, they can ban the IP. Thank you. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 18:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this fair?

Looks like the arbcom has decided to ban me for a year. I honestly dont know how this conclusion was reached. I contributed like a good user, never insulted any user and never vandalised any article. The Indian users openly made racist remarks against Pakistanis, Muslims and our Prophet and Literally hijacked Pakistani articles to prevent anyone form editing. If this isnt good enough for you, then let me explain the 2nd major flaw. This arbcom was opened The Day After me and Nadir were unblocked from one of Ramas unfair blocks, and minutes after we tried to complain. It was simply to save himself from our complaint against him. We barely posted a word between the unblock and the complaint, and all the evidence used against us, is old evidence he had already used to ban us before. Not to mention the lousy evidence is the reason we complained against him in the first place. The only thing I see happening here is the arbcom banning the Minority users to solve the problem. Rama started the arbcom and omitted certain Indian users who were the Key causes of this dispute, and this lets them off the hook, even though they have made extremely racist remarks. Why treat me worse than a vandal? The so called evidence used against me doesnt even make sense. Is PoV pushing defined as making suggestions on Talk Pages? I am so shocked by this outcome.
I guess it helps to have a lot of people supporting you blindly. A 6 month punnishment was rejected for a guy who openly insulted the muslim Prophet (by linking him to paedophilia), insulted muslims by comparing slavery to the Hijab, said Pakistanis enjoyed killing people, and clear evidence was shown that he reverts every single edit from other users on Hinduism pages which doesnt fit his PoV. The Arbitrators didnt even suggest punishing any Indian users. Instead, a proposal to give all Pakistani users bans were put forward.
I dont know what has happened here. I really want to discuss this matter with you. I am an honest guy, I have nothing to hide, yet here I am being treated like an obvious vandal who deserves to get banned. In the first month I joined Wiki, I made some minor mistakes. I went through more than 3 weeks of bans by the same admin for this. And now the Same mistakes are giving me another year? Please get back to me. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 19:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett v Rosenthal

I know it's late in the case, but I have proposed an additional remedy, article probation here. I think Ilena is correct to be concerned about the behavior of other editors. This case seems to have dragged out of the woodwork several other partisans on alt medicine topics, both pro and con. I agree with Ilena that GigiButterfly (talk · contribs) is an SPA with a likely conflict of interest with respect to Barrett. Shot_info (talk · contribs) appears to be associated [1] with this web site [2] run by an Australian skeptic, that currently hosts a set of parody song lyrics attacking Ilena personally. Several other editors have joined this case on both sides, including Dematt (talk · contribs), I'clast (talk · contribs), Ronz (talk · contribs), and Levine2112 (talk · contribs), although their conduct does not appear to rise to the level of arbitration. I am concerned that once Ilena is banned and Fyslee is topic-banned, other users might take up their crusade. Article probation for the core articles in this case would allow admins to take action to stop disruption without having to go through arbitration again, and limiting it to 6 months would be a good test to see if it is really needed; depending on circumstances it could be extended or allowed to expire accordingly. Thatcher131 20:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote

I see you have voted against me in ArbCom case. Please have look at my contributions and compare them to accusations against me. I have already faced months of blocks and when I decided to stay away from any disputes, Rama's Arrow opened ArbCom case because he doesn't want people editing who do not agree with him. He is taking everything personally. Please see his earlier such attempts here which were unsucessful. Szhaider 01:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request

Elnurso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) registered one day before Dacy69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the same day he registered on Russian Wikipedia. Can you check if Eknuros correspond to any other users? Fad (ix) 05:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Prechter RfAr

The Robert Prechter arbitration, on which you have written a proposed decision, is one of the last holdovers from 2006, meaning we start with 6 arbitrators, of whom 3 are now inactive. None of the new arbitrators have signed up to participate in this case. You might want to ping some of your newer colleagues to become active in this case, or either it will never be decided, or else it will be decided with a majority of 2, which would seem a sub-optimal number. Recognizing of course this is not the most pressing item on the committee's plate. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And going through the list, the same seems to be true on your Waldorf review. Newyorkbrad 01:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]