User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 10

Fred, can you do somthing about ...
... preventing the subject of the Bogdanov Affair article who is banned by the ArbCom, posing as obvious sock-puppets and using anonymous IPs, from removing factual and relevant data from the article? the article needs to be protected .r b-j 21:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The Signpost
Hello, Fred Bauder! I just wanted to deliver this week's issue of The Wikipedia Signpost, which features the current ArbCom, directly to your front door. :-) Also, if you wish to read your fellow Arbitrators' full and unabridged responses, you can find them here. Thanks again for all your help! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 21:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Fred: FYI. Keep track of complaints against Homey

 * Hello Fred. FYI, I will not be filing an ArbComm against Homey.  You have just seconded the banning of my account for a year (or longer).  Anyways, since you are a retired lawyer, all I can say is just keep track of the number of complaints against Homey.  Someday you and your collegues may actually do something about "Homey's activities".


 * Anyways, as I can see that I am not welcome here, so this will be my last post. Keep my account active so can maintain the ban, or make it permanent if you want. Mark my words though, I believe you will have to deal with Homey someday.  He can not keep harrassing new members forever without something building up.


 * Take care, and best wishes ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Don Dawson

Freemasonry
I do admit I am a critic of freemasonry, having extensive personal experience. Although I did once meet a Mason I admired, I think the slogan ought to be, "Making the Philistine arrogant" rather then "Making the good better" Fred Bauder 22:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC) (on my talk page)


 * May I inquire as to details? I admit to arrogance, etc., but I do try to keep it in check. And I don't consider people who are against Masonry as enemies (though I'm sure the edit comment was tongue-in-cheek). I just have issues with people trying to shove things down my throat saying that their third-hand light reading trumps my first-hand experience. --SarekOfVulcan 22:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Want to bring to your attention a problem of enforcement regarding Bogdanov Affair.
it's at:



-- r b-j 01:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Help! I am being hassled by what appears to be a sockpuppet vandal
Please take a look at the edit history for Accountable 1135. Please help if you can. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 01:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding "Big Daddy"
FYI: Please see my what will be my sole edit regarding this topic. I give you my word of honor, that I am not involved with this person, have no personal knowledge of his/her activities and do not want any knowledge or involvement. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 21:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And Fred, as you can see, BD posted with from the IP address of 68.42.141.76 today. Here are that users contributions. They are all BigDaddy. I banned it for one month. Just letting you know about it since it needs to be added to the sanctions. I know it's an IP but he's the only one we have evidence of using it. --Woohookitty 04:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Fred, will this affect the proposed decision in BigDaddy's arbitration case? . I would really like to see something there about BigDaddy's use of sockpuppets. And WoohooKitty don't forget his other anonymous account:, I'm sure he's got a lot more too. Also does the American Politics ban apply to article talk pages as well? Because BigDaddy's major problem always was his talk, not his edits, given the fact that he made so few article edits. - Mr. Tibbs 05:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
Fred, I am adding you as a participant to the BCE dispute on WP:RfAr, with the charges that your comments made in response to a request for clarification in the matter were not comments that a reasonable person would have made, and that you knew, or should have known, that by making those comments you would exacerbate the situation, rather than allow it to come to a swift an amicable conclusion. I have outlined my concerns in greater detail here. Kind regards, jguk 12:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Fred, can you please take another look at


The Bogdanov Affair is begging, pleading, for enforcement of the presently passed ArbCom injunction. Thank you for your attention to this.r b-j 02:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Bounty Board
Fred Bauder,

I've been thinking for a while about starting a Bounty Board, where people put up monetary bounties for articles to become featured, but where the money all goes to the Wikimedia Foundation if the conditions are met. I have a draft at User:Quadell/bounty.

It seems to me that the positives would be that it would encourage donations and encourage the creation of featured articles, and it would fill a gap - that people tend to look for a psychological "reward" when they've worked hard for Wikipedia. But my questions are: 1, Do you think there are any legal problems with this? 2, Do you think this goes against the Wiki philosophy? And 3, Do you see any other problems? (I'm asking several long-term and knowlegeable Wikipedian about this.)

Thanks for your input, – Quadell (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

RE: RfArb
Mr. Bauder:

Greetings! I hope you're well. As you may recall, I have submitted the above noted RfArb and accept your rejection of this issue.

Though I realise a reason must be provided, however, I am concerned by your (and Arb Kelly Martin’s) dismissive tone of the issue. One user has expressed concern about the conduct of another, and you diminish it with a "petty" comment.

In the very least, I believe your comment is ill-worded. If all issues are arbitrated with such colourful/judicious commentary – as arbitrators are supposed to be ambivalent (and not presumably condescending, particularly by someone as versed in law as you) – then it may bring the arbitrators or Wp process(es) into disrepute, and makes one question their commitment to the project in the first place. In contrast, Arb Mindspillage provided a helpful (and ambivalent) comment about process, and I will take that under advisement.

Moving on ... In any event, thank you for your (non-)consideration. Take care!

Sincerely,

E Pluribus Anthony 20:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Bogdanov Affair unprotection
Fred, I just noticed that this article is currently protected, but you said last Thursday the committee would want to be seeing who respected the injunction so the article should be kept unprotected. Do you still need it unprotected? I'm about to do so but I'd just like to check if you've changed your mind. --Tony Sidaway Talk 14:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't protect it, but if you do unprotect it please help us figure out who is doing the socking. Fred Bauder 16:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Fred, isn't it obvious? (who's benefitting from the "edits"?  it's happening right now.)


 * BTW, there is a small inaccuracy regarding something taken from the NY Times.  neither ever got a Ph.D. from École Polytechnique in Paris, but used facilities there for their defense along with publicity on TV and the like.  it would be nice that once someone reverts it back to the version not passed by Igor's approval, if École Polytechnique was removed.  there is one other very small text movement that i would recommend, but it's small potatoes. r b-j 23:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I recognise that the Committee is leaving the decision on protection with the community. I think it's reasonable so I'll go and check if it's been unprotected and, if not, I'll do so. I'll let Rama, who protected it for pretty good operational reasons, know what's up and why it would probably be better to leave it unprotected. --Tony Sidaway Talk 22:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * My apologies; I had protected the article because the vast majority of recent edits was either deliberately tendentious edits by brand new users (so not allowed anyway), or reverts of these. I though of the protection as a mean to save everybody's time, but I was unaware of the latest developments of the arbcom. It goes without saying that I do not mean to hinder the work of the arbcom in any way, and that I cannot but apology when someone corrects a mistake of mine. Rama 23:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude et al Arbitration
Hello, thank you for the note on my talk page. I want to let you know that I am preparing my evidence for the Arbitration involving Rangerdude. It will be similar to what I already reported in joining the arbitration request. Johntex\talk 18:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Couple of things
What's with the note on my talk page? I know of the workshop page, but why bring this to my attention specifically?

Secondly, could you please archive your talk page? It's so long that it's dynamite for those of us with regulated bandwidth. Ambi 14:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Workshops
Thank you for the link, sir; it is good to see a move toward greater public involvement in the Arbitration Committee. --Merovingian (t) (c) ( e ) 14:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop
You, or any Wikipedia user, can contribute your suggestions and comments to the /Workshop page of any active arbitration case. Comments on evidence or proposals can help in understanding the import of evidence and in refining proposals. Proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies may be listed on /Proposed decision and form part of the final decision. Fred Bauder 14:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand that, altho I usually contain my statements to the evidence page, not wanting the workshop to become overly cluttered. Indeed as you can see here, I advise against excessive use of the workshop page. Are you meaning to say you'd prefer more comments be made there? Also, what was this about rewards? ;)


 * Cheers, Sam Spade 15:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The rumor is that should a members advocate (rather than wikilawering) contributed a suggestion which was used User:Kelly Martin would "buy them a drink." Yes Workshop provides a platform for lengthy effusions; but constructive and thoughtful suggestions are more welcome. Can't have too many of those. Fred Bauder 15:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm... not sure my wife would allow that! Anyways, I will begin to make suggestions in the workshops, if nothing else it will provide an example of the sorts of decisions I might make, and should give you some food for thought. Thank you for your informations, Sam Spade 16:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't care about the drink, I'm just helping out anyway. Jtkiefer  T - 18:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I received this message on my talk page, and I'm slightly confused. Was this directed at me, specifically, some group that I am a part of, or all of en.wikipedia? siafu 19:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming I got this unexplained comment on my talk page because I'm listed at WP:AMA. In any case, is there any reason for me not to think that adding another page to the Arbitration process just creates a great place that other people can submit reasoned-out comments, and arbs themselves can just exclude from their watchlists? - Keith D. Tyler &para; 20:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for advice
Hi there. I would very much like to be admitted to the arbitration committee. Not at present, of course, as I am lacking in experience, but in the fullness of time it is something I would like to do. As an active member of said committee, is there any advise you could give to an aspiring candidate to increase his chances of being elected? Thank you-- Xiph o  n  17:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

PS: On a personal note, as of next year I am studying towards a Bcom LLB. I include this just for interests sake.

Replied at my talk page
User talk:Redwolf24. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I know why you listed that there now. If it was about Stevertigo and people complaining about the arbcom, then you should know I was defending the medcom, telling people they should have complained while you guys were still deliberating, but someone just said we can't vote in arbcom decisions, but I said we can still talk to arbitrators... R e  dwolf24  (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration question
Hello. I was wondering if we could get the injunction (either one, preferrably your second one) going on Lightbringer's RFAR? The Freemasonry page has now been protected for an uncomfortable amount of time, and Anti-Freemasonry will probably be there in a matter of days. Also, I saw your notice about contributing to the /Workshops to users whose talk pages I watch. As an uninvolved admin who is somewhat knowledgeable about this case, I could probably speed it up. Does this mean I could propose findings of fact and remedies, or just comment on them? I had thought only arbitrators could make proposals, (otherwise I wouldn't have asked Kelly to do the injunction proposal for me!). Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 06:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've gone through and proposed some principles and findings of fact. I wonder if you could take a look at it and tell me if I did everything right, and if it makes sense and is reasonable? Thanks. I think this case should be rather straightforward. Dmcdevit·t 23:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Some questions
You know that I'm advocating User:Researcher99 in the Polygamy dispute and have some questions. Thank you very much! (I saw your message about the /Workshop section too. It's very interesting) --Neigel von Teighen 22:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Is there a way to know if User:Nereocystis, User:Dan100, User:Kewp have the same IP address as the ? It would be important to us to know if one of this users used a sockpuppet to call the AfD of the now deleted Anti-polygamy.
 * 2) Also, is there a way to undelete only the diffs of Anti-polygamy or to undelete it and move it into a user page? Can someone restore this article's history?

Since you are a retired lawyer can you take al look at "Fair Comment"?
I will not edit this article since it has become politcally charged.

A process in which i am probably guilty of but...

Since it is an important leagal issue and since no changes were made in its contend for a certain time I am looking for somebody to check my arguments on the "fair comment" talk page.

If I would simply edit the article a chainreaction of counter edits would take place.

Please check if I am wrong or right with my reasoning.

Thank you in advance

--Zirkon 00:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Proposed decision
Would you please answer my questions on the Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Proposed decision page. Thank you.
 * Sorry for bothering you again. As there is, apart from a new "Motion to close" section, no further comment on the Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Proposed decision page, I still do not understand the decisions by the arbitration committee. On the Probation page is stated that "A user placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee is entitled to continue to edit in the subject areas in which they are on probation." Does this mean, for instance, that I am allowed to add the following, accurately sourced paragraph to the James Dean article:
 * Decades after Dean's death, author Boze Hadleigh, an expert on Hollywood gays, published a 1972 interview with Sal Mineo in which the actor said, "Nick (Adams) told me they had a big affair." Further sources support the view that Dean had homosexual leanings.   Bit actor and writer John Gilmore, a member of Dean's "Night Watch" motorcyle riders, wrote a book on James Dean claiming they had a homosexual encounter. In his Natalie Wood biography, the reputed Hollywood chronicler Gavin Lambert, himself homosexual and part of the Hollywood gay circles of the 50s and 60s, describes Dean as being bisexual. In her memoir of her brief affair with Dean, actress Dizzy Sheridan states Dean had an affair with Rogers Brackett, a radio director for an advertising agency whom Dean met in the summer of 1951 while working as a parking attendant at CBS. In Val Holley's James Dean: the Biography (1997) gay studies scholars will also find rich factual evidence of Dean's homosexual social life, and of the crucial role gay patrons like Rogers Brackett played in Dean's rise to stardom. Last not least, Live Fast, Die Young – The Wild Ride of Making Rebel Without a Cause, a recent book by Lawrence Frascella and Al Weisel, says that Rebel director Nicholas Ray knew Dean to be bisexual.
 * These are eight independent sources - six books and two articles - which all say that Dean had homosexual leanings. I think this should be enough evidence to include the said paragraph in the article. What do you think? 80.141.198.213 18:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks good, but I don't edit in this area. It's those that do that you need to work it out with. Fred Bauder 19:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Ted Wilkes and Wyss are working together in this area (and some other areas). They have repeatedly deleted my contributions. Have you an idea what I can do? Furthermore, I do not understand why there is no comment by the arbitrators on the false accusations against me by Ted Wilkes.
 * We assume you are a good editor who sometimes goes too far. Fred Bauder 03:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I would be grateful if the arbitaton committee could place a similar statement on the Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Proposed decision page, as User:Ted Wilkes once again made a denigrating statement against me on the Talk:Elvis Presley page. See 80.141.238.254 15:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

As I say, sometimes you go too far Fred Bauder 15:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand. But what about the denigrating words of Ted Wilkes? For my recent contribution concerning Elvis's death I have used information from a book by reputed Elvis biographer Peter Guralnick. What I have cited are historical facts. What should be wrong with this? It seems as if Ted Wilkes doesn't like this information. He also deleted contributions by another user in the same area. I think this is not O.K.

User:Ted Wilkes is still removing my contributions to the Elvis Presley article, though they are well supported by credible sources. See and. He also aggressively continues to make personal attacks against me (and some other users) on the Talk:Elvis Presley and the User talk:Onefortyone pages and repeatedly violated the 3RR rule. I think the arbitration committee should place a note about this behavior on his talk page. Thank you.

We can reopen this if we have to; better to be courteous to each other Fred Bauder 14:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Accepted: Evidence
Hi - I would like to put evidence on this page but I am unclear whether it is reasonable to duplicate what I have said in my statement here? Thanks.--csloat 09:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Guess who came back?
Enviroknot is back. (formerly ). Check contribs and deletion of warnings. Regards -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 21:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Probation
Sorry if I overstepped my authority. I just saw the people on the talk page begging for a buisnessmans version, so I took a shot at it. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Ouch!
Some of your comments as an arbitrator at Zephram Stark's arbitration page violate Assume good faith. I hope you'll change them. Marsden 19:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Does AGF apply to arbcom members for open arbcom investigations? This is not a court of law. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Basically I went down a blind alley. Don't expect any of that stuff to show up on /Proposed decision Fred Bauder 20:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:Edits of Onefortyone
With all due respect, my edit you referred to was to remove information already detailed in the Presley article in TWO other places with links to the main article, Memphis Mafia. Second, it was deliberately inserted by Onefortyone in the "Relationships" section with his wife and girfriends where he had previously inserted it with other fabrications including a statement "Seeded" on Talk:Elvis Presley/archive1 (and others) that has many claims about Presley/Memphis Mafia as part of his campaign to declare Presley as a homosesual such as this:
 * I would agree if there were not the Memphis Mafia, a group of men who used to hang with Elvis all day and night. So it is an undisputable fact that Elvis spent much more time with men than women. Thus it is more likely that he preferred men. - User: 80.141.178.108

Plus after other faberications, this:
 * Significantly, she seems to have been the only woman in the Memphis Mafia, as there were only men around Elvis. You might see some parallels to Andy Warhol's "Factory", but there were more women around Warhol. Very interesting indeed. Ted Wilkes 23:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC) - User: 80.141.178.108

This Presley Talk page (and all others) is filled with the other numerous fabrications as documented in my Arbitration case that are part and parcel of his gane plan. The above items were then followed by 80.141 creating a special (seed) Header:


 * Elvis was gay
 * It is a fact that there are some independent sources which claim that Elvis was gay. It is also an undisputed fact that he spent most of his time with men from the Memphis Mafia. 80.141.249.159 20:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

In this section he then adds a complete falsehood for those who come to the page via a Google/Yahoo search:
 * I would encourage the readers to spend as much time as they see fit on reading from the beginning what is written on these discussion pages, as the whole talk proves that I have provided a lot of evidence (based on independent sources) to support my assertions. 80.141.219.115 12:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Bauder, if I may remind you, my many articles and edits are unimpeachable and nowhere will you find me promoting any agenda of any kind and NOT once have I ever made a false statement about Onefortyone nor can anyone point out a single unjustified or surreptitious revert/edit on my part. And, as one of several (who gave evidence to the ArbCom) who were deeply involved in the the game-playing and "seeding" by Onefortyone which continued on October 30th even after the Arbitration Committee ruled at User talk:Kelly Martin here.

Thank you - Ted Wilkes 23:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Ted Wilkes, are you really claiming that your "edits are unimpeachable and nowhere will you find me promoting any agenda of any kind and NOT once have I ever made a false statement about Onefortyone nor can anyone point out a single unjustified or surreptitious revert/edit on my part"? On the Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Evidence page you falsely accused me of spamdexing and vandalism. See Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone/Evidence and my reply. And there are many more false accusations and aggressive personal attacks from your pen. See, for instance, Talk:Nick_Adams/Archive_1 and User_talk:Ted_Wilkes, etc. etc. You even threaten another user with going to Arbitration accusing this user of fabrication and calling him a troll. See . I hope that the arbitrators will not support this gaming of the system in the future. Onefortyone 13:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes has now repeatedly reverted my contributions to the Nick Adams article, though I have presented new sources and facts to support my view. He even deleted an important external link. See. See also Talk:Nick_Adams. This behavior is unacceptable. Onefortyone 16:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

any ideas?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arvanites&diff=27561448&oldid=27560959

There's a traditional greek song "Arta's bridge". One of the lines say "they were building it all day long, but during the night it fell down".

I wouldn't mind, or acctually I might like, to be supervised for NPOV-compatibility in Arvanites related articles. I would also like various clarifications (perhaps not now) about the Arb. I'm involved and I must point out that REX and Theathenae might deserve to be treated as newbies (I could clarify that upon request). On the other hand, before starting contributing I've read and understood (or perhaps I thought I understood) the various policies and guidelines and therefore I don't belong in that category. Not knowing a law, is not an excuse in legal systems, but not knowing the principles of wikipedia perhaps can be used as an excuse on that case.

With my regards, +MATIA &#9742; 22:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)