User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 3

See also User talk:Fred Bauder

We need to finish up JRR 1
People are getting restless. We need to close up Requests for arbitration/JRR Trollkien; I think the easiest way to do this would be to officially proclaim that he is, indeed, a reincarnation of 24/EntmootOfTrolls/&c., which will be quick and uncontroversial. The new section is here. Could you possibly have a look at it? Thanks. James F. (talk) 04:28, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

wiki-info
what does "little factual basis for a sympathetic point of view" mean? Almost every view has somebody who can be documented as sympathetic. I'm curious, esp. since I was thinking of editing on the wiki-info as well as the pedia here. You seem to suggest that a key peice of their policy is unfairly represented? Sam [Spade] 20:51, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Wikinfo's policy on sympathetic point of view does not extend to totalitarian ideologies and related subjects. White nationalism due to its association in popular culture with Neonazism probably deserves some sort of special treatment as legitimate grievances are usually not taken seriously. Fred Bauder 12:54, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand the general point your making (particularly "legitimate grievances are usually not taken seriously"), but I do understand that Wikinfo's policy apparently does not extend to unpopular ideologies. On a separate note...


 * White grievances, for example, with affirmative action, or immigration, which White nationialists raise are often not taken seriously due to the associations with racism which White nationalist represent. Fred Bauder 19:27, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * I understand that, but in my eyes that would display an especially clear need for allowing a sympathetic point of view for them on wikinfo. I guess I am always for bringing up the lowest common denominator, but I don't see why they (or anyone) should be the exception to the rule. Sam [Spade] 02:55, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

arbitration
Might I enquire as to why you have changed your vote? I understood and agreed with your previous stance, but I see that you have made a 180-degree turn and have chosen to accept without comment. I'm not aware of the particulars on this, but I assume you are in no way required to provide explanations for your votes or decisions one way or the other. That said, I would prefer to be enlightened as to your reasoning, and would perhaps enjoy an opportunity to attempt to sway you, assuming that was both acceptable and necessary. Sam [Spade] 18:02, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mav that we need to take a look at the requirement that editors strive for NPOV in the context of the case of an editor who is allegedly not trying at all. Fred Bauder 23:18, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the reply. Sam [Spade] 02:55, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration: Mr Natural Health
Hi, I'm just leaving a note on every Arbitration Committee Member's talk page pleading with them to look at this case more quickly. He is back in full flow these last few days --bodnotbod 02:23, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Early National Socialism
Please take a look at Votes for deletion/Early National Socialism/draftAndyL 08:27, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade's attempt to streach for a factual basis for this slur is of the same temper.
What exactly does this mean? "of the same temper"? Sam [Spade] 21:19, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It means that you are trying to work up factual support for hate speech. Fred Bauder 22:07, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * statement moved to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/User:WHEELER#An_additional_slur Sam [Spade] 06:12, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My Arbitration Case
As the Wikipedia is currently experiencing technical difficulties which prohibit me from editing or defending myself, I expect you to relay this message to the rest of your committee.

The rules are quite clear that, prior to arbitration, a plaintiff must attempt to resolve the issue via the mediation committee -- as Snowspinner has not done this, I expect the committee to follow its own rules and insist that Snowspinner attempt to resolve his personal issues with me, by discussing with me in a mediated fashion.

I am happy to accept mediation and believe that mediation, on this issue, is long overdue. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I am disappointed that you have not responded to the above -- if you are on vacation, please inform the parties which you are judging. Regardless, I have begun a defense at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lir/Evidence/Defense Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lyndon LaRouche
-> Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche

Israel Shahak
Hi Fred,

I have no problem with the edit you made to Israel Shahak, but all the same, I'd rather you didn't edit protected articles. Thanks!

DanKeshet 02:34, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

172
I'm not sure why you left the note regarding the restoration of the arbcom request on 172's talk page when it was Sam Spade who made the changes. :) Snowspinner 14:39, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what he's talking about (snowspin) or why he feels a need to mess about in all this, plying in the mud so to speak. Either way, you can see my response to you here: User_talk:172


 * Sam [Spade] 18:17, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche
-> Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche

Arbitration case
I strongly object to you listing my name alongside Lance6Wins at Requests for Arbitration. I have not been accused of any offence and the case against Lance6Wins is not a dispute between him and me. I didn't even initialize the case against Lance6Wins. I am the poor sysop who has been trying to defend Wikipedia against assault by a fanatic. The case concerns Lance6Wins' behaviour over many months and not about particular articles nor about my recent blocks of his IPs. --Zero 08:52, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"In legalese, he has filed a counterclaim." Since when do defendants have the right to file counterclaims against witnesses? Funny sort of law you practice, Fred. --Zero 00:13, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * It's quasi-law. We're a quasi-judicial body. :) Martin 20:10, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade
How would you recommend I be less bullheaded? Sam [Spade] 19:12, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche
-> Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche

Lyndon LaRouche
Further to this matter, since I have been censured and penalised for personal attacks, I think it is now appropriate that I ask you to make an additional ruling that User:Herschelkrustofsky be required to refrain from calling named individuals "fascists," particularly those who are not Wikipedians and not present to defend themselves, unless there is evidence that they belong to a fascist organisation or have espoused views generally accepted as fascist. I refer to his repeated description of an Australian Member of Parliament, Michael Danby, as (to quote just the most recent example) "Australia's most outspokenly fascist Member of Parliament, Michael Danby." This is untrue and grossly offensive, and may also expose Wikipedia to action for defamation. I think fairness dictates that if I am to be censured for calling Herschelkrustofsky a slanderer, he should be required to cease being one. Adam 00:14, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The most reference instance is at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche. Adam 12:31, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's a perfectly true statement, and highly relevant to the debate within which it was made. However I am willing to refrain from futher such comments, provided Herschelkrustofsky is instructed to cease slandering people as fascists and this instruction is enforced. Adam 14:37, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: "arbitration/Rex071404"
Please take note, yesterday, I posted my version of the facts on this issue as per the page's instructions: "If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a seperate header, to seperate your response from the original evidence."

However, tonight, Neutrality has twice deleted my statement from that page and instead moved it to the "discussion" page.

I am trying my best to defuse the tense dynamic between Neutrality an myself, but I am at a loss as to what to do.

For example, Neutrality is again jumping all over my edits on John Kerry and deleted/reversed me me multiple times tonight wihtout discussion. I have left copious notes on that talk page explaining my edits, but Neutrality dos not dialog with me.

I really would appreciate some guidedance on getting Neutrality to give me some breathing room.

Also, please take note, although I am feeling very pressed againg by Neutrality, I am not reverting to my intial method of snide commentary.

Since Snowspinner chastized me sevral days ago with a 24hr ban, I have reconsidered and am avoiding harsh statements. That being the case, when can I expect Neutrality to be advised to leave me be and not be so agressive to me? Rex071404 01:49, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Question about ArbCom procedure
I noticed your comment on User talk:Rex071404 about the arbitration concerning him. Therefore, of all the arbitrators, I've singled you out to be pestered with a question about procedure. Is there a point at which the "record" is closed so that the Committee can make a decision? After the initial request was made, I added a few items. Then, more recently, I added a very detailed account of one particular illustrative incident. Now, in the course of doing something not directly related to the arbitration proceeding, I came upon something else that I'd forgotten before but that adds a little morsel to the case. If I'd remembered it initially I would've included it, but it's no big deal. My concern is that if the complainants keep adding things, and Rex keeps adding responses or other defenses, we'll just have a version of the Talk:John Kerry debate carried over to a new page, and the ArbCom will never have a completed record on which to act. In requesting a preliminary injunction, I've mentioned why I think speed is important, so I wouldn't want to delay the proceeding by continuing to add things. Any advice you can give on the timing (complaints, responses, ArbCom action) would be appreciated. (I've never been involved in an arbitration before.) JamesMLane 02:46, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * You copied my question to my Talk page and answered it there. I infer that you prefer to have all the discussion in one place instead of bouncing back and forth between Talk pages (I agree, I really dislike that feature of so many Wikipedia conversations), and that you prefer the one place to be my Talk page instead of yours (fine with me).  Accordingly, I've replied there.  Thanks for your response. JamesMLane 14:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche
When can I expect a formal response to my request above re Herschelkrustofsky? This is a matter I take very seriously. Adam 07:28, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * See Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision, Section Proposed findings of fact, where the following proposed finding, "6) User Herschelkrustofsky has engaged in personal attacks directed at User:Adam Carr though association with Adam Carr's employer, Michael Danby who he characterizes as "Australia's most outspokenly fascist Member of Parliament" see" has been added and is being voted on.


 * Also in the section Proposed remedies, "7) User Herschelkrustofsky is banned for one day for making personal attacks." and in the subsection Enforcement, "4) In the event of additional personal attacks by either party, either User Herschelkrustofsky or User Adam Carr are subject to short bans, the duration of the ban to gradually increase upon subsequent offenses." Fred Bauder 12:56, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Dear Arbitration Committee:

I have read the following:


 * === Remedies===

1) Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles.
 * Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

3) User:Adam Carr is banned for one day for making a personal attack.
 * Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

4) Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche.
 * Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

Enforcement
1) Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense.
 * Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

3) If an article is protected due to edit wars over the removal of Lyndon-related material, Admins are empowered (as an exception to normal protection policy) to protect the version which does not mention Lyndon LaRouche.
 * Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

I have attempted twice to restore this passage to the article:


 * Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark has tried to clear LaRouche's name, arguing that investigators and political opponents had abused the legal process to eliminate him. Clark wrote in 1995, in a letter to then serving Attorney General Janet Reno: "I bring this matter to you directly, because I believe it involves a broader range of deliberate and systematic misconduct and abuse of power over a longer period of time in an effort to destroy a political movement and leader, than any other federal prosecution in my time or to my knowledge."[http:// larouchein2004.net/ exoneration/ clarkletter.htm]


 * In the early 1990s, while LaRouche was in prison, full page advertisements, calling for LaRouche to be exonerated, appeared in papers such as the New York Times and Washington Post. Among the signators were heads of state and cabinet-level officials from around the world, including Arturo Frondizi, former President of Argentina; leaders of the American Civil Rights Movement, including Amelia Boynton Robinson (the heroine of Bloody Sunday) and Rosa Parks; former Minnesota Senator and Democratic Presidential Candidate Eugene McCarthy; and prominent artists, such as violinist Norbert Brainin, former primarius of the Amadeus Quartet.


 * It is interesting, and perhaps puzzling, that these individuals came to the defense of a man who has been so universally condemned in the press throughout the English-speaking world.

It had been reverted by administrator Guanaco. When I replaced it he reverted it again, with the explanation that it was forbidden by the AC ruling. I put it back in, saying that I had read the AC ruling. Then it was reverted by administrator AndyL. Could you please explain how the ruling forbids this? The section is certainly factual and I think it makes the article more neutral. Weed Harper 14:14, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * You are correct. There is no restriction on editing of the article Lyndon LaRouche. The only proposition, which was rejected, would have restricted editing by Herschelkrustofsky. I will leave a note on User Talk:Guanaco. Fred Bauder 14:39, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

I would like to call your attention to the following, which indicates that Adam Carr has resumed his campaign of personal attacks, in defiance of the Arbitration Committee rulings:


 * "I have no objection to Snowspinner or some other User not previously involved attempting to write a compromise or composite article incorporating elements of the pro-LaRouche and anti-LaRouche articles. I am not optimistic of their chances of success (it will be like trying to write an article on evolution by merging a Darwinian article and a creationist article), but I am willing to wait and see what they come up with. I am emphatically not willing that Herschelkrustofsky should be the person to undertake this task, since he is not only a LaRouche cult member and thus a partisan in this controversy, but also a proved and notorious liar and slanderer. Anything he writes will be just another attempt to wheedle his lying LaRouche garbage into Wikipedia and will be immediately reverted. Adam 11:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)" (from Talk:Political_views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche

--Herschelkrustofsky 15:08, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please re-consider Re: Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404
On the advice of Mbecker, I am voluntarily abstaining from any John Kerry edits for several days. Also, I have added substaintial information to my section of the evidence page, please review that.  Also, please take note that my principal accuser Neutrality has also been involved in aggressive revert activities at George_W._Bush and yet, though I have also begun to edit George_W._Bush, I have not been involved in acrimonious debates on that talk page nor any reverts there at all. There is no tactful way to say this, but if you look at the state the John Kerry page was before I arrived, I think you'd agree that this entrenched group of editors who is after me (principally JamesMLane and Neutrality) had a very heavy pro-Kerry bias on that page. I truly do want to avoid being kicked out and to that end, have several times asked my principal accuser Neutrality to dialog with me on my talk page and I also requested mediation with him. He declined both. Rex071404 07:34, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * If you feel User Neutrality's behavior should be considered please add your request to the page Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404 requesting whatever relief you feel is justified. Be sure to put some examples of specific edits on the Evidence page also. Fred Bauder 12:21, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky
Has Herschelkrustofsky been formally advised that he must desist from calling Michael Danby a fascist? What was his response? Adam 12:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Right now 3 arbitrators have voted for a remedy which would ban him for one day. I don't know if he understands at this point that he must desist from calling Michael Danby a fascist? As we have no decree on the point I haven't tried to tell him. Fred Bauder 12:40, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

I am not interested in having him banned. I am interested in having him told that he must not call people fascists. Adam 14:14, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * At this point I have just made a request on his talk page. Fred Bauder 15:40, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Re: Rex071404 John Kerry ban
Given the extreme pro-Kerry condition of the John Kerry page when I began editing it and the furious reaction of the entrenched editors there, I am not surpised that Arbitrators would leap to their defense. I am however, surprised that you you do it so easily based on what amounts to their half of the story of a tit-for-tat battle.

With election 2004 underway, the ponderously slow process of the Arb committee means that my "temp" ban is in fact a death sentence.

For your information, I was patiently and thoroughly tallying details (many already submitted into evidence) about Neutrality, etc's equally agressive efforts as mine.

But alas, this Wiki has turned into bascially a pro-Kerry farce - with only the aggresive "anti-Kerry" editors being banned. The pro-Kerry crew it seems, can do no wrong.

Rex071404 16:58, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Note: this is a cross-post - I have responded at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404. Martin 22:18, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Am I allowed to post comments to the Talk page of John Kerry?
Please advise, ASAP. Rex071404 08:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Please don't. Find other areas of interest to edit for now. Fred Bauder 11:03, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

PolishPoliticians
Re: talking to PolishPoliticians, apparently Szopen has already beaten me to it at User_talk:PolishPoliticians, to a degree at least. (s)He is aiming for a long term solution.

I'll put the relevant pages on my watchlist, and help out if/when nescesary. Kim Bruning 20:57, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arb
Thanks for notifying me of the RfAr. I had actually noticed it but was just going to ignore it until I heard from an arbitrator that it was being considered. V V 22:40, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello, Fred.
On VeryVerily's talk page, you mentioned me as being "involved in the dispute." Actually, I'm not a party to this; that matter is solely between Kevin baas and VV. Thanks. :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:50, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ambiguity
Your insistence that snowspinner's comment remain on the arbitration page is in direct contradiction to your stated opinion on the matter, on.

Please either change your proposition, or practice it.

And BTW, I noticed the comment above by neutrality, which is mistaken. Gzornenplatz initiated the arbitration. I simply put on a supporting opinion. By that fact, I am involved in the matter, but i am not the sole party nor the dominant party in RfAr. And there are many parties involved in the dispute (though not neccessarily involved in RfAr), as listed on the RfC, and evidenced by the links to evidence and dialogue on the RfAr and RfC. Kevin Baas | talk 20:10, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the stated policy needs to be rephrased. Any person may join in the complaint or counter-complaint in any request for arbitration. That way we can do the whole thing at once. Fred Bauder 20:32, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Fine, but until the stated policy is rephrased and agreed upon (ratified), the current, instated policy must be followed without exception. Kevin Baas | talk 20:42, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

Per your request, new edit links added to Arbitration case
here Rex071404 06:46, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * And my response is up as well. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 23:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

New Comment
See new comment by me here Rex071404 05:43, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have answered you
here Rex071404 16:14, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Matter of Michael
I don't care about the matter of Michael. What I DO care about is getting Guanaco to stop unilateral unblocking. RickK 22:09, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

IRC Banning
Fred, I've been banned from the #wikipedia IRC channel by Snowspinner, for what he considers "personal attacks" against him.

I don't feel I did make any personal attack, nor am I aware that banning from IRC for "personal attacks" is supported by policy (but with so many policies, perhaps it is and I've missed it). And in any case, I think it contravenes policy for Snowspinner to take action in a dispute to which he is a party to.

In what way do I contest the banning, and Snowspinner's banning for a dispute he is party to?

A log of the conversation leading up to the ban is given at User:Orthogonal/IRC ban by Snowspinner.

Thanks. -- orthogonal 04:59, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Ugh. Sorry you're getting dragged into this. The short form is that orthogonal has been harassing me in IRC for about a month. Today, in the name of "parody" he changed his nick to Sn0wsinner and proceeded to make a few comments at my expense. Though this was in the context of parody, with other users imitating Jimbo and Larry, between the nick and the fact that orthogonal's feelings towards me have been made clear in the past, I was not amused. I told orthogonal to stop when I got back to the channel and found that. He decided to push the issue and troll me. I banned him.
 * That said, IRC's not your department, so I doubt you're worying about it that much. Fennec has indicated that he backs me on it, noting that he wanted to ban him himself. But I figured I'd at least explain, since this got dumped on your talk page. Snowspinner 06:14, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Arb case
I have added an additional charge against Wolfman this evening: Violation of the "3-revert rule". See evidence here. Rex071404 04:07, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tibet
Hi, you recently reverted my reversion of the same POV text added to two articles about Tibet. Are you sure that's what you meant to do? Markalexander100 07:22, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Although Anon's edits might be edited a bit, they seem simply the Chinese point of view which should be included. Some language needs to be added so that important events like establishing a Chinese presence in Lhasa can be seen from Tibetan, Chinese and international points of veiw. Fred Bauder 10:23, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

The revised History of Tibet section is fine; I've edited out the duplication in the Tibet article, re-added Anon's deletion, and deleted Anon's misstatement of fact. Markalexander100 10:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RickK vs. Guanaco
I request that you recuse yourself from this case, it is clear from your actions that you are prejudiced against me. RickK 04:49, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * There is no basis for recusal. The only interaction we have ever had resulted from you removing material which others have placed in your arbitration case. Twice you have removed it, twice I have restored it. Just quit editing what others feel is relevant evidence. Fred Bauder 11:54, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Not true. You added the email from Jimbo about his decision concerning Michael AFTER the creation of the arbitration.  You are manufacturing evidence.  You are insisting on including irrelevant information.  RickK 19:30, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Further explanation
here 20:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)