User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 4

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

Proposed findings of fact / Rex arbitration
To facilitate easier access to the David Brooks article, I edited the URL to an AltaVista/NYT partnership one which requires no login:

see David Brooks NY Times, 9-11-04

(this is your old URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/11/opinion/11brooks.html)

19:25, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche again
Hi Fred,

Could you please review the recent edit war at Eurasian Land-Bridge and consider whether Weed Harper and Hershelkrustofsky have violated the ArbCom ruling regarding LaRouche related "original research" ie:
 * 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.

Thanks AndyL 18:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * If I may express my view, the relevant part of the ArbCom decision is the part that allows reference to LaRouche only where "highly relevant." Since the article in question is about a proposal authored by LaRouche, I would submit that the inclusion of LaRouche's name is highly relevant. Andy and Adam are upset that LaRouche is being given credit for having authored the proposal, but I think that the evidence put together by Weed Harper makes the case. I would also ask you to consider whether the continued (and presently protected) attempts to inappropriately redirect the article may constitute vandalism.


 * Sincerely, Herschelkrustofsky 22:18, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would interpret the decision to exclude areas like the Eurasian Land-Bridge which are original research and thus subject to reversion. Areas which are included would include articles about his political activities. Fred Bauder 23:09, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion the Lyndon LaRouche intiative regarding the Eurasian Land-Bridge is original research by Lyndon LaRouche and thus subject to deletion. Fred Bauder 23:30, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * I have found references to the Eurasian Land-Bridge proposal on the web, in press accounts from Hong Kong, India  and  , and Japan . None of these media are affiliated with LaRouche, so how do you reconcile this with your view that it is "original research"?  Weed Harper 20:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is his particular spin added to promote him which is at issue. Unless it is in the article on him. Fred Bauder 02:11, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * So, if I understand you right, it is not a question of original research, but rather that you feel LaRouche is not "highly relevant" to the article? Please advise. Weed Harper 15:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To the extent LaRouche references are relevant to the Eurasian Land-Bridge proposal it is because of the original work he, and his wife have done with respect to it. Fred Bauder 17:40, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * What if Weed's article were edited so that it describes the proposal, but doesn't mentioned LaRouche or his wife? That would seem to me a bit peculiar, but preferable to deceiving the reader by re-directing the article to "Asian Highway." --Herschelkrustofsky 20:31, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * LaRouche's proposal? Fred Bauder 23:42, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be LaRouche's proposal. Catch-22. But, out there in the real world, the proposal exists, it is acknowledged by the all-important press citations, and, there are numerous links on Wikipedia to an article that is presently re-directed to an article about a different topic. --Herschelkrustofsky 01:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok, well it would seem best to let others straighten that all out, how about editing something about something else that interests you? Most of the known universe lies open to your editing. Fred Bauder 01:26, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Rex071404 asks you to read his comments
here 17:52, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, to better see what I have been up against, please review the brief edit war over at Ann Coulter and read the recent talk page comments there  18:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, other than "anon ip" editors, please take notice that it is consistently the same few editors who revert, revert and revert me across different articles. 18:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, please take notice of user Kizzle who appears to be a sockpuppet and has not edited any pages other than those I am editing. Not even John Kerry which based on Kizzle's edits ought to interest him/her. 00:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * If you have something to say to me, say it to my face. don't write it on someone else's talk page and have some anon-ip tell me about it.  If you want to open dialog write on my page instead of someone else's.  FB, I apologize for this thread, it doesn't belong on your page until Rex converses with me first. --kizzle 03:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And, user Nysus (to a large degree) is another one who has done nothing but a edit a few similar articles and the lines of the above examples  16:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I started another new page tonight: Original Intent. I did this after not finding those words in a "find on this page" browser search of the United States Constitution page. Though my new page was quickly redirected to Originalism by user Neutrality, that's not the reason for this comment. I leave this note to point out that there seems to be no substanative discussion or article on this Wiki about the ongoing legal arena bruhaha over the issue of "Original Intent" (though I did add what I could to "Originalism" tonight). This really surprises me as to my knowledge, this issue is squarely in the center of the conservative legal theories which would block rulings such as Lawrence v. Texas. I haven't looked yet, but I am wondering about this Wiki's coverage of the issue of "Judicial Activism" as well. 06:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Rex, your history is not good. In the early years of the Republic there were a number of communities, for example, Oneida Community which adapted unusual sexual practices. They felt secure that the Liberty guaranteed by the Constitution protected them from legal harassment. It was Mormonism which eventually resulted in the Supreme Court abrogating the Liberty of American citizens in that respect as there was popular pressure to do something about polygamy. Fred Bauder 12:21, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Fred, you said of me, "your history is not good". Do you mean my evident grasp of it? Or attempts to portray it? I am not sure what you mean. I cannot evaluate your statement and respond to it fully without more information. Please advise. Even so, while I am waiting for your reply, I will however, guess and try to reply.

Are you trying to suggest that simply bcause fom time to time in the past, the USA had occuring within its confines, various sexual practices that deviated enough from the "norm" that looking back, we ought to interpret the existance of those practices as defacto evidence of "license" for said practices, under the Constitution? If so, I don't agree with your reasoning. Fred, aren't you an attorney? If so, certainly you must know that evidence of lack of enforcement against something, is not evidence of license for that same thing, yes?

Fred, it is inarguably true that the vast majority of all those who designed and installed our government and guiding/governing documents (Declaration of Independance and Constitution) were theists of one ilk or another - that is, most (if not all) at minimum, believed that there is a God and He grants us our rights. It was from within this view of the world, that these leaders peered out. And it was from that vantage point, that they wrote our 1st laws which set up our initial set of stated presumptions. Simply because it was so widely understood back then that marriage meant one man and one woman, that it was not explicitly stated anywhere, does not mean that's not what the personal and governing view of the leaders of USA who authored our charters was premised on. Now, if people want to come along and say "hey, gay marriage, great!", they are free to do that. And under our system of self-governing laws, if they get enough votes, they are entitled to it. But please don't tell me that say the Massachusetts Constitution which was written by puritans and pilgrims, etc. and is the oldest active one in the world, omitted a definiiton of mariage as man/woman because they intended to leave the door open for man/man. etc. No, it was left out for the same reason that there is no mention of cannibalism or space travel either - no one expected anyone to be looking for that, so it was not addressed.

As for my grasp of history, I am offended that you would make such a broad sweeping condemnation of my understanding. I'll have you know that I've read quite a bit. As an example, I'll ask you, have you read these: "900 days - The Seige of Lenningrad". "Murrow, his Life and Times", "Ford, The Men and the Machine", "The House of Morgan", "Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee", "The Story of Civilisation" (Will & Ariel Durant), "Maus", Maus II"? This is a sampling of some I can remember off the top of my head. Have you read them all? Suffice it to say, we differ in our views, not because I am under-informed, but because I apply a different test to what I read than you and therefore come to different conclusions. By the way, since many of my discussions on the Wiki have beeen about Vietnam era issues and John Kerry, etc. I'd like to suggest that you read "The Tunnels of Cu Chi" if you haven't already. It is very interesting.

Also, neither do I agree with your suppositions about what any Oneida Community members felt. How do you know what they felt? Are there personal accounts written by them which reflect their feelings about "Liberty guaranteed by the Constitution"?

16:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Interesting stuff Rex, but to focus on the issue at hand, quote from the Supreme Court dissenting opinions or influential conservative commentators. Don't try to do your own analysis and put it in the article. Fred Bauder 16:52, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think that I was doing that. The 60%+ fact supports the word "disruptive". On the other hand, there is no consensus or majority view - among the USA citizenry - that the case is "most important" or even "important". The word I replaced was less on point than the word I replaced it with. The sentence originally read "Some suggest that Lawrence v. Texas may eventually come to be seen as one of the most important decisions by the United States Supreme Court.". To this, my edit was a big rhetorical "so what"! At least my edit had the 60%+ to support the "some" in my version of the sentence. Who are the "some" that the sentence referred to before I arrived? The answer is: gay activists. This sentence and the warfare Neutrality started over my edit to it is a 100% perfect example of the incredibly systemic liberal bias imbued onto parts of this Wiki. The word "important" was never flagged as being the mere supposed opinion that it is - why? Because basically all the editors on that page agreed with a view that the case is most important. And if not, how did that word stay in there so long as the unchallenged speculative opinion it is - all the while the article was progressing towards featured status? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 17:28, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dog references
Hi Fred, I'm just using the recommended APA style references from the cite your sources page. I used the semicolon because this better divides up the authors. HTH. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:09, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

P.S. it would be a good idea to break up references and further reading, because we need to know what the cited material is that goes into this story and what is thought to be good reading material that is supplementary to the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:20, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It can be confusing, expecially if the text of the article does not contain comments which refer to the references. In this case all three are references and are interesting further reading. Fred Bauder 15:19, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Dogs
Fred, I'm sorry that we seem to be not quite understanding each other on the dog page. I just wanted to say that there is so much work to do--and so much information out there--on everything related to dogs that I am always delighted when someone else starts pitching in to any dog article. I don't want to scare you away from the dog article by being annoyingly stubborn--not even by being just plain old ordinary stubborn. For example, it's nice to have more info on dog society. And there are so many other topics to cover, too! :-) Elf | Talk 21:55, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kenneth Alan
What is happening with regard to Requests for arbitration/Kenneth Alan? It's been nearly a month. Mintguy (T) 17:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User:209.135.35.83
What is your relationship, if any, with User:209.135.35.83? Fred Bauder 16:51, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

209.135.35.83 is an NAT IP address. All individuals within this site appear as this site's NAT IP addresses. I am not responsible for the actions or writings of all individuals within this site. Lance6Wins 17:59, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How do I tickle your messages box without copying the information to both pages or having the discussion split over the two pages...hard to read that way. ;( Lance6Wins 19:06, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth
I saw the letter from Mr Meatyard and your response on the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth talk page, Fred. Thanks for defending the article's editing process and our principles! Please note that this article was when I first saw it, 11 Sept, a complete advertisement, even though for a worthy non-profit cause. As soon as I saw it, I listed it on Cleanup for being advertising. The language used was the typical promotespeak of school websites, a little toned down compared to the exstasies of self-praise that you see on US private school homepages, but basically similar. I thought then that the text had probably been lifted from NAGTY's own website, but haven't been able to verify this since. I still think it came from somewhere, though: it looked quite unlikely to be the work of young students. Anyway, once the Cleanup tag was in place, User:Estel started to add new material, and I jumped in and removed most of it (:-( !) and discussed NPOV with her/him, see talk page. We're still working together, mostly in the sense that s/he adds, I copyedit.

I understand that the page the way it looks right now, the result of Estel's and my negotiations, might not inspire confidence. The process is a gradual one, partly because I'm anxious not to denigrate the contributions of Estel (who may indeed be a young NAGTY student), both on general principles and especially because Estel knows about the subject and I don't. I can't start adding free-hand material, I can only edit and rewrite that which appears, and do it tactfully. Such processes, as you know and NAGTY don't, usually have better end results than the middle stages seem to promise. For instance, once Estel rewrites the last paragraph (which certainly is an embarrassment right now) far enough for me to understand its drift, I think I might be able to take it the rest of the way. It would be a big help, though, if more editors joined us, especially more NAGTY students.

Btw, I don't exactly know which version of the article had given rise to Mr. Meatyard's concerns--even a few days may make a difference, as the page is being actively edited--but if he includes my editing from 12 September onwards in his reference to "even younger students", he's mistaken about that. I'm a Swedish university professor, and not a UK resident. The UK educational system is a bit of a mystery to me, so I knew I'd be likely to insert inaccuracies if I tried to clean up the article by myself. But as one of a team including students at the school (I wish there were more of them than Estel around right now), I think I have useful skills.

There is one way NAGTY could indeed help, not by rewriting the page themselves and asking for it to be protected and have its history deleted (which seems to be the drift of Mr Meatyard's letter), but by supplying up to date source material to us. A more detailed and sourced document, concerned more with "the remit and contractual obligations of the Academy" than appears on their own website, that would be great. (Well, perhaps most of this information is already on the website, but if so I have difficulty distinguishing it among the more pre-chewed and, well, again, promotional items.) A single fact-rich text from them for us to mine, that could be placed on a temporary subpage, prominently linked from the article, would be something that could really help us in removing any inaccuracies and adding facts. (And if young students should mine it too indiscriminately, which could easily happen, I will be removing blocks of text from the article again.)

In case you think it might be useful to pass this note on to somebody — anybody — please feel free. And very much shorten it any way you like for the purpose (I hadn't realized how horribly long it was getting, sorry about that). Thanks again for your staunch defence. --Bishonen 09:41, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks for responding to this quickly. On the same subject, when you are responding to emails sent to Jimbo, rather than to posts made publicly on a wiki, please post a draft for feedback, spell checking, &c. Your response is unlikely to seem 'merely the opinion of one Wikipedia editor', even though the original message was posted publicly.  +sj +  21:31, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Umm... I don't know if the material itself was actually lifted from a source, I don't find it too improbable that it was actually written by a student that is far to used to looking at texts of that nature coming from the academy itself. The creator of the page is, by all accounts, a student (and most likely refered too in Mr. Meatyard's letter). I'd confirm that I am a member, and no doubt there are a number of others that contribute to the page (the history seems to show that a number have looked at it. The "offensive" material that was removed, by the style of the comment, appears to have been removed by a student. I apologise profusely for the need that I generate for copyediting, and the overall shodiness of any of the text that I write - the only feeble excuse that I can offer would be that they are generally written during the last five minutes of a rushed lunch time, or else sneaked into some lesson. Truthfully though, I am not so used to writing in an encylopedic style as I prefer Prose and thats why there are sooo many adjectives ;-). I'll go now and try to rewrite the last paragraph which... (I assume that you are refering to "Publications",) does look a bit of a mess.
 * At the time of Barry writing the letter, which I assume was written on about the same day as sent, was about the last day that I preformed an edit on the page. I assume by "even younger students", he refers mainly to me, on the basis that my name is the only one (except Bishonen's and various IP addresses) that appears in the history - and the nickname of "Estel" would most likely be recognisable to him (I am also younger, by a year). Estel 28/09/04 2125 UST

Disruptive editors
I've noticed in several proceedings now that there's been a trend - mostly led by you, it seems - to allow minority viewpoints a legitimate defence for disruptive behaviour, and to allow comparatively new disruptive editors to get off scot free. As when I discussed this with a couple of other arbitrators on IRC, the only answer they could come up with as to how the conduct of Rex and L6W differed from RK's was that he'd been around here longer.

I'm afraid just don't understand the rationale. If there's a viewpoint that needs to be presented, then that's a challenge for all the editors working on that article to do so effectively. Surely there's better ways of going about this than allowing someone who has persistently proven that they are unwilling or unable to edit neutrally, to then drive all the other editors in that area to the brink of madness. Ambi 04:09, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is those who hold a minority viewpoint who are motivated to present it. Where they go wrong is to assume that having presented their viewpoint, that settles the matter and that they have then trumped other viewpoints. The role of other editors is to help put such viewpoint in their place, expressed but identified as to the point of view expressed. Editor with a perspective not covered adequately in an article are dispruptive from a Wikipedia policy standpoint only if they won't follow policy, but keep on, like a bulldog, insisting on having their perspective dominate the article. As to new editors, there is a possibility that they don't understand Wikipedia policy and ought to be given a fair chance to conform. With old editors there is a possibility that they can be brought around to an understanding they must give up their old habits now that the NPOV policy is being enforced, not just mouthed. Fred Bauder 11:05, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Editor with a perspective not covered adequately in an article are dispruptive from a Wikipedia policy standpoint only if they won't follow policy, but keep on, like a bulldog, insisting on having their perspective dominate the article. If this is, indeed, your definition of disruptive behaviour, I'm a little bit bemused as to why you think the two editors I'm referring to don't fit under that definition.


 * Granted, new editors may not understand Wikipedia policy, and do need to be given a chance to conform. Watching Requests for mediation, I often see a fair few of these people go through there, and often, they do go on to become useful editors. Indeed, I myself was one of those, back in the day.


 * But by the time things have gotten to the point of arbitration, where there's been the RfC, where mediation has often been declined (and often by the user before the committee), I just don't think they're likely to get a clue anytime soon. In those cases, I believe that giving them chance after chance after chance just harms Wikipedia, by both directly driving other contributors away from editing those articles, and keeping pages semi-permanently protected. Tolerance is good. Too much tolerance is Slashdot. Ambi 11:52, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ambi, what about editors such as JamesMLane, who (from my perspective) have mendacity as their watchword when it comes to their approach to inter-editor dealings? What do you say about someone (JamesMLane) who, on one hand, has an avowed goal of driving editor(s) off the wiki, but on the other, seems to think that others should want to dialog with him to any degree, hmmm...? Or what do you say about someone like Neutrality, who, as the edit history and talk page at Lawrence v. Texas shows, engage in an edit war with no talk page dialog, before or after? No Ambi, you have nothing to say about them, because you sympathize with their POV. And for the same reason, you are one of the lurkers who is ready to pounce - in efforts to hassle both myself and VV, whenever you can (example: your comments above). 16:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Amazing. You accuse me of being biased because I sympathise with their POV, when I clearly stated above that the other user I was complaining about is someone whose POV I agree with. Secondly, you accuse me of hassling VeryVerily. Others might have done this, but I have no problem with him or her, and indeed, any contact I've had with them has been positive. Ambi 01:20, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misreading to whom you refer. If so, please accept my apologies. 01:27, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mintguy RFAr restored
Per the Arbitration policy, I've restored the request, since one week has not yet passed. Although it looks like it will be rejected, the policy should be followed as it affords appropriate time for me to appeal to the arbitrators, and perhaps change their vote. -- Netoholic @ 14:26, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

LaRouche
I believe User:Weed Harper has violated the ArbComm's decision regarding original research and Lyndon LaRouche. See where, despite your intervention in Talk:Eurasion Land-Bridge, he has continued to revert the article to a state that contains "original research". AndyL 18:33, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If it is indeed original material which originated with Lyndon LaRouche it may be removed. Any user who re-inserts it may be subject to ban.

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

So if they keep reverting an application for a ban may be made. Fred Bauder 18:51, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Ban?
Please see my reply to you here.

Frankly, I am appalled that you are capitulating to complainers so easily. In fact, I am sufficiently offended at your inability to see the venality of that core group of accusers, that I am quitting this Wiki, effective with this edit. And whether or not I ever return in some form, is not something I am going to discuss with you. It's been a little over 30 years since I was last kicked out of a sandbox. Personally, I feel that once every 30 years is enough. Lastly, while your Arbitration style may be one that you think is "successful" the only thing you accomplish is driving away conservative editors. And by the way, I am right about Dedham, Massachusetts and I don't give a rat's ass whether an ego-blinded fool like Feldspar is willing to admit it or not. Unless and until you devise a better system for taming the mob rule around here, this Wiki will never be home to cutting edge knowledge on controversial topics. PS: If "Feldspar" isn't an an interested party in disguise, I'll eat my hat. Too bad I won't be here for you to prove me wrong. Oh well. Warmest Regards, 21:24, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)