User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 43

re: Wikipedia talk:Articles about ongoing enterprises
What are you trying to do? Deleting large blocks of Talk page content is usually presumed to be vandalism. I'm trying to assume good faith but it would be much easier if you'd explain what you're doing on the Talk page itself. Rossami (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I guess... But the way you're trying to archive is splitting discussions up and leaving dangling discussions threads.  And the edit summaries leave those of us unfamiliar with that specific dispute very confused.  Why not just archive the entire page (following the more conventional archiving processes) and keep only the most recent discussion threads?  It's really not clear why this particular part of the discussion deserves the special treatment.  Rossami (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My guess is that most readers of the talk page did the same thing I did - ignored the entire thread as a partisan diatribe. The page itself had pretty much died and could be tagged as rejected regardless of the parts of the discussion that appear to concern you.  Unless you really think that there's something worth saving on that Talk page, I'd just archive everything into the pagehistory and let it go.  Regardless, now that I know what you're intending I won't revert if you do a partial archive again.  Thanks for taking the time to explain.  Rossami (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser
Dear Mr. Bauder. Could you review my urgent motion for checkuser of User:Zurbagan and User:Pulu-Pughi. I have a reason to suspect sockpuppetry by a person, who previously used socks to create an article about Ziya Bunyadov, and I also suspect that it is a permanently banned user evading the block. I provided more info here:  These 2 accounts keep on edit warring on Ziya Bunyadov and post messages in support of each other, as you can see from their contributions. In my opinion this is an urgent issue that cannot be delayed any longer. Thank you. Grandmaster 20:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Starwood RfAr
Rosencomet has written a rebuttal at Kathryn's comment. Here's the original, which I've subsequently moved it back into his/her section here. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 05:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests_for_arbitration/Wilkes%2C_Wyss_and_Onefortyone
Based on Requests_for_arbitration/Wilkes%2C_Wyss_and_Onefortyone, Ted Wilkes was blocked for repeated block evasion, eventually blocked for 1 year from March 19, 2006. I think that his block would have expired, except that "contribs) blocked 'Ted Wilkes (contribs)' with an expiry time of indefinite (block to expire after 1 year as per arbcom ruling.)" Suggestions? - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 07:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your follow-up. I decided to bring this up because I was just reading over WP:PROB and saw that he was misblocked. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 14:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your follow-up. I decided to bring this up because I was just reading over WP:PROB and saw that he was misblocked. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 14:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Error management
The page above has been nominated for deletion. Please feel free to go to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Error management to take part in the discussion. John Carter 16:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Hello Mr. Bauder, I have send you an email regarding the Azeri-Armenian arbitration case. Please check it, thanks - Fedayee 21:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol @ googling my name
Hate to bring this up, but may I ask if you are even considering believing this nonsense? If you are, let me know - the guy who runs that place has modified revisions, and I've got some screenshots to prove it if need be. Hopefully that's all that needs to be said, so bye. Milto LOL pia 07:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip Fred Bauder 13:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Freep
Fred, if you want to consider probation against FAAFA will you also please formally oppose closure. Thanks. Thatcher131 00:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I also hope you are aware of these edits just prior to his 10 day block which just ended. This was his last deathbed conversion.. --Tbeatty 02:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Fred This is what I posted in the FR RfAr in reponse to TBeatty's post above, which he also posted in the FR RFAr. If I am allowed to stay - I suggest one of those sanctions where 2 individuals are barred from interacting. The fact that he's so focused on me that he dedicated much of his user page to taunting me, and actually requested unprotection of my user  talk page ( he's edited my user page multiple times without my permission) is troubling. You might look at his edits to known sockpuppet DeanHinnen's userpage too, where he reverted an Admin to insure that Hinnen's parting polemic would remain. (refactored as he requested unprotection of my talk page - not user page. He edited my user page on 3/15, but only discussed such on 3/24 Apology issued to TB on the RF RFAr)
 * Quit taunting diff, baiting diff 'Stalking' diff and harassing me diff - follow the intent of BLP, make sure you tell the truth, don't side with known sockpuppets who may agree with your politics -  and we won't have any problems. By the way, I find it very disturbing that you requested unprotection for my user page (which you have edited without my permission multiple times). diff I had them re-protect it.
 * Thanks again for your consideration and reevaluation, Fred. - FaAfA Aloha 05:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So now you have conditions that must be met before you will behave? You do have balls. - Crockspot 12:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fred
I am not writting this to appologise, showing remorse has no relevency in this situation because to say the truth I still believe I have done nothing by ill intention neither believe having harmed the project in any considerable way. But this again is totally irrelevent. I already packed my bags, but I just am wondering. If I was really that disruptive and putting those I disagree with down by harassing them or personally attacking them. I just want you to pay attention to that. leaving message from wikipedia (see summary) This Turkish member on the summary was announcing about him leaving the project soon after he came because no one wanted to listen to him and he was victim of incivility. The guy did not start revert warring or has not harmed in any way, he tried to make his point but in vain. I was the only member who supported him, here was my answer. I defended him answering to and Armenian member: ''Assume good faith, he is a new user, and is apparent he is still not well aware of the policies, but there is nothing he did that could bring me to believe that he is acting in bad faith. Don't drive him away, unless you want only bad intentioned editors like neurobio contributing. Besides, you haven't yourself been that wikipedias way either as new editor at first. And this is what the guy answered in my talkpage: I must first say how happy I am for your support, because I was really discouraged to continue to making further edits on wikipedia. Thank you very much.'' (neurobio is the guy who was the subject of my attack worthing the last ban by InShaneee which I reported myself) Irronically the same day Adil came back on Wikipedia. Unfortunitally the guy did not have the support I promessed him because I was occupied elsewhere after the disruptions started(guess where). One more recently, another Turkish member with whom I disagree with his opinions but saw he contributed with no ill intention, his contributions having improved, I said: You have improved a lot since you have registered and I like that Deniz. I can provide many such examples, hidden here and there. I welcome good members and try preventing them to leave the project. I doubt you will find any other member involved in this case who have a history of keeping those with whom they might disagree with, they rather see them out. I don't. Even after having strong opinions about a topic, I am still able to distinguish between what fit in an article(my standards being: neutrality, notability and relevency as simple as that, something both Eupator and Fedayee have adhered to) and what don't. It really does not matter for me to even justify why I got mad, and if it is an apology you want, I won't give any because I will not pretend to be sorry for what I did. What I can say, is OK, the arbcom did not want me to do it, it just had to tell it, I don't agree, but out of respect will adhere to. When Khoikhoi blocked me last, I said, unblock me and I will contribute on science related articles it was for three days and not attack during that period and won't contribute anywhere else. I respected that, Grandmaster I believe even asked that he could request from Khoikhoi for me to contribute on an article on mediation while this restriction was imposed, but I gave my word, at a point Khoikhoi came and said to me that I could post there, I respected my words out of respect for him. I am not forced to believe that my attacks were actually harming the project, I could still have adhered to it even if I think that my action was giving positive results. The biggest evidence of that is the Armenian Genocide article, it became a total battleground, and I am totally embarassed of all the crap which happened there and I hope the Arbcom does not take a look at. But I achieved preventing bad intentioned people from both side on harming the entire project. I have cleaned the talk page, while Thoth and Neurobio(I do not show double standard, one from each side) once a while still come there to throw their comments, the only way to show those people they are not welcome for me was to be harsh. It was only after cleaning it, and later getting it archived that now the door was open and peace happened there. I did not use any ressources and waste administrators time, I alone settled the entire thing which worthed Khoikhoi barnstar to me. This alone will compensate every wrongdoings I might have done past and present, I might not have contributed in a lot of articles and you are not forced to believe me, no one beside me could have done that, and you could ask to every administrators which were involved on that article. Since the Armenian Genocide article was a bomb, which an Arbcom cases could not have settled it, and believe me, you don't imagine what kind of people were comming there. I did not start reporting every single person, I did not start on an endless edit wars. I just took the responsability, to take the necessary dispositions to clean the mess and use everything to do that. Just for your information check the edit history of the Armenian genocide article and see how many time it was protected, imagine what mess there was in the talkpage.

All what I am saying here, my point is that this is not a black and white situation, and that I have already accepted my fate, I will leave after this and bring this experience I acquired here elsewhere and contribute there. At this point a ban or not would have made the same differences, as a concensus from the arbitrators would have made the same differences: "We don't want you to do that." That would have been all..., I could have lived with that, because agreeing or not is my personal convictions, but out of respect I would have done that, the embarassement alone is enough, on the other hand the ban was a punishment, I personally did not vote during the last election for a committee entitled to punish, but rather prevent harm to be done. And this was what I kept telling to Fedayee and Eupator, that the Arbcom was not punishment, it was to prevent harm being done. So, I won't add anything other than you could have trusted me or not, you would not have known if I would have respected the word I could have given, but if there was 99% chances I would do it again, the slight 1% would have been enough to give that chance since at this point the one or two more personal attacks which could later result of the ban will never outweight the one year of positive contribution which the community might have seen. I could leave, like I said, I accepted that fate, but one word from the Arbcom could have been enough, one word. You were the one who told me during Cool_Cat case when I posted about neutrality on the newsgroups to continue interpreting it the way I do it. It would have taken one word also to tell me to stop that. And I believe Eupator and Fedayee would have just done that, both don't worth a ban, they have shown what they are capable of. Fad (ix) 03:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 03:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Did I do what I said I would do? He had locked countless numbers of articles what was I supposed to do, I threatned him for him to stop it. When someone vote to keep a duplicate article and does not see anything wrong on doing that(the delete was so obvious that the admin who handled it deleted it without any concensus), when some misuses good intentioned conflict resolutions, when someone abuses the report incidences. Do you really think that the community is even interested to hear this totally worthless intestine war? We didn't even have a Clerk asigned to the case with that much members involved. When I have gone very mad with Grandmaster for the first time, it was again for a very good reason, he suggested an extention to a policy which defied logic, and I will not place possible intentions, I'm sure you are even not interested in that. I refrain voting when I think I should abstain, I am ready to make concessions more than anyone else, I was the one who made most concessions when Francis was moderating the Nagorno Karabakh article, I have chosen nearly all of Francis propositions. The only thing I have requested from Grandmasters part was to admit Adil's wrong and a little bit of honesty, but zilch. I never got that. I never accepted that and will not accept that. I am tired of having to explain each single dot I add which ends up with loads of argumentations and finish by me giving it up to prevent another edit war. I am tired of having to explain what neutrality means, what is notability, what is relevency. I am tired of having to repeat the same old rhetorics, writting and writting over, and getting as answers as if nothing was answered. I have tried to tutor Artaxiad, I have requested from Armenian contributors to behave, the only thing I expected from Grandmasters part, was at least once admitting Adil's wrongdoings, not even saying him to stop. Tell me, how am I even supposed to assume good faith and keep blind eye in a situation that the wrongdoing is so obvious that there is even no point to discuss about, and still no answer. There is hardly any policies which have not be broken, every good intentioned community placed systems being abused including this one. I handled the situation alone, I did not start abusing the system by reporting people with whom I disagreed with. Never ever reported anyone for 3RR, never ever reported anyone for personal attacks, incivilities. Yet, someone will start abusing the entire system a leg on the table to report the bite. Check the number of times I have been reported to InShaneee when everyone know I had a problem with that administrator they kept reporting me to that same person. Now you could start presenting each diff. one after the other. But I will challenge you to find any single little dot I have made in those articles which was not properly discussed. I can unplug my computer when I am mad, but someone who does not understand the guidelines and policies affecting the content of the article, how could they behave, tell me? Fad (ix) 05:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Scientology problem?
Hi Fred. Thanks for your support in the Barbara Schwarz controversy. If you feel like getting involved in another one please check out this article: Altered texts in Scientology doctrine. Although I think it is on a fairly worthwhile subject it is almost entirely original research. Standard Tech is bad too. Thanks. Steve Dufour 12:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix
Dear Fred.

I would like to make a request to you regarding your decision to ban Fadix. Fadix has decided to leave the Armenian Wiki project (including all the articles related to the current arbitration), and therefore a ban would be unnecessary. As the following link shows, Fadix did leave Wikipedia at some point. The only reason he came back was that the Armenian Genocide article, which virtually has been created (in its present form) by Fadix, was being continuously vandalized, and Fadix was urged by Armenian members to return to correct the situation. Even the administrator User:InShaneee, who had caused Fadix to leave, had realized his mistake and took steps to protect the Armenian Genocide article, but he was unsuccessful. When Fadix leaves the Armenian project, the article will likely be vandalized by the same users have tried to do it so many times every time Fadix has left it.

I would therefore respectfully ask you to reconsider your decision of banning Fadix, as he is leaving the project. I would also ask you to take steps, as User:Inshaneee had, to prevent the Armenian Genocide article becoming vandalized, after everyone finds out about Fadix' depature. Thank you.--TigranTheGreat 01:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I quite agree regarding the problem. We are in quite a fix in this area, as we want neither information regarding the historical atrocities of the Turks, nor the modern atrocities of the Armenians (and Azerbaijanis) to be suppressed. We need uniform sober, conservative, fact based editing. In the case of Fadix, it was necessary to look at his behavior as a whole. Fred Bauder 01:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

True. I need to add, though, that in the case of Fadix, he has never needed to raise his tone to make sense, and has never used it as a way to enforce his position (he basically has very little number of reverts, compared to the other users). For some time he has already announced his wish to the Armenian editors that he will be leaving, and was waiting the occasion to do so (he only wants to concentrate on the Genocide and Biology articles). He was provoked after the unfortunate arrival of User:AdilBaguirov (which affected all users, by the way, both Armenian and Azeri). What pushed him over the edge further was that he found himself forced by Adil and the other new Azeri members to remain contributing in those articles in which he had no wish to contribute anymore. In sum, it seems that with his mind set on leaving, his ban will be unnecessary. Cheers. --TigranTheGreat 02:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Langan entry
Hi, I'm an editor that has for the past couple of weeks worked on the entry on Christopher Michael Langan. It is an entry which, as you know, has had a few problems. I wanted to draw your attention to something, as well as solicit an opinion, if you are not too busy. I apologise for having to give a little bit of background.

When I began to edit the Langan entry, I soon realised there was a serious NOR violation, involving discussion of a non-notable lawsuit not reported by any secondary sources (and I note that the ArbCom hearing against Asmodeus also made a finding that the entry must not contain any original research). When I made the case for the removal of this section of the entry, there were initially two results: 1) I was informed that "this material had already been passed," and therefore did not need to be discussed; 2) I was warned that I was in violation of the ArbCom ruling against Asmodeus, because I was engaging in a "similar pattern" of editing. I then appealed to User Jimbo Wales, who immediately intervened to remove the offending material, explaining this intervention here. The material had been included in the entry for many months, so I believe this outcome displeased the editors defending it.

Some further editing issues arose in the wake of this intervention. One consequence of this was that I was blocked for 48 hours by user FeloniousMonk. I believe any objective examination of the evidence will show that this block was improper and abusive, and I note the opinion of Mr Wales that this block was unwarranted. For many of the details in relation to this block, I urge you to examine the material collated on my talk page (apologies for not providing the diffs here).

I wanted to draw your attention to this chain of events, firstly because I note that one of the reasons given for the block was my "violation" of the ArbCom ruling against user Asmodeus, since according to FeloniousMonk I was engaging in a "similar pattern" of editing to Asmodeus (the other reason given was that I was disruptive, which I also contest). FeloniousMonk never explained what a "similar pattern" of editing meant, despite being asked to do so both before and after he imposed the block (and despite his offering to do so). It is my belief that FeloniousMonk blocked me for reasons of a content dispute. After imposing the block, he also attempted to conceal the fact that another editor had suggested to him another path for resolving the dispute (see here).

It seems to me that FeloniousMonk abused the ruling of the ArbCom in question, but also that the ArbCom ruling is open to this abuse, and that this part of the ArbCom ruling is therefore questionable.

(Parenthetically, I note for the record, in case you think I may be engaging in a kind of vendetta against my blocker, that I have not discussed the block with FM since he imposed it, nor have I referred to it on the talk page of the Langan entry. I also note for the record my opinion that the Langan entry has been plagued since the ArbCom ruling by blatant violations not only of NOR but of BLP, specifically editing without sensitivity, introducing controversy, as well as bias and malice, although the situation may now have settled down a little.)

As is the way with these things, there are many more details and complexities than I can go into here. But I am wondering what you think of the behaviour of administrator FeloniousMonk, as well as of the ruling itself. I wanted to ask your opinion firstly because of your prior involvement in the ArbCom hearing, secondly because I think your opinion may be valuable, and thirdly because I believe you have recently been involved in an ArbCom case involving an editor blocking for reasons of a content dispute. I apologise again for imposing all this on you, but would be very interested in your response, should you find the time to examine the relevant material. FNMF 01:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This article poses problems which are at the limit of what we are able to deal with. The court records are available, and accurate, but don't have a great deal to do with the life of the subject. Who, but one of us, would bother to research them? If there are interesting things to say about this man, positive or negative, such a petty dispute is not one of those things. FeloniousMonk erred, but his error is understandable in light of the trouble we had with Asmodeus. I doubt I have time to examine this matter in detail. Fred Bauder 01:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your prompt response. I understand if you are busy. I would just like to point out, however, that both the NOR violation, and FeloniousMonk's "err" in blocking me, followed in the wake of, and were enabled by, the ArbCom ruling against Asmodeus. In my opinion this suggests the possibility that both the findings of fact and the rulings of this ArbCom were overly one-sided. I suggest it was interpreted by some editors as vindication, on which basis they granted themselves license to commit serious policy violations. I also feel it necessary to point out that FeloniousMonk was the editor who initially introduced the NOR-violating section (about a courtcase where evidence was heard from only one side), a section which, almost unbelievably, originally contained one-sided allegations against Langan's wife (see here). This begs the question of motivation (specifically, of his motivation for introducing the section, his motivation when he refused to address my concerns about the situation, his motivation when he improperly warned me, and his motivation when he improperly blocked me). Thus to speak of all this as “understandable” in my opinion downplays evidence of bias and abuse. Thanks again. FNMF 02:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Hello Fred, please check your mail. Cheers. - Fedayee 01:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Lookingheart returns
Hi, Fred. Writing about the editor Lookingheart and the Rainbow Gathering article. As you may recall, you were involved in mediation of this article and edit war. Lookingheart repeatedly inserted unsourced information into the article. At last word, you seemed to indicate you would ban Lookingheart if he continued with this. While I have no firm evidence he was the contributing party, the information that he wanted included in the article has since reappeared (and was removed). I invite you to look into this. Thank you. Bstone 19:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong RfAr
I believe you may have mistyped your vote on FOF #7. I presume it was meant to be an "Oppose" along with the others. Newyorkbrad 15:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yes...
Can you replace Clayboy's page with ? A period is not very informative... 58.178.20.186 10:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Being informative was not my intention. Fred Bauder 12:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Clayboy&action=history

Perhaps I'm wasting my time
But I'm really tired of the harassment and editwarring that certain editors feel that they can get away with. I've said it before, and I'll say it again now, I don't know how to deal with them and I find it very troubling that few appear to be dealing with it at all.

There was discussion of article probation in the Ilena/Fyslee Arbitration. Has such a thing been done before? I'd like to learn what it means, and what's happened when it's been tried.

Also, if you didnt already notice, I disagree with your observations, but that's really only a trivial part of my reply. --Ronz 01:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz again
Hi Fred. Sorry to bother you about this again, but it seems like her article has gotten even worse. Thanks. Steve Dufour 12:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)