User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 6

Ruy Lopez
Ruy Lopez violated remedy #4 (Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily) two times, reverting the article about Joseph Stalin with no attempt at discussion. What to do? Boraczek 22:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Soviet Union
The text you added to Soviet Union did not fit into the structure of the article, which summarizes main articles on specialized areas (history, politics, foreign relations, economy, republics, demographics). Note that Politics of the Soviet Union is blank. I suggest that you use it as a basis to start an article there. 172 13:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I moved it to Politics of the Soviet Union. 172 13:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fred, why don't you move the text you added about Soviet Union to Wikinfo, where articles expressing one of the positions are welcome? It was clearly written without the NPOV goal in mind and doesn't belong in a neutral article. Paranoid 22:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think your changes to the Soviet Union article were the best hope to have an article that tells the whole history of the country. I am trying to find sources for everything I put in the article although I doubt they will be acceptable to 172 who seems to have a very strong POV. Libertas

Agree, totally, he is artful but the end result is dismal. It's a strange article indeed on the USSR that doesn't mention political repression etc! It's kind of like arguing the sky is green. I don't really know how to rebut such a POV. I tried to make some changes which have been rejected by Paranoid and would no doubt be similarly rejected by 172. I think reverting is pointless (tried that!) so I'll just leave the article as it is with the appropriate tag. I would like to work with you on fixing it. I don't like communists, and I don't pretend otherwise but I think I am capable of improving the article without an agenda. Libertas

LOL, yes, I will come up with sources wherever I can find them, although I notice 172 denounces sources other than his own! Even the BBC! Libertas

Noting the text that you added on totalitarianism to the Soviet article, I added a subsection on internal security to the politics section of the article. This way, we can deal with the subject while fitting it into the structure of the article. 172 09:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I don't know if it was a concession, though. I was happy to add it once I'd figured out how to fit it into the current structure-- the more links to specific institutional pillars of the regime in that article the better... Regarding Politics of the Soviet Union, I spent a few minutes copyediting it before getting your note. I can see a structure starting to coalesce there. It turns out that your "text dump" was a pretty good basis for starting that article. I'm sorry for being too critical when I first saw it... Also, thanks for you intent to talk with Libertas. 172 11:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fred, I welcome your intervention. I don't want to - or want to be seen to - be browbeating 172. I am challenging his POV and he is responding. I get the impression he doesn't like being challenged and I guess none of us do but he is certainly capable of standing up for his POV. It seems I am not the first user to incur 172's wrath and probably won't be the last. I am certainly digging up more quality references to Soviet dictatorship, although it seems he is conceding on that point, perhaps. Now he just wants the reference buried deep in the article. He is clever. But the article is suffering from his clever POV pushing. Libertas

I'm proposing the idea of replacing the Soviet Union article with Soviet Union/temp, which is based on LOC text (something that can satisfy all the contending points of view). Given all the browbeating going on on the talk page, this strikes me as the only way of reworking the article so as to get it unlocked. Please take a look if you're interested. Thanks. 172 15:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blocks of Irate and Cookiecaper
I was under the impression that the third revert was the blockable offense. I don't really care, I'll unblock these characters on your authority. JFW | T@lk  07:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Closely related
Sir, in your posting regarding the LaRouche Arbcom decision, here, you state that Frederick Wills is "closely related" to Lyndon LaRouche. I have been reviewing Wills' life and find little available outside of LaRouche sources (and little within LaRouche either). I have written a biography drawn from the few web-available sources. He is marginally notable as a foreign minister under a minor dictator, a leading cricket player of his time and country, and a co-founder of the Schiller Institute. Yet he is not mentioned in the articles on LaRouche or the Schiller Institute, so claims of his importance to LaRouche and Schiller Inst. seem hollow. From LaRouche sources, he was not even an officer of the Schiller, just a board member. If his name did not appear on the Template:LaRouche, only one article would link to his biography, an article on Third World debt moratorium. So there is nothing to indicate that this man was a close associate of LaRouche. LaRouche has been involved with numerous organizations, with what must have been scores of other board members. LaRouche was not even on the board of the Schiller himself. In short, I am requesting an interpretation of the Arbcom decision. Please reconsider Wills' status as "closely related to LaRouche", and his place on the LaRouche Template. (Please let me know the correct way to proceed with this request if it needs formal approval). -Willmcw 00:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Wise answer. Thanks. -Willmcw 19:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Libertas RFC
I've just opened an RFC regarding RFC's habitual personal attacks and other disruptive behavior. I've no idea if you're able or interested in getting involved, but I figured I owed you the courtesy of letting you know that your comments on his talk page are invoked as evidence. Let me know if you have any concerns. RadicalSubversiv E 03:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Radicalsubversiv RFC
Aside from the merits of the case (which has a vast body of evidence going back a long time), I am having technical difficulties creating the the comment page. Can you let me know how I go about doing this. Libertas

I have tried to extend the olive branch to Radical but I gather he's not interested. I appreciate your advice though. There were technical problems saving new pages at the time I had problems. All fixed now. Libertas

Translation of en:Wikinfo
Hello Fred, I translated en:Wikinfo to de:Wikinfo. I left out a few sentences which might offense some people so I have called the translation "partly". --Roland2 15:33, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Marduk02.jpg
The original uploader of this image left two years ago (unless he/she changed usernames), but you seem to have edited it. It has no source on its copyright, so if possible, could you use a copyright tag on it? Thanks, ugen 64 01:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Same with Image:Marduk ziggurat.jpg. ugen 64 01:37, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've never noticed these before and know nothing about their status. They may be homemade or scanned from an older book, judging from their looks. Fred Bauder 10:54, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin
SlimVirgin deleted information from Richard Mellon Scaife about Scaife's support of "research about Lyndon LaRouche", citing the arbcom decision. This was information that could in no way be construed as "promotion of LaRouche." Is this a legitimate reading of the decision? Weed Harper 16:11, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I deleted the information because there is no source for it other than the LaRouche organization, and Richard Mellon Scaife is not an article that is "closely related" to Lyndon LaRouche; therefore, material that emanates only from the LaRouche organization, with no third-party source, is not allowed to be inserted. The information Weed Harper inserted was the promotion of a Lyndon LaRouche conspiracy theory about Richard Mellon Scaife for which there is no evidence, so it certainly would be regarded as a promotion of LaRouche's ideas, if not a promotion of the man himself. SlimVirgin 17:06, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

I googled "Richard Mellon Scaife" and "Lyndon LaRouche" and while most of the 400 or so hits were LaRouche sites, not all were, see. Richard Mellon Scaife seems to have taken an independent interest in La Rouche and that has been reported by others, besides La Rouche. Removal of the link to Executive Report was proper, I think, as Richard Mellon Scaife is not an article directly related to La Rouche. I think a one or two sentence mention of his interest in La Rouche is appropriate. Fred Bauder 23:22, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Fred, the article you provided, written by Chip Berlet who is now a Wikipedia editor, says that Scaife once attended a meeting at which LaRouche was discussed. This was a meeting attended by several others, including journalists. That's far removed from Weed Harper's claim, which he inserted into the Scaife article, viz. "Scaife also was involved in funding research against Lyndon LaRouche", citing a LaRouche publication as his source. The Scaife funding claim is a LaRouche fantasy, and Weed Harper was in clear violation of the ArbCom ruling by inserting it, then inserting it again when I deleted it, as Scaife is not a "closely related" article to LaRouche, except in the minds of LaRouche supporters. Weed Harper also deleted the article's external links while he was there, for reasons best known to himself.
 * If we mention that Scaife attended a meeting at which LaRouche was discussed, we'll have to mention other meetings Scaife has attended over the years where other people were discussed; or else we'll have to say why the LaRouche meeting was special enough to be singled out by Wikipedia for a mention. This is just an attempt to get an unverifiable LaRouche conspiracy theory mentioned. SlimVirgin 19:28, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

I do not find the violation clear. I think there may be other evidence if you look at all 400 of those hits. Fred Bauder 22:23, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * However many hits there are on Google, Fred, this information originated with the Lyndon LaRouche movement. They invented a conspiracy theory called the John Train Salon, which Herschelkrustofsky even created an article about, before it was redirected. At this "salon," a number of people, including Scaife, met with journalists several times, and supposedly plotted the downfall of LaRouche, which is why he was convicted and jailed, according to the movement, and why the media blackened his name. There is no evidence of this conspiracy outside the LaRouche movement. The only "evidence" that exists is an affidavit sworn by a LaRouche member who claims to have information about these meetings. Any Google material you find that appears to confirm this is a false echo. I won't torture you with any more of the details. I personally don't care whether Wikipedia says LaRouche is a monster or whether we endorse him for president. The only thing I care about is that we cite sources that are reputable, and they never are with these editors. SlimVirgin 01:24, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

People have tried to deal with the La Rouche movement in various ways and their activities may properly be reported. Fred Bauder 12:26, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ironically enough, the reference Fred found on Google to the article by Chip Berlet, is a reference by Berlet to the John Train meeting he attended. --HK 16:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Correct, and he's therefore in a position to know that the meeting was not as you and LaRouche describe it. SlimVirgin 01:10, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Another SlimVirgin caper
I note that SlimVirgin has now removed an external link to the Schiller Institute website from the Friedrich Schiller article. In your view, Fred, is this an appropriate usage of the arbcom decision? --HK 02:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * LaRouche's Schiller Institute, a far-right extremist cult, has nothing whatsoever to do with the philosopher Friedrich Schiller or his ideas. We might just as well place a link to Adolf Hilter on the socialism page on the grounds that Hitler called his movement "national socialism." Also, I'm unclear as to the appropriateness of having this discussion on Fred's talk page. If you'd rather we didn't, Fred, please do say. SlimVirgin 02:59, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

As I barely edit on Wikipedia, this is an ok place. As to the link, I think it probably belongs in a paragraph in a LaRouche related article, which sets forth details about how the Schiller Institute site relates to La Rouche. Isn't it his wife's project? If you look at the site, it is mostly about La Rouche ideas, with only a gesture towards Friedrich Schiller. Slim's edit was good. Fred Bauder 14:33, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Autoblock
A block against me expired at 12:34 today. It is now 15:07, and I find myself unable to edit. The reason I am given is: "Autoblocked because you share an IP address with "Jakew". Reason "user page vandalism"." (from the mailing list) Fred Bauder 16:05, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --fvw *  16:33, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

OneGuy in violation of arbitration ruling
Hi. You participated in Requests for arbitration/168.209.97.34. OneGuy is violating the part of the ruling against him by continuing to make personal attacks against me. Please see Talk:Islamophobia. This is a quote from OneGuy "Gosh! Are you playing games or are you really this stupid?" Can you please let him know that rules apply to him too? 168.209.97.34 13:46, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Housecleaning
To all those on the ArbCom: Man, you guys cleaned house! Great work. My number one hope for the 2005 ArbCom was that the backlog would shrink due to prompt decisions, and you all surpassed my hopes. My hat's off to you. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 20:46, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

RfA User:WikiUser
Fred, what is it exactly you don't understand about the concept of recusal? - Robert the Bruce 12:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche arbitration
FB - I saw your comment on the Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2/Proposed decision in which you wrote of HK, "basically he edits in two areas, La Rouche related articles and in classical music." I believe you are incorrect. Here is a list of all the more than 150 articles that the HK team has edited: User:Willmcw/sandbox2 You'll see that only a few are music related (and of those, several of the edits were to express LaRouche theories). Many of the article edits are related to esoteric topics, which are purely LaRouche theories. (Counterculture, Henry Luce, Tavistock Institute, etc).

Separately, the last ArbCom decision on LaRouche banned the re-insertion of LaRouche original research in edit wars. I have presented a complaint about this, but have received no reply from the ArbCom, even to dismiss it. Can you let me know the status of this complaint? Thanks, -Willmcw 23:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fred, the arbom is voting on the disruption aspect, and appear to be voting in accordance with your claim that Herschel edits only in two areas: LaRouche and music. Sannse has changed the vote citing your comment, but your comment is mistaken. Herschel edits in a wide variety of areas, invariably inserting LaRouche material when he gets a chance, or feels he can get away with it. Can you please correct your claim, or provide some evidence for it, so that the vote is based on accurate information? Many thanks, SlimVirgin 02:44, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Attn. Fred:


 * I am never one hundred percent sure that I understand all the Wikipedia rules, but I have read the temporary injunction, and I believe that this post by SlimVirgin and this post by Willmcw are in violation. Weed Harper 21:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Herschel, you should read the injunction more carefully. The bold is mine. It says:

"'User:Cberlet, User:Willmcw, and User:SlimVirgin are also prohibited from editing articles on Template:LaRouche or creating new articles related to the LaRouche movement pending resolution of this matter, though they may continue to work in the present sandbox articles Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox, Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox and Talk:United States v. LaRouche/sandbox. Arbitration pages relating to this case are not included. This includes editing by anonymous AOL accounts."

The links you provided are to Talk pages, not articles. Cberlet, Willmcw and I have not edited "an article on Template:LaRouche or created new articles related to the LaRouche movement." Regarding my own edit, I copied a recent comment posted by Mrs. Erica Duggan, the mother of Jeremiah Duggan, to the bottom of the most recent Talk page of Jeremiah Duggan, as she had mistakenly posted it to the Talk archives. I added no content of my own. I must say it's nice to see you persist in trying to cause us trouble. SlimVirgin 21:23, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Nofollow/Vote
Hi, you've caused havok on the page Nofollow/Vote by doing one or more of the following: converting Þ to  or þ to, Ð to  or ð to. Presumably this is happening automatically with your browser, which presumably is Microsoft Internet Explorer on Mac OS 9 since that's the only browser/OS that seems to have a problem with those letters in this way (if you know this to be incorrect please inform wikitech-l at wikimedia.org).

To fix this, you can do one of the following: – 20:38, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
 * Use another browser such as Netscape Navigator.
 * Install another operating system such as Debian GNU/Linux, NetBSD, OpenBSD (or Mac OS X which works on some computers that Mac OS 9 works on).
 * Refrain from editing these pages or suggest changes on the talk page since your edits have some very undesired side-effects.

RFA comments
Why did you remove my comments?

me and xed
I am not trying to rock the boat here, but I actually do not mind Xed writing comments in my evidence section -- I pretty much consider his edits to my space as just more evidence I'd want to present. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  22:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Do as you're told Fred - XED . talk  23:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You have removed my comments three times now. Don't do it again - XED . talk  15:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Xed
He continues to add comments to my section on the evidence page. I have explained to him that I can choose what to include as evidence or not, but he cannot edit this space. He has by now also violated the three revert rule. I'll inform Theresa too but I hope one of you will take appropriate action. If I revert one more time I will have violated the 3RR -- thought I wonder if that is okay in protecting my space. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  19:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Everyking clarification
Hi Fred, since you were one of the arbitrators who accepted the Everyking case I am letting you know that I have requested a clarification on the ruling on the talk page for that arbitration, since it may not be on your watchlist. The link is: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Everyking. Thanks, silsor 10:32, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ward Churchill is Not An Indian
I am an enrolled member of Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and I used to work for the BIA. I added into the article the written opinions of people that have researched Churchill's Indian ancestry and 99% of these Indian folks point out that Churchill has not provided the basic information required to prove that he is an Indian. I put it up last night and it much of it was taken down early this morning. It was information where I provided sources for the comments. I understand that what I wrote can and should be edited. But taking out information that provides sources and citations seems to be an attempt to stifle the information. Dear Fred Bauder, it IS fair to ask if Churchill really is an Indian. He is taking away from actual Indian people the ability to speak for themselves. He has build his whole career on being someone who has experienced the oppression of a minority culture. It is similar to a white middle class Protestant person from Idaho was writing books about himself being a Jew in Hitler's Germany. And don't even say that I just made a inaccurate analogy because Churchill himself compares and uses Hitler and Nazi analogies. I'm sure that is how you learned about him in the first place because he made this most recent comment about 9/11 victims are all "Eichmann's." Look, providing information about whether you are an Indian or not should not be that difficult. Why? You have Indian parents. It is simple as that. Even if you don't have brothers and sisters then you have Indian parents and your parents have brothers and sisters. Correct? Why doesn't anyone in Indian Country know any of these people? This is NOT a cheap shot as you indicated above. It goes to the heart of who he claims that he is. As Suzan Harjo pointed out: Churchill is taking jobs and speaking engagements from real actual Indians and building a whole career on it. Those jobs and speaking engagements should go to actual Indian. Also, Harjo made the point that Churchill's comments are having a backlash and where is that backlash going? On to Indian Country. Look, no one believes that he should not have the right to say what he wants. We all believe in the First Amendment even if it is difficult speech. However, just don't run around and claim that you are an Indian when you aren't and that you personally have been oppressed. Let's say that I am a white person that lives in Kentucky and I attend a Baptist church and my parents came the United States from South Africa, do you really believe that I could run around and write books on Irish experience of oppression in Belfast? No. But that is what he is doing. And you are calling it a cheap shot. It is not a cheap shot. It goes to who and what he is. He is what we call in Indian Country a Wannabee. There is a whole tribe of Indians called the Wannabee Indians and he is the Chief. The people that making the complaints about his fake Indian heritage are not conservatives by any stretch of the imagination either: Suzan Harjo (worked for Bill Clinton), Dennis Banks (Founder of the American Indian Movement), etc. He can say wherever he wants about 9/11 or America, but he shouldn't lie and claim that he is an Indian when he isn't. And schools like the Univ of Colorado should do a better job of doing there homework when they hire a someone and put out to the world that he is an Indian because he isn't.Keetoowah 17:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that your edits were removed from the article. I did not remove them, although I did think about how to edit that material. I will look further at what you wrote on my talk page when I get a chance. I am in agreement with your distaste at Ward Churchill putting himself forth as a spokesman for the Native community but even more at those who have accepted him as a spokesman, like the people at the University of Colorado who put him on a fast tenure track, bypassing others, most of whom were not even interviewed. However, judging from his appearance I do think he probably has some Native American ancestory and feel we should take his word for it. The real issues have to do with his actions and ideas. Fred Bauder 18:11, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Fred, this quote of yours "However, judging from his appearance I do think he probably has some Native American ancestory" is the epitome of racial stereotyping. I am part Native American (no joke) and I am extremely shocked you would say this. BTW: I was on your talk page just now to inquire why you did not answer the email I sent to you a few days ago at "fredbaud@ctelco.net". Is that not your email address? I was attempting to contact you from the "wikien-l" mailing list archive pages of April, 2005. Also, my email was on the subject of a "user block" and I see that you did comment about a different "block" to another user . Why did you not answer my email about a "block"? Suffice it to say, while my "block" question has been resolved elsewise, I am still interested to hear back from you. I thought you and I were in good standing, dialog-wise. Your no-reply surprised me. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 08:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response. I don't disagree with his right to speak.  I don't agree with a lot he has to say, but that is irrelavant. He does have a First Amendment right to state it.  I just believe that he should be held out as an Indian, when he isn't.  That's all. And I don't believe that we should take his word for it--concerning his alleged Indian heritage.  I know that you have your opinion concerning that and that's fine.  I'm not trying to convince you but it IS an issue for most people in Indian Country.  I forward to your respons.Keetoowah 20:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the issue needs to be framed in that way, that "it IS an issue for most people in Indian Country". It is not an issue with this 1/64th Native. Fred Bauder 20:53, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear XmarkX, Ward Churchill admitted in front of dozens of reporters and in front of TV cameras, last night, February 22, 2005, that he is NOT in fact an Indian. He has been lying about his heritage for many, many years and people like me, who live and work in Indian Country everyday, have known for years that he was out and out lying about his heritage.  I repeat:  Ward Churchill during his speech at the University of Hawaii admitted that he is NOT an Indian.  The comment, word for word, was published in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Vol. 10, Issue 54--Wednesday, February 23, 2005 Churchill attacks essay’s critics by Craig Gima.  I'm going to attempt to be gracious but I have to say that you and Fred Bauder missed the boat on this one.  I'm not going to do it tonight because I do need sleep, but there is going to be huge re-write of the article tomorrow because the article is just flat out wrong now.  These "allegations" of "fabrications" have been provable facts of fabrications.  It calls into questions so many other things about the guy.  What other things is he out and out lying about???  But more importantly the way that the section on his fake Indian heritage needs to be completely re-written.  Considering the arrogant and sanctimous way that he has treated people like me in Indian Country who dared to question his Indian heritage claims over the years, I think that Indian heritage section needs to play a more centralized role in the article and tomorrow that role is coming.  So many people--who do NOT even live in Indian Country, who do NOT work in Indian Country--made the claim that to dare question the great Ward Churchill's fake Indian heritage was a "cheap shot."  We have been hearing that from non-Indians for many, many years and now Churchill has admitted that he lied about it for over 20 years.  He claims that it merely a misunderstanding created by some sloppy reporters.  That is a damn lie too.  He has been claiming Indian heritage for over 20 years.  It is written on either the front cover or back cover of his numerous books.  He refers to the fake Indian scam in newspaper article after newspaper article.  He committed fraud when he applied to the University of Colorado.  The Denver Post has published his employment application and on that application he claimed that he is Indian for affirmation action purposes.  That is a damned lie.  There is going to be re-write and Jodi Rave's comments are going back in and all the rest.  Your attempts to stifle the topic has ended by Churchill himself.-Keetoowah 04:04, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Fred Bauder: So what? They misquoted him.  He is NOT an Indian.  I placed in the article a citation from either the Denver Post or the Rocky Mountain News where the Keetoowah Band specific states that that Churchill is NOT a member of his tribe. XmarkX, however, removed it.  XmarkX claims that the citation, on this topic he was not very specific, was redundant.  That article was NOT redundant.  All of the information that placed in the article is going back in.  And going forward the burden will be on others to prove that the information should not be in there.  In Honolulu, Churchill contradicted himself again.  There are citations where he claims that he is Creek and now in Honolulu he claims that he is Keetoowah.  But in the same breath he ADMITS that he is less than one fourth and therefore he does NOT qualify to be a member of the Tribe.  You think that because the Honolulu paper states that they misquoted him that gets him off the hook on this issue.  It does NOT.  He has claimed, once again to the either Denver Post or the Rocky Mountain News--once again, it was in my original edits and taken out by XmarkX--that he qualifies for membership in the Cherokee Nation.  You are pointing to his comments in Honolulu as some kind of vindication for Churchill.  But it is NOT because in the Honolulu speech he contradicts the comment that he made that he qualifies for the Cherokee Nation, but to be a member of the Cherokee Nation he would have to have one quarter and he clearly stated that he does NOT.  Once again, it comes back to this edit war.  For some reason, XmarkX does not want these contradictory comments of Churchill concerning his fake Indian heritage to be placed in the article.  I don't know why.  However, the information is going back in.  Neither you or XmarkX have given sufficient reasons to keep this important information about Churchill out of the article.  I have given five or six different articles where the guy contradicts himself on this topic and it has been deleted from the article.  Look: if you both are sympathetic to his anti-America rants that's fine, but why do you feel that since he engages in anti-America rants that takes him off the hook for lying about his fake Indian heritage.  I cited a direct quote from the Keetoowah constitution that specifically states that to be a member of the Keetoowah Band the applicate must be one quarter and XmarkX took the citation out of the article.  Now in the speech in Honolulu, Churchill admits that he is NOT one quarter and therefore he does not qualify for membership.   In Honolulu, he is basically admitting that he is not Creek because he did NOT even attempt to make that claim again, with all of the press watching him.  In Honolulu, he is basically admitting that he is not Metis as he has claimed in the past.  In Honolulu, he admits that he not a member of the Keetoowah Band.  And the Keetoowah Band has flatly stated that he is not on their tribal roles and that they do NOT consider him a member of the Band.  After his comments in Honolulu, his claims to Indian heritage seems unbelivably weak and I don't hear very good arguments from either you or XmarkX, who keeps taking out relevant information, why the citations should stay out of the article.  I even put a citation to a Denver Post article where the reporter did genalogical research on Churchill's claims--and the results are printed in the Denver Post article--where the Denver Post reporter concluded that Churchill is not an Indian based upon his parentage, but yet XmarkX took out that citation from the article.  What is the deal??  Let's just put the information out there and let people decide for themselves why does XmarkX feel that he either has to decide for the Wikipedian readers or protect Churchill.  Let's get all of the information in one place and let reader decide for themselves.  Let them see where Churchill claims to be qualified for the Cherokee Nation and then later when questioned he admits in Honolulu that he does NOT qualify for the Cherokee Nation.  Let them see for themselves that Churchill used to claim that he was a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, but now in Honolulu he no longer claims Creek ancestry.  Let them see for themselves the ancestry investigation work that the Denver Post did on the guy and they will see that one person that he claims is Indian is four generations removed from him and that even though he claims that the person was Indian, researchers know from historical records that the guy was probably NOT an Indian at all and was definitely an Indian fighter.  Why does XmarkX feel that the comments of Jodi Rave, a Montana reporter, who once took a class from Churchill, must be removed from the article.  Rave has reported he mistreatment by Churchill to the school administrators at Colorado U.  She reported the abuse and mistreatment by Churchill in the Daily Coloradan.  She has now written an article for her current employer in Montana and XmarkX claims the Rave information is not backed up enough.  Why the cover up?  Why?  This man has been abusive to Indians throughout his career and for some reason his followers don't seem to care.  They just like the anti-America rants as far as I can figure out.  However, his anti-American rants would NOT have gotten the attention that they have if did NOT claim that he was Indian.  He got his professorship at Colorado because he claimed that he was Indian.  The guy does NOT even have an academic PhD.  All of the information is going back in the article.-Keetoowah 03:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Xtra
I have moved the eivdence. Xtra 22:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Acting as a proxy for Everyking
I believe if you assist Everyking in violating an Arbitration Committee decision you could fairly be subject to the penalty he would have been subject to should that be the determination of any administrator. Fred Bauder 02:21, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Then I won't do anything that might encourage the suspicion that I am acting as a proxy for Everyking. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I have no intention of acting as a proxy for Everyking, or even giving the appearance of doing so. His views and mine on Ashlee Simpson are very different.  My intention was not to help him to evade the consequences of an ArbCom ruling but to listen to him and, if I felt that a revert was defensible, to perform it.  I realise that my wording and thoughts at the time went beyond what I had originally conceived, when I said: "I do sincerely offer to act as your proxy for Ashlee-related topics where I can on the most generous interpretation (which I may not agree with) see the point of your wish to revert. Subject to my own customary self-imposed limitation of one revert per day."  I can only plead temporary indisposition owing to a visit to the pub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2
From: Requests for arbitration/Xed/Proposed decision:

2) After debate and a response from User_talk:Jimbo_Wales which favored discussion of the matter, Template:Helpout was restored. Although no longer linked from the In the news section of the Main page the article Donations_for_victims_of_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake which is linked to from a number of Wikipedia pages has been developed by Wikipedia editors.

This section is inaccurate. The 'response' from Jimbo you cite (jan 3) came two days after this Helpout template was created (not, as far as I know, restored) on jan 1 by User:Dbachmann. Your narrative gives the impression that Jimbo said "let's have a discussion" and then the template came back as a result. On the contrary, all mentions by Jimbo of the idea of a Tsunami banner were negative before the consensus of editors forced Jimbo's defenders to stand down. Two days later he posted his message.

3
3) The article ... addresses the use of government funds, not voluntary contributions and is thus irrelevant to solicitation through links from Wikipedia, see Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Evidence

This is a lop-sided reading of the article, which attacks altruism itself. Quote "It is Americans' acceptance of altruism that renders them morally impotent to protest against the confiscation and distribution of their wealth. "

4
4) User:Xed characterizes Wikipedia as largest online lunatic asylum in the world and questions the value of donations to Wikipedia ...

These would more accurately read User:Xed jokes that Wikipedia is the largest online lunatic asylum in the world, but more seriously compares the value of donations to Wikipedia ... etc

7
7) ... with Xed defending the sockpuppet User:Pinlighter, apparently over from Stormfront...

This is a classic example of poisoning the well, by associating me (!) with some association with Stormfront. You are practising the sort of thing which got User:RK blocked. Not once did I 'defend a sockpuppet', my comment was purely pointing out User:Jayjgs hypocrisy.

8
8) Xed followed with a personal attack on User:Slrubenstein ...

You have removed the context again.

Misleading narrative continued
By now, I can only assume you are either being wilfully misleading, or deliberately provocative. In other words, a troll. My blood pressure is certainly suffering.

Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Proposed_decision is still misleading, lacking as it does specific dates, and suggesting all Jimbo wanted all along was a discussion, whereas the creation of the template was against Jimbos express wishes, and those of his supporters. - XED . talk  19:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Calcutta -> Kolkata name change
Hi there. I noticed you voted in the Naming policy poll to keep the Wikipedia policy of naming an article with the most familiar English name. You may not be aware that another attempt has begun to rename the Calcutta article to Kolkata, which is blatantly not the most common name of the city, whether it's official or not. If you want to vote on the issue you can do so at Talk:Calcutta. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 14:05, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please don't call me obsessed, Fred. Everyking 21:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pending case in ArbCom
Hi Fred, I am addressing similar message to all ArbCom members dealing with my case against Rovoam. I was just wandering if you read my message Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Baku_Ibne%2C_et_al.. I want to make sure that you or anybody else from ArbCom did not miss that message before casting his/her vote. I would appreciate any comment on my message. Thanks. --Tabib 15:29, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Biweekly special article
Dear Fact and Reference Check member,

After many months, the biweekly special article has been brought back! The article we will be referencing is Titan (moon). Please do your best to help out!

I'm asking all members to verify at least three facts in the article, and I'd really appreciate it if you could try and help with this. We have about 19 members, so if even 3/4 of us try and fulfil this 'dream', that'll be 45 references!

If you need some information on how to use footnotes, take a look at Footnote3, which has a method of autonumbering footnotes. Unfortunately, they produce brackets around the footnotes, but it seems to be our best alternative until they integrate the footnote feature request code into MediaWiki. You may be interested in voting for the aforementioned feature request.

Cheers,

Frazzydee|&#9997; 20:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tkorrovi vs Psb777
Fred, I ask that before you accept this dispute for arbitration that you consider my argument that no substantive case has been made by Tkorrovi and no remedy is sought by him. Due process requires that mediation be completed if it has not been abandoned (it seemed to fizzle out) and that a focussed complaint be made - one which it is possible for me to answer. No legal court or real world arbitration committee would ask me to answer charges which have been made in such a vague fashion. You will doubtless have seen my other comments along this line on the arbitration page. Paul Beardsell 07:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fred replied on my Talk page: ''Tkorrovi has put a number of diffs in his request which I have looked at. Granted most date from May, 2004 but the last few date from December, 2004. I also looked at the article history and looked at recent comments directed at him. Whether he is good or competent editor I cannot say but you do seem to attack him personally in a rude way. And he does demonstrate that by the diffs he has cited. Fred Bauder 11:35, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)''

Fred, you are a lawyer! Surely you find it strange that an allegation is made and before a response can be tabled you are already saying you agree with the complainant! Tkorrovi's diffs are highly selective. Before you start saying he has demonstrated anything you should hear the counterargument. Otherwise I can have no confidence in the fairness of the procedings. Should you choose to hear the case (you have already made your mind up that there is a case to answer) and should you find against me (and it is impossible not to see prejudice/pre-justice in the above paragraph) then presumably you would like me to think I have been dealt with fairly. But already you are taken in by Tkorrovi's bluster. Why should I answer the case at all if the cards are stacked against me? I have a strong case that will take some time to make. Should I bother? Paul Beardsell 04:34, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fred replied on my Talk page: ''Tkorrovi has established that there is enough of a problem that it needs to be heard. Any evidence you present will also be considered. Fred Bauder 11:32, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)''

Fred, you repeat your error! If what you say has been established is indeed established then it would be a fool's errand for me to try and argue. What's the point? It has been established, Fred Bauder says so. And he is on the arbitration comittee, and he is an arbitrator on the case! BUT THE CASE HAS NOT BEEN HEARD. This is not justice but merely a parody of it. Paul Beardsell 21:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

different section
I'd like to ask you to account for your votes on the proposed decision talk page of my arb case. Thank you. Everyking 21:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What I am dealing with - Template:Requests_for_arbitration
Coolcat_vs._Fadix

I do not enjoy being declared a troll, have a hidden agenda (many ocasions avalible in history but also avalible in the actual arbitration discussion as well), and many other good stuff ... --Cool Cat My Talk 04:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It isnt just personl, anybody who does not believe in armenian genocide have been mistreated as well. Also keep in mind that two users have been my shadow ever since I introduced myself to the Armenian Genocide article --Cool Cat My Talk 04:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also stuff like this gets me: --Cool Cat My Talk 04:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tkorrovi vs Paul Beardsell
User Chinasaur moved comments from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tkorrovi vs. Paul Beardsell, remaining his there and moving mine , just after I put a link on an evidence page to that page  because it contains important information. Also, he moved a question about his nationality to my talk page . I understand the reason, but I demand for me an equal right, to remove mentioning my nationality against my will by Matthew Stannard from that page (unfortunately cannot provide diff, as the commentary was moved that after).Tkorrovi 02:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reponse to Rex071404
User:Rex071404 wrote above:
 * this quote of yours "However, judging from his appearance I do think he probably has some Native American ancestory" is the epitome of racial stereotyping. I am part Native American (no joke) and I am extremely shocked you would say this.

Rex071404 also brought this matter up on my talk page, and I am taking the liberty of replying here. In my understanding of the term, "racial stereotyping" has a strong perjorative component. A notorious example would be the practice by some police departments of stopping black drivers more frequently than white ones, the assumption being that blacks are more likely to be engaged in illegal activities (or whatever). I don't think Fred was being perjorative with that comment; it was a simple observation. While we can argue whether Fred is correct, I don't think we can claim he was being offensive. After all, we all carry traces of our ethnic background in our faces. -- Viajero 10:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * What Viajero refers to is racial profiling. No one is suggesting that Fred is doing that. However, on this Wiki, there is a redirect from Racial stereotype to Ethnic stereotype and on that page, one finds this definition "...an overly-simplified representation of the typical characteristics of members of an ethnic group...". This I feel, is what Fred is suggesting; that somehow Ward Churchill has facial features which typify him to be Native American. Implicit in such a suggestion, is that Fred could elucidate for us what facial features he sees in Mr. Churchill that allows him to assert (as he did) "However, judging from his appearance I do think he probably has some Native American ancestory. Fred is not a forensic sketch artist with a background in human anthropology. And since he's not, his obervations about Mr. Churchill's appearence can only be coming from a layman's obervations. That being the case, I'd rather Fred keep his opinions about personal appearance to himself. And I'd also like him to recognize that his limited personal knowledge about human appearances does not qualify him to draw inferences about a person's race (or ethnicity). Certainly skilled and trained observers are able to see general patterns of appearance among large groups of persons with similar heredity, but such observations ought only be made in the context of scientific study - not for pigeonholing people in our minds 'he looks like an Injun to me'... Granted, Fred did not phrase his statement that way, but this is the message I took from him. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 13:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with your comments about NOT judging people based upon their looks. I think that is completely stupid way to decide if someone is an Indian or not.  However, I don't think that we should engage in the actions of forcing people to apologize for stupid comments.  It stifles Free Speech and it makes martyers out of people like Ward Churchcill.  Churchill is a complete and total fraud and he is being defended by a bunch of people that think they are doing the right thing.  These are people that has a tunnel vision view of the world.  They believe that if someone is in an academic environment then no one has a right to question their authority.  It is blind, stupid, brain-washed, knee-jerk liberalism, but it is their right.  You read his comments and you got it.  You knew instinctively that the comment was stupid and wrong-headed, but the folks that blindly support Churchill when he lies about his Indian heritage truly believe that they are doing the right thing.  You and I know that to be stupid, but we can only argue against their point of view--not force them into false apologizes, etc.  Even if the Fred Bauder or the other Churchill apologists actually came clean and admitted that they are blindly defending Churchill on the fake Indian issue because they simply want to defend him because he is spouting off anti-America rhetoric, it wouldn't matter because we know that any apology would be as fake as Churchill.  Just drop it and point out to them that no one in Indian Country really believes Churchill to be an Indian--expect liberal, white folks.-Keetoowah 13:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Rex: Please keep in mind that Viajero is one of the knee-jerk defenders of the fake Indian. He is not ever going to agree with your comments concerning Fred's comments, so really don't waste your time.  You know that people should not be judged by their looks, but Viajero has a political agenda to work and he wants to us Wikipedia to further that political agenda and he sure as heck isn't going to let some Indian get the way of that political agenda.-Keetoowah 13:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Message received. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 13:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ward Churchill
It would have been less prone to misinterpretation, had you said that to begin with. Still, you would never say that someone "has a big nose" or "thick lips" and then suggest that they are this or that, would you? Why then try to divine Churchill's geneology from his appearance? And by doing that, aren't you weighing your edits with your personal opinion? And if so, that's truly POV. The public facts do not reasonably support any assertions or suppositions about Churchill actually being a Native American (not in any true sense). That being the case, I frankly am unmoved that you "feel we should take his word for it" based on your personal opinion of his appearance. I think Fred, as an attorney, you ought to be able to see the error of your logic here. Your personal feelings are not one of the public facts which we can rest our editorial standards on. Indeed, we've already established that such methods are not the rule here - as evidenced by the fierce way my personal feelings are scrubbed by others from articles such as John Kerry. Also, as evidence by the blocking of my edits to Dedham, Massachusetts, it's not enough that an individual editor personally "know" or "feel" something to be true. Rather, it must be backed up by public fact sources that other editors will accept. I have two problems with using your "feelings" as a source: a) feelings are subject to change and therefore are not reliable as an ongoing fact referrence and b) I am repulsed by the notion we ought to judge people by appearance. That said, thanks for answering about Ward Churchill. But, I am still curious, why did you not answer my email? And why do you stand mute on that topic in this reply to me? Rex071404  216.153.214.94 15:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Meta-templates
Fred, From the summaries you're adding, I fear you've missed on crucial point. Under my section "Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2/Evidence", I point out that it was the main project database developer, User:Jamesday, who gave voice to the technical and practical concerns over "meta-templates". Based on his description, I created the Meta-templates considered harmful page, which was later renamed Avoid using meta-templates. Jamesday and I have both tried repeatedly to explain the very technical reasons for the problem, but it's quite complex.

What I want you to hopefully understand, is that my actions were solely based on his explanation, and done in the best interests of Wikipedia. Had it not been for User:Itai's unjustified reversions in the face of Jamesday's requests, none of this would have come up. Please don't take the perspective that I alone have been the instigator. Frankly, when a developer says there is a problem, no matter how many people disagree, we have to let the dev's judgement override the community.

I have had some good success showing people the problems with meta-templates. The stub sorting project (probably the worst "offenders") is moving away from them. A lot of subtle template changes are being made in reference to the meta-template problem. I think, in a couple of months, the visible tide will change and people will start to align their work with the developer's request. The point is that it is not always possible or necessary for the community to adopt something new, when the reasons for changes are given from the highest authorities on the Project.

Please don't punish me for trying to do something in the best interests of the project, especially when I've gotten the direction from a developer. If anyone needs to be sanctioned, it should Itai, who instigated and continued this conflict beyond all reasonable bounds, and without any justification than his personal drive to be "right". I'll be happy to talk more, if you'd like. -- Netoholic @ 17:04, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Netoholic's good faith?
re: Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2/Proposed decision: I would hope that you might reconsider this issue. I know that for many of Netoholic's disputes, it is easy to just assume that they are the result of clashes between two "difficult" editors. On the other hand, I think that my evidence shows that even for someone who does not get into revert wars that Netoholic immediately reverts and then ignores. And then there are the cases where Netoholic has ignored or tried to subvert consensus in the voting at WP:TFD and elsewhere (evidence that I hope to gather and present in a few days). Blank Verse  &empty; 18:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fred, to address this concern, would it be welcome if I add evidence showing where I have done just the opposite of what's being protested here? I think people tend to only see things from their narrow perspective. It's natural, I suppose. I've often reverted people, in the vast majority of cases, I have clearly stated that I've reverted and also offered an explanation - sometimes short and just in the edit summary, often on the article Talk page, and often on the user's Talk page. I'm not sure if BlankVerse's complaint is completely valid, since I did discuss often with him and invited his input, but even if it is valid, it shouldn't be automatically seen as representative. So, to re-ask my first question - would it be helpful to the arbitrators for me to cite examples of positive interactions I've had regarding reversions? -- Netoholic @ 19:17, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)


 * Evidence from both of you is welcome. Fred Bauder 00:54, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comparative Contributions
You may find, in light of various accusations, and your own reservations in the John Gohde case, that this sheds some light on how and for what editors use Wikipedia: Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29

-- rrcaballo AT yahoo.com

Clinohumite
Hi - I'm looking for a second set of eyes to have a look at this recently posted article. Looks fishy to me, like maybe a copyvio, but nothing shows up on the net. I'd appreciate your advice as to what I should do about that. -- BD 24 12 thi m k 03:42, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell
Paul Beardsell edited the Proposed decision page of the arbitration case. My comment, diff , please read it before voting on case, the last principle was added by him.Tkorrovi 11:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Serious objection -- punishing a user for attacks made against him
In the finding of fact (Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell case) only 1 out of 10 personal attacks mentioned was by me and even this was about how I named his Paul Beardsell's personal attack against me. And as a remedy, I was proposed to be indefinitely banned from editing the article. This is severely unjust, any punishment must be proportional to the misconduct. You give me an indefinite ban for a single comment, equal to indefinite ban to Paul Beardsell for numerous personal attacks against me during a year, which, as you see, I did not reply with personal attacks, except maybe only once (I'm human), in spite of everything which I might feel, I think this is civil behaviour. I'm going to be punished for attacks made against me.Tkorrovi 17:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Cortonin notes

 * Article created Dec 17, 2001, only edit made Feb 21, 2005, material removed by this edit by ChrisSteinbach with the comment, "Shortening article (see talk)" on May 12, 2005, the talk page edit.

Consensus science

 * Article created by JonGwynne Jan 20, 2005
 * Listed on VfD by William M. Connolley 6 hours later
 * Results VfD

Tkorrovi etc - finding of "fact"
I read what you wrote but just as I thought you were going to get somewhere you stopped. The conclusion a reader might draw from what you wrote would not be correct. A quick check of the Talk page archive ( here is an example relevant to the period around my initial edits you refer to) shows again and again how I attempted to discuss the edits that I made, that I justified many of the edits of others' material again and again. and that I did this to a far greater extent than Tkorrovi. I think you need to examine the Talk page archive together with the edit history. Paul Beardsell 23:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Talk archive is not organised as well as it could be. See also here where the dates are all mixed up but this is where Tkorrovi chose to archive what he called "blasphemy". Note that your "finding of fact" ends 8 Mar 2004, the very day I asked for external review here yet you do not mention this. What do you expect me to think is the reason for that? Paul Beardsell 23:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Fred replied on my talk page thus: ''I am just taking my first serious look at the edits in this matter. Perhaps you can answer some questions: did either of you ever read or quote any information out of Igor Aleksander's work? Or any other reference work that treats of artificial consciousness? At this point, without reading the hundreds of edits involved, you both seem to be using reason rather than references.''

Not enough citing of references was done, especially early on. I am fairly well read on the subject and I could have and should have cited more. I certainly would do so now! You are right, there is too much reasoning going on. But you will see that I repeatedly ask Tkorrovi for references for what he says and he refuses to supply so I tried to show what he wrote was not true. At that point, in retrospect, I should have abandoned the article except for insisting on an NPOV tag or similar instead of trying to reason the issues through. Unfortunately showing an inconsistency in Tkorrovi's reasoning is far too easy to do and he takes such as "personal insult". Note that in May 2004 I abandon the article leaving an NPOV tag behind. Except for once replacing the NPOV tag in Dec 2004 (this precipitated Tkorrovi asking for mediation) the next activity of mine in the article are my two edits of March 27 and 28 2005, ten months later (leading within a day to Tkorrovi's RfA). And whatever has occurred before, those Mar 2005 edits were not "personal insults". Paul Beardsell 00:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Tkorrovi part 1
"Artificial consciousness is not consciousness but observed manifestation of the attributes of consciousness." Yes this was my attitude while editing the article, thank you for pointing it out. I indeed relied on ai-forum discussions at first, also on some books, but I couldn't provide them as references, as everyone cannot read them, books are also mostly not peer-reviewed. But I felt that there must be sources, from my experience most which they talk on that forum, comes from some sources, rarely it is someone's original idea. Finally I found this one . This is a peer-reviewed paper, as it is an accepted conference paper (BibTeX entry ). Also one which is available on the Internet, some others, like the one introduced at ICANN94, were unfortunately not available on the Internet, and were not good as sources, as people cannot read them. Why this paper is important, is that it the first time provided a definition of artificial consciousness "Here the theory is developed by defining that which would have to be synthesized were consciousness to be found in an engineered artefact. This is given the name "artificial consciousness" to indicate that the theory is objective and while it applies to manufactured devices it also stimulates a discussion of the relevance of such a theory to the consciousness of living organisms.", ie "that which would have to be synthesized were consciousness to be found in an engineered artefact", which also must be objective. I say the first time, as some might have mentioned the term earlier, but I see no one claiming that it was defined earlier. This definition and these concepts were the basis in developing machine consciousness later, by the initiative of Igor Aleksander and Owen Holland, they were the initiators of most of the conferences in the field, and the special edition of the journal of consciousness studies on machine consciousness. This paper might be complicated, with the set theory mathematics, but it should not be difficult to see the way it represents the theory. It describes different attributes of consciousness, like Perceptual Learning and Memory, Prediction, The Awareness of Self, Representation of Meaning, Learning Language, Will and Emotion, and how these can be implemented in an artificial system. The system it analyzes is strictly speaking nothing more than an Artificial Intelligence system, but it is analyzed from the point of view of artificial consciousness (ie through the attributes of consciousness not only intelligence), which is important. So as you see, Igor Aleksander first says in this paper, that artificial consciousness is about "that which would have to be synthesized were consciousness to be found in an engineered artefact", and later provides examples of modelling different attributes of consciousness. So, Igor Aleksander in that paper considers artificial consciousness to be an observed manifestation of that which we should synthesize, when we want to create a system which approaches consciousness. So artificial consciousness is a study which must define and study that which must be synthesized for such system, ie the relevant attributes of consciousness which must be synthesized. Therefore the aim of that study is to find the "observed manifestation of the attributes of consciousness". So my attitude, whether or not formulated correctly enough, is in essence not different from the approach of Igor Aleksander, described in that paper. And my aim has always been to gradually make the description as much into accordance with the sources (the original peer-reviewed papers), as possible. It is unfortunately never completely possible, as we cannot copy the sources in the articles, and the article must also be as some sort of summary, as wholly and simply presented as possible. I'm sorry for not providing sources at first, I just wanted to start from a simple article, and see how we can write such article, it had been too fractioned at first, if it started from a set of sources, quotations from sources, description of sources. You see that later it moved more and more closer to sources, and provided more and more references. The original plan was to develop article later, and add the sources, but I expected a good faith and constructive discussion from other editors, not an edit war over a new and yet immature article. Just attacking me in that stage by Paul Beardsell was unfair, as the article was immature, I had not yet much to defend it, and he did not have much to argue against either. To start to attack my positions in that stage was a completely wrong approach from Paul Beardsell, I wanted to create an article, and needed a constructive work on the article. Paul wants to represent it in a way that I wanted to write only about my (or not exatly my, a certain) point of view, and wanted to delete everything which does not support that point of view. So that his mission was to fight against my supposed attempt to write an article only from a certain point of view. I think you find from the history of the article, that I finally did not delete Paul's additions (even finally not during the edit war), even if I found them obviously wrong, or they were obviously wrong. The same cannot be said about how Paul treated my edits, considering his attempts to effectively blank the article (like in the beginning of this only one edit war, which was the cause of the edit war). It was not strictly speaking "officially" an edit war, as the three revert rule was not established by then, and Ugen64 confessed that he used freezing the article against me then on a wrong basis. Of course it once had to be stopped, and Paul had to start to discuss the changes instead of making extensive changes without sufficient explanation, as I asked him before the edit war.Tkorrovi 15:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Above is another set of false assertions about me by Tkorrovi. To take just the last one as an illustrative example:  As anybody who is prepared to look at the edit summaries and at the Talk page and its archives will discover:  I almost always gave reasons for my edits in the edit summaries and/or the talk page.  I suggest that the exercise will also show I was much better at it than Tkorrovi.  And, as a byproduct, show the lie in some of the above.  Paul Beardsell 22:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC) & Paul Beardsell 22:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Tkorrovi part 2
If you say there are still not enough references etc in the article, then editing of the article has been severely hindered by Paul's attacks. It of course also disturbs others. I was by far not the only editor of the article, also not the "master editor" of the article as Paul accused me, but I was one of these engines, which did the most work on the article. But because of Paul's attacks, I was prevented from etiting the article, just in such conditions I prefer not to edit the article, because I want to avoid conflicts. I did it also because the others don't want to see conflicts. For these reasons I did not edit the article several months. But then recently, when I edited the first time after several months, Paul started a conflict again, just after my first edit. I couldn't edit more than 3 times or so, after which I left the question to decide for other editors, to avoid conflict. Please understand that in these conditions I could not edit the article properly, editing of the article was severely hindered, and I possibly could not develop it further, to add more references etc. So because of Paul's attacks the article could not develop as it should, and I could not do much for that, as I preferred not to edit in order to avoid conflicts. This my request for arbitration then remained my only hope to ever work on the article normally again. If this fails, then there anyway are no other possibilities left, everything was tried for almost a year. So even if the decision would be, that both I and Paul would be banned from editing the article indefinitely, though I find such decision unfair for the reasons I explained, it would for me still be the best solution I could have, because it would be much worse to suffer Paul's personal attacks another year, with no better results in developing the article in these conditions. And because when I start something, I never leave before it is beyond doubt that there is nothing I can do to finish my work.Tkorrovi 16:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Any so-called attacks ("criticisms" would be a fairer word) by me were because Tk refused to give reasons or refs for his edits. Nothing I did prevented Tk from providing refs.  The edit history shows no one else "disturbed" by me.  Tk must supply refs for this new false assertion, the latest of many.  The edit history also shows no progress over months before I started editing the article, rapid sometimes tumultuous progress while I was editing it.  So the above assertion that my edits prevented the article progressing is false, false, false.  Another false assertion by Tkorrovi.  There is a pattern which I hope someone on the ArbCom can see!  Paul Beardsell 22:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As to Tk's suggesting he might "suffer Paul's attacks another year" this is plainly melodrama from Tkorrovi but the ArbCom is taken in! Tk and I crossed swords outside the Wikipedia quasi-legal process last 27/28 March 2005.  Nobody could consider my two edits of that period to be "personal insult" of any description.  I suggest that Tk can only point to the period 8 March 2004 (2004!) to 11 May 2004 (2004!) as being the last time, outside the Wikipedia quasi-legal process, that heated discussion was had between us.   So, "another year" is nonsense.  Tkorrovi is no martyr but he wears a martyr's clothing.  Paul Beardsell 22:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Tk "finishing my work" does not include providing references. Paul Beardsell 22:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Tkorrovi part 3
To put it simply, it is possible to solve everything, up to the point where one party starts to use personal attacks (ie stating a *supposed* flaw in other's person) instead of logical arguments. It is because the sole purpose of the personal attacks is to confuse others, and so the only way to fight against personal attacks is by deciding that they are personal attacks, by community. It is not possible to fight against personal attacks by discussing them, as, first, discussing a personal attack may often be considered a personal attack (the mistake I did, when I tried to explain Paul Beardsell that his remarks about my person are "racist", and therefore not allowed), and second, one cannot put a totally absurd supposed flaw in his person in voting, it is equivalent to saying that he doubts himself whether he is "paranoid" etc. Also others would not understand it, as they would be confused why that person asks them such question.Tkorrovi 16:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Any criticim of Tkorrovi's edits or reasoning was taken by as personal by him. That this RfA was triggered by me saying one of his edits was ungrammatical illustrates this.  Paul Beardsell 22:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Tkorrovi part 4
From the article I mentioned, there are also quotations now in the article. I did like to add some more, my last edit was an attempt to copy the Igor Aleksander's definition into the article as one definition of artificial consciousness, but it was exactly when Paul Beardsell started a conflict, stating this exact quote to be "un-grammatical". Otherwise, the article is a hard compromise with Paul Beardsell, a lot inserted because Paul Beardsell or Matthew Stannard so insisted, not because in some article exactly that was emphasized. They all come from scientific papers though, and are supported with quotations and reference. The rest of the article was mostly written by other editors, I did not make any efforts to support it with references and quotations. Part of that seems to be too long, over-emphacizing things which are not essential, or talking too much about a general philosophy of consciousness, which should be a part of the consciousness, or philosophy of mind article. But as some users seems to like such composition of the article, I'm not going to change it.Tkorrovi 18:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Ungrammatical? Here another userm Jayjg, says upon reverting your reversion of my removal of your un-grammatical insertion, "change made no sense - non grammatical and incomprehensible; previous version was better".  So it was not only me who declared your insertion "exact quotation" ungrammatical.  I also said "unfixable".  Jayjg said "incomprehensible".  Same thing.  Neither he nor I made a "personal attack".  Nothing between us for months but this triggered Tk's RfA.  This is an abuse of process.  Paul Beardsell 22:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * We already talked about that, Jayjg also said "incomprehensible" so he likely followed you, and did not understand (this is an evidence of how effective is the confusion made by conflicts; if one asserts that something is very wrong, then others think that something at least must be wrong, the effect on people and the confusion caused is similar to the confusion caused by shouting "fire"). Anyway, calling a sentence in a peer-reviewed paper, written by a respected scientist (a prorector of the Imperial College, London, was at least) "ungrammatical", is something which not many approve. And delete it for that reason, even if someone finds it to be "ungrammatical"... As it appeared exactly so in the peer-reviewed paper, then it can also be written in Wikipedia, unless Wikipedia must be higher authority than peer-reviewed papers (and all who review these papers), scientific conferences etc.Tkorrovi 23:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes we "talked" about it. Here.  Neither Jayjg (I suppose) nor I were objecting to the grammar of the material from which you quote but how you select the words from the quote and the grammar and nonsensibility of the surrounding words.  The way the quote was included by you was both non-grammatical and non-parseable.  But that you refuse to recognise this is symptomatic of the way you conduct all your "talks":  Do you suppose that Fred, if he is reading this still, will not follow the links I provide (I note you do not provide links but continue to make wild assertions) to see if your insertion made sense and if it was grammatical?  Paul Beardsell 00:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * OK then look again at the diffs from my evidence. I made a change, you reverted almost a day later , I inserted the verbatim sentence from the paper together with short reference , you reverted with an explanation "non-grammatical, non-sequiter", a day later , I reverted saying you don't explain when asked , and this was my last edit.Tkorrovi 00:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I did explain: Both my edits had to the point succinct and accurate edit summaries.  Note that you allowed others to make the same changes with the same explanation.  What is your complaint?  Where is the "personal insult" of which you complain?  Point it out.  There is no personal insult 27/28 March but you go immediately to file a RfA.  Why is that?  Paul Beardsell 01:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RFAr against Yuber
I encourage you to contribute to the RFAr against Yuber. His behavior has gone on long enough.Enviroknot 20:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

psb777's commentary
Once again and as ever: The accounts by Tkorrovi of various events are flawed. Tkorrovi makes broad assertions many of which are inaccurate and some of which are just plain false. Anyone who wants to know what went on needs to read the edit summaries and the Talk page and its archives; and should not rely on Tkorrovi's accounts. This case is the "mother of all smokescreens". Some examples: That Tkorrovi was "prevented" from editing is just plain false. That some of his assertions were repeatedly discussed on the Talk page and, when Tk could not provide references for them, they were removed by me and others, is true. But the only person who was prevented from editing was me by Tkorrovi - see the edit history for 14-Mar-2004. Tkorrovi did claim a Master Editor status and I sought outside help to resolve that. That Tkorrovi's activities here were identified by me and by others as trolling is true. (Refs in my evidence.) Paul Beardsell 20:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Paul Beardsell asserts that I claimed a Master Editor status, so that the one who have not enough time to look at edits on 14 Mar would think that I said something like "I am the Master Editor". What really happened was that Paul wanted to effectively blank the article, and I reverted all his edits, knowing that he has an intention of deleting the content, to prevent him from deleting the content. I must admit that I did not much read his edits, as you see, the edits follow each other sometimes in a minute interval, this happened in a very short time. I don't know why he had to revert back his obvious attempt of blanking most of the article, and revert, and make his edits so quickly, after an attempt of deleting the content, he should have explained his reasons on a talk page. I admit that reverting was not the best way to solve the problem, but it was not against Wikipedia rules then, as the 3 revert rule was not established then. I expected Paul to start a discussion on talk page, after he stops reverting, but instead of talking to me he complained to Ugen64.Tkorrovi 00:13, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I coined the term "master editor". I never said that Tkorrovi used those words.  But he did claim the privelege of deciding who could and who could not contribute to the article.  And he claimed the privelge of deciding, on his own, what contributions would be allowed and which would not.  See here and the edits of the article thereabouts.  I note also he admits that he was mindlessly reverting.  How can he be surprised he was called a troll?  Paul Beardsell 01:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Here are more bare-faced lies from Tkorrovi. I did NOT want to blank the article BUT I did attempt a re-write.  I note that Tkorrovi once again does not supply refs to support his mendacious allegations.  He thinks that if he repeats his lies often enough they will become true.  He relies upon readers' laziness not to check.  I complained to Ugen64 because of Tk's repeated reverting.  Ugen64's intervention is plain in the Talk page archives and the edit history.  Whereas the 3rr rule was not yet formalised it was known to me and I never broke it.  Unlike Tk.  Paul Beardsell 00:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Paul Beardsell again hopes that no one looks at the history. This is blanking most of the article by Paul Beardsell, which I talked about, this is also provided in my evidence.Tkorrovi 00:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * And here is an extract from the edit history that shows what Tkorrovi is saying about my blanking of the article to be FALSE, FALSE, FALSE. Tkorrovi misrepresents what happened.  I think he does so knowingly.  Paul Beardsell 02:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * As anyone knows who is following this: I have repeatedly called and continue to call on readers to peruse the edit history, the talk page and its archives.  I have done so today several times already.  This is unlike Tkorrovi who has at least twice attempted to discourage this, preferring people just to look at the "evidence" he has provided.  So for Tkorrovi to say "Paul Beardsell again hopes that no one looks at the history" is a mendacious attempt to blacken my name for which, when it is considered with all the other falsehoods he continues to shamelessly peddle to the ArbCom, he deserves to be censured.  As to the supposed blanking of the article by me this is a repeated falsehood and I provide this link  to disprove his assertion .  Please examine that section and the one following together with the edit history of the main article for the same period.  Paul Beardsell 01:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "That some of his assertions were repeatedly discussed on the Talk page and, when Tk could not provide references for them, they were removed by me and others, is true." The only such which I know, was removed by me. It was one possible interpretation, but I removed it when I found how the sources describe that issue better. It was during fulfilling your NPOV requirements, but also at that time you were not satisfied, and re-inserted the NPOV label, without much explanation, in spite that all your NPOV requirements on talk page were met.Tkorrovi 20:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No. Anyone prepared to read the Talk page and its archives will find this is another misrepresentation by Tkorrovi.  And they are not "my NPOV requirements" but Wikipedia's.  Paul Beardsell 21:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * When I said "your", I meant presented by you on talk pege, in accordance with Wikipedia rules that the one who inserts the NPOV label, should write his requirements for removing it on talk page. What you once did.Tkorrovi 22:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * So, I did good? Paul Beardsell 00:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes.Tkorrovi 00:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tkorrovi asserting he left editing of artificial consciousness because of me is just false. When one considers that Tkorrovi has been pouring through the evidence to find every little scrap of "evidence" he can to twist against me it is difficult to believe that this misrepresentation is anything but mendacious (I could re-phrase that using non-weasel words but then it would be identified by Grunt as a "personal insult"): I could not have chased him  off as I left (in despair at not being able to persuade Tkorrovi to provide a reference) 11-May-2004 before he did! Maybe it got boring for him after I was no longer there. In any event he is now falsely acting as a victim and the ArbCom is being fooled. Paul Beardsell 20:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No I did not find every little scrap of evidence against you, I mainly went through the talk page history, and found all your personal attacks against me, then I added most obvious other things. I did not need much time for that, so that it possibly couldn't be very thorough.Tkorrovi 20:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You admit, therefore, having left after me, that your assertion above that you could not edit because of me is false? Paul Beardsell 21:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)&#711;

As an illustration of the various misunderstandings one had to cope with in editing AC I note that Tkorrovi still does not understand what is acceptable to be quoted as a reference in Wikipedia. He would not quote references, he now says in post hoc justificiation, because they were books? Paul Beardsell 20:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)