User talk:Fred Bauder

My associates and I have installed the GetWiki software at http://www.wikinfo.org, alternative address, http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/. It is hosted by ibiblio.org. The wikidata base dump was not installed. Software has been developed which allows easy importing of Wikipedia articles and to date about 30,000 have been imported. Certain policies have been changed from Wikipedia although the notion of using American English has been abandoned; International English is used and we are experimenting with articles in French and German. The concept of neutral point of view for each article has been changed to a policy of accepting a cluster of articles with differing points of view. Several policies which have been observed to cause tension on Wikipedia have been liberalized. See Wikinfo. Fred Bauder 13:51, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It may be useful when trying to locate information on a book to try the search engine at Redbaud.com

---

Material has been removed here and placed in User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 1, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 2, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 3, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 4, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 5, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 6, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 7, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 8 and User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 9

Fred, can you do somthing about ...

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

The Signpost

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

Hello Fred: FYI. Keep track of complaints against Homeontherange

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

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

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

Don Dawson

Freemasonry

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

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

Want to bring to your attention a problem of enforcement regarding Bogdanov Affair.

it's at:

[1]

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

Help! I am being hassled by what appears to be a sockpuppet vandal

Please take a look at the edit history for Accountable 1135. Please help if you can. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 01:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding "Big Daddy"

FYI: Please see my what will be my sole edit regarding this topic [2]. I give you my word of honor, that I am not involved with this person, have no personal knowledge of his/her activities and do not want any knowledge or involvement. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 21:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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

Fred, will this affect the proposed decision in BigDaddy's arbitration case? [3]. I would really like to see something there about BigDaddy's use of sockpuppets. And WoohooKitty don't forget his other anonymous account: [4], I'm sure he's got a lot more too. Also does the American Politics ban apply to article talk pages as well? Because BigDaddy's major problem always was his talk, not his edits, given the fact that he made so few article edits. [5] - Mr. Tibbs 05:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

Fred, I am adding you as a participant to the BCE dispute on WP:RfAr, with the charges that your comments made in response to a request for clarification in the matter were not comments that a reasonable person would have made, and that you knew, or should have known, that by making those comments you would exacerbate the situation, rather than allow it to come to a swift an amicable conclusion. I have outlined my concerns in greater detail here [6]. Kind regards, jguk 12:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Fred, can you please take another look at

[7]

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

212.138.47.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Wikipedia Bounty Board

Fred Bauder,

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

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

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

RE: RfArb

Mr. Bauder:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

Bogdanov Affair unprotection

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rangerdude et al Arbitration

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

Couple of things

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

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

Arbitration Workshops

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop

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

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

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

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

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

I don't care about the drink, I'm just helping out anyway. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 18:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Request for advice

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

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

Replied at my talk page

User talk:Redwolf24. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I know why you listed that there now. If it was about Stevertigo and people complaining about the arbcom, then you should know I was defending the medcom, telling people they should have complained while you guys were still deliberating, but someone just said we can't vote in arbcom decisions, but I said we can still talk to arbitrators... Redwolf24 (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration question

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

Thanks, I've gone through and proposed some principles and findings of fact. [8] I wonder if you could take a look at it and tell me if I did everything right, and if it makes sense and is reasonable? Thanks. I think this case should be rather straightforward. Dmcdevit·t 23:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Some questions

You know that I'm advocating User:Researcher99 in the Polygamy dispute and have some questions.

1. Is there a way to know if User:Nereocystis, User:Dan100, User:Kewp have the same IP address as the Spatfield (talk · contribs)? It would be important to us to know if one of this users used a sockpuppet to call the AfD of the now deleted Anti-polygamy.
2. Also, is there a way to undelete only the diffs of Anti-polygamy or to undelete it and move it into a user page? Can someone restore this article's history?

Thank you very much! (I saw your message about the /Workshop section too. It's very interesting) --Neigel von Teighen 22:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Since you are a retired lawyer can you take al look at "Fair Comment"?

I will not edit this article since it has become politcally charged.

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

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

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

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

Thank you in advance

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

Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Proposed decision

Would you please answer my questions on the Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Proposed decision page. Thank you.

Sorry for bothering you again. As there is, apart from a new "Motion to close" section, no further comment on the Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Proposed decision page, I still do not understand the decisions by the arbitration committee. On the Wikipedia:Probation page is stated that "A user placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee is entitled to continue to edit in the subject areas in which they are on probation." Does this mean, for instance, that I am allowed to add the following, accurately sourced paragraph to the James Dean article:

Decades after Dean's death, author Boze Hadleigh, an expert on Hollywood gays, published a 1972 interview with Sal Mineo in which the actor said, "Nick (Adams) told me they had a big affair." [9] Further sources support the view that Dean had homosexual leanings. [10] [11] Bit actor and writer John Gilmore, a member of Dean's "Night Watch" motorcyle riders, wrote a book on James Dean claiming they had a homosexual encounter. In his Natalie Wood biography, the reputed Hollywood chronicler Gavin Lambert, himself homosexual and part of the Hollywood gay circles of the 50s and 60s, describes Dean as being bisexual. In her memoir of her brief affair with Dean, actress Dizzy Sheridan states Dean had an affair with Rogers Brackett, a radio director for an advertising agency whom Dean met in the summer of 1951 while working as a parking attendant at CBS. In Val Holley's James Dean: the Biography (1997) gay studies scholars will also find rich factual evidence of Dean's homosexual social life, and of the crucial role gay patrons like Rogers Brackett played in Dean's rise to stardom. Last not least, Live Fast, Die Young – The Wild Ride of Making Rebel Without a Cause, a recent book by Lawrence Frascella and Al Weisel, says that Rebel director Nicholas Ray knew Dean to be bisexual.

These are eight independent sources - six books and two articles - which all say that Dean had homosexual leanings. I think this should be enough evidence to include the said paragraph in the article. What do you think? 80.141.198.213 18:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks good, but I don't edit in this area. It's those that do that you need to work it out with. Fred Bauder 19:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that Ted Wilkes and Wyss are working together in this area (and some other areas). They have repeatedly deleted my contributions. Have you an idea what I can do? Furthermore, I do not understand why there is no comment by the arbitrators on the false accusations against me by Ted Wilkes.

We assume you are a good editor who sometimes goes too far. Fred Bauder 03:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I would be grateful if the arbitaton committee could place a similar statement on the Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Proposed decision page, as User:Ted Wilkes once again made a denigrating statement against me on the Talk:Elvis Presley page. See [12] 80.141.238.254 15:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

User:Ted Wilkes is still removing my contributions to the Elvis Presley article, though they are well supported by credible sources. See [13] and [14]. He also aggressively continues to make personal attacks against me (and some other users) on the Talk:Elvis Presley and the User talk:Onefortyone pages and repeatedly violated the 3RR rule. I think the arbitration committee should place a note about this behavior on his talk page. Thank you.

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

Arbitration Accepted: Evidence

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

Guess who came back?

Enviroknot is back. 72.9.242.90 (talk · contribs) (formerly 129.7.35.213 (talk · contribs)). Check contribs and deletion of warnings [15]. Regards --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Nuff

Wbfl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Probation

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

Ouch!

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

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

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

Re:Edits of Onefortyone

With all due respect, my edit you referred to was to remove information already detailed in the Presley article in TWO other places with links to the main article, Memphis Mafia. Second, it was deliberately inserted by Onefortyone in the "Relationships" section with his wife and girfriends where he had previously inserted it with other fabrications including a statement "Seeded" on Talk:Elvis Presley/archive1 (and others) that has many claims about Presley/Memphis Mafia as part of his campaign to declare Presley as a homosesual such as this:

• I would agree if there were not the Memphis Mafia, a group of men who used to hang with Elvis all day and night. So it is an undisputable fact that Elvis spent much more time with men than women. Thus it is more likely that he preferred men. - User: 80.141.178.108

Plus after other faberications, this:

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

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

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

In this section he then adds a complete falsehood for those who come to the page via a Google/Yahoo search:

• I would encourage the readers to spend as much time as they see fit on reading from the beginning what is written on these discussion pages, as the whole talk proves that I have provided a lot of evidence (based on independent sources) to support my assertions. 80.141.219.115 12:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Sorry, Ted Wilkes, are you really claiming that your "edits are unimpeachable and nowhere will you find me promoting any agenda of any kind and NOT once have I ever made a false statement about Onefortyone nor can anyone point out a single unjustified or surreptitious revert/edit on my part"? On the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Evidence page you falsely accused me of spamdexing and vandalism. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone/Evidence#Spamdexing_and_Vandalism_BY_Onefortyone.7CANON_80.141 and my reply. And there are many more false accusations and aggressive personal attacks from your pen. See, for instance, Talk:Nick_Adams/Archive_1#Discussion_of_sources and User_talk:Ted_Wilkes#Deleting_other_users.27_comments, etc. etc. You even threaten another user with going to Arbitration accusing this user of fabrication and calling him a troll. See [16]. I hope that the arbitrators will not support this gaming of the system in the future. Onefortyone 13:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes has now repeatedly reverted my contributions to the Nick Adams article, though I have presented new sources and facts to support my view. He even deleted an important external link. See [17]. See also Talk:Nick_Adams#Further_sources_supporting_the_view_that_Adams_had_homosexual_leanings. This behavior is unacceptable. Onefortyone 16:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

any ideas?

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

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

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

With my regards,
+MATIA ☎ 22:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Procedural Guidance Requested

As I have been preparing the Evidence for my Arbitration case, I have made three TALK posts on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Polygamy/Evidence.

• My unique problem, Guidance Requested
• OK to "Yield" DIFFs in DIFF-Count?
• Items Still Pending in Preparing Evidence

While I wait to hear back from my AMA advocate, your procedural guidance on those issues will be very much appreciated. Thank you. - Researcher 21:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

unblocking of Oldestylecharm

Fine with me as long as he behaves, I'll keep an eye on him and I suggest that you do the same just in case. If you don't mind me asking where did Jimbo request this and if you don't mind and the medium allows it (if it's on one of the mailing lists or a comment on the wiki) could you link to me, not really a big deal if you can't. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Fred. I saw your message to Jtkiefer. I was the one who complained; my complaint can be read here. I've no problem with the unblocking. (Of course, I understand that it's not my decision anyway!) Regards, Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 23:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Oldstylecharm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Trever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Well he hasn't edited since the block went into place but I talked to Jimbo over IRC and he says that he unblocked because Oldestylecharm asked nicely and we have his blocking to reblock immediately if he acts up again. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 02:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello again, Fred. Just to let you know that I had more trouble this morning with a series of identical messages on my talk page all from newly-created accounts. I reported it here. As soon as one was blocked, another would spring up. I eventually stopped reverting, because I thought it was a waste of server space, with all the page versions stored in the history. The reason I thought it might be related to the previous incident is because the message was identical to the one that Trever had sent me [18]. However, Oldstylecharm may have absolutely nothing to do with this. He hasn't edited (under his proper account, at least) since 3 November. Trever, for all I know, may not be a sockpuppet of his. I thought he was, because his first edits were to reinsert the linkspam that I had just reverted. Then, he said "Guess what my name spelled backwards is?" [19] So it's possible that he was unrelated to Oldstylecharm, and was reinserting the links as a way of harassing me, by reverting anything I did.

The messages today came from

• TerrorMaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Anney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Slimboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ≤woot≥ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ≤w00t≥ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tgb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Sorry this message is so complicated, but I just wanted to bring you up to date! Thanks. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 22:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed notice at the top of Bogdanov Affair

Dear Fred: I have implemented a notice at the top of the Bogdanov Affair along the lines of the proposed remedy that you made in the arbitration case, since I think it is a good idea. I trust this is what you were looking for. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Bogdanov ban

Hi Fred,

I apologize for bothering you with this, but I was reading the proposed remedies that you wrote for the Bogdanov Affair article. Since the criteria for determining if users should be banned from editing the article is that "the vast majority of their edits are to the Bogdanov Affair", then perhaps you could review my contributions in order to determine if I should be included in the list, as I think that my contributions related to the article in question do not amount to more than 20% of what I've edited so far. On the other hand, if you only consider the edits I did until the injunction, then I clearly fall in that category and will accept your decision.

Thank you for your attention. Ze miguel 13:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Fred, thank you very much for deleting me from the list. Ze miguel 15:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:Your message concerning reverting on the Nick Adams article

User:Onefortyone deliberately misled you again saying here on your Talk page that: "Ted Wilkes has now repeatedly reverted my contributions to the Nick Adams article, though I have presented new sources and facts to support my view."

Onefortyone already used this CrimeMagazine website as a source and the matter was debated in great deal with me and others on the Talk:Nick Adams page as seen here and with a secondary confirmation by User:Wyss of this type of mistake-filled and non-peer reviewed source here. Plus, it was pointed out that from other unacceptable sources comes a direct contradiction such as the Cybersleuth True Crime article on Nick Adams which states here that "Nick was straight." Crime Magazine on the Internet uses anyone to write an article. You, I, or anyone can have an article published plus the writer supplies their own (unverified) biography. They are not Peer reviewed and do not come close to meeting the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Then, there is the controversial book by John Gilmore (writer) that started the James Dean rumors. Go to Gilmore's Wiki article and read the direct quote from his website that says: "With Nick Adams it had been the same way, even with Natalie Wood—Jimmy avoided them. Once off the set, he went out of his way to go in the opposite direction." Note that (just as he did before and I pointed it out to the ArbCom in my formal request, when convenient, Onefortyone quotes John Gilmore (writer) as he did here yesterday with an edit on 21:21, November 7, 2005 to the James Dean article here but not in his immediate next edit (six minutes later as seen on his contributions list here) where he deliberately reworks the text to exclude the John Gilmore reference in his 21:27, November 7, 2005 edit to the Nick Adams article as seen here.

This editing and plastering your Talk page and that of others only allows him to keep up the seeding of key words to Wikipedia. With all due respect, Mr. Bauder, I have to wonder why you seem so quick to castigate me with an accusation that "You continue to go too far" based solely on the word of someone who you condemned for fabricating information. You will note that in the very opening of my complaint about Onefortyone that I stated to the ArbCom that he abuses the good faith of others by making fabrications and the like on their talk pages in discussions as he has done again here plus he distorts their words as User: DropDeadGorgias tesitified to the ArbCom. Onefortyone launched a personal attack on me and as I advised him on his Talk page, I am filing a complaint against him for this plus for his deliberate reinserting the EXACT same material in the same articles in violation of his probation.

Thank you - Ted Wilkes 19:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Ted, you are not telling the truth. I never used this CrimeMagazine website as a source before, as you claim. As far as I can see, you debated these things with user Wyss some months ago. See Talk:Nick_Adams#How_did_this_get_started_anyway.3F User Wyss seems to have used this source. By the way, the John Gilmore passage was originally written by Wyss. I only reinstated it. Winkler, the author of the article, seems to be an expert on the life of Nick Adams. It has not been mentioned before that he said that Adams and James Dean seem to have "become lovers and worked the streets of Los Angeles as hustlers in the down and out days when both were struggling nobodies." There are also further sources I have mentioned, for instance, Rona Barrett's autobiography, which says that Nick Adams "had become the companion to a group of salacious homosexuals." So it is true that I have included some new information never before mentioned on the Nick Adams page. Ted Wilkes deleted this information together with many more references to other sources which all support my view. He even deleted a useful hyperlink, presumably because this website includes information he does not like. Significantly, Wilkes has now also deleted a perfectly well hyperlink to a website by the Memphis Mafia members from the Memphis Mafia page. See [20]. He also deleted a passage that Elvis Presley "reportedly supplied the Memphis Mafia members with alcohol, illicit drugs, and prostitutes" from the same page. See [21]. Very interesting. Onefortyone 19:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The arbitration decision does not say that everything Onefortyone adds is presumed worthless and may be deleted. It only cautions him to use reliable sources. With respect to this area that does not mean peer reviewed in a scientific sense, only that in terms of popular culture that the information was published in a source that is generally considered reliable. Fred Bauder 20:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Users Ted Wilkes and Wyss are still working together to suppress my contributions which are not in line with their personal opinion, but are well supported by many independent sources. See, for instance, [22] and [23]. Significantly, in his edit summary, Wyss claims, "rv edits by user who has been banned from editing celebrity articles". The same user also says on my talk page: "It seems to me that 141 has violated his probation and should be blocked." See [24].

Ted Wilkes and Wyss even ignore arguments by other users who are supporting my view. See Talk:Nick_Adams#Further_sources_supporting_the_view_that_Adams_had_homosexual_leanings. I think this behavior is unacceptable. Perhaps the case should be reopened.

"Better than overuse of banning"

I believe the concern about "probation" as a remedy is deserving of more than your brief riposte.

Leaving aside the cases involving admin misconduct, there are very few cases where troublesome editors have gone through arbitration, and then subsequently become fine upstanding contributors who further the goals of the project. Most of them either leave the project permanently, or continue to make trouble (possibly leaving and rejoining in the meantime).

I think it is unrealistic to believe that we can change people. The goal of the project is not to empower everyone who wishes to do so to write, but rather to build an encyclopedia. With that in mind, there is nothing wrong with banning people who are unwilling or unable to participate in a civil, considered fashion.

The problem with Wikipedia probation is that most troublesome editors are here because they enjoy engagement and conflict. They like to provoke people and see what sort of a response they get. They like to see people get indignant. I believe that probation just encourages that, and serves as a distraction to the community.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Should you be recusing yourself?

At the Zeprhram Stark Arbitration, you have offered a statement of the situation at the terrorism article that you write is "according to Zephram Stark." However, Stark has tried to correct the position attributed by you to him, only to be reverted by SlimVirgin. You have further apparently changed (!) the statement of Stark's position in response, directly or indirectly, to a campaign waged by SlimVirgin, whom Stark named as a cause of the underlying dispute, through the named complainants against Stark ([25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]). Do you think that you've treated Stark's stated opinion appropriately?

I believe, Fred Bauder, that as the situation currently stands, you are seriously abusing your authority as an arbitrator. I don't know why you're doing it, but it is very clear to me that you are doing it. Your user page notes that you are a retired lawyer -- how can you imagine that anything even vaguely ressembling a fair hearing can take place when one party is not even allowed to state his position without having it massaged and adulterated? If, for whatever reason, you are incapable of as little as faithfully transcribing Stark's prefered statement of the situation, you should recuse yourslef. Maybe you can completely rework the statement of the focus of the dispute so that you don't even have to attribute anything to Stark, but what you have done at this point is really beyond the pale.

Barring any remedy to the situation, you can consider this comment to be the first of two independent contacts needed to begin mediation against your behavior in this matter. I'll start looking for someone to make the second contact in a day or two.

Marsden 06:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You position is unfortunate. Marsden 16:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to pretend for just a moment, Fred, that you'd actually be interested in my advice. Please don't feel any need to insult me over this -- I don't have any real belief that you're interested in the least in anything I have to say.

But anyway, in this imaginary world where you actually are interested in my advice, I would tell you that, in the capacity of an arbitrator, you've written a summary of the focus of the dispute that (a) includes an alleged statement of the opinion of one party to the dispute that that party has denied, and that (b) the other side of the dispute seems to think is inaccurate. Again in this imaginary world, I would suggest to you that maybe it would be more productive to re-write the damn summary that no one likes rather than, say, to write a new article about Wikilawyering.

Back to this world, now. I'm going to spend a day or so trying to get El C to write the second notice to you, just because I think it would be good for him to do it. I don't think he will, but I noted to you that I wouldn't start looking for someone to write the second notice to you for a day or two, so I'll spend that time "mentoring" El C before I seriously start looking.

In fairness, I think I should tell you that, while I do think you are absolutely wrong in this particular matter, and I really will pursue it to the very end, I find your attitude pretty amusing, and it is entertaining for me (in some dark way, perhaps) to see the innovative and gymnastic things you come up with in order to avoid doing what seems to me to be quite obviously the right thing to do. I'm telling you this because possibly you find the whole thing very annoying and draining -- as indeed I would, if I were continually having to make up new reasons for not doing what is obviously the right thing to do -- and if that's the case, this could be a bad situation for you: you're drained while I'm entertained. Now, probably some worthy will turn my words here against me, and claim (ignoring my clear statement that I think you are absolutely wrong in this particular matter) that I am just trying to be annoying to you. But I can deal with that, and it really is as a favor to you that I've informed you that I think this whole process is amusing to me.

Marsden 16:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

For your amusement, I kind of think the following would be a more neutral rewrite:

• 1.3) Zephram Stark is accused of engaging in tendentious (exhibiting a strong POV) and disruptive editing with respect to the article terrorism over an extended period of time, see Talk:Terrorism/Archive_6#NPOV_solutions and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Evidence#ZS.27s_changes_to_Terrorism.

Marsden 19:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Just to spare myself this mentoring, I want nothing to do with Marsden or his complaint/s in light of his intentional and constant disregrd for the WP:NPA policy. If the merit of his complaint/s therefore suffers, so be it, it'd be a valuable lesson on basic manners, at least. El_C 19:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner/Everyking

I disagree with your change to FoF 6 in the Everyking case. Please see these diffs. As someone else who has been baited by Snowspinner in the past, I'd like to see the ArbCom acknowledge that it's happening. -- Netoholic @ 19:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Please restore the original wording of FoF 6 to include Snowspinner. The links I posted at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3/Proposed decision#Before you close go to show that Snowspinner also has "made unproductive and inflammatory commentary on Everyking's behavior". -- Netoholic @ 20:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

A proposal regarding enforcement against banned editing in Bogdanov Affair

hello Fred,

could you look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Regarding_The_Bogdanov_Affair/Workshop where i suggest a method to greatly reduce the repeated vandalism/reversion being done to the article? i personally see no other solution other than wasting a lot of time of a lot of people. this proposed solution would reduce the time-wasting to once per week. r b-j 20:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikilawyering

Wikipedia:Wikilawyering is destructive as it removes the focus of a case away from trying to find out what the real problems are and trying to find a solution. Encouraging someone else to focus on wikilawyering as the basis of a defense rather than addressing their behavior is quite unproductive. By the way, the arbitrators are equal in status. Fred Bauder 20:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Your viewpoint on this particular is diametrically opposed to my own, and not for the first time. We disagreed regarding your wiki-info, and the exceptions to your SPOV. And we utterly disagree here, regarding the ability of Kelly Martin to adjudicate in a non-partisan manner in this case, and in your assessment of the standing of appointed arbiters as opposed to those who have been given a mandate by the community (such as Theresa Knott). Arbiters, admins, Jimbo and the board do not an encyclopedia make. The contributers, the readers, and the developers are the key to the community, and they have not signed off on these recent "appointees", nor the process which might be taking place to replace them this december. Sam Spade 20:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hitler-papal whitewashing

My user contributions under this name (cookies died) show how I was sucked back in after attacks by User:Str1977 and Robert McClenon sucked me back in and I am much unhappy following insytant revert on reichskonkordat . Do you think it acceptable that allegationmade at Nuremburg is thus deleateable? I despair of Str1977 behaviour and ask you to read that one RKKt page case, and back me in chucking this apologist as far as we can . I appeal to all your best endeavour . EffK 04:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand this. Fred Bauder 05:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, I do. When on Wikipedia, follow Wikipedia rules. Rules are different on Wikinfo, but you are talking about an article here. Please don't try to play one side against the other. I am not going to come in on a white horse and save you Fred Bauder 12:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

82.110.42.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Aabaas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fronts and cutouts

After reading the article Agent handling I was appalled by not only the editorial style but also by some "facts" that appear to be Original Research. For example: “The extensive use of cutouts, so long as they are trusted and reliable persons, can become a long chain of individuals. This performs another purpose, similiar to the extensive use of "front organizations"; by their sheer number, it becomes a shell game with counterintelligence investigators, who have finite and limited resources. When suspicion arises, the large number of persons and organizations connected to the conspiracy can devour endless hours and cost, which has the effect of slowing down the process of exposing an espionage organization.” [31]. Would you be so kind and review that article to see if any improvements can be made? Thank you in advance. Dearlove Menzies 16:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Can I suggest changing the above "conspiracy", to "operation"; "conspiracy", presupposes a legal verdict. nobs 19:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Onefortyone placed on Probation

I refer to your message on my Talk page. - User:Onefortyone has every right to take me to an Arbitration hearing if he believes my conduct is improper but I will continue to revert any edit he does that is a reinsertion of the same numerous references, fabrications, and distortions from the past or edits with those same ones where he claims a few "new" sources that are in fact similarly unacceptable under the same Wikipedia policy precepts. However, at this time Mr. Bauder if I may, I think it important to point out that your rendering of an opinion of a central issue under Arbitration and giving advice here to User:Onefortyone during the previous Arbitration Committee hearing was a highly questionable action that breached the Arbitration process and usurped the authority of the remaining Committee members. Continuing in the same vein of giving advice now places you in a conflict of interest that I think violates the neutrality that is fundanmental to the credibility of the Arbitration Committee. With all due respect, I believe the message you left on my Talk page and at User Talk:Wyss that came to the conclusion, based on an "impression," that "If he took you to arbitration over this I would vote to accept the case" is improper and could well be ajudged as intimidation. May I suggest that in your position, rather than giving advice to someone where you may be called upon to sit in judgment of your own advice, it would most certainly have been proper to refer Onefortyone to the Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 15:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

In response to your reply on my Talk page to the above, I would have to say that given the seriousness of the issue with respect to the absolute integrity of the Arbitration process and that you admit to the problems which exist by advising Onefortyone, in any further process involving the same issues with me or anyone else versus User:Onefortyone I would be making a formal request that you recuse yourself. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 15:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The issue is that a member of the Arbitration Committee should not be rendering a judgment on his own advice. That fundamental is inviolable. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 15:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

PureSoups and Hitler's Pope

Sorry I confusded you .Here's one for you though Fred, at The Great Scandal .Take it with you please before its locked ,blocked and deleted . I lost that Wikinfo cookie too , and I am under encroachment on all sides at the minute . I'm sorry not to have reminded you that I used PureSoups briefly before cookieless , again, recently returning here as EffK for short . I'm stepping out smartly here , and naturally consider you a neutral of integrity who can afford his mind . I determine , the more so in the past half-hour , that my nemesis is indeed a technical vandal , for whatever resasons he has. I do not purposefully aim for a showdown , but just as the call had to be made to P Benedict XVI to his face at the Synagogue in Cologne , so here in this Wikipedia , some stand for un-covering the truth must now obtain . In other words , a showdown concerning faith-based editing and denial . Or not .Thanks , EffK 16:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)