User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 5

My associates and I have installed the wikimedia-1.1.0 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. 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 and in User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 4.

Accept vote?

I'm curious whether your "accept" vote for CK's frivolous request is intended to be some kind of "punishment" against me for not wanting to waste any mediator's time with this little squabble which is only four days old and still being actively discussed in Talk. VV 06:23, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me mediation should not be started at the drop of a hat. You have no sympathy for my position that it is premature? VV 22:46, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do have sympathy with that view. Is it your position that when the issue does become "ripe" that you would accept mediation? Fred Bauder 22:57, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 10. You will see me say "Premature". Does that answer your question? We are still talking on the discussion page; bringing in a mediator now would simply serve to waste an additional user's time. Arbitration would be far worse. I don't know how I could be any more clear about my position. (See also "only four days old and still being actively discussed in Talk" supra.) VV 23:13, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contrails & sept 11

(William M. Connolley 20:51, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Hello Fred. You added: It had been hypothesized that in regions such as the United States with heavy air traffic contrails affected the weather reducing solar heating during the day and radiation of heat during the night. The suspension of air travel for 3 days in the United States after September 11th provided an opportuntity to test this hyposthesis. Measurements did in fact show that without contrails daily temperatures were about 1 degree (Farenheit) higher during the day and 1 degree cooler at night.. This info (the 1 oC effect bit) is now started to propagate: I only noticed because Deco added it to Albedo. But... its sourceless. Its rather a long time ago, true, but do you have any idea of the source?

I don't remember, given my reading habits though, it was probably the New York Times Science section. Fred Bauder 21:14, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Looking at the article, the dates of my edits which added the relevant material and external links to Nature articles, the source is this article in Nature: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v418/n6898/abs/418601a_fs.html&filetype=

(William M. Connolley 21:26, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Thanks!

Sam Spade

You may want to vote on whether Sam becomes a sysop at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sam_SpadeAndyL AndyL 18:22, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

I hate to bitch, but this is getting out of hand. user:Turrican, or at least I beleive it is he, has taken it upon himself to do a one man vandal spree on myself and VV's edits. I have had to revert over a dozen articles today for continual vandalism.

It is getting to be quite the pain. TDC 23:01, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Every time a new wave of vandalism hits, its accompanied by a new IP adress, but the articles vandalized are always the same. The newest reincarnation is 198.165.90.75. TDC 17:40, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration for orthogonal

Fred, you moved it into position as an accepted case with 3 accepts and two recuses. According to arbitration policy, 4 accepts are needed. Is there a reason you did this? I don't see a pressing need to move on this request without a 4th accept since, as far as I know, orthogonal is gone and not bothering anyone right now. As a recused arbitrator, I don't care much about this case in specific since I won't be hearing it, but I do think we should follow policy. Jwrosenzweig 23:19, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I trust you, Fred, but I'd like to know where that is in our arbitration policy, since the pages I was looking at don't mention it. That or I'm just reading badly today. Either way, I'd like to know about that rule so I can see whatever it is I am not looking at. Oh, and I see no reason to move to close, Fred -- after all, many editors claim to leave and then resurface, and orthogonal himself asked we ban him despite his leave-taking. In general, I don't think it's good practice to avoid dealing with a case if someone leaves -- otherwise that will become the favored stall tactic of all our least lovable trolls. Jwrosenzweig 23:28, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I guess I disagree on both counts, but not in any significant manner. :-) I agree it's common sense but I still think it should be written down somewhere. And I've seen many definitive statements on user pages that disappeared a week later when someone cooled off and returned. But do as you please. :-) Thanks for letting me know what your perspective is. Jwrosenzweig 23:36, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Copy of my note to Everyking re Great Purge

I have now withdrawn from this article, and also from Khmer Rouge. I will now go through my watchlist and withdraw from all articles on modern historical and political topics, since I can longer stand having to conduct these endless stupid circular arguments over elementary facts of history with malicious fools like Shorne, while being sabotaged by people like you and Fred Bauder who ought to know better. I am in fact seriously considering withdrawing from Wikipedia altogether, since I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that its structure does not offer any support to those attempting to write intellectually credible articles on historical-political subjects. Adam 13:50, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne

I'm afraid Shorne is not going to stop. Shall we open a discussion about user conduct in Wikipedia:Request for comment ? What do you think? Boraczek 13:02, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please do. Fred Bauder 13:46, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

To my utter frustration, I find that Shorne is right in one respect. References to various books are secondary. As a lawyer, you are aware of the notion of "hearsay". While in our context it is not exactly applicable, I find that many articles are indeed poorly substantiated. In our particular example, if one relies on or draws from Conquest's book, it is a good idea to mention the same sources Conquest uses, especially in the view of the book being vehemently criticized by leftists. At least, there should be an article The Great Terror that discusses the credibility of the book, to lay a foundation of further references. I believe, in the cases like this the only way to win a conflict is to have a solid factual foundation. That's what I am trying slowly to do, starting from articles Secret Speech, NKVD troika, List of Gulag camps (lays abandoned, unfortunately), Article 58, Belomorkanal, and other ones I placed in a new category, "Soviet political repressions". A cornerstone topic to cover is Andrey Vyshinsky's legal theory. This (missing) article would explain a good deal of the Great Purge works.

Also as a lawyer, I hope you will understand the following problem. The Great Purge article fails to distinguish three issues: (1) existence of actual internal enemies of the Soviet Union (2) simplified legal base, initially subsitituted by "revolutionary justice" and lopsidedly developed afterwards, and (3) the consequences of 2: ease of abuse both from the above and from the below. Mikkalai 19:26, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your outrageous misrepresentations

How can you claim with a straight face that I don't offer references? Go look at Talk:Khmer Rouge. I'm the only one who gave references. And that discussion about The Black Book of Communism: you had almost nothing substantive to say in response to my long article. I've lost respect for you. Shorne 14:19, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Me too. But that was long ago - irismeister 18:40, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)

WP:LCOTW

Hey, I see you're into books, so I thought you might be interested in or could help out at the Literature COTW. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 19:24, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) (PS this is NOT a mass user-talk page spam campaign :-)

"Standard" references

Your "standard" reference is nothing but a piece of propaganda. The whole article Great Purge is heavily slanted, and people like Carr have been deleting references inserted by others who seek to add (God forfend!) a bit of balance.

I'll deal with this matter later. I have other things to do, believe it or not, than argue with people who don't—won't—listen. Shorne 22:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree. With VeryVerily, and to some extent TDC, doing as they please on that article, accusing Shorne of being unreasonable on Great Purge is ridiculous. Veryverily has broken the three revert rule on the page, and other pages. Shorne may have done more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, but he is a new user and was unfamiliar with this rule until recently, until I explained it to him, which of course no one else was willing to do as you're all trying to drive off a new user who does not share your political philosophy. At least you've been more-or-less keeping to the Wikipedia rule structure, VeryVerily has been flagrantly breaking the same rules he has been banned for breaking before, something that is currently entering arbitration (which two arbs have signed off on so far). Shorne is a new user who broke the three revert rule since he doesn't know any better, and in a tit-for-tat with VeryVerily, an old hand who certainly does know better since he's been banned for doing it before. I find the notion that newbie Shorne, and not the user entering arbitration, is the "problem" on the Great Purge page, ridiculous. Shorne has been trying to reach a consensus in discussion along with me and others, VeryVerily has no time for this, he just rv's whatever everyone has all worked out, and VeryVerily himself has admitted on your page that he breaks the revert rules because he feels the dispute resolution process has broken down. While at least you have been, as far as I can discern, following the Wikipedia rules, your lack of attempts to explain things like the three revert rule to Shorne while jumping around user talk pages preparing a rfc case against him points to you not really wanting to work this out, but to ultimately try to get this new user banned because he is not a fan of capitalism and imperialism like yourself. Ruy Lopez 18:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense on China

You have absolutely no grounds on which to accuse me of not knowing anything about China. Rather than presenting my credentials, I'll point your nose to a few facts:

1. No one gave a single reference to prove the propagandistic claims made about income and famine in China. I asked several times over a period of days. I was entirely justified in deleting those unfounded statements. (DItto for that stuff about the Great Purge.)
2. Your newly cited "references" don't prove a thing about the period discussed, which is roughly 1976 to the present.
3. I have already cited references about declining food production and other problems that resulted.
4. The article on the Great Leap Forward is slanted and will be corrected when I get the time.

Shorne 22:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Re Shorne

Fred, As you know I have withdrawn from editing in the subject areas that Shorne has been vandalising, mainly because of the failure of supposedly serious editors to support me in reverting his absurd edits. I wish you luck in dealing with him. But I have no confidence whatever in Wikipedia's ability to deal with people like Shorne, so I will not be participating in the process you describe. This is not intended as a reflection on you personally, but is rather a comment on Wikipedia's fundamental structural flaws. Any serious encyclopaedia project would ban him outright. Adam 23:32, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hey Fred:

Never thought I'd ever say this but I'm actually arguing on the same side as you on a China-related subject! (Don't think this'll be happening too often. ;) ) In any case, I've put up some more stuff on talk:People's Republic of China and also a RfC. Take a look if you got time. Live long and prosper. ;) :P -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 00:57, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Fred: I've written what I hope is a "truly-NPOV" version at talk:People's Republic of China. It does get kind of ridiculously long, but it basically attempts to present the views on everything that happened/happens, of which there is a lot. (I think a lot of things which you and me could get into violent debates over are also in there.) Take a look and see what you think -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 04:58, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

---

If you start an RfC, I'll be happy to endorse it. But my recent experiences, such as the failure of the ArbCom or anyone to take even the mild action of IP blocking against a user who vandalized my user page multiple times with vulgarities and attacked my edits, all the while taking CK's arb request seriously, as well as my past experiences, such as the community response to my issue with 172, the bureaucratship of Danny, the total inaction on past RfC's (even clearcut ones such as Bushit), and the abuse from Wikipedia regulars, leaves me with absolutely no faith in the "system" that would make me want to spend the time re-summarizing this dispute on yet another page, just to start in motion an utterly ineffective and irrelevant process. Until the bureaucracy here functions more like a court than a circus, I am happy to use the main tool at my disposal - reverting - to deal with problem users. I appreciate your support for this effort on the few articles where you have provided it, as the only thing that has ever worked to dissuade attackers is making it clear their efforts will be for naught. VeryVerily 03:56, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, that maybe sounded too harsh. I'm sure y'all are doing your best, it's just not having an adequate impact. VeryVerily 03:57, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Re whose sockpuppet is who: I have my guesses,, but like I mentioned to PMA, I'm not inclined to launch a full investigation right now. It don't see the relevance; they're trouble regardless of who they are. VeryVerily 04:58, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wrote voluminous amounts of material on all the community pages about these people early this year. No action was ever taken, despite me pleading for it. I am not going to waste more hours haggling with them over simple historical facts which have already been laid out for them and documented ad nauseam in the Talk pages. The only thing that has made them go away was having every one of their execrable edits reverted on sight. Perhaps you just don't have enough experience with these people and their behavior on in particular the Cambodia pages to understand this. Your approach of "soft and steady" I think reflects naivete about what we're up against. Do you want Wikipedia to be ruined while we spend months writing up RfC's and making gentle suggestions on the Talk pages? VeryVerily 21:19, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Slow and steady wins the race. Fred Bauder 21:31, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I live by experience not slogans. VeryVerily 21:36, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Then don't complain when you have the experience of being banned from editing political articles. Fred Bauder 21:38, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Was that supposed to be witty? You seem to be quite persistently ignoring my arguments as to why this approach is called for. VeryVerily 21:51, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you argue for gas chambers while you're at it, O possessor of the Truth? Shorne 21:58, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well said! That was laid on with a trowel. Shorne 21:49, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Update on mediation request with User:VeryVerily

The section /*Request mediation with User:VeryVerily*/ at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation was moved to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/VeryVerily due (only) to the size of this section. Please continue all discusion there.

Thanks, BCorr, Chair of the Mediation Committee, 22:02, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Received?

Hello! Have you received the email I sent to U yesterday? Boraczek 22:27, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As I am pretty busy this week, I probably won't participate in the arbitration process in any other form than possibly as an occasional spectator. U can freely use the material I sent to U, if U find some of my arguments founded and relevant enough. Kind regards. Boraczek 12:35, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Evidence Shorne

These are notes for an arbitration case, please don't edit or comment.

Personal attacks

[1] [2]

POV reversions

Shorne

[3], [4] [5] [6] [7]

Ruy Lopez

[8] modern day supporter of Hitler

Vandalism

[9]

Attempts

VeryVerily

[10]

Attempts

VeryVerily

[11]

Shorne

Attempt [12] response [13]

Edit below this line

I don't know if you wish to add anything (you spoke of it before), but the talk at Template talk:Sep11 over the memorial link is heating up. VeryVerily 08:00, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jimmyvanthach arbitration

hi - I know you guys are busy but I was just wondering about the timetable for accepted arbitration requests. Jimmyvanthach has been pending for quite a while. His behavior has fortunately not escalated beyond a very irritating edit war on a couple of articles - no urgent vandalism, just a slight waste of time for the several people who have been trying to talk sense to him.

On another note, is the format for that RFA acceptable? It was copied from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tran Van Ba in such a way that when you edit, you're actually editing the original page, which seems confusing. ←Hob 16:51, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

Don't know if it matters by now, but Jimmyvanthach has just tried to wipe out the evidence page [14] (and the talk page [15]) for the related Tran Van Ba case. ←Hob 20:39, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting VeryVerily's changes to United States and for adjusting the sentence on McDonald's in that article. Shorne 17:29, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chuck_F Arbitration

Thank you for your response to my request for arbitration for Chuck_F, however I do not understand how his misconduct can be reviewed given that he has requested the arbitration and is effectively bringing a complaint against me. I seek your urgent clarification as I may have misunderstood the process. Reithy 00:48, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

==Jew Watch==

Can you consider weighing in on the edit war at Jew Watch?AndyL 04:54, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gene Poole

Hello Fred. I found your page from the arbitration page regarding "Gene Poole". I am sorry to say that I stumbled into communicating with him over the "Sealand" page. When he kept reverting edits I wrote to him and I thought that I could establish a reasonable dialog since his interests included Art Deco. Unfortunately this guy has such fixed ideas that discussion is not possible. As a result I found nasty comments posted on the history page of the "Sealand" article: "revert to last version by Taxman - remove hysterically POV nonsense interpolated by 64.63.216.251)"

I note that you are a retired lawyer. Since the "Sealand" issue is really about two concepts, one founded in the reality of the real world of real law and the other found in the imagination of "Gene Poole", it is impossible to discuss the issue of "Sealand".

My problem is this: Someone coined the word "micronation" that has been defined by "Gene Poole" as meaning a claim to existence that is unsupported by any evidence other than the media that reports upon the claim. This act of putting something in print, according to "Gene Poole", creates a reality of the claim, even though the claim itself is unsupported. This is how he has defined "Sealand" to me.

On the same theme this would equate "Sealand" with the "Flat Earth Society" and that is how I believe these various topics should be grouped. In other words, "Gene Poole's" idea of a "micronation" really belongs as a sub-category of spurious claims. It is not even a myth. It is more in line with hoax, fraud and con.

I came to Wikipedia with the intention of contributing to a number of topics and I have already begun to do so. However, I am really getting to the point of walking away after getting bogged down in a series of silly discussions over "Sealand" - a topic which makes Wikipedia look both silly and totally unreliable as a source of information.

I would like to know how the term "micronation" came to have the meaning that "Gene Poole" gives to it. I would also like your legal opinions to throw light on the Sealand page.

I have personal knowledge and very bad experience resulting from a con and fraud involving "Sealand" and it had been my intention to help set the record straight. However, the problem is that because "Sealand" had been originally written as if a state existed by that name, it means that every amendment and correction merely adds to the myth, con and fraud.

The fact is that "Sealand" is really the name given by squatters to HMS Roughs (HM Fort Roughs) which was a barge with a high superstructure built in England and floated to a position over Rough Sands sandbar and the hold then flooded so that it sank in the shallow waters on top of the sand bar.

The squatters claimed that the barge had been abandoned in the sense that no claim to ownership was made by the UK. However, to this very day the Ministry of Defence still maintain the "Rough Tower" marker buoys surrounding it.

All of the issues surrounding this article are legal in nature.

Please take a look at the article and please give me your opinion about the word "micronation" as well as "Gene Poole's" nasty way of attacking anyone that he disagrees with. For my part I cannot keep discussing issues with people who seem to be totally out of touch with the real world of real laws and real estate and do not seem to be able to distinguish between fantasy and reality or the laws regarding real estate and personal property. MPLX/MH 17:43, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I find the article interesting. However, having an editor pushing a point of view flaws it and makes it difficult for others to work on it. Fred Bauder 03:52, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Well I suppose in writing to you I asked for more trouble from Gene Poole because he has now taken up an attack on me with regard to a vote for deletion of the Principality of Sealand page (which existed along with the Sealand page. Please take a look at the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Principality of Sealand page. MPLX/MH

Precedent in the Netoholic case

Is it common practice, or is there precedent, for accepting an Arbitration case on the basis of 3 Accepts and 2 Recusals? Arb Policy says that it requires four votes to accept or reject. Even if you extend that as a percentage to accommodate the recusals, 4/9 is 44% and 3/7 is only 42%. In this case, one vote changed from reject to accept only recently, one vote admits some bias, and one vote accepted only to "clear the queue". If all three votes were strongly adamant about accepting the case, perhaps you'd have room to test the "flexibility" of the Arb Policy. In this case, I don't think you do. -- Netoholic @ 18:37, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)

4 of 9 is one less than a majority which would be 5 of 9. Likewise 3 of 7 is one less than a majority which would be 4 of 7. That is the basis upon which the case was deemed accepted. Fred Bauder 23:45, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Can you please point me to other cases where the "one less than majority" standard was used? Can you also show me where that standard has been discussed before? Without this, I don't think you should be interpretting the Arb Policy in such a way. -- Netoholic @ 00:19, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

Why didn't you just ask User:Jwrosenzweig to recuse? Sam [Spade] 00:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fact and reference check

Hello, many people want to move forward with the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check project instead of waiting for 'smart' footnotes to be coded into MediaWiki. The first step is agreeing upon a formatting template used to fact check new articles. Several candidates are up for vote, and everyone is encouraged to vote and/or submit their own proposal. Comments on proposals are also very much welcome.

Thanks for your interest in our project, I hope you will vote :o). --ShaunMacPherson 22:44, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please assist at Dedham, Massachusetts

A Perfectly sound, non-POV edit was repeatedly tag-team reverted (text contunually deleted) there with no talk page dialog. Now the page is protected. 216.153.214.94 03:35, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just don't understand this

I've replied over at the talk page of Rex's arbitration. I'm just amazed. I've spent more than three months dealing with this user. I've been abused, insulted, harassed, and it's very clear that I'm far from the only one. Indeed, it's clear that Rex has shown an inability to communicate helpfully with any other user in such a manner that I cannot think of one equivalent - even RK was better than this guy. Despite this case having been before the Committee, since August, we've seen hardly a thing in response from you guys.

And now, one quip of "hi rex!" is suddenly characterised as a taunt worthy of mentioning in these proceedings? I just cannot fathom why these proceedings have been so biased against us. If that's worthy of mentioning, why there isn't two hundred other findings of fact against Rex? Ambi

For your information, I saw the edit on recent changes, and having been well and truly familiar with the argument over this particular article (i.e. Rex's decision to single this particular place out), agreed that reversion was the right step to take.

Is there any hope of a fair trial here? As I said over on that talk page, I'm still trying to assume good faith, but I'm beginning to have serious doubts, and I don't take much confidence from that response. Ambi 12:50, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

With the above in mind, I respectfully ask that you recuse yourself from this case. I do not feel that, for whatever reason, perhaps a bias against some of the complaining witnesses, we are able to gain a fair trial with you as a leading arbitrator. Ambi 14:06, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I find no basis for recusal. You can take it up with the arbitrators as a group if you wish. Fred Bauder 14:39, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Well, thank you for explaining that much. Has Rex not been given enough chances, however? This case has been in the works since August, and if anything, he's gotten worse. How many more chances is he going to get?

I'm prepared to take you on your word that there's other reasons behind some of these recent findings. However, when we prepared the great wad of evidence that made up the initial evidence page, we were told that a number of them were trivial. Fair enough, I guess. But then, when some of the complaining witnesses, after months of this stuff, do something that's both even more trivial and a one-off (in contrast to Rex's repeated indiscretions), they're faced with both a reprimand and the threat of actual sanctions, such as a one-day ban. I'm afraid I just don't see how that is at all just. Ambi 14:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just wanted to clear up one more thing: while I appreciate the vote of confidence about potentially becoming an arbitrator, that's not why I've taken such an involvement in this case, or in others that I've spoken up about. If I did too much of those chores, I'd burn out - what I'm here for, above anything else, is to write articles. Unfortunately, sometimes that requires being dragged into community issues. However, if that does happen, and I do see something I perceive to be unjust, I feel the need to speak up, regardless of any personal stake in the issues involved. Ambi 14:31, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please see this 216.153.214.94 18:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Adam Carr

I'm afraid I must ask once more that you remind Adam carr that he must lighten up on the personal attacks, as per the arbcom ruling. Case in point: Talk:Australian_Labor_Party#King_O.27Malley. Thanks in advance. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:06, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is clear that Adam and I disagree on a wide range of controversial political issues. So be it. I remain hopeful that consistent gentle social pressure from the Wikipedia community can keep the truculence to a minimum. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:20, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dedham, Massachusetts

I am interested to hear what you think about this particular edit:

The town was originally arranged via a Parish delineation system with the residents of each required to pay into their local parish whether they attended that church or not [16]. This arrangement - which was also followed in a number of other Massachusetts and New England commmunities in the pre-Bill of Rights days - and the resentment it caused a number of people, was one of the prime rationales for the inclusion of the Establishment Clause into the United States Constitution.

While there doesn't see to be any argument that sentence #1 is true (and corroboarted by sufficient proof) I am puzzled as to what the objection is to sentence #2.

Frankly, sentence #2 is so obviously true to me, that I am puzzled as to how anyone would complain about it. Even a rudimentary study of the issue makes it clear.

Also, have you read the book in question?

216.153.214.94 19:16, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I haven't read the book, but if you had the book you could add a lot on the history of Dedham. I have yet to see any reference online or quoted from any book which relates to that second sentence. Certainly it seems true enough. I suggest you follow up on the suggestions of Netoholic. Fred Bauder 19:32, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Note to AC

Fred, I left a note for all the other arbitrators, but in light of your remarkable contributions in the last few months (you seem to handle every case with speed and precision), I decided I wouldn't leave you a form letter. I know I'm not the most active arbitrator, but I am also not the least, and I felt something had to be said. So you know, this is what I left on all the other active AC members' pages --

"Hello -- I'm writing this once but it's addressed to each of you, my colleagues. :-) I don't know if anyone's noticed, but we are under increasing criticism from Wikipedians because we are slow in judgment -- indeed, we have cases that were accepted 3 months ago still languishing in voting paralysis. I'm not writing this to necessarily chastise you -- two or three of you are ahead of me in keeping up with things, I know! But I see many pages where I and a few others have considered, proposed, and voted -- we are waiting for the rest of you. Please do so soon. If you are too busy to be on the AC (I often feel that way myself), perhaps it is time for new elections, but until that happens, I urge you to vote. We have a few tireless arbitrators doing a lot of work crafting some good proposals, but they're not getting attention, and the community grows restless. I hope we can ease some of the grumbling. I apologize for the impersonal message, and again, I'm not no a high horse here. I do think it's time for action, though. Leave me a note if you have any quarrel with my comments here -- I meant them well. See you at WP:RFAr..."

I hope it wasn't too rough -- I'm just getting frustrated seeing all these pages with your proposals (and those of one or two others) and then 2 or 3 aye votes. Hopefully people take it well. Let me know if you think I overstepped too many bounds there: best wishes, Jwrosenzweig 22:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky

Herschelkrustofsky is not only a fool, he is a malicious fool, and I will go on saying so as occasion arises. Any genuine encyclopaedia project would have banned him from participation as soon as it became clear that he is a LaRouche propagandist and not a legitimate editor. I now only edit Australian topics, where I don't have to deal with the vast collection of vandals and nutters you have allowed to infect all the areas I used to edit in, but since Herschelkrustofsky has started spreading his garbage into Australian topics I will continue to (a) revert it whenever I see it and (b) say why. If you want to ban me for this, go ahead. I am on the point of withdrawing altogether anyway. Why Wikipedia structures itself in such a way that makes the achievement of its objectives impossible, by protecting people like Herschelkrustofsky and driving legitimate editors away, is something I will never understand. Adam 01:54, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If Wikipedia considered my contributions to be valuable it would have done something to protect them, such as preventing idiots like Herschelkrustofsky, Hanpuk and Shorne from wrecking them. I would have been able to make many more contributions had I not had to spend so much time dealing with them and their ilk. As it is I doubt I will be making any more contribtions. Adam 02:49, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Hello, I am a new user. Some LaRouche-related articles I have edited have had my material removed by user:Herschelkrustofsky. The material I added was about a British Jewish student called Jeremiah Duggan who recently died in Germany in mysterious circumstances after attending a Schiller Institute meeting. The parents are pushing German police to investigate. I've written a new article about this, and have also added some information about it to the Schiller Institute and Helga Zepp-LaRouche articles.

Herschelkrustofsky has deleted my material from the Zepp-LaRouche article, and has modified it in the Schiller Institute article. I am concerned because his modification used exactly the same strange words that were used in a LaRouche publication. This caused me to look up Herschelkrustofsky, and I saw there had been a dispute regarding whether he should be allowed to edit LaRouche-related articles, because he appears to be involved with them, but I couldn't see how the dispute was resolved.

Is Herschelkrustofysky, in fact, allowed to edit LaRouche-related articles?

Many thanks, user:SlimVirgin Nov. 14, 2004

Voting has officially begun

Hi there. I noticed that you voted before it had officially started, so I just wanted to remind you to review the proposals again if you want- since it counts now. We didn't get a proposal for the tooltips idea, as suggested on the talk page. While I am not sure of why, I think it's most probably because it isn't default for all users, so only a few people will appreciate it. There is another proposal that allows for multiple references per footnote, but only one footnote per sentence. This will reduce clutter. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 04:57, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also, I think you voted twice...or didn't vote at all :S. Please only vote once! Thanks. If you want to make a comment about one of the proposals, please don't put the # before it. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 15:15, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From User:IZAK

Hi Fred, see my response/s at User:IZAK#Responses to anti-semitism and to the page you set up at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence#Response by User:IZAK: I am not "spamming"! This is normal communication for a very active Wikipedia user I look forward to your response. IZAK 05:32, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(Cross-posted from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IZAK:)

IZAK seems to have still not gotten the message about the mass-posting. As documented Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence#Continued activity, minutes after posting a long response on the Evidence page, IZAK contacted twenty-five users directing them to it - in the same manner as the complaint has stated. I request that some sort of temporary injunction be put in place. -- Netoholic @ 07:42, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

Netoholoc: They were all my friends on Wikipedia and I have every right to communicate with them any way I wish AFAIK. Thank you. IZAK 00:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User:Shorne

Hello Fred Bauder, I read that you have had your disagreements with Shorne. I am currently involved in an edit war with him in this topics: Abimael Guzman and Shining Path. As in other articles, he is continously whitewashing the terrorism of Guzman and Shining Path. I find it disgusting. But I am alone in this. Your help will be appreciated. If you know of anybody else that has had issues with Shorne, please tell him/her about this.--AAAAA 04:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think what is "disgusting" is the picture you posted of a man spreading his anus open on the Abimael Guzman page, AAAAA. Ruy Lopez 02:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Clarication

On IZAK's evidence page, do you mean to ask for examples of NPOV (neutral) editing, or examples of POV insertions? -- Netoholic @ 21:31, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

I think finding POV edits would be relatively easy. What I want him and his supporters to do is provide examples of NPOV editing, like for example where he insisted inclusion of some well documented information which was unfavorable to Zionist positions. If, in fact, he can come up with such examples, it would be unjust to treat him a a POV pusher. Fred Bauder 22:37, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Notes Avila

[17]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic/Evidence

I've made a few clarifications. Sorry about the mistakes. Out of interest, does this look in order? I want this to be correct, because I'm sick of Netoholic's actions. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:10, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration query re: LaRouche

Hello Fred, I'm a new Wikipedian, having joined at the beginning of November. I have created an article about Jeremiah Duggan, a young Jewish student from Britain who died in odd circumstances after attending a Schiller Institute conference and LaRouche Youth Movement "cadre school" in Germany. His mother believes the group used mind-control techniques on her son to persuade him to become a member. After spending six days with the group, Jeremiah ran out onto a busy road in what a British coroner called a "state of terror," and was killed. The German police initially ruled it was a suicide. The mother is pressing to have that verdict overturned, with the support of the British government and a British coroner. His case has been reported by the Washington Post, the London Times, the Guardian and the Independent. I therefore felt it was worth creating a Wikipedia article. I also included a reference to the case on the Schiller Institute page; the page on Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the Schiller Institute's founder, and the page on the LaRouche Youth Movement.

The problem is that three users, who I believe may be Lyndon LaRouche activists, are either deleting sections, or inserting material from a LaRouche publication into the article without full attribution, and without checking that it's accurate. Keeping track of their changes and trying to discuss them on the talk pages is becoming a full-time job. The users are user:Weed Harper, user:C Colden and user:Herschelkrustofsky.

I'm therefore trying to find out what the Arbitration Committee intended with its recent ruling on LaRouche advocates adding material to LaRouche-related articles, which I read at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche. One decision was that no one is allowed to use Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy. But does inserting LaRouche-organization claims into articles count as advocacy? I'd appreciate your guidance as to whether these users are acting in violation of the committee's ruling. Many thanks, Slim. user:SlimVirgin 01:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The decision reads:

4) Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche.

This would seem to be an article which is highly relevant, being an attack on the organization. I read the article and see numerous problems but the participation of LaRouche supporters per se is not covered by our decree. I would focus on adequate attribution of whatever LaRouche material is included, as well as of material which supports claims of wrong-doing. Fred Bauder 12:48, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Fred, thank you for that information. Slim 20:40, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism - NPOV edit

Hi Fred, did my explanation clarify why I thought that was an example of a NPOV edit? Also, in the initial Arbitration request a couple of Arbitrators mentioned "injunctions". Could you tell me what those are and how they work? If a Talk: page is an inappropriate place for that, please feel free to e-mail me. Thanks. Jayjg 15:50, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I've updated the comment slightly to note that, as it turned out, the statement was not an official Church statement at all, but rather of dubious importance. Jayjg 12:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please ban VeryVerily

Please ban VeryVerily. In violation of the injunction issued by the arbitrators, he has reverted List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945 three times in the past twenty-four hours. (The last time was also a violation of policy, for he added "twoversions" after restoring his own version.) Shorne 20:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Complaints

I don't understand your removal of those complaints to the talk page of Wikipedia:Admin enforcement requested. It seems that the talk page is used for other purposes than requesting administrative action. If those complaints were in the wrong place, where should they have been filed? Shorne 11:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For the third time in a row, VeryVerily has also deleted Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Discussion. Shorne 11:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. I wasn't sure what to do, and the instructions that I read were not clear. I have taken the matter to the Village Pump. Shorne 11:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cantus/Guanaco case

Fred - could you please vote on the remedies in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus vs. Guanaco/Proposed decision? →Raul654 21:11, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Re: IZAK RfA

Fred: I see that voting is taking place on my case. Why does that page only cite only the few examples you wrote on it? How do I know that every arbitrator will read everything that relates to the case and not just your one-sentence summaries? Why are you not applying the same standards to HistoryBuffEr in his case, such as suggesting the he be banned for one year? Could you please explain. Thanks. IZAK 05:35, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration Request - Alberuni

You rejected my request, saying "Reject, despite a request on his talk page User:Yoshiah ap has not supplied diff links to the specific edits he complains of."

I am unaware of what you are reffering to. You requested I change the format of the links that I gave, which I did, not to present additional evidence. I don't understand what I failed to show.--Josiah 18:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe I have changed the links correctly so that you will be able to see what I was trying to show you. Please inform me if I still do not understand you.--Josiah 02:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Enforcement request re: supporters of Lyndon LaRouche

Fred, I am writing to request enforcement of the Arbitration Committee's decisions that (1) "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed . . . not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche; and that (2) "Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense." These decisions can be read here.

User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:Weed Harper have created an article on the Tavistock Institute. This is an organization in London, England that was founded in the 1920s to promote the interests of psychology and psychiatry. Over the years, it has offered psychotherapy to British people through its related Tavistock Clinic; has worked with the British government and European Union to develop mental health policies; and has financially supported mental-health related publications through its own publishing house. It is an institution that is highly regarded by psychologists and psychiatrists in the UK. It is arguably the most highly regarded mental health institute in the UK. Its website is here.

In 1974, Lyndon LaRouche published an article accusing the Tavistock of being involved in mind control. That article can be found here (warning: slow download). Since then, the LaRouche view of the Tavistock has developed in countless articles and speeches and is therefore hard to summarize. However, he appears to believe that the Tavistock is involved in mind control in order to exert influence over the British people and, I believe, the American people. The Tavistock, LaRouche maintains, has worked with successive British and American governments to achieve this, and in particularly with the British Army and intelligence services. An example of Tavistock success is the Beatles pop group, he says. They were fashioned by Tavistock-related people and controlled by intelligence agencies. I believe the allegation is that Beatles songs had certain key ideas deliberately inserted into them that governments wanted young people to believe.

In an article I recently created called Death of Jeremiah Duggan, Herschelkrustofsy and Weed Harper tried to insert some of LaRouche's ideas about the Tavistock, claiming it was relevant. That article is not the subject of this request, as we have settled that dispute as a result of compromise. However, I have now discovered that, in addition to trying to insert these views on the Tavistock into Jeremiah Duggan, the same users have created a page on the Tavistock Institute. The page is in its infancy, but one sentence already mentions mind control and social engineering and "critics" of the Tavistock. I have asked that they provide non-LaRouche attribution for these claims. They have so far only provided the results of a Google search, which produces all the old LaRouche ideas, cited by people on conspiracy websites who are either associated with LaRouche or who believe his ideas.

I ask that the Arbitration Committee find, as a matter of fact, that the sentence in the article Tavistock Institute that mentions mind control and social engineering constitutes "original research" that originated with LaRouche and his movement, and that, by inserting it, users Herschelkrustofsy and Weed Harper are engaged in activity that might be perceived as promotion of Lyndon LaRouche, in contravention of the Committee's rulings. I also ask the Committee to find, as a matter of fact, that these users created the article on the Tavistock for no other reason than to promote the LaRouche ideas on the Tavistock, and that therefore they be asked to refrain from further editing of that article.

The Tavistock Institute is not the only article into which these users are inserting LaRouche-related material. However, I am limiting this request to the Tavistock Institute in the interests of clarity. Slim 23:51, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Fred, I have also posted the above on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested Slim 00:12, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the article on Tavistock Institute bears little relationship to the activities of the Tavistock Insitute and seem to be mainly derived from LaRouche conceptions. Any user may remove such material, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision#Removal_of_original_work, "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." Should it be re-inserted or an edit war develop, "Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense", see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision#Edit_wars_or_re-insertion_of_original_material. As of now, no one has removed LaRouche derived material from the article Tavistock Institute nor has anyone tried to re-insert it or engaged in an edit war. Fred Bauder 02:24, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Fred. I feel that the Arbitration Committee should taken action against these users and not wait for more edit wars. Does their activity not fall under the Arbitration Committee's earlier ruling that editors should not engage in activity that might be perceived as promotion of Lyndon LaRouche? I know they recently inserted LaRouche material into the page on Elizabeth Symons, Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, a British minister they believe is involved in the Blair-Cheney get-LaRouche campaign; into Death of Jeremiah Duggan, which took roughly two weeks of work to sort out; and Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-Up. I also believe, based on Adam Carr's posts, that they are inserting material into articles about Australian politicians. It seems there is sufficient evidence that these users are not following either the spirit or the letter of the Arbitration Committee's previous ruling, and that therefore action could be taken against them now. If no action is taken, it means that some editors will have to appoint themselves as LaRouche-watchers to watch every edit they make, which I'm sure no one wants to do; and that will lead to the LaRouche supporters claiming they are being stalked and asking for mediation, which is what I believe has happened with Adam Carr and Herschelkrustofsy. Can't something be done under the existing Arbitration Committee's ruling? Slim 03:47, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Just for the record, they're not adding LaRouche material to the Australian articles in the same way as they are to this organisation - it's been a fair bit more subtle - taking notable figures from the Australian labor movement, and picking out tidbits that fit with LaRouche's policies, and highlighting them above all else. Ambi 04:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

user:Herschelkrustofsky, user:Weed Harper, user:64.30.208.48 and user:C Colden are trying to insert subtle Laroucheisms all over Wikipedia. If you look at Herschelkrustofsky's edits since May 2004, which seems to be the first time s/he used that name, they're almost all LaRouche-related. There are both subtle references to LaRouche ideas inserted into articles - and you need a fair bit of expertise in the subject to spot them - and then there are explicit LaRouche promotions. An example of the latter is the Frederick Wills page. Frederick Wills would not have a Wikipedia entry had he not made a speech in the 70s about debt forgiveness, which allowed Herschelkrustofsky to create the page and get in another LaRouche reference. These references are being linked to each other throughout Wikipedia by these users. If they continue, they're going to end up with a thread of references to LaRouche names and ideas woven throughout the entire encyclopaedia. They've only been doing it for a few months so it'd be easy enough to stop them now. Slim 08:13, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Under the decree, unless the article relates strongly to LaRouche, as Death of Jeremiah Duggan does, novel LaRouche material can be removed by any user and should his supporters attempt to put it back they can be banned. So to enforce the decree, remove the offending material and if they put it back, notify the arbitration committee. That said, if our decree is not working, we can reopen it. Fred Bauder 10:58, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Response from Herschel

• Regarding the use of source material from LaRouche publications: Since the Arbcom ruling, I have refrained from citing LaRouche sources, except when correcting misquotes or mischaracterizations of LaRouche's views. I do this under protest, because I have seen no evidence that LaRouche sources are any less correct than any other print or electronic media.

• • Ambi has complained on various talk pages that material appears in the LaRouche media that does not appear elsewhere; this is certainly true. However, it does not follow from this that the LaRouche publications are "making stuff up," as Ambi alleges; it is equally possible that the major press organizations are simply sloppy and negligent, or that they may suppress certain information, since most of them are cartelized organizations owned by individuals such as Rupert Murdoch, who would not shrink from using this power to further an agenda.

• • Ironically, SlimVirgin has seized upon articles from non-LaRouche publications, and deleted citations from these publications, arguing that since they seem to have information similar to that in the LaRouche publications, they must be indirectly controlled by LaRouche. This is quite a conspiracy theory. Slim's novel interpretation of the ArbCom decision is that henceforth, only a POV contrary to that of LaRouche is admissable. Incidentally, a Google search for articles linking Tavistock to brainwashing or mind control, excluding any reference to LaRouche or EIR, gives you roughly 34,000 entries. It is also worthy of note, that there were references to Tavistock in Slim's orginal version of the Duggan article -- and that Slim's characterization of LaRouche's views on Tavistock (above) is incorrect.

• • Ambi also alleges that in my recent articles on figures from the Australian labor movement, that I was "...picking out tidbits that fit with LaRouche's policies, and highlighting them above all else." This is also untrue, as a simple inspection of the edit histories will reveal. I wrote a series of stubs, with the stub template attached, and invited others to expand them. The material in my articles was very basic, and I defy anyone to demonstrate that they were in any way propagandistic. I did not object to Adam Carr expanding them, but I do object to his deleting references to the role of these figures in campaigning for a republic or a national bank. I think Ambi has been careful in noting that the material I posted was all factually correct, but I think that she is reckless in implying that all supporters of republicanism or national banks are LaRouchean, retroactively. I would be for these policies had I never heard of LaRouche.

• Regarding the theory that all my edits promote LaRouche: This theory originated with Adam Carr, but is now being championed by SlimVirgin. It is completely irresponsible. Slim has not made a serious effort to review my edit history, including the articles that I have written and edited on music and music history. And the harassment that I have endured from these individuals has eaten up a lot of time that I could have spent writing or editing other non-LaRouche articles, so in a sense, they are promoting a self-fulfilling prophecy by engaging me in endless LaRouche-related conflicts. (see also Talk:Death of Jeremiah Duggan#Herschel's non-LaRouche contributions)

• • I think it is important to respond to Slim's allegations about Frederick Wills. I knew him personally. He was a courageous man, respected by friend and foe alike. Henry Kissinger referred to him as "a formidable intellect." He was also a leader of the LaRouche movement. Slim's claim that there would be no point in having a Wikipedia article about him, were he not connected to LaRouche, reeks of hypocrisy; would there be a Wikipedia article about Jeremiah Duggan, if someone had not come up with idea of blaming his death on LaRouche?

• Regarding Slim's warning of "LaRouche supporters claiming they are being stalked": well, I do get that feeling. Today someone attempted to change my password, using IP address 144.132.89.151. Google Watch identifies this IP address as belonging to TELSTRA - 144.130.0.0 - 144.140.255.255 (AUSTRALIA). --Herschelkrustofsky 22:49, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Adam certainly hit the nail on the head when he wrote about the "injured innocence" act. This may not be the place to discuss it, but for the record user:Herschelkrustofsky has edited around 1,300 articles since May 2004, almost all of which have been about LaRouche, his organization or ideas. If he wants to show good faith, all he has to do is start creating or editing material that no one can argue is connected to LaRouche. As for Herschel's claims that Frederick Wills of Guyana was a person of international stature, Google returns only 48 entries for him, many of which stem from a Larouche publication, though he was supposedly active in politics for decades, whereas Jeremiah Duggan plus LaRouche returns 312 based on only 18 months. I haven't suggested the Wills page at votes for deletion, but I've deleted the implication that Wills took his ideas from LaRouche, and I will carry on deleting it. As for the claim that LaRouche publications carry material not found elsewhere, that's because it's largely nonsense, like the claim that the Tavistock Institute is brainwashing the world via pop song lyrics, or this one [18] claiming a British magazine published a death threat against LaRouche from senior advisers to the British royal household. LOL I can't spend any more time arguing with Herschel. For the record, I'll be deleting material that looks like original research emanating from LaRouche or that seems to be a promotion of LaRouche, unless it's an article like Jeremiah Duggan, where the organization has the right to defend itself, or one of the articles already in the LaRouche template, which are actually about him. Slim 00:02, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Note to Fred from Herschel

If the argument is to be made that material can be deleted because it "smacks of LaRouchism" or is "reminiscent of LaRouchism", then Wikipedia has descended into the realm of McCarthyism. I consider it my duty to challenge this tortured interpretation of the ArbCom decision. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's not a question of McCarthyism. You're being asked to do what other Wikipedia editors do, which is to find trusted sources for your edits and to provide, or be in a position to provide, attribution. The Arb Committee did not use the terms "smacks of" or "reminiscent of". Those are your terms. You're trying to set up a straw-man argument. Slim 15:47, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Enough is enough

Fred, the LaRouche nonsense continues. For your information, I have posted this request at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested.

I request that the Arbitration Committee take action against users Herschelkrustofsy, C Colden and 64.30.208.48 in accordance with the committee's ruling that: "Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement, or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material, shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense", see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision#Edit_wars_or_re-insertion_of_original_material

The three users are inserting claims into Lyndon LaRouche and Frederick Wills, without third-party attribution, which are designed to enhance the image of Lyndon LaRouche, and have reverted deletion of the claims three times in the last 16 hours.

Frederick Wills was a former Guyana government official who later in life became a member of the Schiller Institute (according to the Schiller Institute) which is part of the LaRouche movement. In 1976, before there is evidence of his alleged involvement with LaRouche, he apparently gave a speech to the U.N. advocating a third world debt moratorium. The above users are inserting that he gave this speech only after coming into contact with LaRouche, and that the speech was designed to promote LaRouche's proposal. They've provided no evidence to support this claim. Wills has died and therefore can't be asked what's true. This is an attempt to claim ownership on behalf of LaRouche of Wills' proposal on debt relief.

Regarding these users' edit histories, C Colden's [19] and 64.30.208.48's [20] only contributions to Wikipedia, and almost all of Herschelkrustofsky's [21], have been to promote LaRouche or his ideas. Slim 19:53, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

yesterday, hershelkrustofsky added a slab of POV onto the Michael Danby page. Xtra 22:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbcom Election Endorsements

Fred, negative comments regarding the candidates should be placed at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Disendorsements. Cheers, Johnleemk | Talk 10:54, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Photography in museums

I would like to contribute to a number of articles that could use pictures of Chinese art.

I am within driving distance of a number of fine displays of Chinese art within various museums, galleries, and other buildings.

I frequently carry a camera with me, so I could quickly build a collection of photographs of the paintings, sketches, calligraphy, and other items of artistic interest, at these locations.

Much of this art was created hundreds of years ago, so the author's copyright has long since expired.

However there appears to be a legal problem that is preventing me from contributing my photographs.

A number of museums state that visitors can take photographs for personal use, but not for distribution, and especially not for commercial use. (Otherwise they want to be paid.)

My question is this. If I walk up to a given item and photograph it under natural light, with no flash (according to the museum's wishes), being careful not to include the wall, the frame, or the pedestal, can a museum still lay claim to my photograph solely by virtue of it being located in their building?

I don't have the money to consult an attorney on this, simply so I can contribute to the Chinese art articles, so I need some "free" advice on this.

Regards,

--DV 14:15, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are correct that in most cases the copyright has expired. Your entry and presence in the museum or gallery is upon such terms as the institution may chose to impose and you may be subject to prosecution for trespassing or to being excluded if you do not meet their terms (provided they have done their paperwork imposing these requirements or posted proper notices). As Wikipedia images under the GNU Free Documentation License we use can be freely be used commercially release under that license would violate the terms laid down. However the image itself, having passed into the public domain, may be freely used by anyone, once made and published. We have had long discussions regarding this point on the mailing list, but I can't say what if anything was decided so far as policy. See [22] Fred Bauder 14:57, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

After reading your reply and some of the linked material, it appears that such photographs may themselves be perfectly usable, although I might end up being excluded or trespassed (I've seen more than one gambler "trespassed" in Vegas), which would prevent me from visiting the museum again, if they find out that I posted the photos?

Since almost every museum allows personal non-flash photography, unless I declare my intentions, they have no way of knowing what I am going to do with the photos, so there appears to be no risk of being kicked out.

And as long as Wikipedia is on solid legal ground using such photographs, I wouldn't feel so bad if I end up on some museum "black list" banning me from returning, but I respect your opinion enough to guide me as to whether or not this would qualify as "stealing"?

Also, the risk of later prosecutions for trespassing, should they manage to find out and then track me down, concern me. Is this a civil charge or a criminal charge? If criminal, is it a misdemeanor or a felony charge?

If there is more than a remote chance of civil or criminal liability, or if you would ethically consider this type of act to be "stealing", then I guess I'll keep such photos to myself.

Your initial concerns lead me to think this problem may extend to the point that even if I take photos in more public locations, I should probably keep a careful log of the location and circumstances of that photo, so there is not a question as to whether it was exhibited in a restricted environment.

This is a dismal situation, because an awful lot of old, copyright-expired art happens to be in museums.

My personal belief is that there is something wrong with our legal system if all of the copyright-expired art sitting around in museums cannot be photographed for Wikipedia.

Doubly so if this is the case for antiquities.

What moral right does an American museum have to prevent photographs of ancient Chinese artifacts from being produced and used in an encyclopedia, that will be accessible to millions of Chinese citizens who will otherwise never have the chance to view those artifacts, just because those artifacts happen to be sitting in a building owned by that museum?

I respect personal property rights just as much as the next person, but producing a photograph doesn't feel like stealing to me.

But I know that intuition is a poor legal guide, so I will defer to your judgment as to whether or not contributing such photographs is legal or not.

If you care to weigh in on the ethics of this question, I would appreciate that type of guidance as well.

Regards,

--DV 16:00, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you've just about covered the subject. My own thought is that a non-profit license would be acceptable to many of these institutions, but Wikipedia is not in a position to offer that option. Fred Bauder 18:59, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Dv - the US copyright law does not recognize any moral rights. I might also suggest you look at the Copyright FAQ (Jamesday and I wrote it) - it might help answer some of your other questions. →Raul654 19:59, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see where the Copyright FAQ addresses photographs of items that never had a copyright, or whose copyright is long since expired - antiquities, statues, paintings, sketches, and calligraphy over 100 years old, etc.

Under what law does a museum claim intellectual property rights when there is no copyright for the item in question?

It seems we're really only discussing laws against "trespassing", not copyright. I've seen enough gamblers trespassed out of casinos to think it's not a big deal, but I'm looking for some guidance here as to whether or not taking photos of such items in a musuem that says you cannot is really "stealing", and if so, under what law? (If there is no law for this, then what is the ethical consideration?)

--DV 20:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think this: http://englishhistory.net/tudor/art.html addresses most of your legal questions. If there is an ethical consideration it is that income from sale of reproductions of an art work ought to go to the institution that went to the expense of buying and displaying it whether or not it is "legal" to photograph and publish it or not. Sometimes in an institutional setting things just don't work out legally as it true for individuals. You raise an ethical consideration in your presentation that the Chinese people have to right to view the treasures of their culture regardless of who "owns" them. As to "trespassing" in a museum, while proscecution is theoretically possible it seems an unwieldy tool. I don't know if anyone ever has or could be prosecuted under these circumstances. But if you go into the office of a museum and explain that you have a right to photograph and then openly do so they might manage to put you out and prevent you from returning. Fred Bauder 01:40, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

C Colden

Fred, user:C Colden is posting again already, despite having been banned for a week starting November 25. Now I'm accused of being an anti-LaRouche activist who's here only to protect the British royal family. See bottom of page at Talk:Schiller Institute. This is getting a bit much. Slim SlimVirgin 03:27, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo felt we had not established enough of a factual basis for banning C Colden. I unbanned her myself. There is also a problem with Frederick Wills as he seems to have been closely associated with Lyndon LaRouche, thus his article is not the sort of unrelated article the arbitration decision was intended to cover. Fred Bauder 12:12, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Red Terror

Hi, Fred! I found this info with regards to your question on the Russian board. The assassination of Moisei Uritsky, along with the assassination attempt on Vladimir Lenin, provoked the Bolsheviks to issue a decree "On Red Terror" (О красном терроре, its official name in Russian), signed sometime the fall of 1918 by Grigory Petrovsky (People's Commissar of the Interior), Dmitry Kursky (People's Commissar of Justice) and Vladimir Bonch-Bruyevich (Sovnarkom's Administration). I hope this helps. I should probably add this paragraph to the Red Terror article itself. KNewman 20:37, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams vs. "Fundamentalists" RfC

Fred,

I'm confused. Why did you accept CheeseDream's RfA, when he didn't even notify the users he was making claims against of the RfA being made against them?--Josiah 23:39, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

The case was accepted to consider CheeseDreams behavior. Fred Bauder 12:08, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Evidence

Aloha, Fred. We have a very serious problem on the evidence page for HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg. HistoryBuffEr has not only been moving comments and replies from other users on the page, but I just discovered that he has been removing diff links to my evidence and replacing them with non-diff links. For three examples of his editing where he changed the evidence I presented in my own section, see these links: [23], [24], [25]. He deliberately replaced my diff links with non-diff links. This is only one example of HistoryBuffEr's efforts to subvert the arbitration process. He is not supposed to be editing evidence provided by other users. He has also been moving comments to other users, and burying them in subsections out of context, making the original replies confusing. --Viriditas 08:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Viriditas' complaint is a misrepresentation, I'll post a detailed response on the Arb page. HistoryBuffEr 19:58, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

I have posted details here on the RFA page. HistoryBuffEr 21:46, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

PS: Viriditas above claims:

• Viriditas: "This is only one example of HistoryBuffEr's efforts to subvert the arbitration process."

Viriditas needs to provide evidence for this statement or be censured for lying.

• Viriditas: "He has also been moving comments to other users, and burying them in subsections out of context, making the original replies confusing."

Evidence here shows that any moves made by HistoryBuffEr were to proper places and that actually the moves by Viriditas were into improper places.

HistoryBuffEr 21:53, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

There was no "misrepresentation", and your effort to subvert the arbitration process is documented. You violated arbibration procedures when you repeatedly changed evidence in my section, and you violated arbitration procedures when you removed diff links to my evidence in my section ( cite evidence to provide a link to the exact edit which displays the transaction, links to the page itself are not sufficient). Those facts are not in dispute but are clearly substantiated in the edit history. [26], [27], [28]. You violated the arbitration guidelines by removing evidence presented by others. The links you added did not adhere to the diff format, and further, you had no right to edit my evidence section. Additionally, many users have complained about you moving and separating replies and comments on the arbitration page, making it impossible to follow what was said or who was addressing whom. You have done this willfully, as your edit history clearly demonstrates. In fact, your entire edit history consists of nothing but manipulating articles, deleting relevant information, making dishonest edit summaries to hide your actions, making personal attacks, avoiding discussion of your changes, and engaging in malicious edit and revert wars. It is really no surprise to find that you have done the exact same thing in your own arbitration case. --Viriditas 01:16, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Form of Evidence

To clarify. So I should changed the rest of evidence to the form? 1?

ok, got it but should I do it for the evidence of the evidence that I initially submitted? OneGuy 19:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I posted very detailed evidence of POV edits and the violation of wiki NPOV policy. I am just curious. Did you examine that evidence? That was my main complaint in RFA OneGuy 17:00, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

urgent request

Could you please take a look at [29] right now? I understand that requests for arbitration require time, especially to guarantee due process. But I am immediately concerned with CheeseDreams' continual re-insertion into the talk page of archived material. This was actually discussed on the talk page some time ago [30]. Wesley, John K., and I all agreed that older material should be archived; CheeseDreams is the only one who insists on taking the material in archive & and putting it back in the article. She just summarized her edit as "revert 1" which I take as her attempt to goad me into a revert war in which I will necesarily violate the 3 revert rule. Please consider that the talk page is over 160 kb, and that the only issue I am asking for immediate attention on is CheeseDreams' reverting the archiving of old material. Thanks, Slrubenstein

PS also notifying Raul654

HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg

I'm not sure if it's appropriate to add my opinion to the proposed decision as I'm not part of the arbcom, and I notice that you are the only one who has added to this so far. So I'm sending you a message directly.

I would like to request that the 30 day block not be used. Both editors have valuable contributions for Wikipedia. It would be inadvisable to stop them from editing Arab-Israeli articles, and it would be also not be advisable to block them for 30 days from edits. I feel that this will just inflame matters. Instead, I would like arbcom to find the following before taking those sort of actions:

1. Any reverts done must have a brief summary in the talk page for each revert, unless it is a clear case of vandalism. "Vandalism" will not include POV edits. Vandalism will be things like swearing in the article, random text added or patent nonsense added. I will request this because I've noticed use of the edit summary for discussion, which is not its purpose.
2. Once the 3rd revert occurs both parties must tell another admin so that we can see if they can work things out (whether that be through page locking, a block of the page, or a judicious edit).
3. The use of language by both parties must be modified somewhat. When provoked, we would ask them to take a small break and come back. We ask that they don't incite conflict further by responding in a personal way to perceieved attacks. We recognise that this can be difficult to do at times, but continuous attacks will result in some form of forced mediation.
4. If reverts are made, both parties must place the word "Revert" at the start of the edit summary. This will make it clearer that they are reverting.
5. If reverts are made, additional changes must not be made in the revert itself. Reverts must be made and then additional edits must be made in the reverted copy. When revert+edits were made many people missed this fact and assumed that a straight reversion had been made. In the confusion edits were lost several times. I propose this decision be made to stop this sort of confusion amongst other editors, and to also assist administrators in enforcing the three revert rule.

Ta bu shi da yu 23:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

• Really, how is this edit vandalism: [31]
  • Apparently, you are too biased to participate in the voting. Perhaps you should simply abstain? Lirath Q. Pynnor

Editing by HistoryBuffEr as 66.93.166.174

Do you have proof that he edited from this IP address? Until you do, I request that you take this off the arbcom page! The edits you have that are "proof" that he used this IP address are totally without basis and you risk invalidating the decision. Seriously, please use some common sense and realise that some of HistoryBuffEr's enemies may (and I stress may) have typed in his username + a timestamp to cause him problems! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:29, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wow, pretty responsive when we edit a page we're not meant to. What a pity you couldn't give me the same response to my messages on your talk page. Incidently, you'll notice your last edit on the proposed decision merely added a newline. We had sorted out these issues when you did your last revert. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

arbcom case

Heylas, In my arbcom case, there's just an absurd absurd amount of evidence Radical has put in there(basically radical has taken every edit I've ever made and put a negative spin on it). I want to respond to each indivdual section(which is per day), but not exctaly sure best way to go about doing it... Since the Aritcle is broken up as a time-line and each part/day is considered an indivudal section, can I just create my own indivudal section within each day? or do I really need to cite all of his evidece again and set-up the situation and then explain why it's wrong in an entirly new seperate from his time-line? If that's the case, Can I just create chuck's section that is an excat copy of his evidence with my replies below on each day? Thanks! Chuck F 20:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

RFC pages on VfD

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Join RWNB!

Hi, Fred! Come and check out the Russian wikipedians' notice board. I thought you might be interested. KNewman 04:47, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams Arb

Sorry about that. I realized I probably shouldn't right after I hit "submit". I was, of course, responding to a question directed to me in a section I authored that CheeseDreams copied over to the page... I should have just ignored the question, I suppose. Thanks. Mpolo 17:12, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration "findings of fact"

Jesus and koan - :[32] has 15700 hits

"third epistle to the corinthians" only has 116, despite its existance being historical fact.

So the number of google hits hardly demonstrates validity.

CheeseDreams 18:03, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Summary -

The summary is lengthy only because the discussion was

The summary exists to prevent repetition of the same points

The summary exists to be able to see issues "at a glance"

The summary exists to prevent obfuscation of information by verbose editors

The summary is only objected to by Slrubenstein+cronies, the ex-mediator (Llyrwch) expressed a different opinion (as stated on the talk page)

Personal attacks -

You have taken the comment out of context, which is unfair and biased

See [33]

I consider such a statement to be in the fascist mould - YOU WILL NOTE THIS - my view is right, and you will obey

I feel that a comparison of such a style of discussion to nazi fascism wholly appropriate

One user, probably a sockpuppet has already been blocked for making personal attacks against me [34], [35],

[36], [37], note my restraint [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]

New evidence page

Hi Fred. Regarding the new evidence page, does this mean you don't want evidence showing my own NPOV, or responses to HistoryBuffEr any more? I believe you asked for them originally. Also, considering your request for an entirely new page was quite recent, please give me some time to prepare the new evidence. I should be able to start today. Jayjg 15:18, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fred, should the evidence be separated by topic, or should it stick strictly to the date format? For example, should there be a section of "My NPOV", followed by the evidence in the required format, then "HistoryBuffEr's POV", followed by the evidence in the required format? Or should the evidence strictly follow the date format, with evidence for all sorts of thing mixed together by date? Jayjg 21:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to try the former for now, let me know if this is o.k., I can change it back if your don't like it. Jayjg 21:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So is the way I've done it O.K.? Like I said, if you'd prefer I can change it to the pure date oriented format. Just let me know. Jayjg 02:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair trial

Reading "proposed decision" suggests to me you have taken absolutely zero account of any defence.

Am I correct? CheeseDreams 18:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair Play

According to the RfAr against me, these are the arbitrators

• Accept Fred Bauder 18:48, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Accept. →Raul654 19:32, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Accept. [[User:The Epopt|--the Epopt of the Cabal]] 21:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Recuse. Jwrosenzweig 21:42, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Accept. Delirium 23:24, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

so why is James F voting on the proposed decision? CheeseDreams 19:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Question re: CheeseDreams arbitration

Now that the AC has accepted the complaint, can additional people add to the complaint? I personally do not care, but see [43] and [44] -- a possible revert-war between CheeseDreams and Ta bu shi da yu. Perhaps one of them misunderstands the rulesSlrubenstein 23:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Were you planning on letting me know of my mistake?

Or were you just going to ban me for 30 days because of it, without giving me a chance to reply. Good grief man, as you discovered this was an honest mistake! I didn't realise until I looked at the proposed finding of fact. Do you find me that much of a disruptive editor, or do you just not want me around? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.S. do you want me to restore the edits? I can do this... now I'm not sure what you want me to do. I still can't get over the fact that you were considering banning me for 30 days. Sometimes I wonder why I bother. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fine. How long do you want to ban me? 30 days or 90 days? You might as well do it now and get it over with. So much for my work on Australian articles and computing articles, and my attempts at fixing up Historicity of Jesus. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. It looks like I'm wrong (again). I must be having a bad day. I think it's time for me to logout. Sorry for the message. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:26, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fred, while I'm not sure if a ban is in order or not, I am not so convinced that this was a simple technical accident as Jayig proposed. The timestamps show this wasn't an Help:edit conflict, nor did TBSDY use rollback. That means he would have had to view the history of the page and I can't see how he missed the fact that he was reverting two different edits. Take a look at my full comment. -- Netoholic @ 16:23, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

As Ambi points out, there is no motive for TBDSY to make the change "maliciously", it does not benefit him (or discomfit CheeseDreams) in any way. Jayjg 17:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(removed comment - sorry 'bout that). - Ta bu shi da yu 01:42, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AndyL and Don

Wouldn't tempbanning me be a case of blaming the victim (or at least punishing the victim?) Why would anyone bring any matter to the ArbComm if doing so puts them at risk of being tempbanned for simply being a disputant? What, exactly, have I done to justify a tempban from *any* and all articles related to vexillology, fascism or Canada? If I've done nothing to justify such discipline (for what else would one call it) then how can the ArbComm justify such an act?AndyL 23:53, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

At the very least if there is a "temporary injunction" it should be restricted to the articles Red Ensign, Flag of Manitoba and Flag of Ontario as those are the only articles that have been the subject of dispute or, at most, all articles dealing with flags. Including any article related to Canada is excessively broad and bans me from editing thousands of articles indefinitely and is uncalled for. As for fascism, the disputants have not been involved in any dispute on articles on fascism so having a temporary injunction on those articles makes as much sense as having one on all articles related to toxicology. AndyL 00:12, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If the purpose of the injunction is to halt the activity leading to the matter being arbitrated what is the purpose of including articles which are not the scene of dispute (or even activity) by both parties? Don's only interest in wikipedia has been in flag-related articles. What then is the purpose of including articles which do not relate to flags in the injunction particularly when I have now said that I will not engage Don during the course of the ArbComms deliberations no matter where he edits? The current injunction proposal has a greater impact on the activities of the complainant than it does on those of the respondant. How can that be justifiable?AndyL 13:32, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, Fred

Fred, having followed the CheeseDreams arbitration case(s), I welcomed your approach to be open with her and invite her to search the internet for references to you. I was more surprised when she found something that genuinely does question your position as Arbitrator. My guess is that you were unaware that the judgment of the lawyer discipline case against you in 1999 that was decided by a hearing panel of the Colorado supreme court grievance committee is readily available on the internet. The main findings against you appear to be that "The hearing board concluded that Bauder knowingly disobeyed an order of this court in violation of Colo. RPC 3.4(c); and that his conduct also violated Colo. RPC 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) and C.R.C.P. 241.6(7) (failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation)." The board considered a 1997 disciplinary procedure against you as an aggravating factor.

Normally details of a Wikipedian's past are irrelevant, and I certainly don't want to overplay this. But the one role it does affect is that of Arbitrator. I find it hard to have confidence in an Arbitrator who has been found to have engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice - and note the other findings against you both in 1999 and 1997 are also inconsistent with the high standards I would like to see our Arbitrators set.

I'm sorry, but I must ask you to rescind all your votes and comments as an Arbitrator in still open cases, resign as an Arbitrator and commit to not seeking to become an Arbitrator in the future. As I note before, reference to these judgments is irrelevant (and probably against the no personal attacks policy) for all roles on Wikipedia other than Arbitrator, and I would not have brought it up now I am aware of it were you not in that role now. Yours sincerely, jguk 12:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree as the underlying matter is payment of costs not something that relates to honesty. Fred Bauder 12:19, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

The judgment does refer to costs. But most of it is about honesty, isn't it? For example the finding was that "The hearing board concluded that...his conduct also violated Colo. RPC 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice)....". (my bold italics) I'm sorry, but I find it unacceptable to have an Arbitrator who has been found to have engaged in such behaviour. I again request for you to rescind you votes in still open cases, resign as Arbitrator and not seek the post again. jguk 12:42, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fred, I have drafted a formal request for your removal from the ArbCom on User:Jguk/Sandbox1. I would really rather not have to use it. I again respectfully ask that you consider your position, and, in particular whether it will be seen as reasonable and fair to have someone who "engages in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice" as an Arbitrator. Sorry it's come to this. But this is my final request before taking this further. jguk 19:14, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since when do we do FBI background checks on Wikipedians? If you have a complaint about Fred Bauder's behavior and judgement as an Arbitrator, make it. If you don't, then what does this have to do with anything? Obviously, I'm butting into a conversation that doesn't directly concern me. But, as a Wikipedian, the principle does concern me. And I will extremely vigorously oppose any witchunt based on somebody's history, actions, or beliefs outside of Wikipedia. Wolfman 01:46, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. This isn't a good thing that's happening here. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone etc. There are thousands of anonymous Wikipedia editors, so statistically we probably have among us a bunch of shoplifters, drunks, bankrupts, adulterers, you name it, and maybe even a few serious criminals as well. So long as they stick to NPOV and Wikipedia:Cite sources, it's fine by me. Here we're judged by our writing and research and nothing else, which is part of what's amazing about this project. This is a person's private life that's being plastered all over the place and it isn't fair. Jguk, I'm sorry you feel there's been an injustice, but I hope you'll consider removing your remarks and taking down the page you created. Slim 03:18, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

I agree as well. What is this witchhunt about? The only thing that matters on Wikipedia is one's actions on Wikipedia; whatever happened in some court cases is irrelevant. Jayjg 06:47, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The point here is that it is relevant to fulfilling the role of Arbitrator. It is not relevant for any other role on Wikipedia. Nor is it a witchhunt, since Fred, in his role as Arbtitrator, invited people to look at his history on the internet. Note also that this invitation was in response to a complaint that Fred had a conflict of interest - so, unfortunately it is true, the info is directly relevant. 09:24, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tripe. There's absolutely no evidence of any misconduct as an arbitrator, on this site, and frankly, anything else is irrelevant. Ambi 09:39, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is important for leaders to be challenged by those they aspire to lead, but this investigation crosses a line for some important reasons that go beyond this case. I left a response on jguk's user talk page asking him to reconsider what he is doing here. — DV 10:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I also find it extremely disturbing for editors to be digging up and posting details about people's personal, private lives outside Wikipedia. The only thing relevant to Wikipedia about any Wikipedian (arbitrator, admin, or plain old editor) is one's behavior at Wikipedia. And btw, I believe posting details about other people's private lives is an example of bad behavior. --MPerel 11:08, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

It is against each and every principle of our cooperation here to dig up past activities outside Wikipedia to discredit any one Wikipedian. We judge Wikipedians by their behavior as Wikipedians. As a Wikipedian, Fred is highly respected as editor, sysop, and arbiter. People of his level of activity inevitably make mistakes, but I am not aware of any that have affected his standing. Kosebamse 11:43, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ciz

The main evidence page is now completed. Ciz has been told (Dec.17) [45] he is expected to add evidence or a statement. FT2 05:04, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

need urgent help in dispute resolution

I need your help. It is very urgent in dispute resolution.

Thanks

Zain 22:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Motions to close

Just to reduce your caseload, I have requested to close two inactive Arbitation cases:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Shorne_and_Fred_Bauder
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Turrican_and_VeryVerily

Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 18:46, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

12.27.04 inquiry concerning "Rex071404"

Fred, perhaps you could investigate why throughout this entire Wiki, every signature for user "Rex071404" is now displaying improperly...

Might I suggest that those who hounded him off the Wiki are now experimenting with a system-wide tweak in efforts to completely remove all his comments?

If not, then why are only "Rex071404"'s signatures messed up?

216.153.214.94 06:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 04:58:06AM -0700, Fred Bauder wrote: > Due to some change in coding at least one signature which previously > displayed properly no long does. See User talk:Rex071404 and look at > Rex071404's signature. Known issue, see the village pump technical section. The signature was never correct to start with, however it happened to work with the old software. Users affected should switch on 'Raw Signatures' in preferences or fix up their signature.

-- Frank v Waveren

See the notice at the top of Wikipedia:Community_Portal

Arbitration committee case closure

The arbitration committee has officially closed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Shorne and Fred Bauder, subject to reactiviation should Shorne return. →Raul654 17:31, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)