User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 28

My Arbcomm case

Hi. I've mentioned this several times, although you might have missed it...Publicola is the one suggesting the problem is a majority representing a pro-jewish bias. I don't believe that's the case. In the instances where Israeli-POV is a problem, I believe the Israeli/Palestinian drama may be being exploited to feed what is actually plain ol' Islamophobia. Timothy Usher is a Christian, not a Jew, and he has not been representing a pro-Jewish or pro-Israeli POV in anything that he's posted. His talk page discussion with Netscott suggests he may share an American POV ("we're in a war, you know"). None of the listed parties in this case is expressing or implying the Jewish POV is a problem. I am alleging there's an anti-Islamic mentality that's generating the Islam-bashing. Whether those sharing that mentality justify their prejudice citing American, Israeli, or secular interests is a matter I'm not involved in disputing. His Excellency... 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't missed it. If there is bias, the motivation for it is not that important; it is not in accord with our neutral point of view policy. Fred Bauder 17:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Ericsaindon2 -Reply

Hello again, I really would like to add some infoboxes to the Los Angeles County pages as well as work on the ArbCom case against myself. I have not been able to do that, and I would appreciate it if you would unblock me. I have tried to make minor edits to the ArbCom case and my user page but was quickly blocked each time, and I would just like to continue making some constructive edits. I will not abuse good faith, if you give me a chance to show that I do have some. Please unblock me, at least until the conclusion of the ArbCom case, and I will show you that I like to make quality edits, and would like to continue. Just give me a chance. I have been on punishment for 16 days, and I really want to work on the infoboxes for cities that lack them, so I beg you, pleassseeee. Ericsaindon2 04:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

After I start looking at the case I will consider it. Fred Bauder 12:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

User:LebanonChild turning userpage into blog

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LebanonChild

Please check it out.

He's editing too. Fred Bauder 00:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Can we start the voting on the Ericsaindon2 case. It is not getting any more additional information, and is getting dusty, and needs to start moving. Thank you. --69.238.59.209 04:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm doing His excellency. Fred Bauder 12:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Locus of Dispute

Please correct the following entry: Locus of dispute where you refer to me as "a disciple of the guru". I am not a disciple/devotee/follower and have already clarified this on the Workshop page: Ref. You can describe me as a proponent or advocate. Thank you. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland

Fred, can you please post your check user results re Mantanmoreland and Lastexit at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Unsorted results? Barbamama 16:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I've had enough of that. Fred Bauder 18:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Arb case:Kehrli

I have been waiting patiently for some response by the committee regarding this arbitration case Kehrli. I do not mean to solicit but it seems necessary or even helpful to bring this to the attention of the committee members directly.

Thank you--Nick Y. 18:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I might get to new requests soon. Fred Bauder 18:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks--Nick Y. 21:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I find your response to this case baffling. If taking on this case seems like a daunting task I understand however your suggestion makes no sense in any way. How am I supposed to sort out the uncivilized and disruptive behavior of another editor on the talk pages??? I think you may be lost in the content dispute smokescreen. I have not requested that the content dispute be resolved mearly the appropriate framework and behavior in which such could occur to be enforced. This is a serious behavior problem and has annoyed other people than me such that many have quit contributing to these articles, including the head of the IUPAC commitee that is the law on such matters. There is no other way to solve this problem other than serious attention by someone with the ability to enforce decisions consistent with the policies and spirit of wikipedia. --Nick Y. 16:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Nick, it is now time that you realize that you are the person that is wrong. Wikipedia is not the place to change the rules established by the wider scientific community. You lost a request for deletion, you lost this case, now it is time to stop your vandalizm. Thanks. --Kehrli 18:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Polite, aren't you. What is the current practice in the technical literature? Fred Bauder 18:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Current practice within the field of mass spectrometry is m/z for the abcissa of a mass spectrum. m and q as independent variables within electrodynamics (physics problems) with units in SI units, sometimes in cgs (cm, gram, sec) rather than mks (meter, Kg, sec) and occasionally in atomic units. Within the broader physics field the same as the physics half of mass spectrometry. In defense of the other side the unit Th still sporatically appears in combination with m/z however the number of appearances is very very low relative to the IUPAC standard m/z or the physics standard m/q in SI units. Also it never appears in combination with m/q ever, not a single solitary time in all of history, except on wikipedia, if that counts. Most journals specifically require m/z for the abcissa of a mass spectrum. IUPAC has rejected the unit Th in favor of m/z for this purpose. I personally think the unit Th deserves its own page and mention on related pages but should be accurately represented. --Nick Y. 17:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the arb request User:Cacycle has added a much better argument for accepting the request than I did. Definately an impressive argument worth reading which vocalizes much more elequantly, accurately and succinctly what i was trying to say. Also I have added a note about Kehrli threatening me that hew will ban me from wikipedia if I continue to readd the dispute tags that he removes. --Nick Y. 17:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your careful reconsideration as to weather to accept the arb case. It is easy to get mired in the technical details and it does require careful consideration to understand the nature of the situation. I understand that the real decisions will be made later however I have faith in your integrity as an arbiter and your fidelity to the princples of wikipedia. Let me know how I can be of help.--Nick Y. 20:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

IPT arbitration

I had all but resigned myself to this case being closed as it stands, but your comment on the motion to close opens up a glimmer of hope. I stand willing to assist the committee, although I should tell you that my position on proposal no. 1 (article ban) remains unchanged: I do not accept any article ban of any length. I still want to consider myself a Wikipedian, but such an article ban as proposed is a vote of no confidence in all of my contributions and as such I could not in all conscience continue.

Should the committee decide on an article ban then there are several ways for me to express my displeasure. A lengthy ban (of the order of 1 year) would lead me to leave Wikipedia until it was repudiated. A shorter ban (of the order of 1 month) would not, although I would not edit while it was still in place (needless to say, use of admin functions is included in editing). Please get in touch if you would like me to help. David | Talk 13:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Fred : - ) Thank you for helping sort out the sock/meatpuppets related to WordBomb. It was obvious to me that they were not all WordBomb so I started marking my blocks as sock/meatpuppet. Good to have it backed up by you and Jayjg. Take care, FloNight ^talk 15:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration case SG

Hi, thanks for responding to my request for arbitration, but Spahbod is not a sockpuppet. I've responded on my talk page. Could we get him unblocked and the arbitration back? ♠ SG →Talk 17:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have checked the block log. ♠ SG →Talk 21:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Note from User:Minun on proposed decision page

Crossposted from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun/Proposed decision

Not to users: I don't know if this is the right place to state this, but I justthink its important you know this : I've stopped doing thesr things (about 1-2 weeks ago) and am making good edits, please ask a couple of other editors, particulary the ones who commented on my talk pahge (including the archives) and the Pokémon Collaborative Project. I am about to apologize to HighwayCello, im being truthful about this, so please read my contributions, cheers —Minun ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 18:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologized [1] —Minun ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 19:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Crossposted to arbitrators' talk page —Minun ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 19:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Eternal Equinox case

Dear Mr Bauder, I appreciate you are very busy considering other cases, but I wonder if you've had time to check in on your suggestion to ban Giano and caution others in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox. It has illicited quite vociferous comment from a number of users, myself included. Particularly here. Whilst it can be acknowledged that Giano et.al conducted themselves in a not-quite exemplary fashion in dealing with Eternal equinox's trolling; it has come as quite a surprise to everyone that knows these users, that they may receive severe punishment for their responses. Giano, it must be said, can be prickly on occasion, but usually there is warmth and wit beneath his comments and for each damning jibe he may have made, I'm sure you will find 10 that will make you smile if you were to look further - not to mention many outstanding article contributions (Which presumably is the purpose of wikipedia) rather than dealing with trolls.

The purpose of my writing is to petition you to re-think and hopefully change your vote in the proposed decision section of the case in the light of strong character references from a number of other productive users. Secondly, I would like to question the process of the 'Workshop' - I note that you proposed the sanction on Giano at 17:13 on the 25th July and yet the proposal endorsing the ban was supported by you at 22:33 on the same day. The header of the workshop states:- "Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in proposed decisions". So the assumption here is that after only 7 hours of inviting general users to 'workshop' the decisions, your mind was made up and a decision made. I'm sure you have many cases where nobody ever comments, but in this case I would again ask you to review the comments the workshop has received and reconsider your position. Assuming that the lay user is entitled to some say in these matters. Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Endorsed and seconded, for many of the reasons discussed on the Workshop page for the case (including in my own comment there). Let me add that I endorse only the substantive comments found there about the case and its subjects, and not the unnecessary comments about an individual arbitrator. I'm aware that recently, you've been pulling the laboring oar in most of the arbitration cases. Newyorkbrad 18:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked User:ExHomey

I blocked this account for imposter/username problems among other issues such as abusive sockpuppets. See AN/I: [2] ExHomey opened a RFAr then reverted it. Please comment on whether this account should stay blocked if it is determined to be the "real" Homey. --FloNight ^talk 02:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As for your comment on FloNight's talk page; 'I also unblocked Homeonetherange. The password is lost and the only effect is to autoblock his new account.'; I suppose he can always email a password to himself. --TheM62Manchester 17:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

When will it be over

I am looking at my ArbCom case, and I see noting being achieved. Someone adds one thing, and it sits there for days on end. Does that mean nothing will come out of it, or I really did not do as much wrong as the other users made it sound? Plus, I thought this was against me, so why is there all this positive stuff on there? I mean, it is good and all, but if your finding state that I really have not done much wrong (and the stuff I did wrong I apologized for) you seem to want to pursue a year of punishment? --Ericsaindon2 06:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for replying first, but I wouldn't expect anything better from this ArbCom. They couldn't be less responsive if they were passing all their messages from a lead lined room in a nuclear bunker built a mile underground and totally disconnected from any means of communication. Although one should still try to get through to them, if only for the sake of form. David | Talk 15:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

IPT arbitration (a reprise)

I have put a reply on my own talk page but you may not have had chance to read it. Since you're reconsidering a minor part of the decision, I don't see why you shouldn't reconsider the more important bit at the same time. It will not matter a jot what you decide about admin status if I am forced to leave Wikipedia by the insult of proposed decision no. 1, the article ban. However, I have indicated that I'm prepared to enter into negotiation to get the article ban removed and so indeed I am, without any preconditions.

It does seem a bit strange to me. I started at Wikipedia because I hate factual errors. I started correcting them and that was what I was doing on Thursday. I don't see why correcting a blatant obvious factual error is such a bad thing. Comment is free, facts are sacred, as C.P. Scott said, and a fact is just as factual whoever writes it. David | Talk 15:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Without rushing to my dictionary, there is a fundamental difference between the word "righteous" and the word "right". In any case, whether or not the ban is "right" is not necessarily relevant. I want to negotiate to see if an alternative decision can be arrived at, which would presumably have to involve other forms of restrictions but not an article ban. If you are saying that there is absolutely nothing in existence which could possibly suffice then (a) that's an unbelievably pig-headed attitude and (b) I'm wasting my time. But if there is a possibility, then let us open negotiations without delay. I hope this is clear enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dbiv (talk • contribs) . (sorry, couldn't be arsed to log in)

I guess I use "righteous" to mean "well founded". The time to negotiate was when you were edit-warring. Fred Bauder 18:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried. My adversary refused to negotiate. But given you have got so many of the other facts wrong perhaps I should not be surprised that you should come up with such a feeble justification for pig-headedness. 80.177.212.6 19:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! (Pint of blood)

FB! You completely misunderstood me!

• Yas and I have settled our differences earlier, see s/his talk.
• I was completely uninvolved with Hamas and had s/his talk on my watchlist due to our previous disagreements over Cat:Anit-arab people
• The comment was absolutely not a personal attack against s/him, particularly since I don't have any reason to believe s/he is palestinian, rather it was a friendly and and obviously preposterous comment, made with the intention of fostering dialogue on the extent of Jew-Zionist world domination of Wikipedia.
• Finally, even if you were justified in suspending AGF and interpreting my facetious comment as a P.A., surely something like {{NPA}} would have sufficed!
  • - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Needless to say, I have unblocked myself. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Latest Tiscali range block

Hi. The latest Tiscali range block also blocked regular logged in users. Was this intentional? It may be possible to change this to an anon block/no new user. Otherwise keep me updated on the latest Tojo developments. Thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

All tiscali users who have complained included my self are being accused of being sockpuppets, its an absolute disgrace.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick/Proposed decision

Hey, you said you stored the checkuser data for further referance. Is it possible to spread that info to other checkusers? Or maybe another method such as the private arbcom/checuser mailing lists. I just want the checkuser logs to have backups. :) --Cat out 13:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

gaza

I have provided links to numerous primary, secondary and tertiary sources of information. Please review and reconsider your vote for arbitration.

Carbonate 00:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Cute 1 4 u

I noticed your post on AN/I. User:Cute 1 4 u is the puppet master of socks User:Raven Symone (a celeb. impersonator account of Raven Symone which fools Lindsay1980), User:Gemini531(who claimed on my talkpage [[3]]) Both have been proven by the below checkuser request [[4]]. Someone added an indef block template on Gemini531's userpage but according to the block log, no block was warranted.

In addition, I also crosspost this from AN/I in case you didn't notice posted by User:Phr, Cute 1 4 u (talk · contribs)'s page is pretty disturbing too. That user claims to be 11 on Wikipedia, 13 on Youtube [5], and 14 on blackplanet [6], with "Body type: Very Slim, Curvey, & Sexy 'cause I workout 6 days a week fo' a hour; Best Features: Lips, Face, Hips, booty, legs", and made a contact attempt on Lindsay1980's talk page [7] that could be seen as possibly unsavory depending on Cute 1 4 u's real situation (especially since I think "Raven Symone" turned out to be a sock of Cute 1 4 u).

Please take a look at the situation and see if a block for disruption is necessary. Thanks.--Bonafide.hustla 08:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

M/z dispute

Fred, what is it that made you change your mind on this issue? I still think that I am defending the official notation and that Nick is defending a minority POV. --Kehrli 12:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned that while you may be "correct" that you might not be following the practice followed in academic journals. Please research this for us. Fred Bauder 12:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fred, I did do a lot of research in this. Here are my conclusions:

• The term mass-to-charge ratio is not used by mass spectrometrists only, but by very different scientific fields like Lithography, electron microscopy, cathode ray tubes, accelerator physics, nuclear physics, Auger spectroscopy, cosmology. All those fields use m/Q or m/q except for mass spectrometry where also m/z is inconsistently used (see below). Also, the IUPAC green book and the international standards in ISO 31 recommend m for mass and Q for charge.
• within the mass spec community many different notations are used: m/q, m/e, m/z.
• of those people that use the notation m/z there are at least 3 different incompatible usages: m/z used as mass-to-charge ratio, m/z used as mass per charge number, and m/z used as mass number per charge number. These three different usages and their "legistaltion" is explained in detail in my article m/z.
• the important point is: the latest "legislation" (writen by a IUPAC mass spectrometrist) explicitly states that m/z is no longer considered a mass-to-charge ratio (please find this statement also in the article m/z or directly here[8]). And here is my first critique on Nick's mass spectrometry article where he repedetly uses m/z as a mass-to-charge ratio. My point is: either he uses m/z and drops mass-to-charge ratio or he keeps mass-to-charge ratio and uses another synonym (e.g. m/Q) that is not explicitly "depricated" for the use as a mass-to-charge ratio. m/z now is a quantity for mass per charge number and no longer a mass-to-charge ratio. (I am in no way a promoter of this new definition, but since it is made by IUPAC we should respect it on Wikipedia).
• since this new rule (that m/z no longer is a mass-to-charge ratio) is only a few months old, it is of course still possible to find many (old or old style) papers where m/z is used as a mass-to-charge ratio. But I think this should not be a reason to stick to the outdated definition in the Wikipedia mass spectra article. (To make matters even more complicated: I think already the previous m/z "legislation" (see m/z) made clear that it is no longer a mass-to-charge ratio, but Nick would disagree with this.)
• There are other points where I disagree with Nick, but I do not want to "overload" you. Please note that my point is backed by (in order of importance) the ISO 31, the IUPAC green book, and the most recent IUPAC mass spec legislation, whereas Nick's POV has no backing except some old papers from the time when m/z was still considered a mass-to-charge ratio. (Many of those are also listed in the m/z article).

I hope you find the time to research my arguments and I am awaiting your conclusions. --Kehrli 06:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Fred the Tojo Slayer

I dub thee Fred the Tojo Slayer

Good grief, Fred, I'm glad you don't have too many other hobbies! Thatcher131 (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

On that subject. I think User:Les4555 is another of his/her sockpuppets. AlistairMcMillan 01:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz

Is your stubification and protection of Barbara Schwarz an office action or sanctioned by the wikimedia foundation? If not, I think it's best that the article be unprotected and selectively unstubified. Your protection comment was not particularly enlightening and the action was destructive and seemingly unilateral. I hope you reverse this. BrokenSegue 02:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It might have something to do with the fact that Barbara is also known for filing a large number of lawsuits. :-) the real Steve Dufour 04:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

She is also known for never winning a single one. Including against the SLC Tribune. --Tilman 05:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Fred Bauder should also delete and lock the article about the Star Wars kid. It makes him look bad. It concentrates on a few minutes of an embarassing video, that was published illegally. He is a private citizen, he never wanted to be a public figure.--Tilman 05:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Kenneth Lay should also be stubbed. The article makes it look as if he's guilty for something. He never wanted to be on Wikipedia. --Tilman 05:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I will look at those. The reason given is the real reason. To make it possible to conform the article to the requirements of WP:BLP. Fred Bauder 08:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fred. I've not seen the template you used on the article before, but I take it that it allows admins to edit the article while it's protected? In which case, since I know something of the background to this matter, I might have a go myself. -- ChrisO 15:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Biography protection

Template:Biography protection has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. BrokenSegue 01:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz or 216.190.11.33

On the Talk:Barbara Schwarz page, Ms. Schwarz (or rather 216.190.11.33 (talk · contribs) has attempted to identify the personal information including her guess at the real life name of another editor as well as what she alleges to be the personal court records of that editor. I have exchanged her guess at the name with XXXXXXXXXXXs but I believe each of her edits that are personal attacks on other editors and especially those that attempt to publish personal details about editors should be completely removed from Wiki. She has been warned not to do this on numerous IP addresses that she has used to post here, but she continues in the practice anyway. Thanks for your time and consideration of the matter. Vivaldi (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Vivaldi. I'm sorry that Barbara is doing that. However that is kind of, well, the way she is. I'm glad you XX'ed out the names. On the other hand I don't think any harm would have been done to the persons named since the only people who would ever visit the page are Barbara herself, a small group of people who don't like seem to like her very much, myself, and a few Wikipedia do-gooders. Steve Dufour 16:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so if she alleges that her privacy is being violated by republishing what has already been published in newspapers and what she herself has chosen to publish on Usenet, she has to send you here to attempt to delete it, both through legitimate means (AfD) and illegitimate means (speedy delete process after the AfD fails, where speedy delete is only for cases so obvious that it would be a waste of time to put them through AfD) -- but, if Barbara is attempting to violate the privacy of others, "that is kind of, well, the way she is" and it really doesn't matter? Really nice person you've sacrificed your integrity for, Steve. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

More BLP to take a look at

You should take a look at a few more BLPs while you are in the mood for culling information.

Sollog for a start. Why is this man's birth date, real-life name, and criminal record on Wikipedia? Why are posts that are only available on Usenet used to defame him? Not just his own posts, there are many claims attributed to 3rd party sources that are only available on Usenet.

Bill Gothard. Why should we allow him to be defamed using sources that are self-published and unreliable?

Fred Phelps. Why is this article allowed to stay? Nearly every single claim is sourced to the same unverifiable source. In fact, the source is UNPUBLISHED! You can't even verify if it is a legitimate source at all. You realize that Mr. Phelps is also a living person?

I would mention Kenneth Lay too, but since he's dead, Wikipedia can say whatever they want about him, just like Wikipedia does at Jack Hyles, who died a few years ago. Once a person is dead you can talk about how they were caught molesting a sheep and put it right in an article, using only the persons most-hated enemy's blog as source.

I sincerely hope you get to work and start culling all the BLPs. Vivaldi (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh My God! - Wikipedia killed Kenny! [9] --Tilman 05:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixing Barbara Schwarz is challenge enough for now. Fred Bauder 02:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I hear you. Don't spend too much time on it or someone will accuse you of being obsessed with her! Vivaldi (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think everything should stop until Barbara has a accurate article. I am sure that there are millions of people who come to Wikipedia to find out about her. the real Steve Dufour 05:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Steve, stopping everything until Barbara Schwarz has an accurate article is not the way Wikipedia usually works. However it would be good to write a draft version before posting it at the main name space. Feel free to use User:Andries/Barbara Schwarz for that, though I hardly know anything about her and have no interest to research her life and the sources for the article about her. Andries 09:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer Andries. I have excused myself from editing the article itself however. Steve Dufour 15:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You can still find the article with all its sources through google cache and similar. --Tilman 10:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Deir Yassin massacre and Palestinian exodus

Dear Fred, Would you have time to comment on whether this book is a reliable source for these articles? Thanks. --Ian Pitchford 09:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd also be interested if you have an opinion on the addition of these dubious, unsourced and/or irrelevant quotations to the article on the Palestinian exodus and how such material should be handled. The one from The Times is obviously fake as the actual article mentions the Haganah "advice" to the Arabs that they should "evacuate all women and children, because they would be strongly attacked from now on" (The Times, Thursday, Apr 22, 1948; pg. 4; Issue 51052; col D). --Ian Pitchford 23:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

They are no good because, unlike the Times article, they generally cannot be checked. However, this looks like government work. I would not be surprised if the "author" could come up with title of the article, day published, etc, if pressed. I don't doubt the point being made. The Arabs figured the ywould win easily. I would focus on verifiability. Fred Bauder 23:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Norman3412

Thanks for blocking this account. Based on his hoax vandalism to Brand X-related articles and libellous edits to biographies of black people, I believe he's actually a sockpuppet of Kenwood 3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Just thought I'd let you know in case you happen to see any more of them. (Unless Kenwood is Tojo as well... what a thought.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

CoolKatt number 99999 Arbcom case

No mention in any voting proposals on his legal threats? --CFIF (talk to me) 15:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

My Arbcom Case

If you really intend on ignoring the offenses of the other parties here and only adressing my actions, please say so. I'll withdraw my participation from the case completely and delete all of my comments. I'm not interested a process that has never intended to serve as anything but a prosecution against one person. I've repeatedly asked if all parties will be looked at and addressed. The response was repeatedly "yes they will". The way you're setting things up ignores everything but my actions. As such, that robs the process of context and any degree of analysis. That's not 'dispute resolution'. His Excellency... 00:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What you did is much more serious. Fred Bauder 00:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That what I did is "much more serious" doesn't justify you turning a blind eye to everything else going on in these articles. I don't think the fact that articles are being turned into anti-Islam propaganda is a minor problem. Certainly not one unworthy of at least consideration when evidence is brought forward before arbitration. You could always voice your findings that there is no such bias. That I and Bishonen and Zora and others are all imagining things. You haven't answered my question- do you have any intention of addressing any of the points I made, or are the arbitrators going to turn a blind eye to everything I've said regarding the other users? If so, say so. His Excellency... 04:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that they can't be sanctioned when there is an atmosphere of overt anti-semitism which you are creating by your attacks. That has to come first. So there is a slap on the wrist for you. Which, I can assure you, they are not satisfied with. Beyond that are a number of principles included in the decision which are directed toward them, particularly regarding allowing presentation of the Islamic point of view without quarreling endlessly over sources. Fred Bauder 09:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitism? I made two comments on my talk page, one which l deleted in less than a minute of posting it. Other than that, there's no 'anti-semitism' to speak of. There is, however, tons of evidence of anti-Islamic hatred pointed out in my evidences page, all of which you choose to neglect. On talk pages you admit to finding Pecher's works biased, but you choose to not reflect any of that in the Proposed Findings page. What you're suggesting is that you take 1 comment on Jews (ie the use of the phrase "those Jews") to be more serious than the scores of occasions where clear and obvious anti-Muslim hatred was shown. This in itself is an extreme bias on your part. You're suggesting that The Jewish Wikipedian warrants far greater protections for slights against him than the Muslim Wikipedian does, even when the attacks against the Muslim community here is far more derogatory and systemic. That's racist. Timothy Usher isn't a Jew. I don't know what Merzbow and Pecher are. "Anti-semitism" has no role in this dispute at all. Their actions weren't as a result of some anti-semetic atmosphere. His Excellency... 16:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic remarks play a major role in this decision. Thus the 4 month block. As I suggested, next time may be for 6 months. The fact that you don't take the matter seriously just convinces me that the decision is correct in that respect. Fred Bauder 16:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not contested the penalties for making those remarks. I do feel the 3 month ban for the second comment is excessive given I self-reverted immediately. That's clearly evidence that I feel I should be accountable for what I say. You're making the ridiculous arguement that you cannot hold more than 1 person accoutable at any given time. There is no logic or reason that can explain how two allegedly anti-semitic remarks on my part makes it impossible for you to take into account the many attacks against Muslims by these users. That holding me responsible for my actions means turning a blind eye to my entire evidences section reflecting Timothy Usher's frequent and merciless attacks on Muslims, on Pecher's abuse of sources to push propaganda (not merely a 'bias'), and on Merzbow's gaming of the system to silence me. You seemed fair enough in the Workshop page, asking for evidences when I listed proposed findings regarding Timothy Usher's actions. It's evident to me now that you were engaging in some sort of a joke. I have to question how seriously you're taking all of this. His Excellency... 16:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz

Fred, I really don't feel comfortable with unblocking Barbara Schwarz right now. After I'd put three warning templates on her talk page for three distinct serious violations of basic Wikiquette, I came to the view that her violations were so severe, repeated and egregrious that an indefinite block was the only satisfactory measure. The "outing" of another user was a particularly serious point, considering that the article is closely related to a subject - Scientology - in which being publicly known can have and has had dangerous consequences (stalking, anonymous threats, poison pen letters etc). In my experience, people who criticise Scientology anonymously often have very good reasons for doing so.

I don't mind Barbara contributing to Talk:Barbara Schwarz, of course, but she mustn't do so in a way that puts other users at risk. I've asked her to promise not to make personal attacks or expose other users' identities (see User talk:The real Barbara Schwarz). Complying with our harassment policy has got to be a minimum standard for anyone who uses Wikipedia. If she says she'll abide by it, fine, otherwise our users' safety has to come first. -- ChrisO 00:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ex-Homey

Could you please review the most recent developments in this situation. I believe that FeloniousMonk may have acted inappropriately. CJCurrie 04:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Felonious did the right thing in re-blocking HOTR. He was unblocked so that he could take part in the various arbitration cases against him (though to the best of my knowledge, all he has done is try to cause trouble on the talk pages). However, he today went through all his sockpuppet accounts and re-labeled them "alternate accounts," [10] having previously denied they had anything to do with him. It's disruptive and provocative behavior, and it's not what he was unblocked for. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC/RfA?

In reading these, they seem to "primarily" be about dealing with 2 or more specific people. While that isn't always true, if it gets to Arbcom, typically it is. (You would know this better than I. I am merely going by what I've been reading.)

That said, there is a policy that I would like to see clarified. Rather than presume that there are those repeatedly abusing their priviledges, or fostering a unilateral attitude, even in the face of opposing concensus, I would like to presume that there is a misunderstanding.

I would make it an RfC (policy), except that this topic has become so pervasive, and riddled with controversy in the past, even though currently, it seems only a handful are "misunderstanding".

So I would like to skip some steps and have the "authority" of Arbcom make some choices about it.

The topic is about userboxes, and WP:GUS.

As I read it (the first text section by J. Wales, for example), and as I've consistantly read arbcom comments about it, the only ones to be userfied or speedied are those that are "divisive or inflammatory".

"Templates, particularly userboxes, which are divisive or inflammatory may be speedily deleted; see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Templates. For discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Comment on project page asked for links to Jimbo's opinions, and especially Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Regarding the new Template CSD. However, Jimbo Wales has urged both caution in deleting userboxes while the policy is discussed, and, in particular, restraint in reversing others' deletions or undeletions."

However there are several that are attempting to userfy ALL userboxes. Which goes counter to WP:GUS, WP:JOU, WP:USER, etc., etc. and is more even than the original admin was attempting in January. (I have many more examples and citations, if wanted, or necessary). In the interests of full disclosure, I've made similar comments on several TfDs, and directly asked an editor and an admin about it (one was neutral, the other interested in "ALL"). However, as far as I know there was no personal attacks/verbal dispute, except for this apparent misunderstanding. On the TfDs, when there was a result of "no concensus", it would be closed, with a note to userfy all userboxes in question. Which would seem to me to go directly against the process.

What do you think would be the best path to deal with all of this? As I said, I would rather not name editors/admins specifically, and to AGF. But I feel that the question of "ALL" vs. "divisive or inflammatory", is in need of being decided upon. I would appreciate any/all insight you can provide. I read above that the question of recusal can be an issue, so, while offering insight, please don't do anything that would cause you to need to recuse yourself in the future. : ) Thank you. (I'll be "watching" here : ) - Jc37 04:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I generally support userboxes but see no harm in userfying them or in deleting the most divisive. The ones that are fun; I just like. Fred Bauder 00:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but that's the trouble. What's being userfied, and deleted are ones that are *not* divisive. Template:User DAoC was one, and that was after there was a TfD on the individual DAoC templates, since an editor has combined them into a single template. Later, an admin deleted the merged template. There are many other examples (which I can share with you, if you wish), but I'm trying to stay away from specifics. My concern is that it's been stated to me that the userboxes listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Media is next "on their list".

To me, there are two aspects of how someone or something on/at Wikipedia can be considered "encyclopedic": 1.) active - active writing/typing/editing of articles 2.) passive - work providing a good and positive environment for such active work. THis include the wikipedia community, and communication. And is, I believe, why we have environmental "release valves", such as protection, blocks, 3RR, and so on. Those deal with the negatives. The positives are things like The Signpost, the Pump, and userboxes.

I also feel that by removing all userboxes from template space, we run into several separate issues.

• The 2 or 3 users who have volunteered to have their userspace become the "new" wikipedia:userboxes subpages could intentionally, or even unintentionally, be straying into WP:OWN. The whole question of de facto vs de jure. These are becoming de facto mini wiki reserviors within wikipedia.
• multi-user editing, and transclusion. If they remain in template space, userboxes will benefit from multi-user editing (among other things, not everyone is a professional coder, or even knows things like noinclude).
• broken categories. Categories are throughout the userboxes. Imagine 100 users with 100 slightly different versions of "This user is interested in Harry Potter". You now have the possibility of 100 separate categories, populated by 1, or perhaps even several people. Eventually, as they are found, they can be merged. If the userbox was in template space, listed on a wikipedia:userboxes subpage, all of that could be rather easily (and painlessly) prevented.

So all of that said. I believe that "they" are attempting to delete or userfy ANY userbox that they arbitrarily decide is not "encyclopedic" (I have a link to someone giving their very narrow definition of that). Before this "goes too far", I would like an official "proclamation" (by whatever process would be most appropriate) reaffirming that WP:GUS only applies to divisive or inflammatory. What would you think is my best recourse? (including "cease and desist" if that is your opinion.) - Jc37 03:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I would avoid the war on userboxes, at least until Jimbo comes around to supporting them; although, I agree they add to community feeling. Fred Bauder 03:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting response. (I was unaware that he was not supporting them - WP:JOU). It will be a shame if all that pre-existing work is lost. And another shame that 3-4 editors are making policy for the rest of us : (

Anyway, thank, you, I sincerely appreciate your insight. It's enough that it's causing me to go through my thought process again, and the pros and cons of pursuing this one aspect of the userbox discussion.

(PS - You'll have to pardon me if the sight of my loong sections compared to your concise answers struck me funny enough to laugh : )

Thanks again : ) - Jc37 03:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)