User talk:Fred Bauder: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:22, 3 May 2007 editCoelacan (talk \| contribs)14,831 edits →COFS/CSI LA: eh,← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:36, 3 May 2007 edit undoEleemosynary (talk \| contribs)4,174 edits Comments on hypocrisy, red herrings.Next edit →
Line 70:		Line 70:
	:::::The Wikipedian rules on personal attacks states: ''The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Misplaced Pages encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.'' My comment is: Clearly these rules apply to admins as well as regular Misplaced Pages users. Eleemosynary constant references to things that I might have said or done three, six or even twelve months ago violates this basic policy of Misplaced Pages. Also, Kaldari's references to my good faith attempts to have ] remain an article is also a violation of this policy--even if Kaldari is an admin. The rules clearly state that they apply to ALL Wikipedians. I would ask, once again, that this behavior stop.--] 20:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)		:::::The Wikipedian rules on personal attacks states: ''The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Misplaced Pages encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.'' My comment is: Clearly these rules apply to admins as well as regular Misplaced Pages users. Eleemosynary constant references to things that I might have said or done three, six or even twelve months ago violates this basic policy of Misplaced Pages. Also, Kaldari's references to my good faith attempts to have ] remain an article is also a violation of this policy--even if Kaldari is an admin. The rules clearly state that they apply to ALL Wikipedians. I would ask, once again, that this behavior stop.--] 20:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
	Yes, I wrote the original version of that. ] 21:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)		Yes, I wrote the original version of that. ] 21:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

			:Getaway's continuous violation of (]), (]), and a score of other policies, from as far back as to when he was editing as "Keetoowah" to as recently as a few days ago, render his above comments as hypocritical as they are comical. He will continue to be called on his disruptive edits, which are ''almost exclusively'' done in bad faith. His red herrings will continue to be ignored. ] 01:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

	==Deaniack is Back==		==Deaniack is Back==

Revision as of 01:36, 3 May 2007

I maintain a fork of Misplaced Pages at http://wikinfo.org, alternative address, http://internet-encyclopedia.org/. It is hosted by ibiblio.org. Fred Bauder 18:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The Kefermarkt altarpiece is a richly decorated wooden altarpiece in the Late Gothic style in the parish church of Kefermarkt in Upper Austria. Commissioned by the knight Christoph von Zelking, it was completed around 1497. Saints Peter, Wolfgang and Christopher are depicted in the central section. The wing panels depict scenes from the life of Mary, and the altarpiece also has an intricate superstructure and two side figures of Saints George and Florian. The identity of its maker, known by the notname Master of the Kefermarkt Altarpiece, is unknown, but at least two skilled sculptors appear to have created the main statuary. Throughout the centuries, it has been altered and lost its original paint and gilding; a major restoration was undertaken in the 19th century under the direction of Adalbert Stifter. The altarpiece has been described as "one of the greatest achievements in late-medieval sculpture in the German-speaking area". This image shows the upper-left wing panel of the Kefermarkt altarpiece, depicting the birth of Christ. Mary is portrayed kneeling in devotion in front of the infant Christ, who is placed before her on a fold of her dress. On the other side, Joseph is also kneeling in front of the child. Above Mary, on the roof of the building behind them, are two angels playing a mandolin and a lute. The annunciation to the shepherds can be seen in the background.Sculpture credit: Master of the Kefermarkt Altarpiece; photographed by Uoaei1 Archive – More featured pictures...

Fred_Bauder (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Barnstar

		The Minor Barnstar
		For of few words are made great men. It is the minor actions, the small subtleties, that can show the greatest valor, the deepest insight, the discerning thought. Thank you : ) Jc37 03:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Defender of the Wiki

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I award you this Defender of the Wiki barnstar in recognition of your three years of continuous meritorious service on the Arbitration Committee. (Sorry that it's a bit late) Eluchil404 11:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Sennecaster	228	0	0	100	Open	17:20, 25 December 2024	14 hours	no	report

Help!

It seems as if Ted Wilkes and Lochdale, who are banned by arbcom ruling, have created new sockpuppets and are now again removing large blocks of naterial from the Elvis Presley article. See , , etc. May I ask you to inform some unbiased administrators about what is going on there. Unfortunately, administrator Thatcher131 has banned me from the related article because I have tried to reinstate the deleted paragraphs, and he has not yet corrected his mistake. For more details, see . Onefortyone 05:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have not looked into the details, but you are on probation, see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone#Onefortyone_placed_on_Probation. Fred Bauder 11:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but as far as I can see I have not violated this probation, as I have only reinstated well-sourced material which has been deleted by the newly created sockpuppets. Onefortyone 14:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For the Oversight --Steve _(Stephen) 02:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A request for help

Dear Fred,

I would like some help getting an editor named User:Calton to cease his personal attacks against me on the Administrators' Noticeboard. This editor has a record of uncivil discourse with others, and has targetted me with the same back before the Starwood arbitration. He is now participating solely, IMO, to discredit me (in fact, he says as much) and perhaps bait me into another battle of some sort. He has no real input to the discussion other than attacks on me. He has been warned by another editor about his tone, and responded uncivilly to him as well. I would like him to cease, and perhaps his attacks struck from the discussion.

Here is the case , which (unsurprisingly) involves Mattisse; in this case, she has opened it as a criticism of Thatcher131 for suggesting in a personal e-mail that she might put her past grievances behind her, or consider changing her username like Jefferson Anderson has done. She asked for comment, and includded a great deal of material from the Starwood arbitration as "evidence", even though the issue Thatcher131 was commenting on was the recent sockpuppetry issue involving User:BackMaun, User:Alien666 and User:RasputinJSvengali and <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>their harassment of me and User:Jefferson Anderson. I felt I had a place in the discussion since my name is all over both the e-mail and the evidence; why Calton decided to simply attack me there I do not know. I complimented Thatcher and said that IMO his advice was appropriate, and that Mattisse's complaint was unreasonable.

Mattisse evidently rallied uninvolved editors to this discussion, and it has become unecessarily contentious. Here is an example , though in this case the editor voluntarily tempered his tone.(IMO, causing trouble for Thatcher131 was probably the whole purpose of this case.) I don't want to respond in kind to User:Calton's insults and attacks, but he has been asked to cease and desist and refuses to do so.

I have been involved in Mattisse-related conflicts from the first week I edited. I have not instigated any of them, nor retaliated on the work of a single editor, merely sought to defend myself and improve my editing. The Starwood arbitration is over, these three new socks are blocked, but my troubles go on. I hope to avoid a whole new round of conflict from whoever Mattisse can get to bear the banner.

Thank you for your patience and understanding. Rosencomet 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you expect that Fred shall help? --Iamunknown 16:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess if I knew what can be done in such a circumstance, I wouldn't have to ask him. But he is an arbitrator, and therefor knows better than I what the proper action is to be taken when an editor enters a case requesting feedback on a question like "is this a good proposal", and instead of commenting on the question posts a string of attacks, insults, and uncivil language against one of the other editors who did provide feedback. Perhaps as an arbitrator he could caution this individual against such behavior, and it would carry more weight than the words of a simple editor (one did try, but was rebuffed). Perhaps he could even get the insults stricken from the text of the case as irrelevant and inappropriate to the conversation. Maybe there's some other appropriate thing to do; I don't know. Maybe just advise me as to how to deal with such unprovoked bad behavior. Rosencomet 15:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am at a loss myself. She just keeps on and on. Everyone's patience runs thin, and other than saying, "take this nonsense to some other forum", we don't know how to deal with it. Fred Bauder 16:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well. The case has been archived anyway. To quote an old saying, "What can't be cured must be ignored". Rosencomet 17:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Calton is quite ... blunt ... sometimes, but he or she is (IMO) a very valuable contributor. I'm never quite sure what to do with a valuable contributor who also has less desirable qualities. I guess that's why Arbitration is here (eh Fred? :-P). I archived it, hoping it will go away (it did); certainly no good things could have come from that discussion. --Iamunknown 23:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Fred

I have a question. Every edit that I make is followed by a certain Wikipedian who writes derogatory and nasty comments about me personally and does not even talk about the substantive issues of the edit. He/She reverts anything that I do. I have mentioned this to you before. I have asked him/her to stop engaging in this behavior. He/she brings up things that I have done four months ago, six months ago, one year ago and then uses that to justify the nasty, rude, non-civil behavior. Am I correct to assume that his/her borish behavior violates Misplaced Pages rules because if I read the rules correctly Wikipedian are not supposed to badger, intimidate and be rude to other Wikipedians--even if those Wikipedians have a track record of doing those types of things in the past? Another example of this behavior just happended on the Al Gore III article: (cur) (last) 02:09, 1 May 2007 Eleemosynary (Talk | contribs) (5,708 bytes) (rv to previous version. Getaway/Keetoowah once again using false, red herring arguments to push POV. REVERTED! : )) (cur) (last) 20:49, 30 April 2007 Getaway (Talk | contribs) (6,226 bytes) (Previous removal of info was based upon that there was not a reliable source. Please leave in all reliable sources.) Honestly, I don't know what to do to stop this behavior that clearly violates Wikipedian rules.--Getaway 12:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have responded previously. Even if you are the user formerly known as Keetoowah, there is no excuse for the rudeness being expressed toward you. Please be courteous yourself and use the dispute resolution procedure. Fred Bauder 12:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Fred Bauder: I realize that you have responded before. My goal was not to drive you crazy. I will move on to get assistance elsewhere. I have been watching the Misplaced Pages dispute resolution process since I started and it seems clear to me that without a long, long list of examples of rude and inappropriate behavior then it is next to impossible to stop a Wikipedian from acting inappropriately toward other Wikipedians. I brought the issue to your talk page because you have a high profile and now I have a record of this particular Wikipedian’s behavior on your talk page, seen by you. I am merely establishing a record of inappropriate behavior that violates the rules of WP:CIVIL. I will move on now, but I will be referring back to this series of inappropriate actions on the part of a certain Wikipedian. I will move elsewhere to record the actions and inappropriate behaviors before I move to the next step of dispute resolution. Thank you for your time and assistance.--Getaway 23:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason Getaway is not interested in dispute resolution is that he is a blatant political troll with a long history of policy violation (and blocks). Kaldari 15:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No. That is not true. As I stated above, I will keep a record, where others can easily see it, and then I will follow up with the dispute resolution process. As far as I can see at this point in time, the Wikipedian that I have been talking to Fred Bauder about is attempting to get me to engage in a screaming match of some kind or an edit war, etc. where I can be tarred and feathered. Also, I find your comment to Fred Bauder to be in the same vein. You are violating Wikipeida policy (WP:CIVIL) with the hope that I will retaliate with uncivil invective in return which will provide you with the proof that you need to justify whatever actions you have in mind. --Getaway 19:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedian rules on personal attacks states: The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Misplaced Pages encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia. My comment is: Clearly these rules apply to admins as well as regular Misplaced Pages users. Eleemosynary constant references to things that I might have said or done three, six or even twelve months ago violates this basic policy of Misplaced Pages. Also, Kaldari's references to my good faith attempts to have Al Gore III remain an article is also a violation of this policy--even if Kaldari is an admin. The rules clearly state that they apply to ALL Wikipedians. I would ask, once again, that this behavior stop.--Getaway 20:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote the original version of that. Fred Bauder 21:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Getaway's continuous violation of (WP:CIVIL), (WP:NPA), and a score of other policies, from as far back as to when he was editing as "Keetoowah" to as recently as a few days ago, render his above comments as hypocritical as they are comical. He will continue to be called on his disruptive edits, which are almost exclusively done in bad faith. His red herrings will continue to be ignored. Eleemosynary 01:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Deaniack is Back

I think you know this guy: FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 23:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your accusation

In this you made an accusation that I use propeganda sources similar to the protocls. Or maybe I did not understood you. In any case which sources that I used are in your view propeganda sources ? Zeq 02:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are making a good faith effort to find and use reliable sources. Fred Bauder 03:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Irrespectively of that, the comparison was in poor taste. El_C 07:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

COFS/CSI LA

Replied on my talk page. ··coel acan 00:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

oops. ;-) You know you're editing the archive, right? ··coel acan 01:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)