Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:08, 23 July 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)

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)

Material has been removed here and placed in User talk:Fred Bauder/Notes, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 1, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 2, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 3, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 4, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 5, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 6, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 7, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 8, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 9, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 10, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 11, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 12, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 13, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 14, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 15, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 16, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 17, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 18, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 19, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 20, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 21, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 22, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 23, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 24, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 25, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 26, User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 27 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 28 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 29 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 30 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 31 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 32 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 33 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 34 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 35 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 36 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 37 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 38 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 39 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 40 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 41 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 42 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 43 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 44 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 45 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 46 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 47 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 48 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 49 User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 50.

?

Canvassing?

Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How are those a violation if these are not? Antelan 00:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You think Bauder was in violation on his own talk page? Somehow?

It may be nothing with Wikidudeman, but it does seem a bit pushy. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The 'not' link was to the diff where Fred Bauder explained why the previous edits were not violations. I should have been more clear. Antelan 05:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right, OK. Let Bauder decide whether there is any problem. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

LordPathogen

I saw your note on my talk page. As I said earlier:

It is disengenuous of LP to complain that I have resorted to personal attacks. Before posting the email, I went and checked wikimedia:Privacy policy and did not see a prohibition from posting the email. If there is a violation of a policy, I will edit my comments. He's the one who has gone out and posted to almost every venue available, and made this into some sort of edit war. Additionally, he was the one to send harassing emails to my personal account. --evrik  04:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Now I have read through Misplaced Pages:Civility, Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, Misplaced Pages:Avoiding common mistakes and several other pages (including Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight). As I said before, "If there is a violation of a policy, I will edit my comments." So, please elucidate me:

• When blocked editor starts sending harassing emails to other editors, where can it be reported?
• Where is the that says that publicly posting the email address and name of someone who is harassing you privately is a violation of policy?

In one week, he accused me of Suspicious editing behavior and harassment on WP:ANI – both times the complaints were turned aside. Also in that same week, he accused me of 3RR and another user of the same thing. There has been the failed mediation and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration the RfA. At each step there have been a whole host of Admins involved, but still, Lordpathogen persists.

Thanks. --evrik  17:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that Evrik does not clearly see that an editorial dispute should not invalidate a reasonable expectation of privacy on Misplaced Pages says it all... LordPathogen 18:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not addressing the editorial dispute. That should have been resolved on the talk page of the article.

First, my name and email address were not publicly available via Misplaced Pages as you have now done. Secondly, Fred, kindly note that he is now using my initials to try and circumvent your prior warning and has added yet another link to the page showing my email address and complete header info. At what point do the warnings stop and he get sanctioned? Thank you. LordPathogen 19:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

evrik (talk · contribs)

Evrik claims that he did not again post the private information again after being asked not to. Can you clarify (1) whether or not this is an accurate statement on his part and (2) whether the post was potentially innocent (ie, blindly copying an entire email that happened to have a signature or some such thing)? If the answer to either of these two questions is no, and someone doesn't beat me to it, I will go ahead and mark his unblock request as rejected. (I would encourage, though, that a month may be a bit excessive. He is a valued contributor to articles and definitely a good-faith user, although sometimes he doesn't adequately understand our policies/procedures.) --BigDT 02:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

He posted a link to it on this page together with personal identifying information, after being warned, but it has been oversighted. Fred Bauder 02:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... thanks ... I have marked the unblock request as declined. I would still encourage a reduction in the block length (to something like a week), particularly if he is willing to (1) apologize and (2) promise not to do it again. --BigDT 02:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

RFAr question

Sorry to bother you with this, but there are several people at Badlydrawnjeff's RFAr that consider the remedy too harsh. In particular, BDJ's editing of articles has never been problematic. Would you consider limiting said remedy to, e.g., deletion discussions on BLP articles, rather than the articles themselves? The remedy as written boils down to banning one of our most prolific editors from a very substantial set of articles, and that seems hardly worthwhile. Yours, >Radiant< 08:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Taking the position repeatedly, in a wide variety of contexts, that we have NO ethical responsibility toward the subjects of our articles is a serious matter. Fred Bauder 09:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is very serious. However, Jeff takes this position in deletion debates, rather than in article editing. This issue is better solved by saying "any uninvolved admin can ban Jeff from an article where he's being disruptive" than by a priori banning him from all articles on all people. It's a matter of babies and bathwater. >Radiant< 10:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It has the potential to mislead other users into thinking a nihilist position is acceptable. Fred Bauder 10:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so ban him from making such propaganda, removing it and blocking if he makes it anyway. The point is that 95% of Jeff's edits are not controversial, although I realize the remaining 5% are very much problematic. >Radiant< 10:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your time. >Radiant< 09:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

If it isn't confidential, can you tell me what happended to users Kindo kinda and 00a00a0aa ? I also see that all Kinda's edits to the talk page for Child sexual abuse are gone but not 00a00a00a's. thanks. DPeterson 12:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I'd suspected their being an SPPA's as you describe and have no problem with the administrative action take. Thanks. If I can be of any help in the future, please let me know. DPeterson 18:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi and Paranormal RfArb

Hi Fred, I'd like to request that attention be brought to Martinphi's editing conduct for the paranormal RfArb. He was one of the main reasons the request was made, but no proposed decision concerning his conduct has been written. As a convenience, I have compiled most of the complaints leveled against him at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop#Martinphi.27s conduct. Simões (/_contribs) 20:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Simões. Apparently Martinphi's disruptive and POV edits have been overlooked and no proposed decision has yet been introduced for arbitrators to vote on remedies concerning his edits. Here is a proposed decision from the workshop area that you can copy ] or you can simply write up a new one advocating his total ban from wikipedia for his disruptive editing and sockpuppets, etc. I also want to remind you of Davkal and request you add this user as well to the "proposed decision" area for a ban from paranormal articles or a total ban from wikipedia for their disruptive edits. Here is one drawn up already in the workshop area ] or again alternatively you can make one yourself for the arbitrators to vote on. Also please add ] and ] to the proposed decision area for remedies. Both Tom Butler and Reddi have similarly disruptive edits and I would like to see the arbitrators have a chance to vote on remedies concerning their future here on wikipedia. Thanks.Wikidudeman 01:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fred, it just keeps on coming. I put in time this evening going through the Mediumship article and fixing up the header. Originally, the article attributed claims to sources such as dictionary.com, but these claims weren't actually present in the sources. I found similar statements from the same sources, updated the article appropriately, and

Antelan was basically right, and if he hadn't resorted to edit warring so fast I got an edit conflict, and if he had just worked things out a bit, I'm sure things would have been fine. As it is, the versions are very similar. here and here. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to concur with Antelan. I asked Martinphi to refrain from edits that appear to be based on a personal interpretation of a yet-to-be-decided Arbcom finding and have received only ad hom remarks and citation of his personal policy in reply. Martin continues to make nonconsensual edits such as removing "qualifying words" to highly controversial articles. - LuckyLouie 02:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to expose Bauder to this stuff, because to understand it he'd have to review a lot of stuff on the talk page. My edits were not "non-consensual;" they were just edits. You LL mis-represented them in spite of my factual corrections. In other words, Bauder, if you want to review things fine, but don't think you're being told the truth here. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Result

Please also note that we won't be able to revert stuff like this, either. Reverting is an essential tool. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverting is not forbidden, just severely limited. Fred Bauder 10:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

1RR per week

why did you vote for putting me on 1RR per week? I never even violated 3RR. Even if one admin claimed so in the block log - my first block I received. And the first in a long row of false blocks. Pls tell what User:Tobias Conradi did, that made you think 1RR per week is helping Misplaced Pages. Tobias did never even violate 3RR and was always there to talk if his edits were questioned. Yes, he got blocked with the claim of 3RR violation - but this was only the first in a long list of out of policy blocks he received. Admins massively abused him. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Email

Replied to the email... Cheers. --Dark Falls 08:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Diyako checkuser logs

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zanyar (Possible sockpuppets)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyako (Diyako is stale)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/71.222.81.30 (Diyako is still stale so no check was made to compare him)

You are receiving this because your username either appears on the checkuser list or you were one of the arbitrators that participated in the relevant Arbcom case (User:Dmcdevit, User:Jdforrester, User:The Epopt, User:Charles Matthews, User:Sam Korn, User:Fred Bauder, User:Jayjg, User:Morven, User:Neutrality).

Currently User:Diyako/User:Xebat is at a stale state for not editing over a month. User hasn't edited for slightly over a year due to an arbcom sanctioned ban. I have a reason to believe (, , ) there may be a connection as the edit pattern seems similar in many ways. Diyako's wikipedia ban has recently expired but if he is continuing a similar behavior as User:D.Kurdistani, there needs to be a further consideration either by ARBCOM or Community Sanction board (latter seems more appropriate IMHO). A successful checkuser would be very helpful in the decision making process on this issue.

This inquiry is to request if you have "personal logs" of Diyako/Xebat's IP's to compare with User:D.Kurdistani and possible other socks. This is NOT a request for the logs themselves but on weather or not you have them. Please reply on my talk page to confirm if you have the logs or not. User:Mackensen appears to be the only person to have preformed a successful checkuser but others may also have this info.

-- Cat 10:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am absolutely begging you

I spent a long time on the Mediumship article last night -remembering why I liked Misplaced Pages in the first place, that is to edit and not to quarrel. Now I see that all my good faith edits were summarily reverted - with an edit summary saying the lead was POV (I changed mostly other parts). I am begging you to do something about this kind of behavior. I thought things might be a little better now, that maybe I won't have to entirely leave Misplaced Pages. But things on Mediumship are going on EXACTLY as things in general have gone on for months now, with the same people (see evidence). Please, please please do something. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

And now I just saw this, too. Do you see any POV pushing there? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I see good editing. Fred Bauder 23:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

*Changing 'believe' to 'say' is questionable, but probably reasonable. Changing 'investigation' to 'enthusiast' does seem to be a bit of an NPOV representation of a viewpoint. We are supposed to give fair representation to the viewpoint: if they 'believe', thats how it should be reported and if they feel they are 'investigating' then thats how it should be reported. My reading of WP:NPOV leads me to believe we should report viewpoints from the perspective of the viewpoint. note: My comment is based only on the single DIFF provided. That notwitstanding: we must accurately reflect what the cited source says. Lsi john 00:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Across the nation, people like Franz are using modern technology to answer an age-old question: Do ghosts exist? These paranormal enthusiasts are harnessing Web sites to share their hair-raising stories, just like kids swap spooky tales around a crackling campfire."

The source uses 'enthusiasts'. I should have dug deeper before responding. My apologies Fred. Lsi john 00:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john, The sources use several words:

"Research" and "investigating"

"Paranormal investigators"

"enthusiasts", and also says " Most of the associations share a mission "to investigate the paranormal using scientific methods,""

So, the sources on that paragraph say 3 words, but in context, "enthusaiasts" is the one which makes them sound worst, so that's why it was there. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

A slight correction:

Most of the associations share a mission "to investigate the paranormal using scientific methods," says Cody Polston, president of the Southwest Ghost Hunters Association.'

The source actually attributes the above statement to a "ghost hunter", it is not an editorial statement. - LuckyLouie 01:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Gents, with greatest respect, may we move this to the EVP talk page? Perhaps even copying your content-related comments over to the talk page so that all who are interested can contribute? With your permission, I'll copy your comments over, if that is the preference. Antelan 01:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Fred.... you have a knack for the cryptic. When you say "good editing," do you mean my editing of Mediumship and/or EVP, or Minderbinder's reverts? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I play an oracle on the internet... Mindbender's reverts, although I'm sure you have your brilliant moments too. Fred Bauder 02:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You're really calling this a good edit? It's Ok just to revert someone after all that work on the whole article, citing unexplained POV in the lead? If that's the case, I might as well stop editing completely. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, saying flatly that a medium is in contact with the spirit world is inappropriate. Fred Bauder 02:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Denotes: "Have as a meaning". That's what "Mediumship" means. And what about your ArbCom proposal that psychic and paranormal should serve to warn the reader? We all need to have this clarified. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Rogue Admin

Please see my User talk:68.110.8.21 and User_talk:Akhilleus#WP:POINT.2C_WP:HOAX.2C_WP:PN.2C_WP:BIAS. Misplaced Pages seriously needs your help Fred. Thanks. 68.110.8.21 03:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Angela Davis Article

If I had of known then what I know now I would have simply removed that neutrality tag without asking you how I could help. I thought that it took an administrator to make such a revert. I wasn't able to find any useful 3rd party sources but I did notice that the tag was reverted. That article is and was as neutral as any article on wikipedia. You should be proud of your work on it. Albion moonlight 09:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

So now we know....

...who the illustrious Fred Bauder really is! :-P Ryan Postlethwaite 01:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Naming merge

Hi, I just want to let you know that the article "naming" is up for a merge with "brand." As the original author, I figure you might have something to add to this discussion. If not, then just consider this a courtesy call. --Cjs56 04:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh heh

We love your caption on that Sabine women pic (: Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Not original with me, copied from User talk:Abu badali. Fred Bauder 22:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Add me to the amused. (In fact, it sent coffee all over my computer screen.) Bucketsofg 21:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If only I looked so good in a toga. Thatcher131 16:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That is one of the funniest things I have seen in a long time. Maybe a collection of genuine Misplaced Pages humour is possible - coming to a movie theater near you soon, Misplaced Pages - The Movie (really a slideshow of annotated free pictures). Though actually, someone has almost certainly done this already, probably at one of the Wikimanias, and if not, they should have done! Carcharoth 16:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

About the "Proposed decision" (and the Sabine clerk)

Hi, Fred. I don't know if I it's o.k. withing the arb case process, but I added some concerns about some of your proposals to my arb case in it's Proposed decision's talk page. Is this the right place to do so? Is it even acceptable to do so? (If it's so, I would appreciate your input there).

p.s.: I'm glad you liked the image and caption! ;) Such a surprise to see it being copied here. --Abu badali 22:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't reword my comments.

Removing the link is enough. Kamryn Matika 01:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Adopting User Bus stop

Hello Mr. Bauder. Durova, the blocking admin, offered to unblock Bus stop if he were adopted and agreed to stay away from List of notable people who converted to Christianity for three months. In answer to your question, this was the only article that Durova told Bus stop to avoid during that period. I believe some concerned editors have assumed that user Bus stop should also stay away from the article Bob Dylan as well. Nick Graves 19:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it looks like Durova modified his offer to include avoidance of two articles, not just one. The Bob Dylan article is probably what he's referring to, since the disruptive editing Bus stop was blocked for related to material on Misplaced Pages that reported Dylan's earlier conversion to Christianity. Nick Graves 19:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Impact of ArbCom ruling on BLP policy

This ruling in the recent Badlydrawnjeff RfAR may be significant:

Does this ruling apply to all of en.Misplaced Pages and therefore should be considered as project-wide policy, or does it apply only to this ArbCom case? If it applies project-wide, does this wording need to be added by someone to the current BLP policy page? CLA 22:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It applies to all articles or material which presents a serious BLP problem. It is based on Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons, not our decision. Fred Bauder 00:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The line, "The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy." isn't stated in the current policy. CLA 01:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It probably should be. Fred Bauder 01:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll bring it up on the talk page and see what happens. CLA 01:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop discussion.

I'm not sure why you're so harsh in your comment on Bus stop's page, but I've replied to your comment anyhow. If you are unaware, this discussion has been covered numerous, numerous times in the past, and the only individuals who still refuse to accept the reliability of the sources are Bus stop, and his editing cohort (they've worked together before on a separate article) Cleo123.

Arguing against the inclusion of such individuals on the List of notable people who converted to Christianity is one thing, and is a perfectly reasonable argument, but rejecting 3 biographies, written by Dylan experts, while accepting Geocities-quality personal websites which vaguely attest to Dylan's 'return' to Judaism (with e-mail rumors as a primary source, no less) seems a bit hypocritical, and hints at how agenda can warp an editor's actions.

Bus stop's current argument is rather nonsensical once you read what the biographies themselves say. Even without reading these sources, his argument comes up short: as he says that the sources do not claim religious conversion, imagine if were to say that "He went to the store", and Bus stop subsequently argued that no real "travel" was implied, and that he merely "flirted with the idea of a store". That, as far as I can discern, is original research. Taking what a source says for what it actually says is not. Clear statements and explanations should not be deliberated in such a manner.

So, if there is some sort of misunderstanding between you and I concerning my involvement here, I'd be glad to correct it.--C.Logan 14:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Baca Ranch

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Baca Ranch, by CultureDrone (talk · contribs), another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Baca Ranch is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Baca Ranch, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Baca Ranch itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi

This diff with regards to the perspective that the parapsychology article should take pretty much gets at the heart of the problem. Antelan 00:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Antelan- stop being dishonest. What a disgusting way to act. Stop harassing me. You can't pull a con job on Bauder. You found a diff that looks bad out of context. Good for you.

Bauder: "whole thing" in Antelan's diff refers to a tiny section in the article which lists the things parapsychologists study; I think we should just quote their definitions and say it is from them. Here's the section. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I followed your lead by presenting evidence here. The context only more fully fleshes out what to me looks like doublespeak, but it doesn't controvert anything I've said. I'm not being dishonest, I'm not harassing you, and I'm not trying to con Fred Bauder. Remember, the RfC came about before I even got involved in this, and I'm only now beginning to appreciate the profundity of the situation. Antelan 18:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps you need to educate yourself on the context. You've been harassing me and other editors for ages now, and presenting a diff like that out of context is plain dishonest, because -in POF- you surely must have the context by now.

As I've said all through the arbitration, I don't mind going down, but I want to go down for the right reasons: As long as the Arbitrators do their research, and read the parapsychology talk page section where your diff comes from, and the section to which that diff is referring, and know the history of that section in former articles (especially this, since my suggestion was merely a restoration), that's fine. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You've got me a bit confused, but I'm tired. The original diff seems to advocate Sympathetic point of view. I like that, but it is not acceptable on Misplaced Pages. Fred Bauder 02:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That small section's about Scope- what subjects do they study? I advocated saying "here's what they say that they study" (per ATT). Debate about whether the subjects of study exist is in other sections. I would never advocate writing the article from a sympathetic or oppositional POV. That's the simplest version of the debate I can think up.

That's exactly the impression Antelan wanted you to get. Totally out of context. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Got that, and the scope of parapsychology is what those who hold themselves out as parapsychologists study, not the general grabbag. Fred Bauder 03:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. It's like "I study unicorns and elves, which I define as X and Y." As long as we attribute the statement to them, we can say what they say. Then the debate on whether unicorns and elves are real is for another section. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fred, what you say is true. In contrast, what Martinphi says is not compatible with the fact that we shouldn't be presenting this from the parapsychologists' POV. Indeed, Martinphi's very next diff on that talk page is this ("I only said, make the definitions from the PA perspective. Use the PA glossary for the definitions of what parapsychologists study."), which to me is still incorrect. Yes, we accept what they say they study, but we still ought not write about it from their perspective. This is the subtle problem that keeps manifesting itself in paranormal-related articles. Antelan 04:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My reason for concern is this: Martinphi is a user who already thinks that the unfinished ArbCom proceedings have "essentially instituted (his) understanding of NPOV", as he believes that "Bauder's main substantive proposals ... are directly from my essay", which is the previously deleted and now off-site paranormal primer. His corpus of statements, including but by no means limited to these, are what lead me to be concerned about his push for a particular "perspective", and his editing overall. Antelan 04:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not pushing a particular perspective. The proposals are consistent with my understanding of NPOV. The Paranormal primer probably has some stuff wrong. I'm not going to argue here. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fred, I'd appreciate some clarification here, and I'm sure Martinphi would, too. If I'm wrong, I need to know it so I won't continue thinking Martinphi is out of bounds if he's really not. If I'm right, Martinphi needs to know it so he can avoid similar missteps in the future. Either way, your input would be invaluable. I don't think either of us want to leave this in ambiguity. Antelan 04:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Baca Ranch

Hi Fred, I noticed you recreated Baca Ranch as a redirect to a non-existent page and then fully protected it. Any reason? I previously deleted it per WP:CSD#R1 as a redirect to a non-existent page and I'm curious why it got recreated as a redlink redirect. Thanks!--Isotope23 20:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Because I am absolutely certain that is the correct name for the article. My family has lived across the road from the Baca Grant for 100 years. Fred Bauder 20:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha! Original research!!!

On a serious note, perhaps you could drop a stub at Luis Maria Baca Grant No. 4 so Baca Ranch redirects to something? I'd do it, but as a midwestern lifer I'd never heard of the place before two days ago.--Isotope23 21:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually just got an edit conflict posting the following:

Just curious- I have the same situation on one of the articles- I live there. Can one defend one's self against the charge of OR? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Depends. In this case I have little interest in writing an article, but am probably the world's leading expert on the subject. Fred Bauder 01:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of that angle- thanks. Have to review the rules on that. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Writing an article, which I did, is a blatant violation of Misplaced Pages:No original research. Doing it any other way involves days of research through sources which are only marginally available, possibly lost. Fred Bauder 10:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... I imagine this won't be the sort of article where there will be a gaggle of editors showing up to pick it apart...--Isotope23 14:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop

Good luck. I hope you are successful. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Waldorf education...yet again

We may need some help at Waldorf education; there are no remaining POV problems being raised with the article's substance, but three editors are contesting the neutrality of the article on a purely Ad hominem basis. Hgilbert 01:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, Fred, for whatever reasons, you are ignoring the ad hominem attacks. Would you care to comment on one issue: can anthroposophical sources (official lists of schools) be cited to show the number of Waldorf schools that presently exist (or existed at any given year in the past) in the world? Hgilbert 17:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read the discussion on the Waldorf ed talk page before taking at face value Hgilbert's apparently innocent inquiry ("It's just a list"). It was well established in the arbitration that just because - in fact precisely because - it's an "official" list, if it's published by anthroposophy, it's forbidden. Allowing anthroposophists to put pretty charts on wikipedia purporting to show the number of schools worldwide (and thus "growth") is indeed an example of the movement promoting itself. Note that the list includes phone and email addresses enabling potential customers to contact the schools! It is quite different from an independent assessment or accounting of the status or growth of the Waldorf movement.DianaW 17:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a ridiculous discussion; an official list of schools is a reliable source. I have changed this to use two academic sources that cite the same numbers, however. Hgilbert 19:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Imagination

From the Waldorf talk page, as you may not follow it:

Nielson has presented extensive empirical evidence for Waldorf's imaginative approach; see this paper and "Rudolf Steiner's Pedagogy of Imagination: A Phenomenological Case Study" as well as his book on Rudolf Steiner's Pedagogy of the Imagination] Hgilbert 13:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Hemlock Martinus is abusing his power as an administrator.

Hello, My name is Ravi. I am a new Wikipedian. My nickname is ‘Sam’. I made few changes in articles like Purdue University and Indiana as an anonymous user. My e-mail address is Ravi-141@hotmail.com. User:Hemlock Martinus is abusing his power as an administrator. On 9 June 2007, My friend User:Devraj5000 was introducing me to the policies of the Misplaced Pages. Devraj5000 accidentally violated 3RR. User:Hemlock Martinus, who is an administrator blocked Devraj5000 for 24 hours. Then, Devraj5000 asked me to create an account. I created an account User:R-1441 and I made some comments on the behalf of Devraj5000. Then, Devraj5000 left the computer. After that, User:Hemlock Martinus accused Devraj5000 of sockpuppetry and blocked him for a week. He also blocked IP address: 202.52.234.194 and User:R-1441. Sir, User:R-1441 is my account. I created this new account because User:Hemlock Martinus blocked my account without informing me. It is totally wrong for an administrator to block so many people from editing. User:Hemlock Martinus is an arrogant human being and he is abusing his power as an administrator. He should be blocked from the Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Ravi.

This has been put on many editors's pages. User talk:Charles Matthews and User talk:Jimbo Wales have a couple of responses. Flyguy649 _contribs 08:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Rex

You can come here to discuss. Kingjeff 17:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested revision deletions

Regarding User:Justen, thank you for deleting the first two revisions.

My understanding is that, using {{db-userreq}}, I can request that any page within my area of user namespace be deleted. Unfortunately, there isn't a process (as far as I can tell) to have specific revisions deleted, only to have all revisions deleted. Which is why I made the request for oversight.

Could you please assist me in having the latter two revisions deleted? Thank you, again. Please let me know.   user:justen    talk   14:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have emailed the oversight list again. Any help, or at least a response, would be very much appreciated? Thank you, again!   j    talk   17:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of being a sockpuppet

Dear Fred Bauder: There is another Wikipedian who constantly claims that I am a sockpuppet of Verklempt. I am not. And I do care if he/she makes this claim because I am not. So he/she can claim it all day long and there will never be anything to verify the false claim. The reason that I am contacting you is that I would appreciate if this particular Wikipedian stop making this allegation on the talk page of Ward Churchill misconduct issues. You can review the constant stream of personal attacks on me here: ]. If he has a real belief that I am also a sockpuppet of Verklempt then he need to provide proof and file a complaint with an admin such as yourself--otherwise he needs to stop personally attacking me on the talk pages. As an admin, you can do a test on my IP and Verklempt's IP and you will see immediately that we different people. We just happen to agree that the blogs referred to in the references do not meet Wikipedian standards and this particular Wikipedian disagrees on that Wikipedian point. However, the constant claims about sockpuppetry are getting old and are inappropriate on the talk page and now should stop. I kindly ask for your assistance. Thank you.--Getaway 21:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also appreciate a look-see. The editor in question is a newbie, and probably a teenager, judging by his cognitive processes. He appears to be stalking me and Getaway both to the pages we edit, and trying to rouse our ire. He has gone to many other editors' talk pages to make his sockpuppet accusations against us. At this point he is a minor irritation, no worse than a gnat, but I do think he needs a bit of counseling. Most of his edit history is taken up by his stalking of me and Getaway, rather than anything constructive.Verklempt 23:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop

I noticed you were mentoring Bus stop, just thought I'd let you know he seems to be arousing some ill will at Talk:Jews for Jesus , which can get contentious at the best of times. Just thought you might want to know, maybe can help him out some. Seraphimblade 23:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

And the point to this is what? Bus stop 01:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The point to it is, whether you mean to or not, you appear to be aggravating people. Jews for Jesus can be a pretty contentious topic (as I well know), so it's one you might want to be especially cautious while discussing. Seraphimblade 01:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think your caution is sufficient. Fred Bauder 01:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I read from Bus Stop's page that you're mentoring him. I'm letting you know that his editing and attitude at Who is a jew? is becoming tendentious. He's attached to his POV for the article, and though other editors revert and explain other POVs that influence the nature of the article, and the efforts to keep the article itself NPOV, Bus has chosen to dismiss them all as being ignorant of the actual nature of the question itself. Please stop in at the talk, and caution him that Wiki is not his soapbox for determining that only Jews who follow all of Judaism's laws, (Halacha), are Jews, and the rest, aren't. He frames it in terms of 'religious or non-religious', but all his answers refer to that phrase or halacha, or lack of halacha, as meters. He opposes long standing ideas of sociological designation from with and without, opposes anthropological evidences, opposes ethnic identity ideas, oppose self-identification, all in favor of whether or not they religiously observe Halacha. Other editors are frustrated, and it's getting ridiculous. Please help. Thank you. ThuranX 00:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

My tactics are working.

Users Getaway and Veklempt have stopped their disruption for now. I have made no personal attacks on either of them and I do not edit war. My goal is to bring peace and consensus to some of these articles and it is working. Feel free to read all the evidence and take notice of Getaways run in with 2 other administrators. Albion moonlight 23:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Your so-called "tactics" are not working in any way. We have not, in your silly words, "stopped" our "disruption". Neither one of us agrees with you and your comments. Also, your attitude is not one of concensus but one of stopping what you believe to be "disruption" when in fact we merely disagreed with you on a Wikipedian point. Based upon the above comments you have now admitted that your baseless, false allegation that myself, Getaway, and Verklempt are sockpuppets is in fact that: baseless, false allegations. The problem that I now see is that you have also admitted that you made that clearly baseless, false allegation to control the behavior of myself, Getaway, and Verklempt and to attempt to intimidate us into compliance with you. That is not appropriate Misplaced Pages behavior, but unfortunately you have now just unwittingly admitted as such. Also, I haven't changed a single thing in the way that I operate for you.--Getaway 02:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I always thought that making no personal attacks and refusing to edit war was excellent way to intimidate people. You do seem to be speaking for Verklempt by the way. - Crockspot 02:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Once again, an unfounded allegation. Where is your evidence?? It just sounds like one more baseless, false allegation. Can anyone provide some evidence for this??? Crockspot clearly can't. I have asked Albion moonlight several times to provide some evidence and he can't. It is just more of the same baseless, false allegations. Where is the beef??--Getaway 02:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I was just making a drive-by snarky remark, as I am wont to do from time to time, but since you seem to be laying a challenge before me, I took a few minutes to review your edit history, as well as Verklempt's, and some article edit histories, and I find the similarities and intertwining to be nearly identical to the same intertwining of your edit history with BballJones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who apparently is a sockpuppet of yours. Now I know nothing of your current dispute, nor anything about your past sockpuppetry (previous to ten minutes ago), everything in this post was just learned by me by browsing a little. This isn't rocket science. - Crockspot 03:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It may not be rocket science, but it requires more effort than you put into it. My writing style and editing interests are totally distinct from Getaway's. You owe me an apology for making a baseless accusation.Verklempt 04:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem quite pleased; however, I am not a sockpuppet of Verklempt, which is the false, baseless allegation of Albion moonlight. I still have not seen anything to support that. And, yes, this is not rocket science and thank god for that because your reasoning is flawed. You have not provided evidence that I am who Albion moonlight says that I am, i.e., Verklempt. Only Verklempt is Verklempt. Thank you all for playing the game.--Getaway 17:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I am merely pointing out that a compelling case could be made. Absolute proof is neither possible, nor necessary. I draw your attention to a few arbitration rulings regarding this:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy#Sockpuppets
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic#Proxy users
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2#One user or several?
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2#Arbitration rulings

As I said before, I am uninvolved, just butting in my two cents, so I will bid you adieu. - Crockspot 00:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Editors may also want to review the histories of Getaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Keetoowah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), particularly with regards to the Ward Churchill and Condi Rice pages. Getaway, it seems, is the latest incarnation of Keetoowah, the results of whose arbcomm ruling are informative.--Eleemosynary 04:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Need I say more Mr Bauder ? Albion moonlight 08:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid checkuser shows little or no connection between these users. Keetwoowah might be behind one of them, but I'm afraid his attitude is shared by many in the Native American community. I don't agree, but it is a legitimate viewpoint. Fred Bauder 14:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please view Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Keetoowah#Remedies. Keetoowah is an editor in good standing, but under revert parole for personal attacks. Based on checkuser, I think this remedy applies to Getaway, but not Verklempt. Fred Bauder 14:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Everybody has a right to there opinion sir. What I object to is edit warring and pages that are protected because of the vandalism that is edit warring. I accept consensus and user Getaway has a history of ignoring consensus. I will continue to warn the others and pass on information as I see fit. I fail to see how some one can be under revert parole and still be in good standing but there is a good deal of things about wikipedia's tolerance for blatant disruption that I do not understand. Anyway thanks for your time. Albion moonlight 19:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the point. I have been involved in revert wars in the past, but I did not do such a thing to you. Just because I have engaged in a revert long before you started with Misplaced Pages does not mean that you have a right to use my ancient revert war examples (some older than a year) as an excuse to make baseless, false allegations that I am a sockpuppet of Verklempt. Also, all I did was agree with Verklempt's valid argument that some of the blogs listed in the Ward Churchill article are not of a quality to qualify for listing in Misplaced Pages. I will continue edit the Ward Churchill article and others. Even the title of this section, created by you, leads to the belief that you have been engaging in a clear campaign to shut down my contributions. That is not your job and it violates Misplaced Pages policy. Happy editing.--Getaway 21:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Workshop comment

Dear Fred. Please, note my response to your comment at the Workshop. Thanks for your time in reviewing the case. Atabek 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Mr Bauder

Up until a few minutes ago I didn't think that I harassing anyone. I had read section on no personal attacks but I had completely overlooked the following statements in that section.

These examples are not exclusive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.

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.

With that said I will curb my behavior. I will no longer mention that user's name or respond to him directly. I think that the tactics I was using were working. But unlike him and his suspected sockpuppet(s) I play by the rules as I understand them. Thanks for the head's up . Albion moonlight 20:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you've seen the light. In my experience, Misplaced Pages is much more enjoyable when you focus on making constructive improvements to articles on topics in which you have some expertise. Misplaced Pages politics is a total waste of time for me, but a sport for others. Here's hoping you avoid that road in the future.Verklempt 04:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay then

I think we are missing missing each others point so let me be more specific as to what intend to do. I intend to edit those pages but I also intend to direct my comments to the group as opposed to the individual. Trust me Mr Bauder I have no intention of causing trouble. For the most part I just place articles that I am interested in on my watch list and put in my 2 cents worth as I see fit. I do not edit war. I am a reasonable person. Watch me and see how I operate. You will have no valid reason for concern. Albion moonlight 07:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oversight

Hello. I am posting this message on your talk page, as you are identified as an individual with oversight permission on the English Misplaced Pages. On July 7, I sent a request for oversight to the appropriate email address. On July 8, that request was partially completed. Unfortunately, since that time, my (several) requests for follow-up have gone without reply. On July 18, I posted a message to the talk page for Oversight, which has not yet received a response. If you could please take a look at that message, and if you could please assist me with the remainder of the original request, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you!   j    talk   20:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)