Canvassing?
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
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 ( talk) 04:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC) [10]
Now I have read through Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes and several other pages (including Wikipedia:Requests for oversight). As I said before, "If there is a violation of a policy, I will edit my comments." So, please elucidate me:
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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration the RfA. At each step there have been a whole host of Admins involved, but still, Lordpathogen persists.
Thanks. -- evrik ( talk) 17:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 talk 12:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop#Martinphi.27s conduct. Simões ( talk/ contribs) 20:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Please also note that we won't be able to revert stuff like this, either. Reverting is an essential tool. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia. 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)
Why ruling about others, but not explain the ruling?
Replied to the email... Cheers. -- Dark Falls talk 08:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
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 ( [15], [16], [17]) 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 chi? 10:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I spent a long time on the Mediumship article last night -remembering why I liked Wikipedia in the first place, that is to edit and not to quarrel. Now I see that all my good faith edits were summarily reverted [18]- 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 Wikipedia. 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. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
And now I just saw this, too. Do you see any POV pushing there? Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:54, 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)
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)
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? Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see my User talk:68.110.8.21 and User_talk:Akhilleus#WP:POINT.2C_WP:HOAX.2C_WP:PN.2C_WP:BIAS. Wikipedia seriously needs your help Fred. Thanks. 68.110.8.21 03:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
...who the illustrious Fred Bauder really is! :-P Ryan Postlethwaite 01:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
We love your caption on that Sabine women pic (: Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
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 ( talk) 22:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Removing the link is enough. Kamryn Matika 01:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
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. [19] [20] 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)
This ruling in the recent Badlydrawnjeff RfAR may be significant:
“ | 4) Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. This deletion may be contested via the usual means; however, the article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so. 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. | ” |
Does this ruling apply to all of en.Wikipedia 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)
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)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Baca Ranch, by
CultureDrone (
talk ·
contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. 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)
This diff with regards to the perspective that the parapsychology article should take pretty much gets at the heart of the problem. Ante lan talk 00:05, 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 Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 02:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Canvassing?
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
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 ( talk) 04:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC) [10]
Now I have read through Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes and several other pages (including Wikipedia:Requests for oversight). As I said before, "If there is a violation of a policy, I will edit my comments." So, please elucidate me:
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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration the RfA. At each step there have been a whole host of Admins involved, but still, Lordpathogen persists.
Thanks. -- evrik ( talk) 17:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 talk 12:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop#Martinphi.27s conduct. Simões ( talk/ contribs) 20:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Please also note that we won't be able to revert stuff like this, either. Reverting is an essential tool. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia. 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)
Why ruling about others, but not explain the ruling?
Replied to the email... Cheers. -- Dark Falls talk 08:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
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 ( [15], [16], [17]) 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 chi? 10:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I spent a long time on the Mediumship article last night -remembering why I liked Wikipedia in the first place, that is to edit and not to quarrel. Now I see that all my good faith edits were summarily reverted [18]- 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 Wikipedia. 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. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
And now I just saw this, too. Do you see any POV pushing there? Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:54, 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)
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)
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? Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see my User talk:68.110.8.21 and User_talk:Akhilleus#WP:POINT.2C_WP:HOAX.2C_WP:PN.2C_WP:BIAS. Wikipedia seriously needs your help Fred. Thanks. 68.110.8.21 03:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
...who the illustrious Fred Bauder really is! :-P Ryan Postlethwaite 01:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
We love your caption on that Sabine women pic (: Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
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 ( talk) 22:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Removing the link is enough. Kamryn Matika 01:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
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. [19] [20] 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)
This ruling in the recent Badlydrawnjeff RfAR may be significant:
“ | 4) Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. This deletion may be contested via the usual means; however, the article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so. 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. | ” |
Does this ruling apply to all of en.Wikipedia 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)
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)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Baca Ranch, by
CultureDrone (
talk ·
contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. 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)
This diff with regards to the perspective that the parapsychology article should take pretty much gets at the heart of the problem. Ante lan talk 00:05, 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 Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 02:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)