User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 9

Theathenae Arbitration

Technically, I was suggesting that Arvanitic is a variety of Tosk Albanian (I have been subject to a false accusation by you: that I said repeatedly insist on referring to a language used by Greeks as "Albanian"). I have demonstrated this above using reliable sources. Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:NPOV) requires that this be made clear in the article. But if you feel that we could make an exception in this case, I shall be more than happy to stand aside. REX 15:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

If I was able to find out the insulting nature of referring to Greeks as "Albanian" by googling a bit, I suspect you are well aware of it as a Greek speaker. Fred Bauder 15:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

So? It's not like we are omitting it from the article. That is a fact (that some Arvanites dislike being labelled Albanians). But linguistically this language is still a variety of Tosk. We cannot lie on Wikipedia. UNESCO and Ethnologue know better than us. Are they lying by calling it (a dialect of) Albanian? Are they wrong and amateur ancyclopaedia editors right? REX 15:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I had no trouble getting a bunch of google hits for "Arvanitic language". Fred Bauder 16:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

So you believe that these obscure websites are more credible sources than UNESCO. Hmm Interesting! Well as I have told you, if you object, for whatever reason, to us using the truth in the article despite what Wikipedia policy requires (Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:NPOV), I shall not raise too many objections. REX 16:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

May I take that your silence indicates approval? You cannot complain about my orthodox observation of Wikipedia policy like you said you could (empty threat). If you can choose to bend the rules when you feel like it do tell me. Maybe I can do it too. Perhaps you should start acting like someone in your position (an arbitrator) should! REX 18:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry not to get back to you. I have several other irons in the fire. Basically I see no reason for you to cling to your position. Fred Bauder 18:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

So Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:NPOV) and the most credible of sources, UNESCO are not good enough for you. Is that why you started threatening? You don't like facts do you? I am calling Arvanitic a variety of Albanian, I am not calling the Arvanites Albanians. You would have noticed that if you had taken the time to read my statement properly. REX 19:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Mr Bauder, I hope you know that I wasn’t making all this fuss over your vote. It was due to the accusation that I was doing something unjustified. It is entirely up to you what you vote, don’t listen to me! I was perhaps too touchy over your accusations, I should probably try to be more WP:COOL on talk pages. I apologise if I had seemed too severe here. REX 20:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Some questions

Hi Fred. Having just read your user page, I thought I'd say that I'm a fellow retiree ;-) I used to be a mathematician and I live in Cambridge Massachusetts with my wife who is a radiologist and who teaches at Harvard medical school (When people ask how I could retire so young, I always say I married well ;-) As you are presumably aware I participated in Ed Poor's recently closed ArbCom case. I made a "third party" statement urging that the case be accepted, and I contributed an "evidence" section, after it was. Let me say first that I have nothing but respect for the ArbCom members. You are all volunteers doing a thankless task ;-) for which you all deserve the communities gratitude (there now, are you sufficiently buttered up?) But … I have some concerns about the way the case was handled. I have shared some of my concerns here. But I wondered if we might discuss this here in a somewhat more personal and private way? Regards Paul August ☎ 14:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

writing a complaint

I am about to write a complaint regarding User:REX's provocative behaviour and his repeated calumnies against me. I don't want him to be blocked or punished in any way, I just want to stop him slandering me as a far-right-wing. His provocative behaviour is described perfectly by him - I can prove, with his contributions, that he does exactly what he accuses me of doing. While checking his contributions to gather evidence for an RFC (I think that would be the way of complaining against him, with the least consequences for him), I saw his comments here, and I thought I should ask your opinion about it. MATIA 16:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, I suggest you read Slander and libel as well as Malice (legal term). I never slandered you as a right-wing as you say, I just said I detect right-wing politics (or something like that). I have never called YOU a right-wing. For all you know I could have been referring to someone else. Also, personal attacks are in reference to the person, not content (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks). You should have considered that before making the accusation. That accusation is entirely unjustified. Also, you should know that I don't appreciate wiki-stalking. REX 17:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Migration of AfD discussions

Hello and good afternoon. I wanted to contact you regarding your move of a recent Barbara_Schwarz AfD discussion [1] and explain why this move has been reversed. The migration of this page and the subsequent creation of a new discussion in its place resulted in the breakage of several existing wiki-links-- or more accurately resulted in them pointing to the wrong discussion, such as the {{oldafdfull}} template and a few others. To minimise any confusion, I have renamed the second discussion "Barbara Schwarz (2nd nomination)" as per WP:DEL and moved Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (first) back to its original page while preserving the redirect. If hope this was the best solution to this minor dilemma. If there is a more appropriate way to handle these type of situations in the future, please let me know. Best regards, Hall Monitor 18:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Where to put evidence?

Hello Fred,

About the Yuber RFA, where exactly should users put evidence of Guy Montag? There are several bits of evidence on the talk page of the RFA, but shouldn't there be a more appropriate place for it?

Thanks, a-n-o-n-y-m 21:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

You mean all evidence against Guy is supposed to be put on the Yuber rfa/evidence? a-n-o-n-y-m 21:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, a-n-o-n-y-m 22:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI/Evidence

I've recently added new evidence that discusses AI's belligerent article revert warring and intimidation. AI has unapologetically verified (on the evidence page) that I have quoted him/her accurately. I noticed a motion suggested to close the arbitration, but I hope that the new evidence will be considered beforehand. As of now, I don't see any proposed decisions directly concerning the issues that I've presented. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look. Thanks, HKT ^talk 21:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Emico trying to circumvent ban.

Mr Bauder, I understand you were one of the main arbitrators involved in the Emico case. I just wanted to inform you that TheoClarke has already banned [Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Emico] three sockpuppet accounts purportedly being used by Emico and he has now come back, using open proxies, editing the [Iglesia ni Cristo] article to his own POV every day for the past week. I have proposed a lock on this article, and I believe that Emico's ban needs to be extended due to his uncouth behaviour.--Ironbrew 05:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

AVD

Hi,

Yes, I've withdrawn my complaint in exchange for AVD removing material about me posted on another discussion board. It is in relation to that material that I threatened, on that board, to take him to court. Just to be clear, I never made any such comments on wikipedia or in relation to anything AVD had posted here. Homey 20:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Yuber/Guy

Fred, I left you a note on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Proposed decision, but in case you didn't see it, I also want to thank you here for reviewing the presentation of evidence in the case. I see it's caused you quite a bit of extra work, which I feel bad about now. My main concern was the issue of transparency so that Guy could see what was being said about him, which I hope you understand. Now that he's aware of the evidence, he can choose to mount a defense if he wants to. Thank you again for your willingness to be flexible. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat is aggressively refactoring pages and breaking links

Fred, sorry to bother you outside of the ArbCom pages, but User:Cool Cat has been very aggressively refactoring pages (especially the ArbCom case pages) to rename himself from User:Coolcat → User:Cool Cat. He has done this is a very sloppy manner and has broken links all over the place and is refactoring all forms of address in the posts of others to several variations of his new User ID (Cool Cat or Cool_Cat). I feel this is completely out of line and that it is appropriate to bring it to your attention here. Thank you. — Davenbelle 04:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You are in violation of Wikipedia:Civility

Since it has been months and you have refused to address it, I am soon going to take action through the appropriate channels in Wikipedia. In Wikipedia:Civility it clearly states that you can't lie about users, such as outlined here (in regard to my arbitration committee ruling). In the future, I suggest that if you make a ruling against someone, you don't simply make up dozens of claims against them out of thin air.

The problem is that when you make them up, instead of reading through what the person said to try to "spin" what they've said, chances are you won't be able to find any supporting links as evidence. This was evidence by one of your more bold claims of "Cite your sources", where you provided zero (0) links as evidence. The fact that you couldn't come up with anything upon request on the mailing list doesn't help your case either (you actually stopped replying completely once I very thoroughly outlined the many places I did cite sources). This really is your last chance to dig and find something.

In case you're wondering, I was just kind of bored, which is why I didn't get around to this until now. In retrospect, I find the myriad of accusations (lies) you put with zero (0) supporting links to be appalling. If I remember correctly, you easily added over 75% of them personally. Nathan J. Yoder 12:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, so you have read this, but you refuse to respond to the accusations you know them to be highly merititious. I'm still trying to figure out the appropriate channels to figure out how to "prosecute" an arbitrator abuse case, but until then, I'd be VERY interested to hear your defense, since you've not ever attempted to make a single one beyond vague, general accusations. I think I may open a Request for Arbitrartion against you if necessary, but obviously that's problematic when you're dealing with arbitrarors who made the error in question. Nathan J. Yoder 03:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I have filed a request for arbitration against you. Nathan J. Yoder 17:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

NOTICE TO COOL CAT

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

This is the information at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Evidence. You have not followed the required practice. This results in a very confusing evidence page where nothing can be found or followed easily. Fred Bauder 15:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

MOVED. I apollogise for this. --Cool Cat ^Talk 16:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Strange edit

Just wanted to let you know that this edit you made to WP:RfA deleted a lot of text. Was that on purpose, or some Wikipedia quirk? I did not fix it as I don't know what you mean. Oleg Alexandrov 21:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Pmanderson/Septentrionalis

Please also include User:Pmanderson/Septentrionalis. He started the RFA even if he did not sign it [2] and I included him in my response [3]. Most of the recent disputes have been between him and me. Ultramarine 21:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Format of evidence

On the evidence Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect, I see that the requirement is for a very strict linear time format. I have been collecting evidence in a totally different format (User:Egil/Sandbox/rfar), and hope for undestanding that it will take very considerable time to transform this into the time linear format, and also to properly present my issues in the time linear format. The material in question is large, there are many thousand edits from a user account and also probably 4 different anon IPs. My main objection I am trying to show is that the vast majority of these thousands of edits are unencyclopedic and original research, and that this constitues a major problem to the credibility of Wikipedia, and makes it impossible to do useful work. And that there is a consensus among editors that this is the case. -- Egil 09:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we want to keep this as simple as possible. As Jack Web used to say "Just the facts Ma'm". Let Egil remove everything that is irrelevant, immaterial, speculative and false from his statement

and there will certainly be much less to respond to. Rktect 01:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

A section has been set aside on the /Evidence page for your use. Please place what you wish in that section. Do not edit Egil's section. Fred Bauder 03:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

I noted your addition about the State Dept human trafficking report was edited out. You might try inserting it in Human trafficking in Saudi Arabia, if it's not already there. I inserted a link to that article at the bottom of the Saudi Arabia article. Cheers. -- Dave C.^{talk | Esperanza} 06:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Human trafficking

Fred, do you have a source for the trafficking info in the Saudi Arabia article? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so it's a good thing I didn't remove the stuff from the article. :-)I found the Saudi Arabia section in the report this time. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Ril

The votes on injuctions in the matter of Ril predate his vandalism of the Wikiproject Decency page with nudity and the subsequent block. In light of those matters, and in light of the community response that ensued, it seems to me that the AC may wish to revisit those votes.

I respect what you are doing and the difficulty, effort, and time you invest in ongoing participation in the AC. For this reason, and because of our past collaboration, I am honoring your request to lift the block, and will do so without delay.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll add a quick comment here as your talk page is already regrettably cluttered with ArbCom matters. I'm glad -Ril-'s been unblocked, as there should be some allowance for his RFAR and being able to comment there. I am a little concerned, though, about his now having absolute liberty. You'll recall Authentic Matthew was a major reson for the arbitration, with his warring and removing comments at the AFD and making more than one disruptive VFD. Well, it was since merged with community consensus, and on his first day back he RFD'd it. It worries me that this is a continuation. Really, I wonder if a temporary injunction on any deletion nominations until the RFAR is over is possible? (and that was my impetus for becoming a party as well) And I'm not really comfortable talking to him directly, based on past interaction. I noticed one of his first edits was to delete the message from Jimbo, again removing comments... Dmcdevit·t 22:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Onefortyone - arbitration

Thank you for the notice concerning my Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone. I'm afraid I wrongly assumed how the process worked and laid it all out in my Request. As such, I am resorting things to present it on the Evidence page which is a big job but I expect to have it completed by tomorrow. Thank you again, I apolgize for causing this delay. - Ted Wilkes 14:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Njyoder

That's quite a troll who is flaming away on the RfAr page. I wonder if he has any idea just what will happen if he really gets all of the ArbCom members to recuse. He is now only banned from editing certain articles, if I understand. I don't think he understands what will happen if Jimbo Wales really does act. Some of us will watch for possible amusement. Robert McClenon 00:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yuber arbcom

Hi Fred, FYI [4] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms of communism

I think you made some good suggestions and have added the critics you mentioned and others. I have also included arguments by Richard Pipes regarding human nature and WWII, a new table and picture, various other new arguments, and reorganized. Please take a look if you have the time. What else can be improved? Ultramarine 21:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Cool_Cat/Wiki-politics

Fred, since the cases is still not closed, can it be a vote by arbitrators, about wherever or not Coolcats page should be deleted? Fadix 21:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

IN RE BigDaddy777 RfA

Several questions (you can answer here and I'll watch):

1. I am listed as a "complainer" -- but am actually only an interested party, and have no real complaints about BD. I have much more criticism with BD's accusers than anything he has done. I never endorsed the RfC but actually have much to say. How/where do I indicate this on the RfA?
2. Does one really bring arbitration "against" another user? Isn't that an oxymoron? Someone has been using that word when referring to the RfA, and I think it is inappropriate. Arbitration should be "between" parties, not against them. And it should be controlled by neutral parties, and aimed at resolving the dispute, no?

Thanks, Fred.

paul klenk ^talk

Stevertigo arbitration: one key finding of fact is not resolved

Hello,

I don't know if you are following the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Proposed decision, but one key unresolved point is whether the initial 3RR blocks against Stevertigo were proper or improper. I believe it's in the interests of both sides for a finding of fact to be issued one way or the other. Stevertigo has been notified of this request, and he may either concur or object. -- Curps 16:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Based on his message at my talk page, I believe Stevertigo does concur that this point needs to be resolved. -- Curps 17:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

Hello, Fred Bauder/Archive 9. In case you haven't noticed, I'm writing a special series on the upcoming 2005 ArbCom elections for The Wikipedia Signpost. In the October 17 issue, we will be profiling the current ArbCom members. Note that this should not be a platform for re-election; rather, it should serve as an insight into what you feel about the ArbCom, and your opinions of it are. Thus, I hope you don't mind answering a few questions. Many thanks!

1. Are up for re-election this year?
2. If so, do you plan to run for re-election?
3. How do you feel about serving on the ArbCom?
4. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom?
5. Weaknesses?
6. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
7. Do you regret accepting your position? Why or why not?
8. If you could say one thing to the current ArbCom candidates, what would you say, and why?
9. Do you think your job is easy? Hard? Explain.
10. Looking in retrospective, is there anything you would have done differently?
11. Do you feel that the ArbCom is appreciated by the community? If not, how do you think that could be changed?
12. What is the most frustrating thing about being on the ArbCom? Enjoyable?

I hope you didn't mind me bombarding with you with questions; by no means feel obligated to answer all (or any) of them. Thanks for serving Wikipedia, and for taking your time to help a Signpost reporter! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 14:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Alleged sockpuppetry of BigDaddy777

I see a list of alleged sockpuppets of BigDaddy777 (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777/Workshop#Sockpuppets of BigDaddy777. There I see a statement from you that simply says "results of ip check." Does this indicate that this check is going on now and you are going to post the results there later? Or does it indicate that an IP check was conducted and verified the claims? Jdavidb 14:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you please clarify the place on the workshop where you have the phrase "results of ip check"? It is being linked to as if there were actually a statement of results there: [5]. Jdavidb 16:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

I'm speachless. Thanks. +MATIA ☎ 22:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Blocking Halliburton Proxy.

I think blocking the Haliburton Proxy is a mistake - even if you are sure BD777 has edited from it, there are at least two users who have reasonable contribution histories that have done substantial editing from that proxy. It's not like they can use anything else when they are at work. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

If you feel you need to block the IP I really wouldnt be against it. I've never done much editing, and only signed up to avoid the confusion I saw developing over the IP. I can always do any edits I need to do when I get home. Though I am not that familiar with them, the previous user using the IP while not being logged in (I think he had a bunch of edits on the Ann Coulter page) I think said he used other IP's also, so a ban of the IP would not affect him greatly. I have no idea about the other users of the IP, BarneyGumble, pagan-whatever and some other guy. At least I take it they use the IP since they were banned from editing along with the IP, which is when I came into this whole mess [6].--Viper Daimao 19:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

User talk:BigDaddy777

Fred, I have no idea if you are online or not, but there has been a series of postings recently to BD777's user talk page, ostensibly by BD777 himself, that are strange in the extreme. It leads me to wonder whether BD777's account hasn't been hacked. I'm not sure where else I can take this who has any authority to do anything about it who would also be familiar enough with the case to know how highly strange this is. I commented out the comment for now in an attempt to minimize any collateral damage, but the real potential for damage is, of course, if his account really has been hacked. · Katefan0^(scribble) 01:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, it appears that it's okay. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

User:ArmchairVexillologistDon

Because of the recent exchange at [7], I have decided, upon looking at past history, to ban this user forever from Wikipedia. I welcome any questions or concerns. Zach (Sound Off) 23:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I am letting you know that I have filed Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:ArmchairVexillologistDon_-_Reopening. He will be unblocked so he could respond to the case. Zach (Sound Off) 08:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Yuber case

Hi Fred, I see you've voted to close Yuber's case, but I left a question for you some time ago on the discussion and workshop pages, which you may not have seen. [8] Would you mind addressing it? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

See it in Real Time

When you get the chance, I would recommend that you, and all other parties interested in the integrity of Wikipedia, observe what's going on at the Karl Rove page right now. It is exactly as I have reported previously. I make a clear, consise and intelligent defense of an edit based on reason, research and reporting. It's immeidately reverted with either no comment or dismissive insulting ones like "your version is inferior" or your edit is an article "degradation."

The last time this happened, one of the admins blocked the site to ANY editing claiming a 'revert war' (after my edit had been reverted, of course!) That isn't an acceptable solution and only perpetuates the problem.

My accusers claim they don't like me because 'I'm mean' or because 'I make personal attacks' etc. But, as this incident lays bare, what they REALLY don't like is my introduction of balance and the removal of POV.

The exact edits I'm currently making are what some of my accusers have characterized as vandalism. That charge is as gross a distortion of Wikipedia's rules as I've ever read.

I hope everyone will watch and decide for themselves.... Big Daddy 18:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ps It's already been TRIPLE reverted in a matter of minutes...Big Daddy 18:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Fred, note the incident report about this[9], and the nasty comments on the talk page.[10][11]. Also, I think this falls under disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. - Mr. Tibbs 19:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Making reasonable, intelligent, clearly defined edits is 'disrupting Wikipedia'? Hmmm....Big Daddy 22:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Just so you know

Redwolf24, an outside party, blocked BD for a week. BD posted this: [12]. So now it's a indefinite block. Just to let you know. When BD threatens the very survival of Wikipedia, it's time for him to go. --Woohookitty 00:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

user Guy

I´m not sure where to report this (or if indeed it should be reported) but FYI: user Guy Montag is active as of today (11 Oct) on article Zionist terrorism. Regards, Huldra 14:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Fred, I want to express my appreciation how seriously you take your role as an arbitrator. It can be very frustrating waiting for a resolution in a case like BigDaddy. So, seeing you take an active role in engaging this case from the start was great. I also recall that you were the fellow who got the Rex case moving a year ago. So, thanks for being on top of things. Derex @ 17:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I wanna echo Derex's comments. Thanks for your objectivity and your willingness to get involved. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The Signpost

Hello, Fred Bauder. I noticed that you haven't replied to the questions for the Wikipedia Signpost. If you would take some time out of your busy schedule to briefly reply, that would be greatly appreciated. If you wish for the responses to be included in next week's Signpost, please try and have them to me as soon as possible, preferably by Thursday or Friday so I have time to write the article. Thanks very much! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 19:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

i fixed the diffs in the Bogdanov Affair evidence at ...

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Regarding_The_Bogdanov_Affair/Evidence

sorry that i didn't have the right diff links put in the first place. i am new at this.

also i was out of town for a week and had no time to deal with this.

one more thing, at the workshop page, if:

" Rbj (talk · contribs) seems to be the only obsessive editor not caught in this net. Fred Bauder 22:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC) "

means that you believe that I should be caught in the same net, fine. but until recently, i was the only pre-existing Wikipedian to be involved in the Bogdanov article (that makes me a different fish than the others), i came into it completely clean (i don't know YBM or any of these guys), but, after researching of my own, i came to the firm conclusion that the Bogdanov's are not on the level (in fact, the evidence is that they are profoundly dishonest) and my "obsessive" reverting was only to prevent Igor from completely obscuring or eliminating any documented factual reference to behavior (and "research") of his that is not flattering to him and turning what should be a critical investigative article into a vanity page. Fred, i think it is painfully obvious what Igor and his groupies want to do. you wouldn't let the dittoheads do that to the Rush Limbaugh article. why let them do it to the Bogdanov article? r b-j 01:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The controversy regarding the Bogdanov's work should occur in other forums, not here. Our article should be a report about something, not part of it, as it is now. My feeling is that you have become part of it, even if you originally were not. Fred Bauder 02:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

as i said above, "fine". what you said in reply is probably true, in the conservative sense. in that same sense, it would be true for anyone getting involved, including yourself and the ArbCom, simply because, like us editors, you will have to make sorta journalistic judgements about what happened, what it means, and what is to be written about it. although what we would write might be different, and we might come at this from different approaches, we are both involved unless we choose to or are externally forced to stay out of it. i had some harsh (and true) things to say to the Bogdanovs on the talk page after researching this thing, but my edits to the article were factual and supported. and, this is the subjective part, these edits reflected the reality faithfully. i also tried to, single handedly, hold back a persistent flood of Igor's narcissistic replacement of documented content that was not flattering with his, often undocumented, vanity auto-biography. that is where i say there is a big difference between me and the other editors that have been listed for exclusion.

it is a judgement that i came to, not a pre-judgement. r b-j 03:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration name change

Fred, I notice that the case I had filed has a different name now. Why is that? What am I being accused of specifically? The heading is very vague? REX 21:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration merge

Fred - Thank you for the notice regarding the two arbitration cases being accepted and merged. One point needs to be raised, however, regarding this merge decision. As I understand it, both my original case against user:Willmcw and user:SlimVirgin and a second case filed later by user:Willmcw against me were accepted by the Arbcom. Yet in reviewing the Arbcom votes on both cases it appears clear to me that the votes on arbitration for Willmcw's complaint against me (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude) were to accept and merge that case into the first case, which I filed (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin), not the other way around as has been done. This is explicitly stated in James F.'s vote "Accept. Merge into below case, if both are accepted" and indicated in the three subsequent votes, which all state "Accept and merge." None of the Arbcom votes on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin had a merge stipulation, indicating it was understood that the other case would be merged into it - not the other way around. Given this, I am contacting you to correct the listings on these two cases to reflect these votes. I apologize if I sound like I'm nitpicking over this, but I want to make sure that this proceeds by the books. Thanks - Rangerdude 07:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude nitpicking? Heaven forfend. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

And yet another disparaging personal comment by SlimVirgin. I'll be sure to add that to the evidence. Seriously though, if we do this it needs to be by the books and all four Arbcom votes clearly indicate that Willmcw's second RfAr was to be merged into my original RfAr, not the other way around. Rangerdude 16:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Everyking advocate

I mention in the arbcase talk page that I'd be happy to serve as his advocate - I'm just not 100% sure what I'd have to do. I can serve as a 2nd advocate too if need be :). Take care! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

RfArb\Lightbringer

As you entered the information on the talk page for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer, I'm directing this at you: I was very confused trying to follow that, especially the talk page -- apparently there was a previous (malformed?) RfArb that's been transferred to the talk page? In any case,

• Numerous dated comments on both the project and talk pages are in no apparent date order, and many comments are dated several days before the RfAr was filed. Would it be possible to insert some commentary to clarify this? - Eaglizard 14:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Bogdanov Affair blocks

Dear Fred: Just wanted to let you know that I have made all the blocks you asked me to re. the Bogdanov Affair injunction; I have also blocked one additional user account, User:LLL, who fell under the edit history criterion of the injunction, since said user was persistently reverting to one of the Bogdanovs' POV versions of the article (assuming user is a sockpuppet, based on behaviour, since user had not edited anything else other than Bogdanov Affair). Also, regarding your placement of the injunction notice on the actual article itself as well as the talk page: I have formatted the notice into a proper infobox, to prevent it messing up the article formatting and making the article look unreadable, and I have put the same infobox version on the talk page; I do hope that this is satisfactory. I would like to thank you and the rest of the Arbcom for your time and trouble in dealing with this whole sordid mess, and, as always, I am entirely at your service. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 22:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

i just want to add to that and affirm that LLL (talk · contribs) is almost certainly a sock-puppet for Igor B. (talk · contribs) or Laurence67 (talk · contribs). i am not sure how he/she slipped through the net. his edit of: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Bogdanov_Affair&diff=25770986&oldid=25770606 was never reverted. you might want to fix it. r b-j 22:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFAR/SV

Re: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Stevertigo/Proposed_decision#Ommision_of_fact

I understand that some are quite busy and may have missed recent discussion and questions regarding my Arbcom matter. Ive taken the liberty of posting here to remedy any inadvertent oversight regarding my case. Sinreg, St|eve 22:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)