View source for User talk:Fred Bauder

My associates and I have installed the [[GetWiki]] software at http://www.wikinfo.org, alternative address, http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/. It is hosted by [http://www.ibiblio.org ibiblio.org]. The wikidata base dump was not installed. Software has been developed which allows easy importing of Wikipedia articles and to date about 30,000 have been imported. Certain policies have been changed from Wikipedia although the notion of using American English has been abandoned; International English is used and we are experimenting with articles in French and German. The concept of neutral point of view for each article has been changed to a policy of accepting a cluster of articles with differing points of view. Several policies which have been observed to cause tension on Wikipedia have been liberalized.  See [[Wikinfo]]. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 13:51, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It may be useful when trying to locate information on a book to try the search engine at [http://www.redbaud.com Redbaud.com]
----

Material has been removed here and placed in [[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]], 

{{Vandal|Chooserr}}

==IP Check==
Thanks, I should have known better since they act differently, but I was wondering since CBDunkerson's the only person who has stuck up for POTW on that rfar so far, so I had to be sure. Hopefully all this rfar business will be over soon. [[User:Karmafist|karmafist]] 02:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

==Alleged harassment of Cberlet==
Fred - With all due respect, if you are going to propose findings of fact and penalties against me that state that I've somehow harassed or wronged [[User:Cberlet]] in the two Arbcom cases, you owe it to me to at least specify when and where this occured, and what policies it violated. Right now your proposals simply assert it to be so, and only link to the RfC I filed against Cberlet when '''he was making personal attacks against me''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWillmcw&diff=19599453&oldid=19595316] back in July. Quite frankly, this leaves me at a loss of understanding of what I'm even being accused of in any of these findings, much less how they merit the penalties you are suggesting. Since [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy requires transparency in proceedings where Arbitrators are to "make detailed rationale for all their decisions public," I believe it is fair of me to ask this of you. Thanks in advance. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 09:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

:Fred - The link you added on the harrassment allegation shows nothing more than Cberlet's list of diffs that I edited the article about him. Not a single one of these diffs shows any editing impropriety, and all edits were fully sourced and mindful of NPOV. If you're going to make allegations, you need to back them up with specific and conclusive evidence. The fact that you have not done so and instead can only link to diffs of me engaging in normal legitimate editing of articles suggests that your charge is severely flawed. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 19:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

==Arbitration Question==
Now that we have confirmed that I'm not Pigsonthewing would it be appropriate or allowed for me to add myself as a 'Party' in his arbitration? While I wasn't involved in the original dispute I have obviously been heavily involved on the 'evidence' page and should probably be held to account for my actions like everyone else. Also, the text on the evidence page says not to place edits in other users' evidence sections, but not the procedure if someone does. Should I respond on the page, move the comments to the workshop or evidence talk pages and respond there, or something else? Thanks. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBD]] <sup>[[User talk:CBDunkerson|<span style="color:yellow;background:red">T</span>]]</sup> <sub>[[Special:Contributions/CBDunkerson|<span style="color:yellow;background:green">C</span>]]</sub> <sup>[[Special:Emailuser/CBDunkerson|<span style="color:yellow;background:blue">@</span>]]</sup> 11:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

== That block ==

Just to explain myself, it was part of the AFD on the FSM, which got heavily sock-infested. So I went around and blocked a bunch of sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Then somebody pointed out on ANI that this doesn't actually help and I believe he said he'd unblocked them, so I just figured I'd drop the issue and not do that again. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 16:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

== A question on the Rangerdude case ==

Fred, I know this case is so tangled and voluminous as to be rather daunting (even for me), but I just wanted to inquire whether you've had a chance to evaluate the evidence I've contributed.  Best &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup> 16:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

== Cberlet, Nobs et. al. case ==

At [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#External_activities_of_users]]: might you consider rewording? I think I understand what you are saying, but it is (rather atypically) worded in such a way that I can't be sure. 

You wrote: "'''The policies of Wikipedia apply on Wikipedia;'''&hellip;" (OK, so far pretty much a tautology) "&hellip;'''use in external activities of such tactics as 'links & ties','''&hellip;" (now you're beginning to lose me, in what sense are "links and ties" a "tactic", maybe there is a verb missing, ''doing'' something with links and ties?) "&hellip;'''or [[Association fallacy|guilt by association]] may be properly reported in a[n] article concerning them,'''&hellip;" (I'm getting lost in the passive voice, who may report what in an article concerning whom?) "&hellip;'''but do not justify their use by any party on Wikipedia'''&hellip;" (the use of ''what''? The referent of ''their'' is very unclear) "'''which requires actual verification of information by a reliable source, [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]], [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]], and [[Wikipedia:No original research]].'''" (OK, you seem to be saying again that use of things in Wikipedia requires that Wikipedia policies be followed. But in between, where you  presumably were stating the substance of the matter, you completely lost me.) -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 02:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

==Thanks Fred==

For letting me know. I find it odd that WP takes me right back to 16/17 century  politics and war  - my only WP defence is the definition of one canon of Canon Law . I guess I'll have to drag it into the open , and it isn't one I was referring to historical events , but the one that refers to WP users . Thanks anyway, I suppose it will all  distract from injecting source. I begin to think some people do not know how to read , only edit. Maybe I get a chance to ask the Jimbo question, mark 2 to do with classification of source. Now now, I'll stop. Mind yourself. [[User:EffK|EffK]] 21:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


==Reply required as per Wikipedia:Arbitration policy for Requests==
I have not yet seen your reply as required by [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Requests]]  to my request [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=29140203&oldid=29137189 here as of 15:39, November 24, 2005 re] with respect to this process. Please provide a rationale for your vote that was rendered while I was prevented from responding on the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone]] in accordance with Wikipedia:Arbitration policy for Requests which states "'''''Individual Arbitrators will provide a rationale for their vote if so moved, or if specifically requested'''''." Thank you. - [[User:Ted Wilkes|Ted Wilkes]] 23:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


Thank you, but the question I had asked [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=29140203&oldid=29137189 here] was: On what authority did you base your decision to deny me due process and render an opinion? - [[User:Ted Wilkes|Ted Wilkes]] 23:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, but you continue to avoid answering the question. Please do so. - [[User:Ted Wilkes|Ted Wilkes]] 00:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


==Wilkes, Wyss, 141==
Why did you accept this RfAr when no efforts, nor evidence of any efforts, to remedy the alleged issue by other means have been made or presented? I ask because this seems to be contrary to both the template instructions and WP policy. Could you please cite the documented section of Wikipedia's written policy which you used to make this extraordinary exception? Thanks. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 00:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

::To substantiate your implied claim that I did not respect the decision, please cite diffs showing that I made any edits whatsoever to the articles in question after you made that post. Furthermore, why isn't this single post listed in the RfAr as evidence of a prior effort and what documented section of Wikipedia's written policy did you use to make the extraordinary exception of basing your decision on alleged evidence not placed into the template on the RfAr page as required by the template instructions and WP policy? Thank you. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 00:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

==Arbitration re-opened==
[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2]] has been re-opened. Please place evidence at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Evidence]]. Proposals and comments may be placed on [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Workshop]]. ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 03:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC))


==Blocking disrupter at INC==
I've been blocking a disrupter of the [[Iglesia ni Cristo]].Advice?Regards.--[[User:Jondel|Jondel]] 11:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

== UK Schools range block ==

Looks like we're getting some collateral damage from the block. I posted [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Inexhaustible vandalism from the UK Internet for Learning: range block warranted?|here]], but since it's in the middle of the page and the board is high traffic, I thought I'd let you know. Looking for some input from somebody more experienced with dealing with blocks. --[[User:GraemeL|GraemeL]] [[User_talk:GraemeL|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 20:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

==Motion to provide voting rationale==
Please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Workshop#Request_for_statements_of_voting_rationale]. Thank you. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 18:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


Bauder: You stated [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2005/Candidate_statements/Fred_Bauder&diff=29555753&oldid=29553802 here]: 
*"''I am upset, but all of the accusations by Ted Wilkes came after the case was accepted.''"

Please explain this fabrication. Thank you. - [[User:Ted Wilkes|Ted Wilkes]] 20:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

:[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone]] [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 21:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. My complaint against you had zero to do with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone. My complaint was about your improper conduct and assertions as to what YOU considered as reliable sources after you ruled unanimously in my favor in that previous case. (Note, I reminded you that your previous claim as to a reliable source was also flawed and in contradiction of [[Wikipedia:Policy]].) Further, I and [[User:Wyss]] both complained that you used intimation and threats to support edits by someone on [[Wikipedia:probation]] who you somehow declared to be "in good standing." And, as part of my complaint against you, I pointed out that you deliberately withheld from [[Jimmy Wales]] the fact that you were declared a danger to the public and unfit to practise law by the Supreme Court of Colorado and that your actions here refected that same pattern of misconduct. - [[User:Ted Wilkes|Ted Wilkes]] 22:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

==Arbitration Committee procedure re RedWolf request==
Please note that it appears you failed to follow standard procedure [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Famekeeper&diff=prev&oldid=29517628 as seen here] and notify [[User:RedWolf]] that his  "''[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone]] has been accepted''"  and that he "''Please place evidence at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone/Evidence]]''."  Kindly correct this matter. Thank you. - [[User:Ted Wilkes|Ted Wilkes]] 22:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

== [[:Image:Wikiowl.gif]] license ==


Hi,

We'd like to use this image in HuWiki, but couldn't figure out the precise license for it.
Could you help us out?

Thanks,
[[User:Nyenyec|nyenyec]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Nyenyec|&#9742;]] 22:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

:Thanks for your answer. I copied the discussion to [[:Image talk:Wikiowl.gif]] and also posted my reply there. -- [[User:Nyenyec|nyenyec]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Nyenyec|&#9742;]] 13:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

==EffK/workshop==

Sorry to bother you Fred, I note that all 'parties' comments were removed from workshop . Do we, McClenon and I, get a chance to re-insert ? I assume this is normal admin roll-back, but do not in the least understand.

While I am here can I mention : I revert to unsigned-in on all talk pages now:

History function on WP has always worked illogically -previous can mean later etc.  This is unsigned in , EffK

:second post here :I always seem to get it  arse-ways, ''now'' I go in there from the RFA and its all  there. Separate things I don't ''get'' . Could be a waste of your time, so I am sorry. Other things are real, if this first is not, of which I'm not sure. EffK

==Extremism==
Dear Sir: Let me call your attention to this verifiable citation, 
:"It's certainly true there are right-wingers who have intolerant ideas about opponents and who would like to silence them, or worse.  However, Berlet's analysis omits any mention of the same behavior on the extreme left, not to mention by himself."
Strong language from an author cited in the ''Military Law Review'' as the "foremost expert in extremism" [http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Military_Law_Review/pdf-files/277C75~1.pdf].  [[User:Nobs01|nobs]] 22:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

==How long does arbitration go on for==
Hello Fred. I feel I should add a statement to the FuelWagon/Ed Poor case, as I was a witness to many of the events mentioned by FuelWagon and SlimVirgin, and was also a witness to the behaviour on the [[Talk:Terri Schiavo|Terri Schiavo talk page]] long before SlimVirgin came near it. However, I am rather busy at the moment. So my question is &mdash; how much time do I have? I'm not very familiar with arbitration cases. Do they end suddenly, or do they drag on for months? Should I treat this with more urgency than other Wikipedian business? Thanks. [[User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]] [[User talk:Musical Linguist|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 15:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

== Close Rex071404 4 please... ==

I really hope to see you casting the closing vote for the 4th Rex071404 case and officially close it, preferably no later than Christmas.

== Last call ==

You wrote:
: ''"I am about done with [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Workshop]]."''

:: Nice start, although you should wait for all the evidence.  As the arbitrators haven't even finished supplying their required rationale, so there didn't seem to be a hurry.  Not that evidence is easy for this case.  ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 04:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC))
:: Some of my material is visible [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SEWilco/Sandbox2 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SEWilco/Sandbox here].  It will be moved to the case when it is ready, and you should act based on the official version.  I've seen problems take place when decisions are made based on partial evidence.  ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 15:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC))

== Wilkes, Wyss, 141 ==

Hello Fred. After reviewing a bit more, I've realized Wyss hasn't been anywhere near as malicious as Wilkes. I would like it if Wyss is taken out of the remedies (which may not have a point as she's apparently left) but I think we should separate them as a package and deal with them separately. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">dwolf24</font>]] ([[User talk:Redwolf24|talk]]) [[Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle3|<font color="gray">Attention Washingtonians!</font>]] 03:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

=={{user|Chooserr}}==
*See contributions, on the verge of spam, not to mention keeps creating bizarre religion related POV forks, in between 'welcoming' new users, he's been doing this non stop ever since his block expired--[[User:Aolanonawanabe|Aolanonawanabe]] 01:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
==Probation==
Hello Fred. I'm interested to know the rationale behind the reason why the decision of probation: "'' may ban them from any article which relates to China which they disrupt by inappropriate editing ''" [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2/Proposed_decision| ]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2/Proposed_decision#Instantnood_placed_on_probation], as part of the ArbCom remedies, is extended to cover any article relates to China that are not relevant to the case itself [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration| ]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=30653321#Instantnood_placed_on_probation]. I did not expect an ArbCom decision made within the context of the case would be applicable to matters beyond the case. Meanwhile, FYI, you may be interested to take a look at [[user:Jiang]]'s query at the talk page [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2/Proposed_decision| ]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2/Proposed_decision#Enforcement_of_bans]. Thanks very much. &mdash; [[User:Instantnood|Insta]][[User_talk:Instantnood|ntnood]] 06:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

== Fred I have a question ==   

Why in your profile does it say you're a retired lawyer? You're a '''censured''' lawyer you know that? [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=co&vol=1999sc%5Csc0125a&invol=1]--[[User:Some people say that's there's a women to blame|Some people say that&#39;s there&#39;s a women to blame]] 07:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

== [[User:Some people say that's there's a women to blame]] ==

You may want to see this fellow's user page, he's got a link on it to one of your court cases. [[User:Blackcap|Blackcap]] [[User talk:Blackcap|(talk)]] 07:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

O.K., sorry: I hadn't realized he had just posted above this, so you're already aware of it. Just trying to be a ''good samaritan''... take care, and good luck, [[User:Blackcap|Blackcap]] [[User talk:Blackcap|(talk)]] 07:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and he's  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=30689079 posted on Jimbo's talk page about it] for God knows what reason. [[User:Blackcap|Blackcap]] [[User talk:Blackcap|(talk)]] 07:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

==Probationary bans==
Hi Fred, you put a small template [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2/Proposed_decision&curid=2145462&diff=30709296&oldid=30135367] on the Proposed Decision page of the Instantnood (and myself) arbitration case.  Yesterday I made a generic probationary ban template: [[:Template:User article ban]] and linked it to [[Wikipedia:Probation]].  You might consider editing your notice to just point at the wp:probation page for enforcement.

It'd probably be better for continued discussion to happen under the main article of that case where the Final Decision is, rather than the previous talk pages considering the minor differences between them, it's just less confusion and a consolidated talk. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 16:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

== Instantnood_2 ==

Replied [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2/Proposed_decision#Remedies__applied_only_to_articles.3F|here]]  [[User:Alai|Alai]] 17:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

== WSI Arbitration==
Any idea on when a decision might be reached? [[User:TDC|TDC]] 23:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)