arbitration |
Regarding Monicasdude |
||
Line 678: | Line 678: | ||
== Arbitration == |
== Arbitration == |
||
I hope this isn't out of line, but I wanted to ask (for my own curiosity if nothing else) why you decided to accept the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=51580376 case against me], especially when it's such a recent incident and no other dispute resolution has been attempted. I know it's probably too late, and I should have mentioned it in my statement, but I for one would be quite open to mediation, as Simonapro does seem like a good user, and just needs to become more familiar with the way wikipedia works. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 23:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC) |
I hope this isn't out of line, but I wanted to ask (for my own curiosity if nothing else) why you decided to accept the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=51580376 case against me], especially when it's such a recent incident and no other dispute resolution has been attempted. I know it's probably too late, and I should have mentioned it in my statement, but I for one would be quite open to mediation, as Simonapro does seem like a good user, and just needs to become more familiar with the way wikipedia works. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 23:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC) |
||
== Regarding Monicasdude == |
|||
Since you are engaged on the decision talk page, I hope it is not out of line to bring this to your personal attention. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=51621878&oldid=51621167] Thanks for your attention. [[User:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 03:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:26, 5 May 2006
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 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. Fred Bauder 13:51, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Fred_Bauder (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
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, 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.
http://english.people.com.cn/200503/03/eng20050303_175406.html
Notes
- Fred_Bauder (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Golbez (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=37642756&oldid=37635578
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Userboxes
- Sarge_Baldy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Sarge_Baldy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- A.J.A. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Zarove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ZAROVE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [13]
- User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/Policy
- Get-back-world-respect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Grue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- -ril- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- -Ril- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Veryblueboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Clinkophonist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Cool_Cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Karabekir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Gadugi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Waya_sahoni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Queeran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Stockdiver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Araxen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Tony_fanta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Robsteadman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- ROGNNTUDJUU! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- De_mortuis... (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Gator1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- StrangerInParadise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Smaines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Chiacomo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Eloquence (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Xed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bookofsecrets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Aaron_Brenneman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Myciconia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- GODDESSY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Zero is edit warring.....Again
Zeri is edit warring again. This is what one editor had to say about the propeganda sources he is using:
ArbCom should have acted in a more equal way and you can still fix it before closing the arbitration. Zeq 05:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- We are going to close the case. It was mostly about your behavior. If Zero turns out to be a problem, perhaps another case may address his problems. 13:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- The case was about an edit war that had two sides. You decided to ignore one side. Are we "friends" again ?
- And I still need clarification about sources (which you also ignored). Zeq 16:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
ArbCom related issue
There's one or two Lightbringer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (more recently Basil_Rathbone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for purposes of checkability) socks causing problems on Freemasonry and List of Anti-Masons in particular. Anderson12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has posted material twice to the talk page that he would not know about unless he was Basil/LB, as Basil posted it and it was moved. Anderson accused me of being a sock of a user he had never talked to User:Grye, as when he posted the sock template on my page, Grye seemed to be inactive (and was therefore not included on the mediation request for Jahbulon).
WMMrgn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ("William Morgan") is trying to create a list of Anti-Masons, and somehow the article survived AfD, but his claims were inaccurate, shown to be such on the Talk Page, and he did not respond to said claims except to claim tha tPoe was an anti-Mason based on a webpage about US Presidents suspected to be Masons.
I have posted on ANI, VIP, AIV, and RFCU, and nothing has happened. I have asked various admins to intercede, and nothing has happened. Who do you think is empowered when socks go unpunished and can continue to harass people and disrupt pages? It's certainly not the regular editors.
So, what have I got for options besides going through an RFAr that really doesn't need to be done, as it's already been decided by a prior decision? MSJapan (talk · contribs) 16:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
sockpupet
this user is clearly a sockpupet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pierremenard&diff=prev&oldid=38421850
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A68.219.203.209
he has been blocked before on 3RR. use multiple IP addresses all pointing to Atlanta Ga. .
Any idea ? Zeq 19:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alberuni/Proposed_decision
ArbCom rulling
Did ArbCom rulled that this source is not compatiable with Wikipedia sources policy:
Leonard J. Davis and M. Decter, Eds., Myths and facts: A Concise Record of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Washington DC: Near East Report, 1982 ?
Thanks for clarification. Zeq 12:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Is it published by the Israeli government or an organization closely affiliated with the government? Fred Bauder 13:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Myths and Facts has been a standard "how to answer critics of Israel" handbook at least since the early 1960s. From 1964 until sometime in the 1990s it was published by Near East Report, which is a publishing imprint of AIPAC. After that, the publisher has been the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, whose description [15] of themselves reads like a carbon-copy of AIPAC's but I don't know exactly what their relationship is. The editor is Mitchell Bard, who was previously the editor of Near East Report, so nothing has really changed. I have never seen Myths and Facts cited as a source by a professional historian. --Zero 13:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- My question was to Fred, and it was a very specific one:
- "Did ArbCom rulled that this source is not compatiable with Wikipedia sources policy" ?
- If ArbCom rulled that I want to see it in writing. If not, I want to use it as source.
- On a different level let me add that "affiliation with the Israeli govermet" is not a crime or something that discredit any source. Even being a memeber of a Zionost organization is not something (as far as I know) that cause someone to become a non usefull source. What bother in that question is again the clear bias. Clearly many many Palestinian organizations are engaged in propeganda but are still used as sources in Wikipedia. So the question was and still is:
- "Did ArbCom rulled that this source is not compatiable with Wikipedia sources policy" ?
Thank You, Zeq 17:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Why would anyone elect to use material from a non-academic organisation with a strong political agenda rather than a scholarly source? --Ian Pitchford 17:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am not debating this with Ian here. I want to know what ArbCom rulled on this source. Zeq 18:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Also note that Zero and Ian quote Mattar extensively, despite the clear propaganda agenda he is associated with:
- He is considered by many "the academic wing" of the PLO and he wrote the Mufti biography that left out the Mufti's Nazi collaboration. I.e., he can hardly be considered an unbiased academic. Why should ties to Zionist/Israeli orgs discredit an author when Mattar's ties to the PLO don't discredit him? Kriegman 03:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
PS I want to add to this a similar question about the news paper Haaretz as Zero removed a quote from an Haaretz article I placed earlier. On edit wars I will not ask this time. It seems Zero is allowed those with impunity. Zeq 17:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Fred, We need an answer. Not giving me an answer that this source is banned I would understand the normal default that it is OK to use this source. I do not see how this source violate Wikipedia polcy (it is not a self published book) If anyone has proof that it should not be used it should have been presented to ArbCom and no one did. Zeq 04:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Fred, One more request to get an answer on this. Thanks. Zeq 17:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Generally each reference must be considered in terms of how it is view by experts in the field. My impression is that material issued by the Government of Israel is generally considered propagandistic, in Wikipedia terms, POV. Fred Bauder 22:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Fred, we have a verifiability policy, so everyone can check and know where the material came from. This book is not published by the Israeli goverment. Was it rulled "inappropriate" for Wikipedia ? I understand from your answer that it was not rulled as such. Please correct if I am wrong. Just to be clear I want to repeat the original question (which is not about the Israeli goverment):
Did ArbCom rulled that this source is not compatiable with Wikipedia sources policy:
Leonard J. Davis and M. Decter, Eds., Myths and facts: A Concise Record of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Washington DC: Near East Report, 1982 ?
Fred, can you ask ArbCom to clarify if this book can or can not be used as source ? Thanks. Zeq 10:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
My arbitration case
Fred, I have some concerns about the remedies that are currently being proposed in my Arbcom case (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Proposed decision). The proposed remedy that I find most problematic (put forth by User:Dmcdevit) reads: "Crotalus horridus is prohibited from creating or editing userboxes (either templatized or hard-coded into a userpage". The problem I have with this is that I have about a dozen userboxes, and this would heavily restrict my ability to edit my own user page. No one has ever claimed that my user page was disruptive - see User:Crotalus horridus - none of the controversial user boxes (political, religious, etc.) are there, nor is anything else that violates Wikipedia policy. I ask that this remedy either be voted down or modified so that it doesn't impact me in this manner.
I also have problems with the second remedy, "Crotalus horridus is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation." This simply isn't justified based on the evidence. It should be noted that the other party to arbitration, User:Tony Sidaway, has stated that he feels that these remedies are unnecessary [16]. I'm also concerned that these findings against me, as the plaintiff, will have a chilling effect on individuals who want to bring well-founded arbitration cases in the future, since no editor is perfect and almost anyone has some edits that could be construed as disruptive or as violating Wikipedia policy.
I'd appreciate if you could take these concerns into consideration when casting your vote on the arbitration case. Thank you in advance for your time. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I tried to go to the RfAr page from my watch list entry. I get a message saying that it does not exist. Is there some weird technical problem? Does the ArbCom need to request Developer help in restoring the RfAr page? Robert McClenon 23:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Problem resolved, more or less. I was not able to view the page from the watch list, but I was able to view the history. I edited the most recent copy of the page from the history and saved it. I think that the RfAr page is as it should be. You might want to have a clerk check it to ensure that nothing is wrong with it. Robert McClenon 23:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Christophe Greffe 23:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Mind of the ArbCom about scholar sources - consequences of Zeq's case.
Hello Fred.
I am very satisfied by the final issue of the case with Zeq but I am a little bit disappointed that due to the climate the heart of the matter has not been discussed. Could you, yourself or ask the ArbCom to vote, precise if the way the following is presented is neutral, scholar and documented enough. Thank you very much :
1. In her book « Eichmann in Jerusalem », Hannah Arendt who was Professor at Princeton University writes : « The Grand Mufti's connections with the Nazis during the war were not secret; he had hoped they would help him in the implementation of some final solution in the Near East » [1]
2. In « The Grand Mufti », a biography that is considered paradoxically « as rehabilitating him in emphasing his contribution to the palestinian cause » [2], historian Zvi Elpeleg writes: « His many comments show that he was not only delighted that Jews were prevented from emigrating to Palestine, but was very pleased by the Nazi’s final solution. » [3]
3. In an interview granted to Haaretz, Dr Walter Reich, Yitzhak Rabin Memorial Professor of International Affairs, Ethics and Human Behavior [4], reports that « In 1941, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, met with a number of Nazi leaders, including Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler, hoping to get them to side with the Arab cause and even to extend anti-Jewish measures to the Jews in Palestine. In his meeting with Hitler in November 1941, al-Husseini obtained the statement from Hitler that "Germany's objective [is]...solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere." The phrase used by Hitler in this conversation, "Vernichtung des...Judentums," is one that was used in connection with the Holocaust. Moreover, al-Husseini worked to stop the rescue of Jews, engaged in broadcasts for the Germans, and in 1943 helped organize a Bosnian Muslim division of the Waffen SS that was implicated in atrocities against Jews, Serbs and others in the Balkans. » [5]
4. On the website of Simon Wiesenthal Center [6] , one can read : « Hajj Amin Al Husseini (1895-1974) was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and important Arab leader. He supported the Nazis, and especially their program for the mass murder of the Jews. He visited numerous death camps encouraged Hitler do the extend the "Final Solution" to the Jews of North Africa and Palestine. » [7]
5. In an article published in New York Times, journalist Edwin Black, author of « IBM and the Holocaust » [8], writes in reporting events of 1941 : « His venomous rhetoric filled the newspapers and radio broadcasts in Tehran. The mufti was a vocal opponent of allowing Jewish refugees to be transported or ransomed into Jewish Palestine. Instead, he wanted them shipped to the gas chambers of Poland. » [9]
6. In his book « Mufti of Jerusalem », Moshe Pearlman, historian close to Ben Gurion [10] writes : «Arabs...were called upon, in the name of the Koran and the honour of Islam, to sabotage the oil pipelines, blow up bridges and roads along British lines of communications, kill British troops, destroy their dumps and supplies, mislead them by false information, withhold their support. The exhortations usually included the suggestion that they could save their souls by massacring the Jewish infidels in their midst.... » [11]
7. In her controversed book [12] « From Time Immemorial : the origin of the Arab Jewish conflict over Palestine », Joan Peters, reports that « In 1940, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, requested the Axis powers to acknowledge the Arab right "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy. » [13]
8. In his book « The Gramsi Factor », Chuck Morse, journalist and Massachusetts candidate for US Congress [14] writes : « On 1 March 1944, in a radio Broadcast to the Arab people from Berlin, the Mufti stated : "Arabs! Rise as one and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them » [15]
9. In « Israel, Islam and the church », Paul Carlson, who taught Scripture classes on Old and New Testaments, [16] , refering to Michael Bar Zohar writes : « Blood was what the Mufti demanded in his speeches broadcast from Cairo... (…) And no sooner had the United Nations announced their decision that the Jihad started. The outcome was not difficult to see with 40 millions Arabs fighting against 650,000 Jews. » [17]
- Generally each reference must be considered in terms of how it is viewed by experts in the field. Fred Bauder 22:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hello. Thank you for your answer but I am not sure to understand. Do you mean that each of these references must be validated by another expert ? ie XXX's mind must be referenced by another expert in the field so that it is agreed to be a reference for wikipedia ? How to define an expert ? Christophe Greffe 10:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Recognized experts tend to use each other as references, write favorable reviews about each others work, etc. They often hold positions at reputable institutions. They tend to use verifiable information from reputable sources themselves. Fred Bauder 23:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hello Fred. Thank you. I understand your point. I just underline that this is of course high quality request and I am not sure this is applied everywhere but this is not the point. This is on the contrary an excellent policy. Here : some are quoted by others (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). They received favorable reviews (1 to 6) or controversial (7) . They hold positions at reputable institutions (1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9) or a profesionnal (ie studied much the field) (4, 5, 6, 7). But I have my answer. Thank you :-) Christophe Greffe 09:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Notes and references
- ^ « Eichmann in Jerusalem », Hannah Arendt, p.13 [1]
- ^ Free Traduction from Eric Rouleau, Le Monde Diplomatique, août 1988 [2]
- ^ « The Grand Mufti », Zvi Elpeleg, p.73 [3]
- ^ Biography of Walter Reich
- ^ Interview of Walter Reich by journalist Schmuel Rosner, Haaretz US correspondent [4]
- ^ Simon Wiesenthal Center website refers Museum of Tolerance as a SWC family website
- ^ Comments about Haj Amin al Husseini from Simon Wiesenthal Centre website
- ^ See book's website [5]
- ^ « Denial of Holocaust nothing new in Iran. Ties to Hitler let to plots against British and Jews », Edwin Black, San Francisco Chronicle, 6 january 2006 [6]
- ^ « Ben Gurion Looks Back in Talks with Moshe Pearlman, David Ben Gourion », New York, Schocken Books, 1965 [7]
- ^ « Mufti Of Jerusalem », Pearlman quoted by Ronald J. Rychlak in Hitler’s Mufti : The Dark Legacy of Haj Amin al-Husseini
- ^ Book is controversed by Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein because it defends the thesis that Palestine was depopulated before the arrival of Zionist immigrants [8]
- ^ « From Time Immemorial », Joan Peters quoted by Joseph Farah in Arafat and the Big Lie
- ^ See his website [9]
- ^ « The Gramsi Factor », Chuck Morse, p.114, [10]
- ^ See his biography [11]
- ^ « Israel, Islam and the church », Paul Carlson, p 211 [12]
Christophe Greffe 23:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
ArbCom Appeal
As you know, I have been sanctioned by your arbitration committee ([17]). This sanction took place in response to my submission of a statement in a preexisting arbitration of other parties. No one has presented a statement of charges against me. I had no opportunity to collect evidence, challenge my accusers, or formulate my defense. If that is how your arbitration committee goes about its business, what is the point of maintaining the appearance of fairness? Why not refer all Wikipedia disputes a dictatorial authority?
If giving the impression of ruling at will is not the intention of the powers that be, I need an opportunity to appeal your decision to the extent that it affects me. Please let me know how to go about it. Henryuzi 06:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice regarding appeal procedures ([18]). I have lodged a request with Jimbo Wales ([19]). I am about to do likewise with ArbCom. Henryuzi 06:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)henryuzi
About Coolcat
User_talk:Fadix#What_is_your_problem.3F
He has screwed the Armenian Genocide article, I am considering reopening a new cases requesting a total blocking from anything related to the Armenians, not for months, not for a year but a life ban. Due to the gravity of what he has done I don't believe my request is that much asking. I need your opinion, and I have very strong evidences that both users are the same. Fad (ix) 00:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know how checkuser works, but if it uses IP as sole way, it doesn't mean much. Coolcat already in the past said that if he decide to use multiple aliases no one will know it is him, I could if I wanted, use a proxy and there would be no way for anyone to know it by configuring different browser with different proxies. Fred, Coolcat has a proper way of creating chronological tables, he has proper expressions such as 'I demand' etc., various ones shared by both, there is really something wrong there. First Coolcat return in the Armenian genocide article and decide finally to contribute and bring his rhetoric, and then, another user Shelby28 register to support Coolcat, and then this alias stop contributing, and finally when I raises the issue just today few hours ago he answer after over a week of silence soon after Coolcat answers me, and Coolcat answers soon after he answered. I recieved an email from someone claiming to be a Turk(guess what the word cat is in his address), talking about a proposition I have made months ago about creating a specific article and that he said he wanted to work on such an article, I made this proposition during an exchange in which Coolcat was one of the three users involved. And guess what, this article is created by Karabekir soon after. If you don't trust me, I am ready to mail you my Wikipedia email password and you will see what I mean and you will by the same occasion read a users email warning me about discussions on the IRC claiming another user to be my sock poppet and an attempt to my credibility. And finally Karabekir seems to have lost his unability to express himself in English answer in my talk page and accuses me of the same exact things as Coolcat has been accusing me from the beggining. Those are few examples there. Fad (ix) 03:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Fred, there can be no doubt it is him, check this up. [20] This was Karabekirs first edit on the page created by Coolcat, the same article that sparked a big controversy. Pay attention of the edit in question. Also, you may first check his first edits. [21]
- We have the evidences that he is faking his unability in English, since his first edits were not only OK English, but it was EXACTLLY Coolcat language, Coolcat style, and in the VERY SAME articles in which he participate and from which he somehow was 'kicked' out from, he then later started faking a brocken English and and started creating the multiple color tables he is so good at creating etc. I am bringing this to the arbitration committee in few days with all the evidences and Shelby28 is maybe another of his aliases. This time he has gone too far. Fad (ix) 04:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Fadix, I really hope you'll have the courtesy to apologize when you realize that you're wrong. I really don't know whether coolcat/karabekir are the same person - maybe they are - but I know that I'm not either of them. (On a more superficial note, it also bugs me as a young woman to get accused of being a man) Shelby28 07:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Fred, I have created an evidence page and will be working on it in the upcoming days, you can view it here. User:Fadix/evidencepage Fad (ix) 02:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Ban request
Fred, please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Log of blocks and bans. Thanks. --Zero 12:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Fred, You had the opportunity to recomend that Zero will acceopt mediation. Instead you prefer to ban an editor who add what is clearly an NPOV legitimate edit ?
The issue in this case is so focus: To allow IDF response to the Checkpoint watch women to be included in Wikipedia or to surpress it. NPOV policy is clear. If I will be banned, that is another proof on Wikipedia bias. I prefer mediation but as always: ban me if you want. I rally could not care less.
btw, do you still want to enhance our friendship ? If so I am willing to try. Zeq 15:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't get it either
I don't even know what is "with prejudse" but maybe when I grow up I'll decide to be an attorny so I will know. Just need to get over this dyslexia that I have - ever woundred how unfair is wikipedia to people with such disbaility ? Zeq 16:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Mattar
- Also note that Zero and Ian quote Mattar extensively, despite the clear propaganda agenda he is associated with:
- He is considered by many "the academic wing" of the PLO and he wrote the Mufti biography that left out the Mufti's Nazi collaboration. I.e., he can hardly be considered an unbiased academic. Why should ties to Zionist/Israeli orgs discredit an author when Mattar's ties to the PLO don't discredit him? Kriegman 03:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
We are considering writings produced by writers affiliated with nations which are at war. Propaganda is a part of war. Mattar's work, if what you say is true, should be viewed with the same scepticism which would be applied to a production of the Israeli government. It should not be viewed a priori as false, but the facts in it need to be checked. We will from time to time be fooled, but we have a duty to try to puzzle these matters out the best we can. Fred Bauder 03:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly. I agree completely. Please note that I never tried to use Mattar's ties with the PLO or his obvious bias regarding the Mufti to discredit or remove anything Zero or Ian referenced from him. I just wanted the same degree of lattitude on the other side, i.e., that a statement from some Zionist or someone tied to the Israeli government would not be dismissed because of the assumed bias. Some other basis for dismissing a statement would need to be made.
- Instead, in lengthy exchanges Zero (and less often, Ian) would simply say something like "C'mon! You've got to be kidding" [a powerfully convincing argument, indeed], "He's a known propagandist." When asked why he said that---after all, a known propagandist who makes unverifiable statements should not be used as a source---I would get either no answer or eventually he would simply point out the ties to some Zionist/Israeli org. That's not enough to discredit a pro-Israeli source anymore than it would be to discredit Mattar.
- So, I agree with your point completely. We need to go beyond assumed biases and look at other aspects of verifiability. Kriegman 03:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Fred, Kreigman is factually incorrect on nearly every point. In fact, Mattar is a highly qualified Palestinian-American academic (PhD from Columbia; taught at Georgetown University, Yale University, and the City College of New York; research fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars). Nobody ever called him "the academic wing" of the PLO; that was what someone once claimed (without providing any evidence, and there is still none) about the organization IPS that Mattar used to head. The Institute of Palestine Studies (now based in Washington, DC) funds and publishes research into (guess) Palestine Studies and has a long list of eminent US, UK and Israeli(!) scholars amongst its authors. Kreigman's worst error is "he wrote the Mufti biography that left out the Mufti's Nazi collaboration". In fact there is a whole chapter on it. Could it be that Kriegman has never seen Mattar's book? There is nobody with anywhere near Mattar's academic credentials that Ian Pitchford or I have been unwilling to accept material from. Instead, Kriegman's sources include Maurice Pearlman, who nobody seems to know anything about except that he was a "Hanagah spokesman", or Joseph Schechtman, who was a leading official of political parties of the Zioinist right-wing for most of his life and never (afaik) held an academic position. That's the story in a nutshell. Regards. --Zero 04:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- It wasn't just "someone" who said the Institute for Palestine Studies is the academic wing of the PLO: it was the U.S. State Dept. just two years before Mattar became its executive director, a position he still holds, so far as I know. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- He left the IPS in 2001. I'll reply to your other comment below. --Zero 06:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Definitely some opinion that goes that way, see [22], but that opinion is itself on a site that might be considered propagandistic CAMERA Fred Bauder 05:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- The State Dept. quote was published in the New Republic, May 19, 1982, according to several sources, though I haven't seen it myself. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Googling finds this too [23]. But is it reliable? Fred Bauder 05:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Apparently copied from this. Fred Bauder 05:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't the State Department, it was some unnamed "State Department official" (as far I as my searches have found). I think the claim first appeared in Commentary (no surprise). If someone notices the reference, I'll look it up. If the organization was actually funded by the PLO or something like that, we wouldn't be hearing about vague unspecified "links". Then again, so what? The US government gives billions each year to academics to do research, so we should discount everything they write. Israeli academics get their salaries and most of their research funds from the Israeli government, so we should throw away their work too. --Zero 06:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Oops, I didn't notice that Slim had identified New Republic as the source. I'll try to find that issue and then I'll tell you what it says. --Zero 06:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- There was a Steven Emerson article in the New Republic on that date (May 19, 1982) called "The ARAMCO Connection," pp. 11-16. The quote may very well be in there, because I believe ARAMCO is one of the backers of the Institute for Palestine Studies. If it was Emerson who quoted the State Dept official, it was likely someone senior and knowledgable. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- I thought I'd seen Emerson mentioned in this context, but then I couldn't find it again. If this article is typical, he won't give sources at all. But I'll look. --Zero 07:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the one. He said that four US companies (Exxon, SoCal, Mobil and Texaco) are conducting a "surreptitious multimillion-dollar campaign to manipulate American public opinion on the Middle East". Aramco is just their front. (He says that those four companies own all of Aramco's stock, that's in 1982; I can't seem to reconcile that with our article on Aramco.) Through Aramco, these companies established subversive groups like the "Arab Women's Information Committee" (shriek!). The IPS claim is worded as we knew already: "Yet, as one State Department official said, it is known as 'the unofficial academic wing of the PLO'". He then says "It is rigidly hostile to Israel and is a major organ of PLO thinking and propaganda. Its quarterly, Journal of Palestine Studies, is widely read at the Department of State and in U.S. universities." (That's because it is a peer-reviewed academic journal; in the three 1982 issues, half or more of the authors are US academics; I guess that proves Emerson's theory that this conspiracy is led by US companies.) Then he says "Company records and sources indicate that Aramco has contributed at least $75,000 to IPS". Emerson is lucky that New Republic doesn't have Wikipedia's standards, as there is no citation and hardly a single verifiable claim in the whole article. Was this conspiracy theory supported by anyone since Emerson? Can't say I've ever heard of it. --Zero 10:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- I thought I'd seen Emerson mentioned in this context, but then I couldn't find it again. If this article is typical, he won't give sources at all. But I'll look. --Zero 07:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- There was a Steven Emerson article in the New Republic on that date (May 19, 1982) called "The ARAMCO Connection," pp. 11-16. The quote may very well be in there, because I believe ARAMCO is one of the backers of the Institute for Palestine Studies. If it was Emerson who quoted the State Dept official, it was likely someone senior and knowledgable. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Oops, I didn't notice that Slim had identified New Republic as the source. I'll try to find that issue and then I'll tell you what it says. --Zero 06:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure which part of it you're calling a "conspiracy theory." Standard Oil of New Jersey (which became Exxon) and Socony-Vacuum Oil (which became Mobil) became the owners of Aramco in 1948, along with Socal and Texaco, and in 1980, the Saudi govt purchased almost all of Aramco's assets. [24] So at the time of writing in 1982, Emerson's claim that these companies were using their assets to manipulate public opinion against Israel is perfectly plausible. Emerson's sources tend to be good. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm calling it a conspiracy theory because it has all the usual hallmarks of a conspiracy theory. The whole thing relies on trusting Emerson. You do, I don't, c'est la vie. --Zero 03:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- It actually doesn't have any of the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory. He claims that Aramco has used its assets to turn public opinion in American against Israel, and why wouldn't it, given that it's owned by the Saudis? As for Emerson, that takes us back to my earlier point. You dismiss information from sources because you don't share their POV, but you're sometimes willing to accept very poor sources because you agree with them. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Emerson doesn't say that Aramco/Saudis are the prime movers behind it. He gives that role to 4 American oil companies. He says that right in the first sentence of the article. As for my alleged inconsistency with sources, are you saying that I should also accept pro-Arab activists who claim to make revelations based on documents they won't show and sources they won't name? You sure as hell wouldn't. Who does that make the more consistent? Your criticism would be better received if you got your own house in order. --Zero 01:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- It actually doesn't have any of the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory. He claims that Aramco has used its assets to turn public opinion in American against Israel, and why wouldn't it, given that it's owned by the Saudis? As for Emerson, that takes us back to my earlier point. You dismiss information from sources because you don't share their POV, but you're sometimes willing to accept very poor sources because you agree with them. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm calling it a conspiracy theory because it has all the usual hallmarks of a conspiracy theory. The whole thing relies on trusting Emerson. You do, I don't, c'est la vie. --Zero 03:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure which part of it you're calling a "conspiracy theory." Standard Oil of New Jersey (which became Exxon) and Socony-Vacuum Oil (which became Mobil) became the owners of Aramco in 1948, along with Socal and Texaco, and in 1980, the Saudi govt purchased almost all of Aramco's assets. [24] So at the time of writing in 1982, Emerson's claim that these companies were using their assets to manipulate public opinion against Israel is perfectly plausible. Emerson's sources tend to be good. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Zero, I think the issue is that you sometimes dismiss Israeli sources as propaganda for no obvious reason (that I have ever seen), while wanting to allow Palestinian sources that seem equally or even more biased. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- I try to be consistent, but everyone has biases (you too). Can you tell me of an Israeli or pro-Israeli source that I dismiss as propaganda written by someone whose academic credentials are as good as Philip Mattar's? --Zero 06:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have time to go through my 25,000 or your 6,000 edits looking for diffs, but I remember several times editing with you, or watching you edit, where you've been scathing about Israeli or right-wing sources who seemed fine to me, yet willing to accept sources of equal or lower quality if they confirmed your POV. As for Mattar, I'm not saying he shouldn't be accepted as a source. I only chimed in to confirm there had been a suspicion of a link between the Institute he heads and the PLO. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- I try to be consistent, but everyone has biases (you too). Can you tell me of an Israeli or pro-Israeli source that I dismiss as propaganda written by someone whose academic credentials are as good as Philip Mattar's? --Zero 06:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
IPS's own description of their funding sources is here. --Zero 06:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- They don't actually give any information though. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Just as much as any other large organisation gives (or more). And there's the IRS looking over their shoulder. --Zero 06:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. Many research organizations give details of their major supporters precisely so that people can see what the main biases are likely to be. For example, an Israeli organization I have seen you dismiss as a source is the Jewish Virtual Library run by the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. They list their board of directors [25] and many of their sponsors. [26] The Institute for Palestine Studies, on the other hand, says precisely nothing about who runs and pays for it that I could find. [27] SlimVirgin (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Just as much as any other large organisation gives (or more). And there's the IRS looking over their shoulder. --Zero 06:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
To get back to the point. Kriegman is wrong. I haven't quoted Mattar at all, let alone "extensively"; his book is a peer-reviewed publication from Columbia University Press and it doesn't leave out the mufti's Nazi collaboration; in fact Chapter 8 has the title 'The Nazi Years' and as the book just happens to be in front of me now I'll make my first ever quotation from the opening paragraph:
- No period in the Mufti's life is more controversial and subject to distortion than the years of World War II. Zionists were so eager to prove him guilty that they exaggerated his connection with the Nazis. The Mufti and other Arabs, on the other hand, were so busy justifying his statements and actions in the Axis countries that they ignored the obvious and overwhelming fact that the mufti had collaborated with the most barbaric regime in modern times.
Let's not prevaricate. We all know perfectly well why editors cite propaganda websites and other self-published material: because they can't find any scholarly source to back up the claim they want to include in an article. --Ian Pitchford 11:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Clearly slim hit the nail on the head with these words:
:Zero, I think the issue is that you sometimes dismiss Israeli sources as propaganda for no obvious reason (that I have ever seen), while wanting to allow Palestinian sources that seem equally or even more biased. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly, I think this discussion is an example of the Zero's M.O. He appears to have "sandbagged" me here, as can be seen if we go back to the RfArb. (See "Other uses" in sandbag.) In that RfArb, I wrote a statement that I believe was written shortly after Zero's statement. The statement sat in the RfArb for quite a long time before Fred removed most of it to make it conform to the length limits. I then edited my shorter statement in the RfArb and put a link in to my longer statement so the entire thing has been available for quite some time. Given that I responded directly to Zero's points in my statement that was posted almost immediately following his, it seems highly likely that Zero read it.
In my statement I made it quite clear that I had NOT read Mattar's biography of the Mufti and that I did NOT know if the characterization of it as leaving out the Mufti's Nazi collaboration was true. Furthermore, I suggested that Ian and Zero probably do have access to the biography and probably do know the truth about this:
- "Indeed, I would cite Mattar's biography of the Mufti as another source, of sorts. I do not have access to it (though I am pretty sure Ian and Zero do). I have read that Mattar's scholarly biography of the Mufti left out what everyone in this debate has conceded: The nature and extent of the Mufti's Nazi collaboration. If this is so, we know that Mattar is not above biasing the view of the Mufti that he presents. (And I am not suggesting that this should discredit Mattar as a source; I have repeatedly noted that all sources are biased.) If Mattar is presenting a somewhat whitewashed version of the Mufti---and I believe we can safely assume Mattar knows about the widespread claims about the Mufti's calls for genocide---how is it possible that he does not mention these false claims in his biography of the Mufti?"
In the ongoing debate, on more than one ocassion, rather than responding as he has here with substantive evidence from a source like the Mufti bio, Zero just repeatedly called me names. Yes, it is true that since I was pretty sure that Ian and/or Zero had access to the bio and since they didn't refute the claim that I referred to above (and I referred to it in that manner more than once), I began to believe the claim was simply true. Now it seems it is either false or not so simple.
Whether Mattar fully acknowledged the Mufti's fairly well-documented murderous collaboration (i.e., that the Mufti was a truly nasty fellow in his own right) or wrote an apologetic after admitting that the Mufti had collaborated with murderous folks (i.e., that his crime was allowing himself to be seen as or inadvertently helping bad people) is something I still do not know. The quotation Zero presented could be consistent with either and the latter view may be what the stuff I read was referring to.
In any case, that is not the point here. The point here is that I was sandbagged by Zero. Kriegman 06:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Only two days ago you wrote on this page "he wrote the Mufti biography that left out the Mufti's Nazi collaboration". Now, having been soundly proven wrong, you are saying that it's my fault for not realising that you meant something different. Cool. --Zero 12:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Zero, your command of English (or lack thereof) is surprising. This is the second time we have actually engaged in a direct exchange in which your interpretation of the words that anyone can view shows you misinterpret what you read to support your view. How often does that occur when only you have viewed and selectively presented material from a source?
- I never said I meant anything different. I ADMITTED that I had come to believe what I had read:
- "Yes, it is true that … I began to believe the claim was simply true."
- I tried to explain why I came to speak as though it was established. But when I admitted ("Yes, it is true …") I was also trying to acknowledge that I began to write as if it had been established. My bad. I made a mistake. You are right about that point. It was an error to make such a categorical statement. The true characterization of Mattar's presentation of the Mufti's Nazi collaboration may come out now that Fred has bought the book. (But why, if you [and Ian?] have access to the book, did Fred have to get involved in this way?)
- However, I never criticized you for not realizing anything. I criticized you here (and on the 48 War Talk page) for FULLY realizing things and NOT saying them or holding back crucial information, i.e., for sandbagging me. (On the 48 War talk page, you critiqued a misunderstanding I had and implied there was nothing of validity in the info I referred to when you almost surely knew that the essential info was valid though the presentation was inaccurate.) Kriegman 16:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I have finally broken down and spent my $20 on a used copy of this book, as you have paid me the compliment of carrying this discussion on here. I suggest that all who wish to discuss this book further either buy or check the book out. If you buy it and find it not worthwhile you can always resell it on Amazon Marketplace. Fred Bauder 13:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank You
"Nation at war" is indeed a good way to look at such books. Zeq 05:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
New book
Accidental Empire: Israel And the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977 by Gershom Gorenberg ISBN 08050-7564-X Publisher: Henry Holt and Co Publish Date: 07 March, 2006 Binding: Hardcover , 384 pages
Wikipedia and radio Islam
Hi Fred,
If, at the end of the day, articles on the issue of nakba that apear in Wikipedia bear striking similarity to article on the same subject that apear in Radio islam we would have a problem ?
maybe it is time to make the article NPOV ? an effort that has been attempted for nearly 3 years and it seems not only getting better but getting worse . Zeq 14:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Re: Arbitration case
Thanks so much for the note. Nevertheless that's not actually what I requested. I requested a review on whether the case was properly opened, since my right to submit a statement was suspended when the case was opened. I can't pretend the workshop and other procedures have not been proceeded, to submit a statement for the purpose of responding to the opening request. — Instantnood 20:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- I admit it's pragmatic, but that's not quite logical. In what way one could respond to a case, when whether the case was properly open, and justice of the arbitration mechanism, is contested? — Instantnood 06:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
WP:RCU—anybody home?
Is anyone currently working WP:RCU? As I type this, the backlog is at 88 requests. RadioKirk talk to me 13:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- The arbitrators are discussing this. The arbitrators themselves seem to be too busy and we are having trouble deciding on anyone else to do it. Fred Bauder 15:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks :) RadioKirk talk to me 17:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Best Bill of attainder article
Fred: Please review this article [28] for the Bill of attainder Wikipedia article. I am a banned user. Can this go onto Wikisource or is it permissable for the External Links section of the BoA article to link to my site? Mr. Reynolds and the Law Review indicate the only regular attribution to the Reivew is requested for "fair use" of the article. I also see some ideas I like in an older version of the article: [29] but I am in need of assistance if those ideas are to be incorporated in the article. It is St. Patrick Day. Could you just look the other way about the fact that I am a banned user and see if there are any valid points in that version that can be incorporated into the current version of the article? Thanks. AWM -- 209.172.114.3 14:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- The article is not organized right for a Wikipedia article; it should start off with a definition. I don't do Wikisource, but if I were editing the article might make a link to it. It is well done. I doubt fair use would do for Wikisource. I haven't followed the events which led to your banning, so I'm not familiar enough to make an exception. As to editing it myself, I'm too busy and not familiar enough with the subject, although I am interested in similar abuses. Fred Bauder 15:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Banned user
Fred, FYI, I'm deleting an edit made to your talk page by a banned user who has engaged in serious harassment of the person his edit is about. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for talking to him, Fred. I hope it helps both him and the situation here. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Alleged rape victim
Hi. I saw your name at the top of the Arbitration Committee List, and I need your help with a user who is repeatedly deleting images from the article on an alleged rape victim, using extremely irrational and non-NPOV articles that I have succesfully refuted. The user, Tufflaw, refuses to respond directly my refuations of his/her fallacies, preferring instead to simply repeat them over and over, deliberately ignoring my responses to them. I tried placing an arbitration request on the appropriate page, but I'm not sure that I did it correctly. What should I do? Should I contact just you, or all the Committee members? Thanks. Nightscream 05:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
CheckUser Assistance
Hello, I feel I need some assistance. A user placed my userid in for a CheckUser here Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#PoolGuy_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_and_GoldToeMarionette_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29. I am not a very advanced user of Wikipedia, however after reading the green box at the top of Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser there appears to be no reason for User:Jayjg to complete the investigation.
I am not sure if I have any Wikipedia Rights, however I feel as if they have been violated. I could understand if I had been acting to violate Wikipedia Policy, however I have not been, contrary to whatever the user who filed for the CheckUser wrote.
I would appreciate it if you would review this and comment back to me. Thank you. GoldToeMarionette 04:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the checks on the Gastrich socks. I know he's made a lot of work for people, I guess that's why the arbcom ruling looks like it's heading for a long block. Just zis Guy you know? 15:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 Thanks, Fred, I'll bear that in mind if he comes back. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Copy of Message at Mushroom (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
I am the wife of Danny_B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)], as he advised the Wikipedia Welcomer Wiki alf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and we log in from the same office computer. We don’t contribute all that often and so it came as quite a surprise to Danny to find himself blocked by you and this message on his user page:
- This user is a sock puppet of Ted Wilkes, as established by Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006#Ted Wilkes (talk • contribs) and related accounts,
Because you provided no explantion for your actions on his talk page, it took me some time to track it down. At the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard [30] you wrote:
- "See this request for CheckUser: Ted Wilkes, Danny B. and Karl Schalike are the same person." Mushroom (Talk) 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I note that this statement by you was posted immediately after Danny complained on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [31] about vandalism by Onefortyone which you did nothing about.
However, at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006 User:Sam Korn who did the checking said only:
- "Ted Wilkes, Danny B. and Karl Schalike appear likely to be the same."
Your action appears to have been based on a message left on your talk page by User:Onefortyone [32], someone on probation who I see has been banned by User:Stifle from editing certain articles for a time as result of his repeated violations of his probation and someone that numerous others have complained about. (MrDarcy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Arniep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), [nil :Lochdale] ([[User talk::Lochdale|talk]] · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Func (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), DropDeadGorgias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and if I looked a little further, I'm swure I would find plenty more).
Mushroom, I think it is right to assume that a Wikipedia:Administrator has the responsibility for stating facts, not making quick guesses to spin there own version of what User:Sam Korn who did the checking said. Your rush to judgment has forced me to do a lot of searching all over Wikipedia for no reason. I will unblock my husband and place copies of this message on the talk page of each member of the Arbitration Committee.
Just for the record, because my husband has an interest, I am the one who pointed him to the non-encyclopedic material being pushed by User:Onefortyone after I came across a nonsensical contradiction in on of the articles he edited. I also come from a small city with one of the highest number of writers per capita in Canada and where Wikipedia has a high profile and where I know from the local newspaper(s) and business/social associations that there are a number of Wikipedia editors. - Cynthia_B. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- In my opinion, Cynthia B. is identical with User:Ted Wilkes alias User:DW alias User:JillandJack. Both Cynthia B. and DW/JillandJack or Ted Wilkes contributed to the following articles: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39],etc. This suggests that DW alias Ted Wilkes has created many more sockpuppets, as DW did in the past. Onefortyone 23:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Re: Citation needed
And what about this one? User:Piotrus, who declared that to him referencing is more important than content, randomly picks up articles on Russian history and applies tags on whim here and there, asking for detailed references for common knowledge, e.g., that the Romanov dynasty came to power as a result of a patriotic popular unprising, even in those articles that were taken from Encyclopaedia Britannica or from Library of Congress Studies. See his edits on Muscovy, for instance, an article taken from the Library of Congress Studies, penned by the best scholars, and which he discards as unreferenced. Those who disagree with him he accuses of vandalism and reverts using a rollback button, yet when his own articles are tagged this way he also calls it "vandalism" and cites WP:POINT as a pretext to rollback. I believe we need a policy on the use of uglifying tags - when they are useful and when it's little more than pestering. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- I could not reply on Ghirla's talk page, because he has the habit of deleting all comments from his talk page that don't suit him, but I'll gladly explain it here, as you seem to be involved in the case. Ghirla abuse of {fact} (not only here, but also here, just to name another example) was clearly a WP:POINT done in bad faith. Notably he targeted the lead, tagging every single fact - including both facts referenced in the article or simply obvious (Renaissance in Poland [was related to] Polish culture], and as you can see in the Renaissance article he also vandalised the external link section, removing it for no reason. My use of fact template in the Kievan Rus' is different, as I explained on the talk page (note that Ghirla didn't bother to use the talk page of articles he edited to explain his use of fact template). I acted in accordance with my understanding of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check: when I was reading this article, this para jumped out on me as having a lot of unreferenced but strong claims, so I tagged it in places where inline citations would be useful. If you look at the article now, every single one of my templates have been replaced by an inline citations (some of them I found myself), and the article is much better referenced now that it was before. Unlike Ghirla, who - being a great content creator, without any doubht - almost never provides any references for his articles (or what's worse, reverts), I try my best to properly reference my work (as the 17 FAs I particopated in writing illustrate, most recently the Katyn massacre, which I think is one of the best referenced article Wikipedia has at the moment). Therefore I'd appreciate it if you would rething your comparison of my edit to his being 'just as bad'. The last thing we need is for senior Wikipedians to support his POV and uncivil actions, and as - for good or worse - Ghirla is a very active editor, he is already using your edit as an ammunition against me.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, to answer your, I would call them frivolous, fact templates (7 in one short paragraph!) at Kievan Rus, I spent half a day, filling up cite:book, cite-web, etc fields instead of creating content. This was just in order to answer your calls to "support with sources" the info that any schoolchild in RU and UA knows and what's written in the plain view in EB or could have been googled in 5 minutes if you were interested just in the info rather than in using fact as a tool to disprove something.
Fred, I tried to raise the issue of ethics of behavior in connection with fact template at this talk page. A comment from a respected editor like yourself would be very much appreciated. Too many users started to use tricks like "fact" or image copyright issues in content disputes. It is extremely tempting and disrputive because any number of "fact" can be added to any article at any time by a pestering user. Ideally, we would need a guideline for using "fact" and "dubious" templates. I hoped the issue I raised would draw wider attention. Should a separate project be started? Please take a look. --Irpen 08:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- As I have explained there (and also at Talk:Kievan_Rus'#Common_sense_in_tags_demanding_for_refs, and I believe Ipren's talk page), what is 'known to any schoolchild in RU and UA' is not known to 99% of en-wiki users, and 'what's written in the plain view in EB or could have been googled in 5 minutes' and is not referenced at Wiki is simply not referenced. Especially if EB requires paid access, and who is to say what is googled in 1, 5 or 20 minutes and where do we draw the line? As with everything on wiki, various people tag various things, and some will abuse any tool, but in the end every single fact in any article should be referenced.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
FYI
This may be of intrest: [40].
btw, about the book: I never cared much about history, careabout the future. What bother me most is that people distored the past to gain the ability of shaping the future in a strongly biased way. At the end of the line the issue is Right to exist (which is also at the core dispute between what I see as your view and mine). Articles such as Nakba are just another attempt to lay the "historical background" to deny israel's right to exist. Zeq 07:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Fred, the new LaRouche account has turned up again, previously as IAMthatIAM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), now as IAMwhatsIAM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He renominated Jeremiah Duggan for deletion, and has tried to enlist support from Herschelkrustofsky, NathanDW, BirdsOfFire (all LaRouche editors) and Everyking. I've blocked him for 24 hours for vandalism, and left a note on his talk page saying that he's likely to be blocked indefinitely if he continues in the same vein. [41] I'm thinking of using the provision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche that "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not ... to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche." Please let me know if you have any thoughts about this. Also, Herschelkrustofsky started a thread about it here on WP:AN/I. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, Fred. I'm going to block the account indefinitely, rather than put up with more disruption. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Legal Landmark against Internet abuse
Thought that you might care to look at these UK reports. Things are moving across the pond:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2096902,00.html IT Week, and The Guardian, both 22 March 2006, http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1737001,00.html?gusrc=rss
Societal Attitudes Towards Homosexuality
Dear Mr. Bauder,
The article "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" is being used, not for the benefit of the reader, but to promote the agenda of a well-organized group of gay advocates. I can provide you with many examples if you would like. I have gone through all of the proper channels to raise a red flag about this.
The first item on the "workshop" page is a request to "remove the article" [42]. But, so far, that option has not been added to the "proposed remedies" section of the "requests for arbitration" page [43].
I hope that you will seriously consider adding this remedy to "proposed remedies" section, as that is the only remedy that will actually correct the problem.
Best Regards, Lou franklin 03:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Mr Bauder
Your banning of rajputs from the rajput has given a field day to muslims and there leaders, Bachman in fabricating lies about hindu rajputs. Is this really justice? Note they have no references still to support a single claim they are making. Please unban all rajputs so that this article does'nt become Islamic jihaad propaganda as these muslims are expert in doing. DPSingh 12:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- They are expected to edit responsibly regardless of whether you are there or not. Fred Bauder 13:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
"Right to exist"
Hi Fred,
I have no doubt that the Palestinian people is the biggest looser from the establishment of Israel.
There are many ethnic groups, which has been marginalized throughout history and had to find a mew home. This is not fair and not right but it is what took place. (I am not trying to justify, just putting in perspective). Many nations have almost disappeared as a result (American Indians in US, Tibetian in Tibet etc..)
History would be very different if Amin al-Huseeinei would not be an anti-Semite and pro-Nazi. I am sure that if in the 1937-1939 Palestinians would not object Jewish immigration but welcome it there would not have been a need for the 1947 UN resolution for a Jewish state. Palestine would become a bi-national state, with Palestinian/Arab majority.
But now, let's look at from the other side: Does it make sense not to have a state for a people who have persecuted all over the world ?
I think there is.
All over this world there are bigger tragedies than those of the Palestinian people. Everyone know the Palestinian exodus but a big exodus of Palestinians (about 400,00) were kicked out Kuwait in one week in 1991 but no one mention this. In Darfur there is a massacre that goes on for over 2 years. In Congo in every month more people are killed than in al the Intifada and no one care.
There is a lot of hyporacy both on the right and on the left. No one can claim to be "native" to anyhwere except those of us who still live in one carter in Africa where the human race originated.
Zeq 09:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Disappointed
I refer to my much earlier enquiries, in passing, about Robert Isherwood et al and their banning. Having taken an initial interest in other activities of old stalwarts on the Right in the Conservative Party, some of whom I knew, I am disappointed to see that there are administrators here with an agenda. Sad but true. It appears some of the complaints I have been reading about on the several pages are confirmed. Sussexman 09:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Moe Epsilon is telling me you performed a IP check on Stockdiver confirming three consistent IP's with Mcfly85. Could you confirm this for me please, or point to a place on-wiki with that information? Thanks, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 00:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Serious problem related to the Agapetos Arbitration
I'm sorry to spam your talk page, but this seemed serious enough to directly put on your talk page. I have evidence that AiG has actively had employees push their POV on the AiG page and possibly on related pages. I have added a new evidence section in the Agapetos arbitration to that effect, explaining the evidence. Due to the very serious nature of this accusation and its possible implications for Wikipedia, I decided to directly alert all of the ArbCom members. JoshuaZ 01:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- JoshuaZ retracted this in evidence because it was erroneous, but failed to mention it on your talk page. agapetos_angel 07:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- That's highly inaccurate. I qualified the evidence in question. The user wasn't an employee but was specifically asked by an employee. See my evidence section and Standon's for details, and Agapetos, please don't put words in my mouth. JoshuaZ JoshuaZ 13:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
AN/I
Fred:
I've posted a note to AN/I here regarding Prasi90 (talk · contribs); he claims to have emailed you and not received a reply, and I wanted you to be able to offer additional information (especially given that it could be being discussed on the AC list without any of us knowing). Also, of course, I didn't want you to feel I was going behind your back. If you have the time, could you drop in and give your assessment? Thanks! Essjay Talk • Contact 03:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Fred, you may want to also unprotect his IP.--MONGO 05:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- In a related development, User:Prasi90 has agreed to a period of mentorship, details of which are here [44] . Hopefully this will be a clean slate for this user. Hamster Sandwich 18:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Recently, you made a comment to the above user about how a checkuser was warranted for his "somewhat disruptive" use of User:GoldToeMarionette as a sockpuppet. Since then, he had his sock account indef. blocked, his talk pages protected, and his main account blocked for a week (with that timer being reset every day, since he's creating sockpuppets to voice his feelings about what's going on). However, he still insists what he's doing falls within policy, and insist we reverse all action against him. Could you please look into this? --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 17:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
New cat for your userpage
Fred: You might want to consider adding Category:Lawyer Wikipedians to your userpage. Then you can be listed with all of your other collegues in that elite group. -- Iheartdrann 22:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Menace
Dear Sir If you receive a menace (threat), how you must proceed?
Thanks --Eduardo Corrêa 13:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Situation of administrator abuse
Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.
The ContiE (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.
I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here [45] Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 06:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Bogdanov Affair, Wikipedia and Arbcom
Hi,
I have just written and published on my web site an article about the way the "Bogdanov Affair" article has been written, among others about the Arbcom's role and responsibility in the writting of an article which does not respect the NPOV.
My article is entitled : "Wikipédia et l'affaire Bogdanov : "encyclopédie libre" ou dictature virtuelle ?", which means "Wikipedia and the Bogdanov affair : "free encyclopedia" or virtual dictatorship ?".
I do not know if you can read in french ; but I am sure that Rama (talk · contribs) or Ze_miguel (talk · contribs) can help you to understand the content of my article.
"Thank you" again for having been so unfair with me (among others), especially by censoring me even on the discussion pages... but on the Web nothing is discreet : censorship works only in a specific place, and even an "Arbitrator" of Wikipedia cannot prevent people from giving their opinion publically !
Laurence67
Your insults
If you feel that I edit articles "to make a point" please bring evidence to support your statement so that I can be banned from Wikipedia. If not, please withdraw your insults. I don't edit article to make a point. I am not here to make a point. People should not be here to make a point. I don't know who you feel you are to sling such unwarranted attacks. This is totally unacceptable. Guettarda 03:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Carthage Abuse!
Wikipedia is a database, a Collection of "Human" Knowledge not a collection of Graco-Roman slander and biased.
I am the poster within that article who has been purifying the article from vandals and trolls, Carthage did not sacrifice children there is no proof no evidence nothing, only myths and story's there for the article should contain only FACTS about my people! Without us having to deal with every slime that gets in our way!
There are story's and myths that the Egyptians built there pyramids from the Atlanteans I dont see them having to deal with his garbage in that page.
Would you please warn those vandals who have a clear cut Graco-Roman anti-Carthaginian agenda to slander other people and other CIVILIZATIONS!
its time to end this facts is over opinion over fabrications over myth NOW lets see some action taking against the vandals
--Marduk Of Babylon
- No furnace to throw babies into? Not how I remember it. Fred Bauder 14:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Enforcement review
If you have the time and interest, could you please review the proposed enforcement action at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#HK enforcement, for correctness? Though individual ArbCom cases are clear, the interactions of several cases can get complicated. Cheers, -Will Beback 06:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Fred, I see you have endorsed what Will Beback has requested; you have every right to that is fine. But, I ask that you consider my points in fair light. Further, there needs to be a better process for this stuff. Three admins ganging up (or a limited number) on one user over and over again? I might open an appeal of all previous decisions in light of new evidence against Slimvirgin and Will Beback if these matters continue as they are without fairness and due process being afforded to this harassed editor. What is Arbcom for if not due process procedure for editors. Then there is the final appeal to Jimbo Wales and Wikimedia, as I feel they have the greatest stake in what is occuring, namely harassment and defamation through selective use of policy. --Northmeister 14:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Happy Easter
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/19/Easter_eggs_in_the_stage_of_painting.jpg/200px-Easter_eggs_in_the_stage_of_painting.jpg)
1WW Refactor
Please see Refactor and New discussion.
You were gracious enough to comment on 1WW; as you may know there are now seven competing proposals. On April 6 I suggested that I be permitted to refactor the proposal page into a single, unified proposal. It's my belief that most of us are tending toward the same or a similar restriction on wheel warring. I think it's unwieldy, though, as it stands. A fair number of editors have commented on these distinct versions but (precisely because they are so similar) no single one has gained undisputed consensus. I suggest that a single, improved version may fare better on its way to policy.
Just as I proposed the refactor, an editor brought to our attention yet another competing proposal, which I merged into the others, using the same format. Still another proposal has since been added, bringing the total to 7. The two new proposals are encountering an indifferent reception but they, too, have some merit.
At the time I suggested refactor, I also put myself forward as the editor to write the initial draft, based on the plurality of support for "my" version. Since the two new proposals have been added, this plurality has held.
I don't for a moment feel that this gives me any special right to dictate terms; rather I hope to draft a proposal uniting the best features of existing proposals. Unlike any of the seven currently competing versions, this refactor will be open to editing immediately by any editor. I will ask editors to refrain from supporting or opposing the new draft for the time being; instead, to edit the proposal to reflect their specific concerns. I believe the true consensus policy will then emerge, in true wiki fashion. After all, we're not so far apart.
I come to your talk page today to ask for your comment on this refactor. Clearly this will be a major change to the proposal page and I don't feel comfortable being quite that bold without some expression of interest in the idea. Once the new draft is in place, I hope also for your participation to polish it into a true expression of our values. Let's move forward with this complement to WP:3RR. John Reid 04:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
retrospective changes to arbcom decisions?
Fred, could you take a look at the latest changes to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed 2? There's something decidedly not right about retrospective changes to arbcom decisions. -- Danny Yee 12:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- I can't see the details of a vote -- there's just an addition to the arbitration page and an announcement on the Administrator's page, both dated April 22nd. That means Xed is currently banned for actions after his initially imposed parole expired but before the "new remedy" was imposed.
- I understand some people find Xed a pain to deal with, but it would be nice to preserve at least the semblance of due process in dealing with him... -- Danny Yee 23:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thank you for your correction
at the arbitration I'm presently in, [[46] I have corrected my error of presentation and thank you for pointing it out. Terryeo 22:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Opening cases
I normally subst' the templates as instructed at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures. Johnleemk | Talk 16:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
FoF #2 in DarrenRay and 2006BC case
You authored FoF #2 in this case but did not cast your vote on it. Did you mean to vote for it? --207.156.196.242 14:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Marcosantezana
I can only comment on the Natural selection article. I would say the situation remains serious. It is not as bad as it used to be, but only because everyone else who watches the page began to revert his edits automatically, and instead of endless revert wars he now seems to wait a few days before coming back and making his changes. Nevertheless, his changes are always the same (i.e. he is not accommodating the critical points people have made on the talk page) and he does not explain himself on the talk page. He does not demonstrate any respect for other editors, or any desire to cooperate or collaborate with others. When he makes his changes - as I said, they are always the same, in effect an attempt to revert the article to changes he first made some time before the complaint was filed - he sometimes leaves edit summaries like this "restoring content; needs special section below, yes. but point is crucial for laymen to understand" that are pointless because they utterly disregard the many reasons several people earlier gave for deleting the content before, and sometimes his summaries are in my opinion obnoxious, like "all this free niche space around here and i am not going to use it; I'll accept my drift-given destiny; oh yeah; a new theory of evolution." Both of these are from April 18. Marcosantezano's last comment on the talk page was I think March 25. Since that date, he has made well over 30 edits to the article, all reverted by different users. As I said, his MO is to make many edits in a row one day (perhaps to thwart automatic reversion, but I don't think so), wait, come back several days later, and start over again. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
NPOV, may I ask.
Hello Fred. Where may I find the rejection which you say exists at my arbitration situation. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair expression of all significant points of view regarding a subject. The practice of first setting forth the viewpoint of the advocates of a positive viewpoint has been considered and rejected.
Comment by Arbitrators: While I also advocate the policy Terryeo is advocating, it has been soundly rejected. Fred Bauder
Thank you.Terryeo 18:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding to my question on my user page Terryeo 18:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Vote
Fred, is this your vote? Or did someone take the liberty of voting for you? agapetos_angel 14:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Example you asked for
You very kindly asked me, on 28 March, for an example of what I saw as a problem. I recently located further information about the Monday Club's early 1991 crisis, notably a letter from one of the Executive Council members, a former chairman, which had been published in a major London newspaper. I went into the MC article, added the info, and cleaned up the relevant paragraphs. (You could count on one hand how many times I had previously visited that page). CJ Currie had deleted my edits saying he does not like them. I feel this is unfair especially as 80% of my re-edits were already up there. If you have a moment (and you appear to be in demand!) could you look at the edits and my comment on the Talk Page. Obviously in my profession I am more than aware of what constitutes libel/bias, but maybe I am slipping. Many thanks. Sussexman 19:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I was very surprised by your response to my detailed comments. I have posted my reply. Sussexman 14:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Further to your post on Talk Monday Club I don't know Robert but have found the saga of passing interest. I am sorry if I became active at the wrong time or if several of us use similar grammar. That may exile quite a number of posters. The only issue I am concerned with here is what I see as the unfair reversion of my edits dealing with the late David Storey's expulsion from the Monday Club. I have posted another response. Sussexman 12:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikinfo article
Hi Fred. I'm sorry I made that (incorrect) change to the Wikinfo article. I was sure that was either its URL or name, but upon reviewing the Internet archive I was wrong. Sorry :) - Mark 05:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Arb Case Mistake
Hi, im confused about something said in a report on the Arbirition case against me.
In this report, it states that i had warred on Gothic Metal, and been placed on Probation. It also says i violated WP:CITE. I want to know how this came about, when both myself and User:Parasti provided diffs to me citing sources. It also says this as a 'finding of fact'. In which case, here is the speficic sections which falsly accuse me of not providing sources, and the evidence that supported this, and the accompnying diffs:
Inaccurate Report
Finding Of Fact Contrary To Provided Diffs
Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, taken from Parasti's Evidence. Diff from Evidence, taken from Evidence Diff from Evidence, taken from Leys Evidence. Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence taken from Leys Evidence Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, taken from Leys Evidence
I even went as far as to quoting and explaining the sources on the talk page, [47].
I got all these diffs from the archive of the Arbirition case, Here.
I just want to know why all eight claimed i provided no sources, even though another involved party provided diffs of me providing sources, and i repeatedly gave diffs of me supplying sources. Im not having a go, im just confused how 8 Arbirrators managed to claim a 'finding of fact' despite over 10 diffs from two different users =\ Ley Shade 14:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
SquealingPig and SquealingPigAttacksAgain
What make you think SquealingPig and SquealingPigAttacksAgain were sockpuppets of Zapatancas? Fred Bauder 19:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Zapatancas made a massive revert of my edits to the Zapatero article on May 5th at 10.23 am (UTC-6). SquealingPig made the first edit [48] at the Zapatero talk page, accusing me opf being harsh at 10.43 pm on May 5th and within minyutes was seriously vandalsing my user page until blocked. So for me there has never been the slightest doubt that zapatancas and SquealingPig are the same person, and the behhaviour of Zapatancas when he returned 5 days later on May 10th, vandalising my user page etc, merely confirms this. I didn't know about check user facility at the time. All our problems stem from this first incident, and for me it is so clear that zapatancas is SquealingPig that his denials have been perceived by me as part of the same deviant behaviour. To be honest I have no idea if SquealingPigAttacksAgain was Zapatancas or not. Exhausted by him I had taken the Zapatero article off my watchlist and I perceived that he was geting biored and wanted to bate me though whereas I know for my own satisfaction that Zapatancas is SquealingPig I cannot say he is squealingPigAttacksAgain with the same certainty as it could have been another nasty individual bating both Zapatancas and I (our case has received some offsite publicity), SqueakBox 19:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
This is Moe
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/This_is_Moe.jpg/220px-This_is_Moe.jpg)
Request for Arbitration, Tobias Conradi
Regarding:
- Reject, no referral from the Mediation Committee Fred Bauder 19:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure it was a minor oversight amid the lengthy filing, but the section Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried clearly states: Conradi refused mediation.
As explained to me by Redwolf24, "Conradi isn't interested in mediation it appears, so the mediation won't happen as both parties must agree. "
Also, Conradi never filed a Response to his RfC, and has not yet entered an appearance here. Although both parties must agree to Mediation, that does not seem to be applicable for Arbitration.
Thus, although no mediation was allowed, I've tried every step, and waited several more months until things came to a complete impass before bringing this for Arbitration. Had I understood that the only opportunity for an actual binding decision was Arbitration, I would not have waited so long.
Arbitration/user Zora and others
Hi, I just came back to Wiki for today to change a tag on a picture; after this, I won’t be involved any longer; however, it is on my mind, so I’ll say it: in today’s geo-political climate where every opportunity is being grasped to try to dismember a country like Iran, or at best capitalize on some internal ethnical disputes, unfortunately many are being manipulated into making racist remarks and sympathize with the separatists ideologies. Indeed, even some countries that are not a hot potato like Iran, such as Greece, are finding themselves defending their heritage, more and more these days (Albanians are laying claimant to Macedonia). Now with that being said, many editors came here and tried to purge articles relating to Iran from inaccuracies, and found themselves in frivolous disputes. While I blew the whistle on the edit-war problems, in the course of evidence gathering though, I realised, via delineating that a certain user with aplenty time to spare, and armed with an agenda, namely user Zora had instigated the first of many of these disputes a year ago, all the while vociferously labeling the other editors as Nationalists; fascists and others, which really unjustly indicates those who opposed her may be chauvinist, bigots etc. Upon a review, I see this user had selectively self-designated herself as a Semi-involved party; yet, after all the obvious diffs pointing towards incivilities, a one-sided editing motto, and the fact that she still is disputing contents that frankly were/are simply historically inaccurate, the committee has issued a mere caution warning[49]? And, a user such as I, who had not participated in edit-wars as of early March/06 (I joined Wiki in Feb/06), is given a possible topical ban? The fair recommendation would have been to at least include users like Zora in the probation along with others. Sadly, the down side to this lackluaster efforts, most likely due lack of adequate time for the arbitrators to properly review the case--is, the fact such imbalanced proposals causes some not to take this institution as seriously as they would have liked to. You should really try to promote an atmosphere of purer academics here, and come down hard on [all] sides that with a click on a key-board, inject politics into an encyclopedia. You certainly don’t want the reputation of the site being as untrustworthy. Salute.Zmmz 09:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Please consider this item re: Terryeo's RfA
I made a suggestion on one of the RfA talk pages that has spontaneously gained a number of endorsements from others.[50] Please take a look. Thanks. BTfromLA 16:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Arbitration
I hope this isn't out of line, but I wanted to ask (for my own curiosity if nothing else) why you decided to accept the case against me, especially when it's such a recent incident and no other dispute resolution has been attempted. I know it's probably too late, and I should have mentioned it in my statement, but I for one would be quite open to mediation, as Simonapro does seem like a good user, and just needs to become more familiar with the way wikipedia works. --InShaneee 23:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Monicasdude
Since you are engaged on the decision talk page, I hope it is not out of line to bring this to your personal attention. [51] Thanks for your attention. Thatcher131 03:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)