User talk:Fred Bauder

My associates and I have installed the GetWiki software at http://www.wikinfo.org, alternative address, http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/. It is hosted by 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)

Hello Fred Bauder I came to your Talk page from Psychoanalysis and that TAlk page. I am a retired psychiatrist that reads used books and loved living in Denver 1949-1953 for my residency.I haven't made it to Wikinfo yet, but it's next on my schedule. Your intentions are impressive. I have rambled around Sigmund Freud, Aggression,On Aggression, Evolution, Evolutionary Psychology, and have written "A Fundamental Revision" in Psychoanalytic Theory. Perhaps you might be interested in reading the last of those.I certainly would be interested in your comments. Islandsage 19:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Sorry!! Did I put this in the wrong place? Islandsage 19:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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)
• Blu_Aardvark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mistress_Selina_Kyle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zeq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Saladin1970 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hoof38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheLightning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Old notes

• 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)
• Tom_harrison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Sanjat312 (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:

[14]

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:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/093614601X/qid=1141647642/sr=11-1/ref=sr_11_1/104-9373713-6436708?n=283155

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)

Indeed it is: American Israel Public Affairs Committee. --Ian Pitchford 13:08, 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:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/093614601X/qid=1141647642/sr=11-1/ref=sr_11_1/104-9373713-6436708?n=283155

Leonard J. Davis and M. Decter, Eds., Myths and facts: A Concise Record of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Washington DC: Near East Report, 1982 ?

Zeq 04:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Wikipedia: Requests for arbitration

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 »

2. In « The Grand Mufti », a biography that is considered paradoxically « as rehabilitating him in emphasing his contribution to the palestinian cause » , 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. In an interview granted to Haaretz, Dr Walter Reich, Yitzhak Rabin Memorial Professor of International Affairs, Ethics and Human Behavior , 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. »

4. On the website of Simon Wiesenthal Center , 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. »

5. In an article published in New York Times, journalist Edwin Black, author of « IBM and the Holocaust » , 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. »

6. In his book « Mufti of Jerusalem », Moshe Pearlman, historian close to Ben Gurion 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.... »

7. In her controversed book « 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. »

8. In his book « The Gramsi Factor », Chuck Morse, journalist and Massachusetts candidate for US Congress 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 »

9. In « Israel, Islam and the church », Paul Carlson, who taught Scripture classes on Old and New Testaments, , 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. »

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

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'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)

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)

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)

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)

Zeq 22:46, 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)

User:IAMthatIAM

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)

User:IAMwhatsIAM

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)

User:Stockdiver

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)

User:PoolGuy

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

Moe is here to say Happy Easter! -- Moe ε 18:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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 0(UTC)

Just to give you an idea of the effect of his latest rash of edits (again, essentially restoring, bit by bit, his version of the article tthat has been rejected by all other editors working on the page), see this [47] - my point is that he is a continuing problem and if anyone has been trying to reason with him or moderate his activities, they have failed. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:29, 5 May 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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Leyasu#Failure_to_cite_sources_and_original_research

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, [48].

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 [49] 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)

[50] and here today he has done it again but niobody as ever does anything to stop this criminal troll or blocks him for his persistyent vandalism. Please can you do something? SqueakBox 15:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do, tvgenius.net video clip content is my work. I had linked to the site when I had my user page up to let people know I work there and when I took the page down thanks to the efforts of Zapatancas trying to chase me off the site I decided to just put the link in. I would certainly copnsider changing it if asked by a trustworthy admin, SqueakBox 15:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This is Moe

Hello Fred, just thought I would let you know that I was leaving Wikipedia, but before I left, I finally got a picture of thyself onto Wikipedia. (I know great timing for me to post a picture of myself, right?) This is my final gift to my friends. Later! PS. Try not to laugh to hard at my ugly mug ok? Moe ε 15:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

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.

--William Allen Simpson 05:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

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[51]? 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.[52] 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)

FYI, some links that may be of interest to both of you: [53]; [54], [55], [56]. —Viriditas | Talk 09:17, 5 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. [57] Thanks for your attention. Thatcher131 03:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Merecat Checkuser

I've updated the reopen request with the link to the recent Merecat checkuser (I'll repost it here as well). Thank you for your attention. [58]

Wikipedia's Integrity: Does Anybody Care?

Over the last few months I have worked hard to raise a red flag about extremist groups using Wikipedia for propaganda purposes. I have now brought the issue to the attention of those at the very highest levels within the Wikipedia community.

Now that I have gone through all of Wikipedia's bureaucratic hoops, what steps are being taken to correct the problem? How are policies being changed to prevent advocacy groups from using Wikipedia to disseminate propaganda?

There is widespread agreement that "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" is not an impartial article written by impartial people, but nobody cares enough to fix the problem. Is leaving the same group of editors in charge of the same article supposed to produce different results somehow? How long will it be before the article claims a correlation between natural disasters and Protestantism again? Now that this has been brought to the attention of the powers that be, what mechanism has been put into place to prevent that from happening again?

Can it be that nobody in the Wikipedia community, including ArbCom and Jimbo, cares about the integrity of Wikipedia? I have suggested several approaches to help prevent this kind of misuse of Wikipedia in the future. Is Wikipedia going to adopt these approaches, or will you continue to ignore the problem and discipline whistleblowers instead?

We all know that ArbCom knows how to give users the boot - they do it all the time - but who is going to actually fix the problem?

Lou franklin 15:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

RFA: Messhermit

• Due to College and Finals, I was absent from Wikipedia for quite a long time and I did not prepare a good defense or evidence in my RFA page. I have now provided the necessary information that will make this RFA more balance. I would gladly accept the outcome of the RFA once my information is contrasted with the other party involved in the dispute.
• Thus, since you were part of the arbitration board that has already casted a vote without having the oportunity to hear my defense, I would like you to read my evidence that I have just presented, and in these sense reafirm your decition or change it after reading both sides of the story. Thank you. Messhermit╪

Comments on an Arbitration Case

Hello. Being you one of the Arbitrators involved in the ArbCom case Messhermit, I would like to bring to your notice that the Paquisha War article, which is on my watchlist, has seen some activity these last few days. Some edits made there by an anonymous IP user (84.71.145.217) were reverted by another IP user (147.70.124.109) [59]. I strongly believe that the IP address 147.70.124.109 was used by Messhermit. Considering that the case is penalizing, among other things, edit-warring behavior, I would like to know if I should inform the other Arbitrators about this event, or if it has be investigated in the context of the case.
Thank you. Andrés C. 14:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

1. I have to protest this baseless accusations. So any modifications that any IP makes that is "approved" by Andres C. is right (because curiously [60] the IP editions deleted an important source and it support some complains that Andres C. more or less states regarding the article), while the ones that does not like his ideals are immediately awarded to Messhermit? I think that this accusation is biased, and demand that an apology must be stated.
2. This is my last comment in your "Talk Page". I'm disappointed, and please accept my apologies for the actions of the other party involved in this dispute. Messhermit 13:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

regarding "civility"

I was disgusted, but not terribly surprised, to see that six members of the Arbitration Committee -- Dmcdevit, Fred Bauder, JamesF/James D. Forrester, Sean Barrett/The Epopt, Charles Matthews and Jayjg -- condone hate speech and hateful epithets directed at the mentally disabled, and consider condemnation of that hate speech to be unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia -- behavior, in fact, so unacceptable that they say they find it a compelling reason to punish me.

I was a bit more surprised when an earlier form of this letter (differing only in describing the status of the pending arbitration, aside from this paragraph) was banned without explantion from the Wikipedia mailing list where such topics could supposedly be discussed. But I was appalled when discussions on that list, regarding a named editor, turned to open derision of the editor's supposed emotional/mental impairments, and that one Arbitration Committee member participated in the abuse.

As someone who has been involved for more than thirty years, professionally and nonprofessionally, in attempting to protect and to advance the rights of the mentally disabled, and as someone who for many years has served, and continues to serve as a guardian for such disabled members of my community. I find the use of such epithets grossly offensive; they are clearly inconsistent with Wikipedia's supposed commitment to civility. They form no part of civil discourse in any circumstances. They are particularly deserving of condemnation because they are directed toward, in very real terms attack, and have the greatest tendency to injure, a class of people who are less able, sometimes unable, to defend themselves, to resist the impact, or to respond on equal terms. [And, as a note to the politically correct, it is for that reason that I will not use the abominable term "mentally challenged," because it denies (sometimes grossly minimizes) the imbalances of social power that inhere in the relationships between the mentally disabled and the "unchallenged" elements of any community.]

It should be no secret, no obscure facet of social fabric, that the mentally disabled, particularly the mentally retarded, are at greater risk than almost any other segment of a society. More likely to be the victims of physical attacks. More likely to be neglected by governments, particularly when their needs are greatest. In the relatively rare instances when they have substantial assets, they are more likely to have their assets stolen, particularly at the hands of those actors on whom a government has conferred power over them. They are more likely to be degraded and exploited by industries which purport to protect them and to serve their interests. More like to be the victims of sexual assaults, particularly of organized, group sexual assaults.

The casual use of such hateful epithets does not only harm the individuals it targets. It causes pain, often great pain to many others. It regularly inflicts pain on those with brothers and sisters, with parents, with children, with friends, with acquaintances, even with clients, who are abused and dehumanized by such behavior. It regularly inflicts pain on so many of those who deal, day by day, with lesser mental and emotional impairments, whether they choose to acknowledge those impairments, publicly or privately, or not.

I am quite proud that a self-styled community which apparently condones such behavior and condemns opposition to it finds me such a danger to it and its values that it is preparing to forcibly separate me from it. Nothing I have contributed to this curious place makes me more proud, and I doubt anything else could.

Monicasdude

Not licensed, no rights released

Can you help mediate this

Hi Fred,

Before this [61] turn into an edit war invloved with personal attacks (I am on the receiving end) Can you help mediate it. The diff is not much. I will avoid editing this article until I get your reply. Thanks, Zeq

User Jayjg's revert war at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel

This is not a formal complaint, but I would like to informally draw the attention of some members of the arbitration committee to the behavior of user Jayjg, an arbitration committee member at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel and its talk page. There is a dispute about the inclusion of a description of a translating group. Jayjg has removed the description I added on (10:12, May 8, 2006), (10:19, May 7, 2006), (23:19, May 5, 2006) Jayjg and other times. While the article is not heavily edited, there is certainly no consensus that the description should be removed, nor has Jayjg supported his reasoning for removing it after being challenged to do so by myself and another editor. I think that as a member of the arbitration committee Jayjg should be held to an even higher standard than at-large editors. TopRank 01:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Fred. Of course, I actually had "supported [my] reasoning for removing it after being challenged to do so" on the Talk: page, so it's rather surprising TopRank would claim I hadn't. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom Case

Hello. I am Andres C., one of the involved parties from the ArbCom case Messhermit.There is a message that I wrote for the Arbitrators on the Talk Page of the Proposed Decision page. So far, I have tried to reach arbitrators Dmcdevit and Mindspillage on their Talk Pages, but without managing to get in touch with them. Could you take a look at the message and tell me how should I proceed? Thank you. Andrés C. 21:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a "talk page"  ?

Fred,

One of the big problems I had during my arbitration is that there are people who instead of using talk just revert.

This is my use of talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jerusalem_bus_2_massacre&oldid=52345325

and this is the reply: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerusalem_bus_2_massacre&diff=52641884&oldid=52528926

This is after I (and others[62]) requested many times from Zero to avoid using his edit summary as means for personal attacks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZero0000&diff=52124829&oldid=51912154

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZero0000&diff=52355934&oldid=52182531

I am at aloss at what to do with such behaviour, Zeq 11:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeq is not an editor in good faith. He is an extremist with no redeeming features. In the case mentioned, Zeq claims that an article in Israel's most respected newspaper about the memorial to a massacre is not relevant to our article about the massacre. Does he really believe that? Could anyone really believe that? Of course he knows it is nonsense, but that newspaper article is damaging to his mission and has to be censored by any means possible. If the newspaper said things he likes he would would be copying paragraphs from it, unlike the very mild single-sentence summary I inserted. You are right that I should moderate my language, I agree with you on that. --Zero^talk 12:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

To call Zeq an "extremist with no redeeming features" is extremely unfair. Zeq sees the Israel-related articles as being anti-Israel, and is trying to fix what he sees as a strong bias.

Zero describes the dispute they're currently engaged in as "Zeq claim[ing] that an article in Israel's most respected newspaper about the memorial to a massacre is not relevant to our article about the massacre," which isn't an accurate description of the dispute. The issue is whether to add to Jerusalem bus 2 massacre that: "In 2004 a memorial plaque to the victims was erected in the Beit Yisrael neighborhood of Jerusalem. The names of the non-Jewish victims were engraved separately from the others," using Haaretz as a source. [63] There's a sense in which this is relevant and quite shocking, and therefore worth adding to the article. However, it's also true that the decision to list the Jewish and non-Jewish victims separately was not made in response to the bombing as such (the newspaper explains that it's connected to the requirements of Jewish law), and is therefore not directly relevant to the article, but is being added in order to get a dig in against some Israelis (or perhaps against religious Jews). There is merit in both Zeq's and Zero's position, in my view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I thank Slim first for her kind words and second for seeing merit in my argument about content.

• But, the issue at hand is Zero's behaviour. Not an isolated incedent which is usually manifested disregard to other editors contributions and personal attacks. Zeq 19:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I found a solution

[64] - I hope this makes Zero happy as this seems the appropriate article for the line he care so much about.

• We still need to deal with Zero's behaviour though. Zeq 20:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Outside Opinion Requested

I would refer this directly to the entire committee formally for a formal declaration, but my understanding is that I have to try informal resolution first. User:Dmcdevit has been on a rampage of deleting userboxes. Now I know what you're thinking ... I don't want to get involved in the userbox thing. My problem with him is that he's abusing process and being very uncivil. Two points: First, the most recent box that he deleted has survived speedy deletion before. Second, I explicitly posted notice that this template should not be deleted without warning users so that they could subst the template. Whatever you think of userboxes, Dmcdevit's behavior is disruptive. Please advise. Thank you, --M@rēino 20:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please consider before finishing Terryeo's RfA

Please read the discussions here [65] and here [66] before finishing off Terryeo's RfA. A number of us are hoping the arbitrators will vote on banning Terryeo from Scientology-related talk pages as well. Thank you. BTfromLA 17:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Doing nothing?

I take it that the various complaints made about CJCurrie's political bias, editing, deletions of sourced work of others etc., are falling on deaf ears. Given that you have a flag on your page saying that you have survived Leftist attacks it is ironic that you cannot identify his activities!Lightoftheworld 09:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Minority, even totalitarian, political viewpoints can legitimately be expressed on Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 11:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Recusal request

Hello Fred. I have requested that you recuse yourself from Phil Sandifer's RfAr, on the grounds of your specific, expressed bias for his position and against the other editors in his RfAr (as posted on the Wiki-en mailing list in response to his original post). Please accept this in the way it is requested... with respect. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fred. I refer to this case: [67] The bias I referred to was not regarding policy, but rather your post to the wiki-en mailing list in response to Phil's. [68].

In the post, which was not about policy, but about a specifc group of editors, you responded to Phil's post and agreed that the subject matter of the article was akin to the issues faced on 'LaRouche'-articles, called the editors of the article a 'POV Bunch' who are 'organized' and 'intimidating', and basically threw your hat in Phil's ring. If it were about policy, I'd leave it be - but this is not, it's about the specifics of Phil's position, and your having been on the record backing his POV 100% (to the point of calling the editors a 'POV Bunch'. It's not meant as a slight, but I have a real concern that you have, in fact, already declared your opinion on the matter. Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: I responded on my talk page - and thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Recusal request 2

I ask that you recuse yourself from the Phil Sandifer case on the basis that you have expressed bias. Kevin Baas^talk 12:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Your view please

As a past member of the Western Goals Institute I am disturbed by the clear attempts to denigrate the organisation. Doubtless you are busy but you may care to llok at some of the edits, reversions, and the talk page. Regards. Sussexman 20:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Western Goals Institute

Hello,

My intent with this edit was to distinguish the WGI's stated purpose (anti-Communism) from what it became most notorious for (ie., anti-immigration). Most reports of the WGI in the mainstream media highlighted its views on race and immigration, not its views of communism.

The obvious style error was corrected in a subsequent edit. The proper wording should have been: "Its stated intent was anti-communism, although it was best known for its opposition to non-white immigration into Europe and Britain." CJCurrie 00:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response on my Talk Page, Mr.Bauder. I have responded there. Many have already told Mr.Currie that the WGI was not "notorious" for its position on immigration. In fact it did not even publish a Viewpoint or Policy Paper on the subject. But as most Polls tell us that over 80% of immigrants consistantly vote Labour, the WGI was naturally opposed to keeping socialist voters out of the country. It was also concerned about the country's ancient National Identity, but this view remains fairly general across the political spectrum here and is not unique to WGI at all. It is obvious that Mr.Currie cannot grasp that there is an army of feeling in the UK opposed to immigration, and he somehow sees this as extremist. It isn't. Not everyone who feels like this votes for the BNP! Sussexman 13:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The book looks most interesting. Thank you. I shall try and obtain a copy. I see some pictures have appeared. Sussexman 12:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

What am I missing ?

Hi Fred,

Maybe you can help.

This edit [69] reverts my edit.

I do not which to revert it but it seems that is the only option available. I provided a source, clarfied it when asked and this is after posting sources about the new book in talk page for over 3 weeks.

Are there any wikipedia policies against a user that reverts edits of a user on probation (knowing that the user under probation can not "risk" to participate in this revert game)

I must add that this is not an isolated incident and that over all I see more and more bulliing by editors lately, it is mostly focused on 3 article Nakba day, [Hamas]] and the article about Husseini.

Thanks, Zeq 17:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fred,

Other sources does say that so (about Pal help) so I can restore these sources. (all quoting the same academic source)

The problem (that I thought your help for) is the behaviour issue. A repeated pattern of using an edit war tactics in hope that I can not participate. I have warned in my ArbCom that taking un even steps will result in such behaviour and indeed that is what we got. My question is how can the rules be enforced equally ?

Thank you. Zeq 04:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

PS lead paragrpah should nclude the most important aspect of the article so i think him beng described as the lead antisemite among palestinians need to be there. The problem is that while I can discuss this with you and reach agreement (one way or another) with Ian there is no discussion going on. Instead of discussion he just makes unilaterl edits. Zeq 04:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian pattern of reverts continue

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nakba_Day&diff=53837644&oldid=53748436

Fred, btw, have you looked at this rediculus edit above "intervention" instead of "invasion". This is what Slim had to say about this edit (when it was done for the 5th time before):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANakba_Day&diff=52702392&oldid=52701783

I am tired of this pattern of edit wars and I think ArbCom should have handled Ian when it had the opportunity to do so.

Zeq 10:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your content advice

Fred, thanks for your help about content. There is still the issue of behaviour that need to be handled. I wonder if there is any mechanism for genearting more respect and cooperation. (maybe some kind of warnning by ArbCom) There is constantly a group of pro-Islamic editors who engage in a pattern of reverts / edit wars (Ian is one such example) that repeats in many articles (Hamas is one such example that comes to mind) . Thank You. Zeq 13:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Black on white

Fred, Finaly Ian choose to use talk (although he continue to revert and edit war) but now he quote a source and claim the source does not mention the Mufti, later he changed it claiming that the source only mention meeting of mufti with Eichman but not a description of the mufti as antisemite.

• The problem:

The source does make these claims. It is written there black on white .

• What can I do next if a person make a claim after claim that deny what each of us can simply read in the quoted source ?

Zeq 09:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you place this vote?

Er, what exactly is this? Chicanery? Or is it your IP? Bishonen | talk 16:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC).

removal of sourced content and edit waring

Fred,

As I have pointed out few times: I am at a los what to do here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amin_al-Husayni&diff=54172883&oldid=53857236

Thanks, Zeq 11:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

PS after reading Ian's explnation to his revert (such the ridiculus argument that an article that talks about Huseeieni antisemitism does not (so claim Ian) mention the Mufti at all) I have concluded that the only option is to revert him. If a person does not bother to read the sources (placed first on talk, later moved to the article itself) I don't see any reason why not to do the normal edit which is to use what the sources say (acdemic sources in this case) and enter it into the article. Zeq 11:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Black on white

Fred, Finaly Ian choose to use talk (although he continue to revert and edit war) but now he quote a source and claim the source does not mention the Mufti, later he changed it claiming that the source only mention meeting of mufti with Eichman but not a description of the mufti as antisemite.

• The problem:

The source does make these claims. It is written there black on white .

• What can I do next if a person make a claim after claim that deny what each of us can simply read in the quoted source ?

Zeq 09:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Fred - I'll explain the situation to you as Zeq still doesn't understand. He is trying to add four sources to the Amin al-Husayni article. These are the four articles and the problems I see with them:

• Nazis planned Holocaust in Palestine: historians - This article reports on a book published in German by Mallmann and Cueppers and claims that "Al-Husseini had met several times with Adolf Eichmann, Adolf Hitler's chief architect of the Holocaust, to settle details of the slaughter." This claim isn't explcitly sourced to the book and other reports of the same study don't mention it:
• Nazis planned to kill Palestine Jews - This report in the Washington Times claims only that "They said that Sheik al-Husseini held several meetings with Adolf Eichmann, the man who organized the logistics of the Holocaust for the Nazis." This is a claim that has been made many times before and might well be true, though others say that Husseini met Eichmann only once, at a social gathering. Eichmann himself said at his trial that he didn't meet Husseini. However, the point is that this report on the German book does not claim that it includes new evidence on a role for Husseini in planning "details of the slaughter". If the book does indeed make that claim then it's a major historical discovery and should be included in the article in due course. I'm not clear from the news reports that this is the claim being made and given the lack of coverage of what would be a major story I am skeptical. Unfortunately I don't read German. However, I have asked Professor Mallmann to let me know if there is a summary of his findings in English.
• Nazis ‘shipped arms to Palestinians’ - I've pointed out to Zeq many times now that this article is not about the German study and doesn't mention Husseini at all.
• Nazis planned Holocaust for Palestine: historians - I've also pointed out to Zeq that although this article refers to the German study it doesn't mention Husseini.

I hope this is a bit clearer than Zeq's summary. --Ian Pitchford 09:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian just proves my point by delibertly avoid a simple reading of the sources he himself is using,

The sources say:

""The grand mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was the most important collaborator with the Nazis on the Arab side and an uncompromising anti-Semite" they said. "He showed what a decisive role hatred of Jews played in the project to promote German-Arab understanding." They said that Sheik al-Husseini held several meetings with Adolf Eichmann, the man who organized the logistics of the Holocaust for the Nazis.

.

There is more in several more sources, all saying more or less the same but ian prefer to ignore them all and edit war. Zeq 10:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• The pattern of removal of sourced info continue. Every word in this is properly sourced and Ian refused the request on the talk page to refer this issue to mediation instead he choose this: [70] Zeq 17:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Alithien

Hello. I would like to report this source : [71]. The author is an academician. The article is published and the paragraph about Mufti's anti-semitisme is very explicit with quotes justifying the anti-semitism and referring to differents sources. Alithien 23:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole/Proposed decision

Hello! Last month, I requested at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole/Proposed decision that Jdforrester, the Epopt or you please explain what dispute you believed I was engaged in with Netoholic when I blocked him. I received no response, so I assume that my messages were overlooked. On 15 May, I noticed that Jdforrester was actively replying to other posts on the page, so I reiterated my request on his talk page. The discussion that followed has been very interesting, and I believe that it's revealed some misconceptions regarding the series of events. I attempted to provide all of the pertinent information in the beginning, but it appears as though I previously failed to adequately convey some important details that now have been brought to light.

If/when you have time, I humbly request that you read the discussions from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole/Proposed decision and once again review the case. Thanks very much. —David Levy 03:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Fred, Sources are clear black on white

Fred,

I don't know what can be done when editors just misrepresent the clear info in sources and keep deleting well sourced info. Zeq 19:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Alithien about all this

Hello. I would like to report this source : [72]. The author is an academician. The article is published and the paragraph about Mufti's anti-semitisme is very explicit with quotes justifying the anti-semitism and referring to differents sources. This is just the 5th or 6th references given by "real" scholars or historians where they claim Mufti was antisemite or wanted to set up a kind of final solution in middle east. Alithien 23:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Fred, Are you able to help in this issue (i.e. address Ian's behaviour problem) or am I wasting my time ? Zeq 17:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeq 17:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

71.131.255.2 aka User:Jerry Jones aka User:JJstroker

Sorry Fred, I'm not going to accomodate his obssession with Jew identifying, claiming Jews are commies, and whitewashing Nazis. Here are some classic edits, whitewashing Nazis and blaming the commie Jews: [73] [74] Here's another "Jews are commies" edit: [75] Note, the source he is using actually says the Jews and communists are separate groups: J. Edgar Hoover said the Front was planning to murder Jews, communists and “a dozen Congressmen. Here are a sample of his edits as Jerry Jones: [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] Here are some edits as User:JJstroker: [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] etc. As I said above, I'm not going to accomodate his obsession with Jew identifying, claiming Jews are commies, and whitewashing Nazis and other racists. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the other problem with this edit was that it was a copyvio from this website - he's just copied the notorious Kevin B. MacDonald, and it's not the first time he has done so, using the same source; [105] Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Not good. Fred Bauder 21:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've found other instances of plagiarism, and other bad behavior, which I'll post on AN/I shortly. -Will Beback 00:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jerry Jones/JJstroker. -Will Beback 10:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Xino

Fred, please consider unblocking Xino. Whether he should have an ArbCom case is a valid issue, but the block was clearly inappropriate. It is very unlikely that what he was saying was serious. On his user page, he expresses much negative opinion about vandalism, and as far as I know he hasn't vandalized anything. He may have done something wrong in the course of his editing, but the guy's not a vandal and he deserves fair treatment, not an indefinite block based on a probable misinterpretation of one comment. Everyking 05:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Your failure to respond to this is disappointing, Fred. If you are going to block someone indefinitely, you need to be responsible about it. Everyking 08:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Tnx

Tnx for your offer to help. This is a recuring problem in many articles. My biggest concern is that the talk page have lost all meaning. All that matter are the edits since there was never even a single issue that Ian was willing to listen or accept compromise by negoatiation on talk page. tnx. Zeq 05:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

About the book

I agree with you about the obvious solution. Therefor I am making an effort to get the book and have it reviwed by a German speaker.

However, and this is a big however: I was following every concivable and reasonable method according to WP:V and WP:RS and the answer i got was revert and edit war. This is not an isolated incident. This is not even Ian alone who does that - Lately I have seen many people (mostly from the pro-palestinian pro-Islamic side) behave this way. As I have said many times : Wikipedia policies such as NPOV are not being followed. Here is a nother example, of an issue that was discussed in talk, a solution was proposed by slim and when I implemented this solution (with minor modifications) the answer is a revert: [106].

Zeq 13:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia and monotheism

Fred,

While many people look at Judaism as advanced because it brought monotheism to the world I happend to think differently. Monothesitic religion is to be blamed in much of the world problem as it made the notion that only one truth can exist.

In Wikipedia, the NPOV policy is exactly the opposite of what monothesim is. It seems to me that with increased religious motovated debates in wikipedia more emphasis (and perhaps workshops) on what is NPOV should be held.

Have you though of running some automatic test (few questions about NPOV) before allwoing a person to edit controversial articles ?

Zeq 13:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Mallmann and Cueppers

I agree Fred. The work is potentially very significant, but on the other hand it could contain nothing new at all. I'll let you know if I hear from Mallmann. --Ian Pitchford 18:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Judging from this press release I've just located it could indeed be a significant new finding. --Ian Pitchford 21:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Corrie

Hi Fred,

[107] (i.e. my additions that arnip delted) was discussed extensivly on the talk page here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rachel_Corrie#question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Proposal_-_NPOV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Or_this_one

The edit attempts to colate the known facts about the area and later the disputed ones. No where it is argued that Corrie was personaly involved in armed smuggling, however, the area is known to be an area where the IDF conducted anti smugling operations.

Personally the one issue that troubles me the most is that IDF is supposed to have a guide outside the D-9 directing the driver (helping him to overcome the limited visibality). This is standard procedure in any D-9 work. The IDF claim that that day every time a guide was stepping outside an armed vehicle snipers shot at him. This is why (they claim) the D-9 was working without a guide and that lead to the tragic results. I find this hard to accept. Zeq 03:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't acusations of tendentious editing take a de-facto side on underlying content disputes?

How do you distinguish between NPOV research and POV-pushing without, in effect, ruling on content disputes? I see this come up time and time again in arbitration cases. Often you take the lead in such accusations of bias pushing, tendentiousness, or whatever, and the other arbitrators line up behind you; I don't recall this kind of thing ever being challenged.

When you lack the content expertise to decide between conflicting sources, how do you draw the line?

I don't want to ask this logged in, because, well, this whole business intimidates me. Please answer here as I get random IPs so messages on this IP's talk page won't be seen. 71.132.142.132 07:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What I look for is either removal of well-sourced information that contradicts a point of view or insertion of poorly sourced material which supports it. Very few subjects are so complicated or subtle that you cannot determine if one, both or all parties are trying to make a point rather than trying to present the full spectrum of views regarding a matter. As to taking sides, I am usually on both sides, a typical gemini. Fred Bauder 10:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Fred, I appologize for using your talk page for this, but it seems the only place. to 71.132.142.132 - you seem to be from ynet. please e-mail me. get a user ID, get an e-mail address 9anywhere yahoo gmail etc) and you can e-mail me. nothing to be concerned about. in fact using an IP edit is less anonymous than a user ID. Al Tira. Shalom. Zeq 07:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

mediation rejected, edit war continued

[108]

[109]

Do you understand why I think with some people talk pages is a waste of time. This was the same in the articles that were in my ArbCom case. I tried reason but it does not make any difference.

This time I stopping short of participating in this edit war.

If I judge on what occured in the two articles that ArbCom banned me from, this article also will remain as Ian wants it. The two articles in my arbCom case are horendsly POV (pro Palestinian) the Husseeni article is not POV but just lacking in key information about the person.

The bottom line conculsion is that violation of many Wikipedia policies is fine as long you do it against Israel. Zeq 18:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is that Zeq is trying to change an introduction that was only recently mediated at his request to see if he can get away with it. --Ian Pitchford 18:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter that For the 2nd time [110] I will point out that Ian is removing sourced info and reverting/edit warring ? my comments about content are in the article talk page. ( total waste of time )Zeq 18:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Making a point ?

Fred,

with your premission can I demonstrate something ?

Imagine I would copy all these sections from the talk page:

25 AFP report 26 DPA Report 27 answer to Ian 27.1 Answer to Cybe (in case you missed the sources above) 28 Husseini was a Nazi war criminal and died in exile because of it 29 Problems with Zeq's changes to the introduction 30 New information 31 Recent edit by Ian. 32 Ian is engaged in "Original Research" 33 translation

(these are the section heading, the actuall words are 100s times more)

All this discussion (which you have now seen part of the new info it is about) has resulted in zero change to the article.

So I ask you again:

Why is there a talk page ? Is it just to allow Ian to edit war and get the article the way he wants it or there is actually some purpose to the talk page ?

My point is of course there is but some how in this issue it does not help to have a talk page. I truely wonder why ?

Zeq 20:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Rgulerdem

Would you please review User:Essjays checkuser, since I trust Regulerdem not to be a liar. Regulerdem and his alleged sock-puppets seem to be working at the same university, therefore it is very likely they are using the same proxy/NAT router. OTOH Regulerdem seems to be using more than one IP-address, therefore I wonder whether all his IP-addresses have been used by Mokotok and Light&Truth at the same times. Raphael1 11:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. Raphael1 12:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Help please

I am truly sorry to bother you further, but I feel that after reviewing the comments of CJ Currie and the reverts he has made to my edits on Western Goals (UK) that I would like to make a formal complaint. But I have not the faintest idea of how to go about that. Could you possibly point me in the right direction? I simply loathe disputes but I feel he goes too far. Sussexman 09:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Long term memory

Some people sure have it: [111] Zeq 18:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

In case the joke is not clear it took Heptor 3 months to close a parentasis.... Zeq 18:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Blah

Hi, why did you just revert my edits made in the workshop?...

"Enforcement by block Leyasu 2) Should Leyasu violate his revert parole he may be locked for up to a year. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deathrocker#Log_of_blocks_and_bans."

Is what you reverted it back too.. why would Leyasu's blocks be recorded in my log of blocks instead of his own already existing one? - Deathrocker 23:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Deathrocker arbitration

A stiffer revert parole, like the one you've suggested, sounds good to me. I'd also like some measure to be taken that penalizes them for following each other around / getting in fights. Deathrocker posted the "truce" on May 9, but Leyasu was blocked two days later and has been blocked ever since, so we haven't really had a chance to see if their interactions have gotten better or not. A further clarification to them on what vandalism is/isn't would probably also be good. I would like the arbcom to go ahead and vote on the findings of fact though, since Leyasu has been asking me and the ArbCom about the findings of fact in his previous case (there weren't as many as I would have liked there, either). --Idont Havaname (Talk) 15:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What is going on ?

Other than blunt mis use of admin power by Homey can you explain why he justify bloking me forever ? Zeq. 85.65.56.28 09:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem

The problem dear Fred is that you have no bothered to check if indeed I disrupted anything.

In fact I was discussing on talk here [112] I created a snadbox (here : [113] and it was homey himself who was banned for 3RR in this article (here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Homeontherange_reported_by_User:PinchasC and here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Homeontherange_reported_by_User:Pecher while saying that his 5 reverts are justified because my edit and Jayjg edit were "vandalism" (all reviwing editors agree this was a content dispute Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Zeq

Maybe the best advice is what Homey got from another admin: To stay off the page for 24 hours and cool down.

Surly you can see that I a m still not editing the Huseeieni page waiting on your advice how to deal with the growing lack of tolorence by anti-semitic and anti-israeli editors. (BTW, I am the last one to say that critism of Israel is antisemitism - of course the action of Israel should be critisized - but what goes on on wkipedia latly is really getting this place a bad name as a hotbad of antisemitism.) Zeq 12:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

PS I am more proud today about being a jew: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003023980_doctor28.html Zeq 12:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The question I posed on the Admin page was of vandalism. The question now is of tendentious editing which would be a violation of Zeq's parole.

Zeq is misrepresenting the response to his editing. In fact, some editors have objected. For instance on Talk:Israeli apartheid (phrase) User:Bhouston said:

Zeq: you are acting very aggressively. The IP restored a lot of material that did seem like it was deleted arbitrarily with a POV-intent -- especially since the detailed criticism section wasn't also deleted.--Ben Houston 20:05, 29 May 2006(UTC)[114]

Homey 22:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That is called "selective quoting" as this POV is just one out of many by many other editors. If Homey wants to understand the reasnableness of my edit he should look not far from the article talk page (instead he choose to violate 3RR 5 times and got blocked) and also the many users who now voting to delete not just this infalmatory section but the rest of the article as well. Zeq 05:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

PS, Homey first accuastion of me (and Jayjg) in vandalsim was laughed at by all reviwing admins who told him this is a content dispute. The problem is that my "probation" has given him a way to turn 2 edits (that is all) I made into a "violation".....In the process he had abused his admin power twice at least. Zeq 05:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Banning/blocking Zeq

According to [[115]]

Enforcement by block

1) Enforcement of bans imposed under the remedies in this matter may be by brief block, up to a week in the case of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq#Log of blocks and bans.

passed 10 to 0 at 09:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I have posted to the page above asking for an opinion from ArbComm members on whether a) Zeq has violated his parole and b) what the penalty should be. It is my opinion that he clearly has violated his parole and should ba banned from the article and blocked as per above for a period but since I have been accused of being in a conflict of interest I am asking for an opinion from ArbComm members.Homey 22:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I thinki a review of Homey personal vandeta on me is indeed an issue for arbCom. I was acting very reasnably with accordance with policy while Homey as violated almost any policy on the book. I would encourge ArbCom to handle any issue raised by the creation of the article in question. Zeq 05:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The Problem - Take 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIsraeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29&diff=56085333&oldid=56084831

"misinterpreted it ...Most likely the usual conflation of ban and block"

Dear Fred,

In your answer to me you indicated that Homey may have confused your suggestion to consider a ban from and article with a block from wikipedia.

It is hard for me to understand how it is so easy to confuse such two different issues. In fact, I just noticed that Homey sent me an e-mail (prior to blocking me) in which he clearly understand the difference between the two:

Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 00:55:17 GMT To: "Zeq" <...> Subject: Wikipedia e-mail From: "Homeontherange" <...> Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert

"Zeq banned from articles he has disrupted and placed on Probation 1) Zeq is banned indefinitely from 1948 Arab-Israeli War and Palestinian exodus, and is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. All bans and the reasons for them to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 10 to 0 at 09:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)"

Zeq, your edits to "Israeli apartheid (phrase)" constitute tendentious editing. I was unaware of the ArbComm decision above when I reported you on the Incidents page. I suspect that given the probation you are on you can be banned from wikipedia, or at least from the Israeli apartheid article and articles related to it on the basis of your edits to that article.

Homey

Fred, I hope you follow this issue, in which Homey has blocked me while himself being under blocked from editing (5th edit of 3RR violation), made noumerous false accuastions (Aginst Jayjg, Humus, me and other editors) and have most likley used sockppupet to overcome the block he was under (the sockppupet edited just few minutes after Homey made the block and it is unlikley that any other Admin would have used an anon IP edit to place the block notice on my user page) - not to mention his constant edit-war (45 edits), POV pushing and more policy violations. Zeq 09:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Some great sources are used in wkipedia articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_exodus&curid=74642&diff=56065619&oldid=55805722

Zeq 11:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem (another one)

Is that no one is able to get Nakba to be NPOV (which was one the goals of my arbitration case and actually promised by arbitors) and no opne is making sure that sources such as "palestinieremberded" and in a different article "global exchange" are used in accordance with WP:RS.

Now don't get me wrong, I love what Global exchange do. When lived in San Fran I was active in Media benjamin's bit for Senate on behalf of the green party but my appriciation does not make them a relaible source as far as Israel they have blind themself. It is sad that an article such as this: Israeli_apartheid_(phrase) is actually a copy of this: http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/mideast/palestine/apartheid.html

I ask again: Do you care what Wikipedia has become because no one is combating the non-NPOV propeganda here ?

Zeq 12:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please explain

why you think there are grounds to ban me. I was not the one violating 3RR. In fact I have almost did not edit the article at all.

BTW, I would like this issue to be reviewed by all mebers of ArbCom. It is very critical to see what the mebers of Wikipedia ArbCom think about this article. Zeq 13:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: My edit to this article were removal of info which (according to the guidelines set im previous arbitration case) do not meet WP:RS. If I can not now delete them will you do it ?

Zeq 13:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you voted already ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29

and have you contributed to this page which was set uop to avoid edit war and disruption:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29/sandbox

Zeq 13:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So I wrote "false analogy" - so what ????

Fred,

If you went as far as using a word here or a word there you know this argument does not hold water.

My behaviour is what counts

I behaved examplary and as soon as the conflict turned into mild edit war I stopped editing open a snad box. Before that i participated in talk with no avail.

Wikipedia Moto is "Be bold" - I was. But my behaviour was reasoanble (given the subject and the amount of disruption homey caused)

Suggest you reconsider. I can not think of a better case. Zeq 13:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

off wikipedia note

I am glad hamas won. this makes things clear. I actually hope Hamas will be made to negoatiate and that israel will be made to negotiate with hamas.

You see when the left makes peace with PLO there is always the Israeli right and the Hamas who stay out of the process and say: this is wrong. Now they will become involved. thats better (IMHO) Zeq 13:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Airforce Academy Sexual Assault Article

Use of the rollback is fine. I just thought both of those sentences were a bit bizzare. In all fairness, I think it would be better to just put in a citation needed notice at the end of the sentence. You said you have evidence that the number of rapes/attempted rapes is not unusual, and I believe you. So, whenever you get the chance, if you could just find one or more sources and put them in that would be great. If the information is hard to find or explain on the internet, you could tell me what specific studies you are looking for and I could assist you in finding them. In the meantime, I've added a citation needed notice. Thank you for your politeness and general consideration. --Irongaard 14:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Disrupting Wikipedia

Fred,

there is a consenrated effoprt to disrupt wikipedia with the use of the word Aparthide. [116].

Maybe it is time ArbCom could handle this, a clear violation of WP:Point - done out of POV pushing motives ? Zeq 16:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

and he vandelize other people's edit in the process (he is an Admin to remind you)...:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FIsraeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29&diff=56062869&oldid=56059330

Zeq 16:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandal at work

It would appear from what I have seen that you seem to be a person to complain to. Gregory Lauder-Frost's article was badly vandalised by a new User:Edchilvers. Following a trawl of Google I have discovered that he is an individual who is having some massive argument with Michael Keith Smith of the Conservative Democratic Alliance and so he has vandalised Smith's page and seriously attacked Lauder-Frost's page (even though GLF has probably never even heard of this fellow!). People should not be permitted to bring their personal feuds onto Wikipedia. Can you help/investigate? 86.137.204.101 09:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC).

• I have posted an opinion on this dispute. Sussexman 12:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hope someone is going to keep an eye on this crackpot Chilvers.81.131.114.186 16:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

--Bhadani 13:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS

Now, after using the biased globalexchange Homey moved to get material from sites with Neo Nazi flavor : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29&curid=5329520&diff=56381670&oldid=56380146 . I am sure Jimbo must be very proud in what his encyclopedia has become. He worked so hard to remove the neo-Nazis from here but they come via the backdoor.

At what Point will put an end to Homey disrupption of wkipedia to make his WP:Point about israel ? I am not editing the article but maybe you who know what WP:RS means should edit it ? Zeq 20:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Lawrence Davidson is Professor of Middle East History at West Chester University ie he's an academic with an expertise on the Middle East and is therefore a "reliable source". What evidence do you have that he's a neo-nazi? Homey 20:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/11.htm http://www.monabaker.com/pMachine/more.php?id=A2024_0_1_0_M http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?ref=spence200605311107

Notice

Fred, none of the material in Homey's article is material which fits academic sources that went through 'peer review'. He base this whole article on information that found in blogs and other such sites.

ArbCom had rulled once on such case. I have quoted ArbCom rulling here : Talk:Israeli_apartheid_(phrase)#Decision_by_ArbCom. I ask that as an arbitor you will implement what ArbCom has decided and remove all the content which does not fit WP:RS from the article. Thank You. Zeq 05:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Links you placed

I had hard time understanding the links you placed on my talk page. What did you want to achive ? why did you place them. There is nothing in them which deny that the nmaterial Homey used did not come from sites with neo nazi ties.

Clearly, it is an issue of WP:RS and I expect you to uphold your own rullings. It is a much more clear case than were the questionable sources in Nakba or the Myth and facts book which you denied in [1948 war]]. Clearly now there are new sources which confirm the Mufti Nazi and genocidal intentions but I avoid editing for now.

In any case the link include this : "similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa" and it lists them.

Is it your contention that israel is engage in such partice ?

If so you should write a paper on get it published.

Since no published source has publish such nonsense I demand again that in your role as arbitor you will remove such material which does not confirm to WP:RS from Wikipedia article. Clearly you can see how much Homey's action have disrpted wikipedia and will continue to disrupt as long as the material (orginated in sites with neo Nazis ties) will remain. Zeq 07:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the above post is a violation of Wikipedia:Libel. Zeq has repeated it elsewhere yet, when challenged on Talk:Israeli apartheid (phrase) he has produced much heat but has been unable to provide one piece of evidence that Mona Baker's site is a neo-nazi site or has "neo-nazi ties". Homey 15:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I wrote about the connection between those who want to boycott israel and use the term "israeli apartheid" for that and the connections to neo Nazis. This connection is well documented in talk page of the article, in fact although it is a talk page I was just quoting the primary source about these connections. Fred, this use of wikipedia for Homey's propeganda has gone too far as it is, please use your power to remove from this article any material which does not conform to WP:RS Zeq 16:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

--Bhadani 14:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Mailing list discussion

Could you post the mailing list discussion where you attacked the fundamental policies of Wikipedia? I'm interested in your belief that open criticism is tolerated. - Xed 21:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-March/001663.html

I don't see any criticism at all there. Serious or otherwise. And certainly no attack on the fundamental policies of Wikipedia. Just a description of a fork. - Xed 21:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Mike Smith

Serious vandalism on both article and Talk Page for Michael Keith Smith by anons who are almost certainly User:Edchilvers and friend who he has introduced into Wikipedia. The friend was recently successfully sued by Smith for internet libel. The notes for the case, which my adjoining chambers dealt with, cite many instance of obscene remarks. These are not pleasant people. Are you not able to trace these User IDs and block them? Sussexman 08:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC).

• See extremely nasty message on the Talk Page. Thank you for your help. Sussexman 12:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC).

Homeontherange

I am averse to entering into a slanging match but prompted by this vandal User:Edchilvers, User:Homeontherange has re-emerged to support him by nominating several biographical articles for deletion. I would be extremely grateful if you would take a moment to read my comment on Gregory Lauder-Frost's Talk Page. Sussexman 07:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

Well, Fred Bauder, it does seem Homeontherange is a law unto himself. He has slanted the Lauder-Frost article in such a drastic way that GLF appears as a dangerous right-wing lunatic. I don't know what Sussexman will say if and when he returns there but I would say that the way it has been massacred by Homeonetherange might even constitute a legal challenge. Maybe the article should just be deleted. 213.122.11.208 20:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

What a disgrace. It's clear there is no control. I have concurred with deletion. Sussexman 20:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

homeonetherange has disrpted wikipedia to a great level. He is really out of control using his admin power to push POV and soapbox. It is indeed a disgarce that such a person is even editing wikipedia. I am sure I am not the only one who noticed his deeds. Zeq 03:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ziowiki

Fred, This article you placed on my talk page is one of the most confusing and illeterate articles I have seen. Full of non sense. I "live" in wikipedia. I see what gos on here. take this forexample:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIsraeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29&diff=56942662&oldid=56907064

Best, Zeq 03:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Fred, I await your reply on this. If you think Wikipedia is pushing a ziowiki agenda we have a serious problem. Zeq 16:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Nakba day

Today is 38 years to the real disaster when israel occupied the west bank and stayed there more than the week it was needed to destroy the jordanian artilery bases that bombarded Jerusalem and Netanya. (37 years 51 weeks too much) Zeq 08:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq's probation violation

Zeq has just removed sourced material[117] - the very same offence for which he was taken before ArbComm and disciplined. Homey 15:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

reply below. I would welcome ArbCom decision about any edit homey makes. He is using wikipedia to push a political agenda and in the process used his admin tool to block those who disagree with him. Zeq 16:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

First and formost this decision by ArbCOm should guide us:

Talk:Israeli_apartheid_(phrase)#Decision_by_ArbCom. In light of this decision alsmot any edit made by homey recently in sensitive articles should be removed as it does not complay with WP:RS Zeq 17:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg new revert war at Ahmadinejad and Israel

I would like you to take a look at the removal by Jayjg of a section in the article. [118] This section was first inserted in mid April, when the speech was widely reported internationally. Jayjg removed it not only without suggesting an alternative, but did not make any mention of the fact that he had removed it in the discussion section. That major change was first discussed after two reversions by other people when I brought it up in the discussion section. I restored it to the state it had existed for six weeks pending a compromise being reached in discussion but it was reverted by a different user. I removed all quotations except one so that the section fit better with the others. Jayjg reverted that also.[119] I find this behavior offensive from anyone, especially an arbcom member. TopRank 16:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

answer

Yes I am aware of both the article and honest reporting. I removed a whole section (which is explained in talk) and therefore there was no need in the part of the sentence that delt with the response about the verbal gymnastics. I removed the section for two reasons:

1. The word "Hafrada" has nothing to do with Apartheid (many sources is hebrew about "hafrada" - none of them is about apartheide)
2. The "apartheid wall" has just finished an Afd(decision was to delete and merge[120]) . Homey was trying to push it into this article as well.

I am getting really concerned about your ignoring the numerous policy violation by homey. He violates almost any possible policy and almost any edit he makes is a violation of WP:Not. 16:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)