User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Question

I am trying to understand the proposed decision .

Is it acce[ptable or not to:

"It is unacceptable to remove relevant material from an article if its source is a scholarly work by an authority in the field."

If it is acceptable , under what conditions ? If it is not acceptable, does it mean that ANY amount of such material should never be removed ?

How does this new rule in relation to NPOV ?

These are all serious questions as I am trying to understand what are the "terms" of my probation and what excatly did I do wrong (in hope not to return it).

Thank you for clarifying, Zeq 07:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you but I still don't get it

Fred,

This is not meant as any disrespect but i am still trying to understand.

You say:

"What you did wrong is twofold, removing well sourced information and adding information from propagandistic sources. Fred Bauder 16:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)"

I am trying to understand what about the material I removed from Nakba and can such material ever be removed.

The material I removed included:

1. Propeganda material by Hanan Ashrawii ( the text about how Palestinians "were cast aside by history"

2. Quotes of B.G. and Sharet that were put in the article in an attempt to proove a theory that was claimed to be from the scholar Benny Morris (the B.G. quote were from Morris's book) But Morris himself in very specific words said the theory in nakba is not correct. So the quotes, while from a book by Morris should not have been there in the way they were presented and are unrelevant or need to be NPOV (with Morrises own words or with others who have the different POV than Ian and Zero) However, all my attempts to include Morrises own words on the subject were delted by Zero.

So this rulling leavesme mistified:

Under what conditions can a a quote froma scholraly source be completly removed from an article ?

PS

Were did you find me interducing propeganda material is beyond me - unless of course you refer to me finding sources for the claim about the Mufti. (I only found the sources, the quote from the Mufti was there prior to my edits)

Zeq 16:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe I now underrstand something

My question to you above still stand but I now understand what you may have based your descision on.

It is these words:

"2) In the article Palestinian exodus edit warring has revolved around two versions: Zeq's version which he claims is "more NPOV"] and an alternative version [21] supported by most other editors. Zeq, while continuing to edit war, comments, "It is time that this edit war will stop and a serious attempt at NPOVing this article will start. see talk". His position on the talk page is set forth at Talk:Palestinian_exodus#Making_this_article_NPOV. The main issue seems to be Zeq's deletion of the "Transfer section", see Talk:Palestinian_exodus#Section_on_the_.27Transfer_principle.27. The material is sourced in Benny Morris, Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisted (2004) ISBN 0521009677, "


I hope it is clear to you that these words are a lie. simple lie but a sophisticated one:

While the material in the "Transfer section" uses B.G. and Sharet quotes from Morris book the section actually include the exact oppostite of what Morris hmslef said on the subject and that is something that the evidence is a ccomplete msreprestantion by saying: "The material is sourced in Benny Morris" - simply not true. Only the words of B.G and Sharet are sourced. The rest of the section is not what is in this book. Zeq 16:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is the section - can you read it ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_exodus#.22Transfer_principle.22

Nothing in here is actually Morrises scholarly work (The only quotes from his book are speeches of BG and Sharet). In fact, since I do know Morris's work quite weell I can say that this section (as the citaion tags show) is almost completly OR by Zero and Ian. So is this what you base the accusation that I removed "scholraly sources" ?

Zeq 17:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Might be, I'm no expert. Fred Bauder 17:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Fred, please some serious answer. I did not delete scholarly work. Other than deleting these unrelvant quotes I also deleted a pure propeganda by Hanan Ashrawii ( her speech in which she describe the palestinians people were 'cast aside by History' - clearly not "scholarly work" so my question is simple:

Under what condition can such material (like the speeches who source is listed as Morris book) can be deleted ?

(a wider question: Does any quote from any schiolarly source can never be delted from Wikipedia ? - what are the conditions that permit removing scholarly work - for example if it is not NPOV or not relevant ?)

You can always ban me or put me on probation because the edit wars (I admited for that) but I think you should look at the sources descision as you are setting a completly new policy based on false accuastions. I really want to understand what I did wrong (and please don't give me the one liner :'removed sourcd material and added propeganda' because you know that this is not true) I am asking that so I can know what not to do next time. Please take me seriously (and If you think the decision is wrong please change it. I will not argue with a ban based on the edit war alone) Zeq 19:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

PS I hope you now realized that this claim "The material is sourced in Benny Morris, Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisted (2004) ISBN 0521009677" is false evidence. If it was true there was already a sourced cited for all those "citation needed tag" that now fill this section. Have you looked at it ? - Most of the section is against Wikipedia policy of Original Research - ArbCom should have delt with those who insterted the naterial that now can not be sourced.

Zeq 19:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] De jure and De facto Nagorno-Karabakh: your help as lawyer needed

Dear Fred,

As a professional lawyer, as well as an admin and a member of Arbitration Committee, I would like to ask for your expert opinion and informal mediation with regard to the Nagorno-Karabakh entry’s intro.

Several Armenian editors (User:Fadix, User:TigranTheGreat and User:Eupator try to remove the mentioning of fact that NK is de jure part of Azerbaijan. User:Grandmaster and I consider this as a blatant POV pushing and denying an obvious fact. This is not a standard situation when “truth lies somewhere in the middle”. I am firmly convinced that this is a deliberate attempt by a group of users to push their POV and deny something which is so obvious and so neutral.

I have just posted a summary of the facts in NK talkpage [1]. Could you please, look at it as well as have a quick glance to the discussions and provide your authoritative opinion about the issue. I very much hope you can bring a stability to this protracted messy discussion over Nagorno-Karabakh being de jure part of Azerbaijan and de facto under Armenian control. --Tabib 06:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Tabib, again, you are very badly placed as someone working with Azerbaijan autorities to accuse anyone of POV pushing in this matter. Also, I don't appreciate you to twist my views. None of the three persons you have refered(including me) have denied that Karabakh is officially recognized as part of Azerbaijan, neither refused this info to be included there. You still keep accusing and implying that we refuse to include the information that is is officially recognized as part of Azerbaijan. What I basically said was that de jure has legal connotations and that Karabakh authorities recognize themselves as de jure independent, which would rander the uses of the term de jure as a position. Also, I already provided at least two article written in French as example to show how the French world cover the issue which is different than the English world. There is hardly anyone refusing the term officialy(including you) and Wikipedia is about compromise and consider that not only those you refer have found the term de jure problematic, including two users who were even not involved with this. Fad (ix) 23:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] serious attempt to injure a decent editor by faking his i.d.

Dear Fred,

I just noticed something that makes me quite disturbed. A user named David Ingham has been editing for more than half a year. I just noticed an edit that he appeared to have made to the article on the Copenhagen Interpretation. It looked strange, so I clicked on the link and found that it led to a rather disgusting picture. I then went to his user page and to his contributions and found that he hadn't made that edit--at least not from his regular identity. Someone has created an identity that prints on screen just as his does but has + interspersed in it so that to the computer it looks like a completely different I.D.: David_R._Ingharn (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)

I don't know why Daving might have made this dual identity himself. Whoever linked the disgusting picture should be penalized. To find out what is going on, somebody will probably have to investigate how the alternative identity was set up.

It would be an irrational thing for the real David Ingham to do since nobody is likely to have clicked on that link. (The link is gone now. I just reverted it, but I was sneaky too, trying to let whoever made this mess think he has succeeded. I just noted it in the edit summary as "sp".) It is a devious and malicious thing for somebody else to do because the object was probably to get the real David Ingham in trouble.

I hope you will forward this message to whoever should have received it if you aren't the right person to ask to investigate this matter.

Thanks.

Pat P0M 09:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Weregerbil got sicced onto this vandal somehow. The vandal was doing more than I discovered at 3 a.m. this morning. Lots more. P0M 00:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talking about "removing sourced content and replacing it with Propeganda sources"

see this edit by zero:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_exodus&diff=40564693&oldid=40562639

He did not source it ?

You know why ?

because like much else of his contribution it comes from this source:

http://www.radioislam.org/historia/zionism/zionrac02.html - which is a propeganda source.


If you don't trust me check out Radio Islam.

I again suggest that you stop, look in deapth at what you are doing. The accusations about sources that were presented in evidence are false. What I removed is mostly Zero and Ian OR. Your rulling makes it impossible for anyone to remove <b any sourced content.

As Jay have said quite correctly: "Good in principle, but very easy to game; who decides what material is relevant, and who is a scholarly authority? In non-obvious cases we should try to stick to behavioural issues, they're much easier to judge. Jayjg (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC) "

I suggest you listen to Jay and take another look at the evidence: Did I removed scholarly content or Original research (dotted with quotes of BG speches which gave the source as a scholarly book)



What I did add to {Palestinian exodus]] comes from a scholarly source:

"Benny Morris, in particular, disagrees with the "Master Plan" theory. He writes:

 + My feeling is that the transfer thinking and near-consensus that emerged in the 1930s and early 1940s was not tantamount to pre-planning and did not issue in the production of a policy or master-plan of expulsion; the Yishuv and its miltary forces did not enter the 1948 War, which was initiated by the Arab side, with a policy or plan for expulsion. (Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, p. 60)  "

But this text was removed by Zero and Ian (because it does not fit their OR POV):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_exodus&diff=36692362&oldid=36688721


You are really making a mistake about sources (but not about Edit wars)

I await your reply after you looked at the edit diff above: "who removed sourced content and replaced with propeganda sources" ?

was it:

  • Just me ?
  • Just Zero ?
  • Both ?

The evidence is there to see. you just need to look.

Zeq 10:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Dear Fred, Did you look at thios quote by Benny Morris ? Do you understand why, although it is "scholraly source" it was removed by Zero from the article and replaced with Propeganda )from radio Islam web site) ?
  • This is what you accuse me of doing (but I added the scholarly source and removed other propeganda) but here is the evidence that Zero did what you accused me of doing.
  • I repeat my question: Under what conditions can "scholarly work" be deleted. Should I understand that if this is Zero deleting a POV that does not fir his own OR in the article thisis OK ?
  • Surly, you now can see that the whole nakba article is written in a non NPOV fashion and I was only trying to make it NPOV. It is time to get this article re-written or removed completly. It is a disgrace to Wikipedia to keep such propeganda on what supposed to be a respectable encyclopedia. Zeq 08:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CheckUser on possible compromised accounts

Two accounts may have been compromised—or someone is going to a lot of work just to move a few pages around.

User:Jobe6 and User:Naja Haje were both valid contributors in January. They appeared to have taken a wikibreak. This week, they have returned to vandalize Wikipedia with page moves. Both accounts were blocked indefinitely.

I am requesting CheckUser on both of these accounts. Did their IP addresses change when they began vandalizing? Do they share an IP address or range? If their IP addresses are the same, are there any other sleeper accounts that need to be watched?

Thank you for your help. —Guanaco 04:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My final good-byes

Hello Fred Bauder. I came to tell all my friends, yes, that means you, that I am leaving Wikipedia. Thank you for being so kind to me during my stay on Wikipedia. I hope to speak with you again someday. I mostly considered you a friend based on your high quality of work on vandal fighting and good attitude. And I thank you for your help with Mcfly85. Moe ε 06:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More trouble from the InghaRN perp?

Back again, sorry.

I just received 2 copies of the following message:


wiki@wikimedia.org wrote:

>> Someone (probably you, from IP address 70.31.244.115) >> requested that we send you a new Wikipedia login password for en.wikipedia.org. >> The password for user "?" is now .................. >> You should log in and change your password now.

Could it be that somebody erroneously entered Patrick0Moran thinking it was their own name? (That's a zero in the middle by the way.) Somehow I doubt it.

I think this kind of thing is another reason to make edits possible only to people who register and go through some minimal vetting procedure like mailing their system-generated passwords to the e-mail address they claim is theirs.

There was an edit from a similar IP, 70.56.26.219, just before the Copenhagen_interpretation article was vandalized, and the real David was having a mini edit war with the anon. Seems like an incredibly petty thing to go to war over. And this guy has been around Wikipedia or similar Wikis else he would not be so able to game the system. Come to think of it, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he has tried an "exploit" against the whole system.

Pat

[edit] Violation of probation

User:Ted Wilkes has again violated his probation, although he had been blocked for doing so yesterday. He is still calling me a liar. This is certainly a personal attack. He has deleted some passages concerning Nick Adams's supposed homosexuality and an external link from the Nick Adams page, although he is banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality. See [2] and [3]. See also his aggressive behavior on the Talk:Nick Adams page. This is unacceptable. Onefortyone 19:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have two things to say.

  • While I agree User:Ted Wilkes has violated his ban, Onefortyone is also violating his probation with all these dubious edits to the sexuality section of the article. I humbly suggest that both be given clear warnings to cease and desist from any sort of editing in the article for now and that neither be blocked unless it becomes necessary as a preventative step to enforce the existing ruling (which I strongly disagree with but respect in terms of process).
  • I think the RfAr should be re-opened, there is much to discuss and resolve. The last RfAr has not worked. Wyss 19:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ZAROVE

I've requested arbitration now. --Michael Snow 19:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WaterWiki

Not much water under that bridge recently. Did you know that WaterWiki doesn't have its own intro page on the Central Wikicity? Robin Patterson 05:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KDRGibby breaking parole with impunity

I wish to bring to your attention the recent activities of KDRGibby, who I'm sure you'll remember from this ArbCom case. Since the closure of his case (which resulted in him being put on parole and probation for personal attacks), Gibby has made the following comments on the talk pages of articles on my watchlist. Keep in mind that I have not covered all his contributions; many more personal attacks could exist. What I find amazing is that no admin has yet taken it upon himself to enforce the ArbCom decision and block Gibby (I believe the maximum punishment is in order for such blatant disregard not only for the community, but also for the ArbCom itself):

  • [4] "Bad bad bad electionwood!...you are making the socialist free market conflation mistake! free market limited government advocacy does not mean anarchy! Stop that fallacious assumption please."
  • [5] "the complaint is actually...stupid"
  • [6] "The neutrality complaint is stupid. [...] Nikodemos is simply on a communist hell bent anti libertarian tirade."
  • [7] "Ironically you make the same sophomoric arguement that you complain about. Free markets are only an impossibility if you don't understand what the word means."
  • [8] "I've got a word for you, its BULLSHIT. You are not allowed to do this. You guys make so much shit up all the time to get rid of stuff, its creative, but it really shows you guys are running out of intellectual steam, arguements, and freaking material."
  • [9] "You lefties are so gd amazing! ITS NOT MY POV that is expressed... The section of the article is REPORTING the views of Brink Lindsey of the CATO INSTITUTE. He has a published book which you can read!!! THIS IS NPOV. STOP ABUSING WIKI RULES TO CENSOR MATERIAL YOU DON"T LIKE!"
  • [10] "This is the problem with people like you. [...] Nothing is deleted because I reverted your vandalistic censorship like deletions."
  • Disrupting wikipedia to make a point: [11] (added "only because citing free market economists is obviously pov" in a NPOV tag).
  • [12] "There is no neutrality dispute you are simply ignorant of the meaning of NPOV and neutrality. Reporting what other people think does not violate this. Learn the rule!"
  • [13] "ANd it is, your own ignorance is no excuse however. Citing and reporting an author is not POV. Stop it. Stop the total bullshit!"
  • [14] "Nati, you are making up crap again. You are one of the worst editors here and you have a knack for deleting content you don't like for any reason you can think of."
  • Refusing to keep a NPOV tag on a disputed article: [15] "the tag is evidence once again that only left leaning views are acceptable here. Leftists hate information that contradicts their own poorly held views. The tag does not belong because the criticism section is already NPOV."
  • [16] "Niko just wants to delete Friedman because he conflates Friedman with libertarianism rather than understanding that Friedman is an economist who just so happens to scientifically prove that markets work better than any alternatives and that free markets are the best form of market economies. Thats it. He wants to delete this information because he disagrees with it. BUT REMEMBER NIKO...we are only reporting what Friedman says. But seriously, I think your scared people might start to see how rational his thoughts really are and just might start agreeing."
  • [17] "Don't bitch about cited Friedman and Hayek material you disagree with. You are starting to irritate me with your lazy deletion censorship-like methods."
  • [18] "Its the circus I refer to on my user page. Its also called BS." (referring to the actions of a number of users)
  • [19] "If you are in fact a leftist of some sort, it is very likely you would not understand or want to understand if Friedman himself explained it to you."

Collected by Nikodemos 06:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Serious

Fred,

ArbCom should explain, so that I and others understand what sources can be used and what what can not.

If I have done something (like using a source that should not have been used) I want to know what this source was and what cause you to charterize this source as source that can not be used in wkipedia. Of course such source must be presented agisnst sources used by Zero that you did not rule out (such as Radio Islam)

At the same time, if I removed something that should not have been removed (like a quote from B.G UN speech attributed to Benny Morrises book) I want to know if such quote can never be removed. Off course this must be viewd against direct quote of Benny Morris (the scholarly source) that was removed by Zero but ArbCom ignored that evidence - so when does a quote from a scholrly source can and can not be removed.

You have also never responded to my simple claim that "cherrypicking" quotes from a scholarly source book to argue for a POV (which is the exact opposit of the one mention in the book, in fact one which the book goes to great length to deny ) is IMHO not a proper way to use sources for wikipedia (and therefor i removed this Original research from the article)

Be serious, you have made a rulling that has no possible way of being understood, Jayjg told you about it but yet most arbitors voted for it. Please explain yourself so that I and others would understand. so far it is far from clear. Zeq 13:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] checkuser request

Hi, would it be possible for you to run a checkuser on Nameme (talk • contribs) and see if it matches up with deleted user Get-back-world-respect (talk • contribs)? I have reason to believe that Nameme is really GBWR avoiding a block and making controversial changes through a sock to avoid further warnings. I'm also being harassed on my talk page by the user. I'm not asking that you take any action: if there's any action to be taken I'll bring it up to arbcom or RfC or AN, or something else. But I'd like to know if they're the same person before I take any action that may make me look like a fool. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire!

[edit] Good sources

I now put back the material I earlier deleted by mistake [20]. -- Heptor talk 12:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


This muteded to an article-related discussion, so I took the liberty to put it on Talk:1948_Arab-Israeli_War#Good_Sources. Hope it is OK with you, and that you will continue to participate. -- Heptor talk 23:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on Mcfly85

Could I ask you to please run a CheckUser on the following users? Since we know 63.18. is the range of Mcfly85, we already know the IP addresses are him (but I'm listing just because they are recent).

I also have a question. If we blocked the range of Mcfly85, then why can he still edit under that IP range? Moe ε 23:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The block is working, if it is the same user, he's using a different provider. Fred Bauder 02:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there really anything we can do to keep him from intruding on Wikipedia. Moe ε 04:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/e/User_talk%7EFred_Bauder_Archive_19_092b.html"