User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Comment by Alithien

Hello. I would like to report this source : [1]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Comment by Alithien about all this

Hello. I would like to report this source : [2]. 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)

[edit] 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: [3] [4] Here's another "Jews are commies" edit: [5] 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: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] Here are some edits as User:JJstroker: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] 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; [35] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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: [36].

Zeq 13:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Corrie

Hi Fred,

[37] (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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] mediation rejected, edit war continued

[38]

[39]

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 [40] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Long term memory

Some people sure have it: [41] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [42] I created a snadbox (here : [43] 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)[44]

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)

[edit] Banning/blocking Zeq

According to [[45]]

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)

[edit] The Problem - Take 2

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

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/e/User_talk%7EFred_Bauder_Archive_24_7cbb.html"