User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 18

You made this finding:

"Removing good information, adding poor information Fred Bauder 19:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC) "

based on that finding 5 arbitors have voted.

Your finding have been questioned. You never answered.

It is totaly against any reasoable "due process" to vote while the discussion is still going on.

By now you should realize that I truly don't care if you ban me or not but let me assure you that all your mistakes will come back. I noticed you started fixing them. That's good.

Zeq 19:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes wrong article. Fred Bauder 21:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are not answering the question asked and use short snouty misleading answers. The issue is :

"What good info you claimed was removed (by me not be Heptor?) and "what "Bad info" was added (By me not by Heptor)" ?

Give an answer Fred, and look at the comments made by others after you made this wrong comment:

"Removing good information, adding poor information Fred Bauder 19:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC) "

Could Fred Bauder explains where he sees zeq and heptor removing "poor information" here ?

Here is another source [1]. How can I determine if this is good or not ? :And here is another source again for which I have the same question [2]

And again another [3]

And can someone explain why the source is not a good one because it become harder and harder to determine criteria when I read this : The source given in Farah's article is given as Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial

From Time Immemorial (book) User:ChrisC 20:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Zeq 06:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dissaprove Zeq's behaviour and his harashment. I mention this here because he just copied-pasted here some of my comments coming from elsewhere. User:ChrisC 11:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, we are on the case. Fred Bauder 13:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serious "case" indeed. But Where did you see us removing "good information" and putting "poor information" ?

Read the questions in the ArbCom page. You should provide an answer.

Zeq 19:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice the redirect either Fred Bauder 23:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which prooves my point: You never bothered to read any of the evidence presented by me. Zeq 05:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, Zeq, that's hardly a proof, is it? --

talk) 14:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

You may find my very sparely annotated timeline of my administrator actions with respect to userboxes, which I have just placed on the evidence page, informative: Tony_Sidaway's administrator actions with respect to userboxes. --Tony Sidaway 20:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rajput bans mention no period. Does that mean that they're indefinite bans? This has been asked in

[4]

You should really look at Zero editing patterns. Zeq 13:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, do you aprove of using sockpupets ?

It is clear from the comment and the events that transpired prior to this edit that this is either Zero himself (now in Norway ?) or Cybee who usualy edits from there. Do you have Checkuser ? So you can find who it was. It is not a random anon edit (afetr zero maxed the 3 reverts )

I have added ton of evidence about him. It seems that allmost all editors (and admins) in Hebrew Wikipedia (such as Almog and Gilgamesh) had enough "encounters" with him to leave English Wikipedia. Surly you understand that if you don't stop his abuse it will be someone else who will. Just a matter of time. 13:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Which mean you don't want to solve His behaviour. Fred we both know tha my editing was not really a big issue but you decided to focus on it because of your bias. The case was about two articles and you initially were afraid to touch it.

Zero is the problem. There is enough evidence (and comments by 3rd partyeditors) for you to handle it. But if you don't someone else will. This "case" does not end ehre and you should be prepared for it. Zeq 14:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Glad you are active cause you still need to check that sockppuet issue. Do you have the IP address where Zero last logon was from ? Zeq 14:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of the case and you can not ignore it:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq/Proposed_decision#Edit_warring_by_Ian_Pitchford.2C_Zero0000_and_others

Ample evidence before you about it. Act now or you become part of the problem by refusing to act. Zeq 14:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit Zeq refers to as a "sockpuppet" was mine, from a computer I normally dont use. I have no interest in using a sockpuppet. This is getting silly. --Cybbe 15:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad Cybbe admited. that is resolved.

Now Fred about thye case:

This is part of the case and you can not ignore it:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq/Proposed_decision#Edit_warring_by_Ian_Pitchford.2C_Zero0000_and_others

The evidence is infront of you. Edit wars much worse than Me. POV pushing. civility to others, use of Propeganda sources the whole works.

Zeq 15:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I let the Acharya S dispute go, they claim victory and try to harrass others into submission. If I leave, they will rewrite the arilve when it is unprotcted to suit them. SO I cant. Sry. Im n that bad relaly, but look at their ocnduct.

Its nit like Im stalkign her ( As they claim) or even obsessed. I just dislike hwo htey try to use WIkipeida as a press release for her.

ZAROVE 00:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They run everyone else off. Ned to show solidarity. even if an nedless stream fcoem after me, if they think they can run them off it does no good. I know tis a hassle, but its nessisary to ensure Wikipolicy.

ZAROVE 01:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few weeks ago you did a checkuser for me. (thanks again) I am wondering how you e-mailed me. I want to e-mail a user but don't know how. thanks in advance sir.Travb 06:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fred, I appreciate it. One last question, is there any precendent in appealing a decision made by sysop and Jimmy Wales? If so how what are the formalities of doing this? Thanks again for your response, I know you are busy. Travb 15:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again Fred, appreciate your prompt response. Best wishes. Travb 15:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, Tony and another admin explained it to me yesterday. I am sorry about this decision, but their is little that I can do.Travb 22:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, below is my response to Eliezer. I believe it is the only solution that will work.85.65.219.226 06:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However I removed the caveat tag to try to come to a compromise. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not much of a compromise when none of the blatant factual inaccuracies raised in section 23, 25, 29 and 30 of this discussion have been addressed. Anybody who does even the slightest research into most "facts" in this article will find them to be embarrassingly wrong and unfair to Messianic Judaism. Whenever somebody tries even the smallest adjustments to make this article unbiased and accurate, Eliezer rejects their changes and threatens to block them. I am more than willing to retain the services of a Conservative Jewish scholar who teaches at an accredited university. His expertise includes Messianic Judaism. Allow him to write an objective article that gives a neutral point of veiw. Then we should lock his version of the article against vandalism. Can we agree to that as a true compromise? 85.65.219.226 06:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am being harrassed by a user who uses multiple userids. They have already admitted to using User:Ariele, User:Ethanol, User:Sweeper, the defunct userids User:Paradigmbuf, User:Puffydoogle, which were blocked for misbehaviour, and various IP addresses. Ariele has acknowledged making personal attacks on me, but claims they only made a few. In fact they have made dozens.

Recently I have had some attacks, that bear all the hallmarks of this contributor, from the new userid User:Puss'nPurpleBoots, and a new raw IP address.

Yes, I have asked them to curtail their personal attacks, and be more civil -- literally dozens of times over the last year.

You are one of the users authorized to check user's IP addresses? What procedure would I undertake to get you or one of your peers to verify for me that Puss'nPurpleBoots is a sockpuppet of this other user? What kind of documentation do I need to supply? -- Geo Swan 01:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- Geo Swan 02:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two blocks you placed didn't stop Ariele's vandalism and personal attacks. I believe this edit from User:Paul Bremer is a newly created sockpuppet to get around the block. I believe this edit from 24.148.180.76 is also the work of User:Ariele.

• I just got another attack which I believe is from Ariele.
• I believe User:Cap'nKrunch is another sockpuppet Ariele uses
• There is a formal procedure, which could result in more permanent sanctions against Ariele and all her sockpuppets. Is there any value in tracing the full course of her abusive behaviour, across all her sockpuppets? Or, if I undertake the formal procedure should I confine the documentation to her most recent misbehaviour? -- Geo Swan 16:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, What do you have against Wiki users where you're now trying to bann them from editing here? Furthermore, I too firmly believe you are using Wikipedia for promotional and advertisement purposes. And it is beginning to look more and more like "self-promotional" material. Why don't you create your own personal web site instead? Young People 16:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried searching using the search tab but could not figure out a way to delete my account. Can you let me know? Shivraj Singh 02:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Us too:
  • Ariele 14:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Puss'nPurpleBoots
  • User:Ethanol
  • User:Goddess of War
  • User:Young People

• • Bye-Bye!

Thanks for the sock-checks on Jason_Gastrich (

After reviewing Geo Swan's requests and contributions here, it is definitely Geo Swan who is using Wikipedia for purposes other than those identified by Wikipedia's policies. Geo Swan's attacks on

JJstroker 10:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred,

I do not know how to edit here. I tried my best to discuss issues on Nakba but what I got was a stonewall. This article was "owned"

only my very rough ArbCom case brought enough visability to this article and the Ian+Zero (at least for a while) can not control it although I am sure they will try again.

I don't know also how can we be friends. I wish I knew how. I always assume good faith and this is why I wrote to you long ago and I wrote to Jimbo about the complete lack of NPOV in Nakba article. My proposal for new mechansims were not taken seriously although it should be clear to all that these article demonstrate complete failure of impementation of the great policy called: NPOV policy.

I used the same type of sources as Zero and Ian. In fact I at most cases used better non propeganda sources (and If I did not the mediationresults should have taekn care of this)

The facts are simple:

• On 1948 war I agred to Sean mediation results and wrote these words: "Everything that can be sourced will remained in the article and everything that can not ai gree that it will be removed" Sean could just implemneted the madiation results. Ian refused to accept that. How after such words you can "convict me" in using unverfyabilable sources is beyond me. I really don't understand.

• On Nakba I suggested to stay away for two weeks from the article and let the other fix it by "writing for th enemy POV", I explained what are the problems I see in it, suggested an outline to resolve them (similar to the one suggested bu a German editor who is very active in Geram wikipedia foundation today) after that I can not see how you can "convict me" on POV pushing or disruptive or what ever you choose to call it.

• Edit war - I agree that I took part but it takes two to Tango. There was no other way to handle the situation. I did EXACTLY as Ian and Zero did (actually Zero is by far more "pushy" than I am.

The /propsed decision, let me refraze that the imbalance in the propsed decision sends a mesage to Ian and Zero to just continue as they did before. This is the one place where you can still fix things without loosing anything. Ban Zero and Ian from the same articles you ban me. Be specific about "seeing through" their on-going POV pushing in all the artiocles about the Israeli palestinian conflict (this still continue as we speak) . You can put them on the same type of probation about such acts.

Fred, I respect you for You udnerstood the "game theory" aspect of this very well . How about creating a situation by which cooperation from both sidesis rewarded but behaviour like mine, Zero and Ian is dealt with harshly but equaly ?

I am not saying this as a friend to you. I am saying this as someone who want to help Wikipedia gt away from the messy situation it had brought itself in covering the Israeli Palestinian sistuation. If you don't trust my words contact all the admins and editors of Hebrew Wikipedia who left english Wikipedia after having intercation with Zero. Their names (just from top of my head but there are more): Mathknight, Almog. If you want to contact them I can help.

I respect your attempt for reaching out. Hope we can build on this. Zeq 15:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every article that arrive to an ArbCom case based on content dipsute will have to be put to a public vote within 60 days after the ArbCom case closes.

The issue voted upon will be: "Do you think that the article fully comply with Wikipedia NPOV policy ? "

To pass the vote, the article must get at least 75 yes votes and the ratio of yes to nay has to be greater than 3:1

Article that does not pass the vote will be removed from Wikipedia and put into a page where only registered editors can see and edit it (i.e the article not available to the general viewing public and to any mirror site who copy articles from Wikipedia) This state is called "article in progress"

To stop editors from insisting forever , refusing to compromise in an effort to prevent the article re-publication by keeping it not NPOV there will be a special short procedure:

All editors who are taking part in editing such article, will be advised that cooperation toward NPOV in this article is of paramount importance.

ArbCom will have a short process by which any editor who is accused of trying to make a

The vote (Is the article is NPOV) will be repeated within 3 month. A special message will encourage wide participation in such vote.

comment

This proposal totaly prevent the motivation for creating an non NPOV articles. Every article that is not NPOV can be removed by bring it (or some of it's editors) before ArbCom (or via other process to be identified) . At the same time any editor who will not work toward NPOV will be removed from the article.

Take Nakba for example. Imagine that this rule apply. Ian and Zero would know that even if they bring the case to ArbCom and win about one point they risk "loosing" this whole article unless they work toward NPOV. The whole article (that they care deeply about) will be removed and only returned when a large number of editors see it is NPOV-complaiant article.

By implemneting such law Wikipedia is making a strong statement: If not NPOV it does not belong here.

Also the desire to use an article in order to "Bring a user before ArbCom" (As Ian theretned me) will be greatly diminish: Both sides stand to loose unless they cooperate toward NPOV.

Zeq 17:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is becoming a place where propeganda war are waged. If you have any other "practical" method to ensure NPOV I think you should put it forward. So far it is a nice policy but has serious problems in being implemented (in such cases as the Israeli-Pal conflict and surly in other articles as well.

Wikipedia may become a victom of it's own success. If there are too many articles but only few editors who know what goes on in a specific article this does not work. I see so many editors (even ArbCom members) who fix spelling mistakes in 1000 articles per day - this is nice but maybe it would be better to foocus on one article in deapth ? Any other suggestions how to ensure NPOV ? Zeq 18:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred,

1. As a friend, what are you doing to create the "even playing field" in the case of any futute discussion/disagreement between Zero Ian and me ? Have you added more measures to the proposed descion ?

2. You wrote "You have to be intensely involved in editing an article to be able to judge it in that way" and if you are right this gave me an insight I did not have before: if what you say is true you can not understand why I edited Nakba the way I did. Th article may even look NPOV to you. I wrote you about my participations in talk (which made specific proposal to the edit war parties which were not answered) since ArbCom did not took those into account I have learned one thing from this: All the talk on "talk" i s moot cause no one takes it into account - not the other editors and not ArbCom.

I urge you, to come up with a mechanism to ensure NPOV in this article. I don't mind that this mechansim will includ all the measures now proposed but surly you can see the need for more measures rearding both sides. Equality is key. Zeq 03:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did something that none of you bothered to do:

I actually asked Time Magazine if it was okay to use the photos.

Subject: RE: AskArchivist

Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:51:30 -0500

From: [email protected] Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert

To: travb****@yahoo.com

Thanks for submitting your question to Ask the Archivist.

Fair use doctrine allows you to use a reasonable text excerpt with a link back to the entire article at time.com.

You may also use a thumbnail of our cover images, as long as you link back to a page on time.com.

Best regards,

Bonnie Kroll

Ask the Archivist

http://www.timearchives.com

To understand why all editors and admins of Hebrew Wikipedia have left English Wikipedia ? (most after edit wars with Zero and Ian) . For one example (out of many) : See the article of Jaffa for an example - where Ian and Zero pushed a palestinian propeganda web site but presented it in the article as "Jaffa official web site" Zeq 09:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, have you tried to understand why they left ? does seem odd that they all left ? Zeq 19:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the "edit" you used as proof for Heptor is the exact opposite of this edit: [5] by Ian. I think you know better it takes two to tango. Zeq 20:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No joke. This user is making a nuisance of himself/herself. The user's opposition has created this discussion external to Wikipedia [6]. I am still awaiting response from bureacrats to delete my accounts. -Ariele 02:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you read the several comments on the

Thanks for your rapid response on my talk page. With regard to the comment you originally made there, I thought I had read somewhere (can't find it now!) that user Robert I had said that he himself was not involved in any legal action nor had he himself threatened any. Is that not the case? Sussexman 18:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your response. It seems to me that one friend is supporting another here. But does that constitute "involvement"? Sussexman 19:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question then is how can we practically implement the ban on the anonymous poster(s) using those two IP address prefixes? Unless they identify themselves as Robert I or the indivdual who was the subject of the Arbcomm ruling the ruling is unenforcable for all intents and purposes and there is nothing stopping Robert I from editing as an anon. Homey 22:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have only used semiprotection with two articles,

I am leaving this message to all 10 people at Special/checkuser list. Therefore forgive me for its being impersonal. Please take a look at

"Editing by the anon you cite as justification for semi-protection seems more productive than tendentious. Fred Bauder 18:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Is Robert I banned in all circumstances for a period in time or has the ban been reduced to only when he's being tendentious?Homey 14:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in future I'll just semiprotect

Given Lauder-Frost's long involvement with the Club how od you detach him from it? Sussexman 19:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much my point - though you do not intend to, your argument supports semiprotecting the Monday Club article. Homey 03:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comments on my Talk page] concerning Onefortyone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He continues inserting text out of context to deliberately misrepresent the writing of others so as to promote his single Agenda that Elvis Presly was gay. Since the Administrators have done nothing, if Onefortyone continues, you will have to ensure that the Arbitration Committee takes action. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 18:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User: Ted Wilkes has violated his probation, as he is continuing edit warring and has removed content from the Nick Adams page which deals with Adams's supposed homosexuality. See, for instance, [7], [8], [9], [10]. Wilkes also included some additional passages in the Boze Hadleigh article which try to denigrate this author who has written on the homosexuality of celebrity stars. See [11]. The arbcom clearly said that "Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from any article regarding a celebrity regarding which there are significant rumors of homosexuality or bisexuality..." and that "Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality." See [12] and [13]. Wilkes also removed an external link to a Crime Magazine website which includes the best account of Nick Adams's life, presumably because this webpage makes mention of Adams's supposed homosexuality. See [14]. Onefortyone 03:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Fred Bauder: re your message on my Talk page:

I am not prepared to allow a "single purpose" editor to deliberately insert distortions in any Wikipedia article. In addition to his deliberate distortions, he inserted a libelous statement about a living person in the Nick Adams article that remained for months. Such tolerance contradicts Wikipedia policy and make us a laughing stock. He has also inserted his diatribe at Cary Grant, Tyrone Power and others, using the same Talk page tactics to drive away others who objected to his single-themed agenda based on sources that are in fact the "crap" you suggested. The Administrators did nothing after a notice of his breach of probation was posted on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and as you said here about Onefortyone, "If our decision was bad it may have to be corrected." As you further stated here] that "think a case would need to be made that the decision is not working. From my perspective that is obvious as all three of you are turning to me instead of to the Wikipedia administrators. My feeling is that we got a bit too subtle. It is rather hard to differentiate between what is an acceptable gossip entry and one that is simply crap." What I'm saying unequivocally, is that he is continuing the same misconduct. Frankly, as one of the top, if not THE top, quality article creators at Wikipedia, I am tired of the tolerance shown a convicted liar and frankly have to question why. I suggest you warn him for now and if he does it another time, I will present the facts to the ArbCom as you suggested. In the meantime, I will continue to edit any of his distortions and/or fabrications in accordance with Wikipedia policy as they occur. - Ted Wilkes 13:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Fred Bauder: re your 2nd message on my Talk page:

The ArbCom has a responsibility and I have followed all procedures. However, I repeat that I will not allow deliberate fabrications and distortions to be inserted by Onefortyone to the detriment of Wikipedia. If he continues then I will edit according to policy. If Onefortyone requests that the Arbitration Committee step in, that is his right. However, any attack on my integrity in editing at Wikipedia and my dealing with this entire subject matter will be given a very public forum. I strongly suggest you advise Onefortyone to refrain from his continued misconduct which misconduct includes deliberately violating the direct orders given him by his Wikipedia Mentor. - Ted Wilkes 16:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question. Could it be that the anonymous IP 24.148.51.62 is identical with Ted Wilkes, who has now been blocked from editing? It is very interesting that this IP has deleted the same paragraph Ted Wilkes had removed. See [15] and [16]. See also the list of contributions which proves that this IP repeatedly deleted edits relating to Presley's sexual relationships, as Ted Wilkes did in the past. Onefortyone 03:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My contribution history clearly shows that I have respected arbcomm's ruling, which I believe was made in good faith but was wholly mistaken as to my motives for editing the article and in its judgement as to the possibility of applying scholarly sourcing methodology to articles in the social sciences. Verifiability and reliability of sourcing is applicable, even essential to biographies, even Hollywood celebrity bios. I have repeatedly asked that you assist in resolving the failed RfAr concerning

Wyss 03:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]