User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 23

Hi Fred,

Before this [1] 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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[2]) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [3] 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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

I found a solution

[4] - 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)[reply]

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.

Please read the discussions here [5] and here [6] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Hi Fred. I refer to this case: [7] The bias I referred to was not regarding policy, but rather your post to the wiki-en mailing list in response to Phil's. [8].

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi Fred,

Maybe you can help.

This edit [9] 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

Thanks, Zeq 17:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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: [10] Zeq 17:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]