User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 17

More about Zero
Ample evidence for him to be part of the dispute, for him to be taking part in the exact type of reverts as Ian - all this was prsented as evidence. Seem like no one bother to read the evidence. Zero was named in the original arbitration case.

Huldra was reverting on behalf of Ian. Palmiro did the same reverts on Pal exodus. So if you want to have a fair process you must imvolve all parties. Unless, you will take my suggestion on focus only on process not parties. The process is what is broke here: There is no ability in Wikipedia to create abalanced article about the core narritive in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

You know, the other day my kid had a school assingnment, I suggested they use Wikipedia. so this 11 yr old answer: "Daddy, in Wikipedia  anyone  can change to waht ever he wants so I can trust it ?".

He has a point Fred, you know it, Wells know it and the whole world know it. My suggestion of a "stable version" should really be looked at to fix tough subjects such as the Israeli-pal conflict. Zeq 20:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Fred,

Equality is the issue. Sources of all knds are used in Wikipedia. I was not the one who brought the quote. As for the words "genocidal enemy" - it was covered in mediation and I have agreed that "everything that can be sources should remain but everything that can not be sourced should be removed", the words "genocidal enemy" could noy have been sourcd.

If Wikipdia will start analyzing sources, like Zero and You have started I suggest that you start by looking at various pro-palestinian quotes. I can easily find for you propeganda sources par excelance that are quoted in Wikipedia articles. So please if you want  to change  the "verifaiable sources" policy e my guest but start this with a clear and change to the policy instead of trying to argue about one guy name Perlman which I don't even know if what Zero say about him is true. If being a supporter of some cause denies tha ability to be quoted on Wikipedia you should start with Zero himself.

The fact that from all the issues in this case, you picked Zero claim (While propeganda is all over [[NAKBA}} again shows that you shoud have recuse yourself.

Zeq 04:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

PS you should see what Heptor replied to Zero allegations. Zeq 04:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

and more about Zero
I see that so far, although he was the main reason for the ArbCom case you have not added him to the case. makes me go: mmmm.... ?

In any case, all over Wikipedia, Zero pick sources which are pro-palestinian but refuse to accept sources if they do not fit his POV. In the process he is not civilized to his fellow editors: and I can bring more if you want. Zeq 07:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

141 related RfA
I would like to see this re-opened. Here are my reasons:


 * I believe 141 has violated his probation, however, I would not be happy to see him blocked for that at this time, since if anyone cared about the Nick Adams article, and arbcomm made a ruling in conformance with existing WP sourcing policy, it (and he) could be easily handled through routine consensus editing techniques and the application of standard WP policy.


 * Ted Wilkes can be abrasive and determined, to the point of violating 3rr while correcting what he thinks is vandalism and so on, but he is a tremendously productive and valuable editor. IMHO the only reason anyone has witnessed Ted Wilkes' intolerant side is because of the abuse he has had to put up with over Nick Adams and Elvis Presley.


 * The person who originally nominated/included me in the RfA (Redwolf24) later wrote me an email saying my inclusion in it was unjustified, apologized to me and requested that arbcomm remove me from the RfA (this was ignored).


 * No effort whatsoever was made by any admin to resolve this issue before accepting the RfA. I was never asked to do, or warned about, anything before the RfA was accepted, with the exception of a brief exchange between you and me which I felt was inappropriately handled by you (and very likely by me too).


 * While I respect arbcomm, I believe the ruling on this was 100% wrong. I was never trying to prevent "negative information" about Mr Adams appearing on Wikipedia and I strongly disagree with the notion that biographies cannot be edited to scholarly standards. Anyone grounded in academic methodology will tell you after a few minutes of looking into the sources provided by 141 that 141's edits are wholly unencyclopedic, unsupported, mostly fabricated and damaging to WP's credibility. Also note that more than half the article is devoted to a circuitous, poorly written discussion of "sexuality," which is terribly odd in itself. Do you really believe in that sort of standard? I don't think you do and I hope you don't.


 * The only reason 141 wasn't over-ruled by consensus long ago, like he was in Elvis Presley, is that "nobody" cares about Nick Adams.


 * Keeping me on indefinite probation is, with all due respect to you, outrageous. I have violated no WP policies. I daily protect many articles from vandalism and continue to create new content with very strong support from the other editors involved. The RfA against me and the (IMHO sadly mistaken) ruling were unjustified, pre-emptive and not at all in keeping with WP policy or its spirit of assuming good faith.


 * I'm sorry you and I have had differences in the past. I've learned a lot about Wikipedia's weaknesses over the past few months, have adapted to them because I believe in Wikipedia's mission, see its strengths and benefits and wish to help as a productive part of its community. My remarks and comments have always been in good faith, based on scholarly and encyclopedic principles. Even if you and I disagree on things from time to time, I see no reason why we can't get along cordially, cooperatively and in total conformance with WP policy.

Please re-open this RfA and work with me in helping to solve this persistant problem. One wider benefit will be that we will be able to establish more clear and scholarly editing standards for biographical articles in the social sciences, especially those of celebrities. Thanks. Wyss 23:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is, Wyss, that edit warring is still going on, with Ted Wilkes as the "leading force". You say that you believe that 141 has violated his probation and the arbcom ruling "was 100% wrong". You are still talking about "outright fabrication" (see ), although I have cited my sources. This means that you are still on Ted Wilkes's side. As for the Nick Adams article, we had a consensus some days ago. See . What do we have now? Onefortyone 01:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * More evidence that the gossip contained in your sources has been gradually fabricated over the past 38 years turned up in the death certificate but I don't want to get Fred Bauder involved in the editing details here. I've determined that I can't effectively participate in any form of consensus on that aspect of the article until arbcomm's unfortunate ruling has been re-evaluated and fixed first. I'm open to all suggestions as to how that might be accomplished. Wyss 01:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Robert I Banning
Could you please advise me, as someone independent of Robert Isherwood, how an appeal can be logged against the decisions of you and your other 'arbitrators'. I am of the opinion it is a travesty of natural justice and a victory for the left-wing trio who relentlessly attacked him. Sussexman 09:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Zero
Ample evidence was given that Zero was part of the original case and took part in edit wars over the articles in question as well as him being a party to many other edit wars (and use of non civil, even vulgar, language) when ever a source does not fit his POV. The standards for an admin should be higher, not lower. He already goy away twice from violation of 3RR in theose articles (also in evidence). If he is not added to this arbitation case there is not much point in continuing it - it seems the bias is very clear.

My request:

1. Add Zero to the case 2. Recuse yourself

Thank you. Zeq 15:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your message. When you have time, please let me have your thoughts about what we can do to fix the situation. Wyss 17:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

,, and
and have both revealed personal information about other users on Talk:Shiloh Shepherd Dog. One victim of this has been stalked at his workplace. Because no action was undertaken when the personal information was revealed, he has quit wikipedia believing this was allowed. Another victim has now raised the possibility that 70.35.67.56 is Tina M. Barber not logged in. A positive check would show a repeated behaviour of revealing personal information, which means that an indefinite block might be in order. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 10:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * User:MilesD. has added the following request on WP:AN/I: "if possible, could you please check these potential sock puppet IP addresses 70.35.67.56 (as already noted by Aecis) and 207.200.116.133 (yesterday's poster) and name "Aslan" (the "name" of the poster who revealed my personal info) to both Tina Barber and also poster "TrillHill", as I do think there is a chance one or the other, or both are using these IPs and/or names to reveal personal information, as TrillHill will sometimes place posts saying Tina Barber has asked her to post (I don't know if maybe Tina Barber was blocked during those times). I'm sorry for this obvious hassle in trying to stop this, but I don't know where else to turn and it's getting really bad. Thank you very much for helping. MilesD. 06:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)"
 * Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 12:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * has made one vandalizing edit. No checkuser results. See below for Trillhill Fred Bauder 22:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Like Tina M. Barber, two other users have revealed the first names of fellow wikipedians. They are and. I'm not sure they are Tina's socks, but I would like to clear them. So I would like a CheckUser on the following users: Tina M. Barber, Trillhill, 70.35.67.56, 207.200.116.133, SandraSS and WindsongKennels. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 21:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * uses AOL. One of the ips used by Tina M. Barber shows edits to Talk:Shiloh Shepherd Dog on Feb 3 by (2×); an edit to Talk:Shiloh Shepherd Dog on Feb 4 by ; edits to Talk:Shiloh Shepherd Dog by  and Tina M. Barber (3×); an edit on Feb 8 to Talk:Shiloh Shepherd Dog by ShenandoahShilohs; and an edit on Feb 9 to Talk:Shiloh Shepherd Dog by Tina M. Barber. Another ip shows an edit by Trillhill on Jan 31 and edits by Tina M. Barber on Feb 2 and Feb 6.


 * uses Netscape. uses a different provider from all others.


 * Trillhill uses AOL; one of the ips Trillhill uses shows edits on Feb 2 at Talk:Shiloh Shepherd Dog by (2×) and  (3x); also edits at Talk:Shiloh Shepherd Dog on Feb 3 by ShenandoahShilohs,  and Iamgateway (3×); Edits to Talk:Shiloh Shepherd Dog on Feb 6 by ShenandoahShilohs; Tina M. Barber (3×); Edit to Talk:Shiloh Shepherd Dog on Feb 7 by 152.163.100.138; edit to Talk:Shiloh Shepherd Dog on Feb 8 by ShenandoahShilohs; edit to Talk:Shiloh Shepherd Dog on Feb 11 by ShenandoahShilohs. One edit by Trillhill is this uploaded image Image:Luke.jpg, an image "owned by Tina Barber; this was uploaded at her request for use in the Shiloh Shepherd Dog Wikipedia article." See also Image:Festus.jpg an other photo taken by Tina Barber.


 * WindsongKennels uses a different provider from all others. SandraSS uses a different provider from all others. Fred Bauder 22:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Big Mistake
You are well on the way to make a big mistake. (assuming your role in Wikipedia is dear to you)

I have made this suggestion many times: Let's talk. Disputes can be be resolved assuming that al parties are wiling to talk.

I am still wiling to resolve this using Wikipedia own dispute resolution mechanism.

If this will have to be resolved differently, not aonly Wikipedia will loose creadbility but your role in this will put into question your own ability to continue in "ArbCom"

ball is in your court. I am willing to talk about the issue.

17:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Fred,

What I want to talk about is how to resolve the dispute over these two articles.

If you think these two articles are an example of how Wikpedia policies should be intepreted go ahead.

Undersatnd one thing (which I am sure is hard for you):

I don't give a dam about being baned from this article or that article. In fact I have told Heptor when this case started is that I wish you would ban me for ever from Wikipedia.

What I do care about is the implementation of Wikipedia NPOV and sources policis in these and other articles.

Nothing that you did so far (banning me and Heptor) will solve any of the problems (1948 war is still protected again even though I don't participate in it, Pal exodus is still "owned" and any attempt in making it NPOV are still failing. New edit war on the same subject erupts on article I never participted in (such as palestine)

So I made my proposal to stay away from Wikipedia for months (or for good) in exchange for  a real dispute resolution  regarding these articles. This process never took part. (mediation was ignored)

And Frankly, with the way ArbCom is deciding (under your fail leadership) why would anyone bother to follow "dsipute resolution" if he can just take itto ArbCom and you ban any Pro-israel editor ?

To be fair, start by recusing yourself from a dispute on which you have bias.

To do Wikiopedia a favor, let's start to address (in a civilized way) a method to make the Nakba article NPOV. As a mediator i think you can do a good job. Will you mediate the dispute ? (understand that the dispute remain even if I am banned from this article)

Zeq 18:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You are right
It will take time. Who can do it ?

This article require a good mediator.

Personally, I would like to  avoid  direct editing of this article. (if you know who I am you will understand)

What I would like to do is take part in mediating this dispute to come up with an NPOV article.

So... my proposal is to extended the temporaray ban to all participants and to appoint someone who can dive in and start editing this articles, mediating claims that the parties will have. You are right. It will take time. Zeq 18:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg would be prefect. In fact why not make it a trio ? Jayjg, slim and Humus sapiens ?

Zeq 19:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ian is as biased as me or more. The actual editing should be left to those who can represent ALL POV. I can not do it well, Ian can not do it, zero can not do it. Need outsiders. Jayjg in the past came up with good compromises, Hummospaiens as well. I am sure more impartial people can be found. Zeq 19:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

So, Are we progressing on the mediation ? Jayjg refused. I want to help you avoid a big mistake. Mediation is the solution, you can ban me later (there will be no need to, once this Nakba article is fixed I will leave) Zeq 06:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

well ? How are we going to resolve the content dispute ? Zeq 19:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikinfo.org message
I left a message on your talk page on Wikinfo in relation to my article here: http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Port_arthur_massacre. I'd like to know if you consider that to be okay per Wikinfo rules. Its 100% accurate, but it does contain a POV. I got banned from Wikipedia for making an article on the same content here, and both Rob Edwards (stub version) and Robert Edwards (serial killer) got deleted (and deleted from history) on Wikipedia. Not quite sure why they think they should be doing that but hey. Seems to be notable enough fellow for me. Anyway, can you check out what I wrote? As I said there, I don't want to be spending hours and hours on there if you are going to just wipe things. As I understand it, Wikinfo allows multiple points of view, as opposed to requiring a "neutral" point of view, so my article should be okay. If you think its okay, I'll add more to it, put in some links and photos and the like, and it'll look a bit better. Feel free to edit it too. And yes, I do consider Wikipedia's entry on Port Arthur massacre to be an absolute joke. Hard to imagine a more inaccurate article really. Anyway, bye. Zordrac 22:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikinfo policies differ markedly from Wikipedia policies. When I am wearing my arbitrator hat here I go by Wikipedia policies. I will respond to your account on Wikinfo. Please do not imagine that my response there applies here. Fred Bauder 22:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Fred, what has happened to wikinfo? Could not get to it for many months. What are the alternate paths? Could not get to internet-encyclopedia.org, ibiblio.org, and your Redbaud.com either!? What is going on here? Are you still alive? Hope you are! Infomillionaire 06:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Nick Adams
Getting no response over at Nick Adams, let me know when we can discuss the possibility of fixing the RfA and moving forward towards finding a way to bring the article up to encyclopedic standards according to WP policy, with 141's input if he's willing. Thanks. Wyss 22:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser on Mcfly85
Sorry to bother you again about Mcfly85 but could you re-run a CheckUser on him again to see if he has created anymore sockpuppets recently. S W D 3 1 6 talk to me 22:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Edits on Jan 19 as, edits on Jan 26 as McFly85 and as , edits on Jan 27 as and , edits on Feb 3 as Fthepostingquota and creation of , creation and edits on Feb 8 as  and creation and edits on Feb 12 as . Fred Bauder 23:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for running the CheckUser. Now could you block:



These are confirmed socks that are unblocked. S W D 3 1 6 talk to me 23:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Does the blocking of his IP range mean he will be unable to edit at all? S W D 3 1 6 talk to me 23:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, since his main IP range was in the 68.18 range, he will more than likely not be able to return. I do suspect however that he uses 2 different IP ranges, but I would not worry about it. Thanks for all your help today! I award you this Working Man's Barnstar for being absolutly amazing! S W D 3 1 6 talk to me 00:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, let's not give him any ideas, lol. Whenever the time comes, if he changes his IP range, we can run a CheckUser on it, can't we? S W D 3 1 6  talk to me 00:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

egregious vandal
See User talk:Kelly Martin.

From your posting, this would very likely be the same person. It would be good to do checkuser on the names listed in the above post before the information expires and is no longer available. The names listed are really egregious and I think we could insist that any ISP should act. Unfortunately, Kelly hasn't responded yet... can you take a look?

I have a vague notion that perhaps the Arb Com could slightly expand the nature of the judgments it issues: in addition to issuing injunctions or bans as it does now, it might occasionally publicly authorize the filing of a formal terms-of-service complaint with the ISP of a particular user or anon. This is a logical extension, because it would enhance the ability of the Arb Com to actually make its judgments stick, for instance in the case of a user who violates an Arb Com ban by coming back repeatedly with multiple sockpuppets (historically there have been a number of these). It would also be applicable to extremely persistent vandals who've never been taken to RfArb because the vandalism is clearcut.

If this was done, there would be three phases that needed to be handled: first of all, an evidence-gathering phase not too dissimilar to the evidence gathering for regular Arb Com cases, except that the intended reader would not only be the Arb Com but the ISP's abuse contact. Basically, a list of IP addresses, timestamps and diff links or log links, formatted cleanly and some preamble text, sufficient for the ISP to be able to identify their client and to understand the nature of the complaint. Second, the Arb Com (en banc or individual members) would look it over and authorize the ToS complaint to the ISP. And third, some person or persons would need to be authorized by Jimbo to officially speak in the name of Wikipedia when making a ToS complaint, and make contact and with the ISP and do the followup. We wouldn't be asking the ISP to reveal the person's identity, merely to get in touch with their client and either warn them about ToS violation or drop them as a client.

Phase one could be handled by any checkuser user (or any user at all if it's an anon IP vandal rather than a sockpuppet account vandal). It occurs to me that Kelly Martin might be ideal for any or all of the above three phases: it's a clerk-like role, she's ex-Arb Com, has checkuser, presumably Jimbo still holds her in the same confidence that he did when he first appointed her to the Arb Com; however, I'm not sure what her plans are. The phase three person could be yourself or Jimbo himself (or again, perhaps Kelly Martin).

Loss of an ISP account will probably be a surprisingly effective threat against a vandal: very often they will use their ISP account for their day-to-day routine non-vandalism Internet access, they'll have an e-mail account that will be inconvenient to lose, there may be other family members (or parents) who use the ISP and many awkward explanations to make.

It might be something to explore doing somewhat systematically in the future. I guess ISPs were not very responsive in the past, but perhaps Wikipedia's profile is higher now. At the very least, though, it's something that ought to be done with this particular vandal for this particular case and those particular usernames (sexual harassment and threats even if in poor-taste jest). -- Curps 04:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Help please on Mark Levin page
I wonder if you might stop by the Mark Levin page. Anonymous user is reverting at will to a version of the page rife with advertising links, extremely POV edits, and is deleting links that are anything less than pro-Levin propaganda. He has filled the Talk page with invective, rants, slurs, and threats. For that, he has been given 3RR and vandalism warnings, but is dismissing them. Any comments or help you could provide would be much appreciated. Eleemosynary 16:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler
I'm sorry to have to add to your work load but would you mind looking at Talk:Adolf Hitler. Yesterday, I inserted fact-based NPOV with direct quotes from impeccable academic sources on Hitler's sexuality into the article but User:Str1977 reverted it en masse and has done so three times today. Once having warned him of the three revert rule, his partner on the article Michael Dorosh then deleted it en masse again. I'm not sure of their motives, and on Str1977 admitted on his talk page : "Karl, the info you inserted into Hitler was word for word accurate." In my view, any kind of homophobia is unacceptable at Wikipedia. For additional information see the William L. Shirer references and Professor Lothar Machtan's book at The Hidden Hitler that includes major media references and comments, gay community support references, peer reviews, and external links. You can also refer to the HBO film Hidden Fuhrer: Debating the Enigma of Hitler's Sexuality. Thank you for your help. Karl Schalike 17:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Fred,

yesterday Karl did insert a fact detail into Adolf Hitler to insinuate that Hitler was a homosexual and immediately afterwards he put Hitler into a homosexual catgory. Both was reverted, the category by Michael Dorosh, the insinuation by me.

Today he returned, reinserted not only his previous edits but even a lengthy section titled "Hitler's sexuality", which he saw fit to place at the beginning of the article. I have moved this addition to the talk page for discussion, and removed it a second time from the article. I did not even revert it a 3rd time, let alone breaking 3RR.

Karl has also included this into various other articles, and has even before I opposed him today, called me a homophobe (an accusation he reiterates here) and threatened me with ArbCom.

I am posting this just so that you may hear the other side of the story too.

Cheers, Str1977 17:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This is related to the issue we've been discussing. I badly need your help and assistance on this, policy-wide. The appropriate, scholarly methodology for handling this sort of thing is well understood and easily applied. Thanks. Wyss 19:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

DA
I have expressed some concerns at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision which you may wish to take a look at. Thanks. Dyslexic agnostic 20:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Mcfly85 (cont.)
I have reason to believe Mcfly85 can still edit Wikipedia: can still edit and he was one of the 3 confirmed unblocked sockpuppets. I'm thinking he might also be using the IP range 63.0.0.0/10. We already blocked 63.0.0.0/16. I'm not sure if it's him or not or if 63.0.0.0/10 is being used by anyone else. Can you check? S W D 3 1 6 talk to m  e </sup&gt; 01:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Boothy443 arbitration
I raised some questions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443/Proposed decision. Gazpacho 01:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

T-Man ban
I also want to state that I think a six-month ban of T-Man is highly excessive, and further it is beyond the jurisdiction of this body at this time. His current one-month ban should be left, after which he is of course subject to scrutiny, and I hope would not conduct further personal attacks. A six-month ban all at once is unfair. I thought this was MY arbitration (see my name in the title: Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision?) It would be procedurally unfair to ban T-man without him having the opportunity to defend himself; he didn't know he faced sanction at all in these proceedings! His comments were dedicated to showing why I should be banned or restricted. I think it is very important that this ban NOT be put in place, since T-man is entitled to make answer and defence. Dyslexic agnostic 01:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)