User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 25

The problem (another one)
Is that no one is able to get Nakba to be NPOV (which was one the goals of my arbitration case and actually promised by arbitors) and no opne is making sure that sources such as "palestinieremberded" and in a different article "global exchange" are used in accordance with WP:RS.

Now don't get me wrong, I love what Global exchange do. When lived in San Fran I was active in Media benjamin's bit for Senate on behalf of the green party but my appriciation does not make them a relaible source as far as Israel they have blind themself. It is sad that an article such as this: Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29 is actually a copy of this:  http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/mideast/palestine/apartheid.html

I ask again: Do you care what Wikipedia has become because no one is combating the non-NPOV propeganda here ?

Zeq 12:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please explain
why you think there are grounds to ban me. I was not the one violating 3RR. In fact I have almost did not edit the article at all.

BTW, I would like this issue to be reviewed by all mebers of ArbCom. It is very critical to see what the mebers of Wikipedia ArbCom think about this article. Zeq 13:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: My edit to this article were removal of info which (according to the guidelines set im previous arbitration case) do not meet WP:RS. If I can not now delete them will you do it ?

Zeq 13:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you voted already ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29

and have you contributed to this page which was set uop to avoid edit war and disruption:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29/sandbox

Zeq 13:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So I wrote "false analogy" - so what ????
Fred,

If you went as far as using a word here or a word there you know this argument does not hold water.

 My behaviour is what counts 

I behaved examplary and as soon as the conflict turned into mild edit war I stopped editing open a snad box. Before that i participated in talk with no avail.

Wikipedia Moto is "Be bold" - I was. But my behaviour was reasoanble (given the subject and the amount of disruption homey caused)

Suggest you reconsider. I can not think of a better case. Zeq 13:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

off wikipedia note
I am glad hamas won. this makes things clear. I actually hope Hamas will be made to negoatiate and that israel will be made to negotiate with hamas.

You see when the left makes peace with PLO there is always the Israeli right and the Hamas who stay out of the process and say: this is wrong. Now they will become involved. thats better (IMHO) Zeq 13:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Airforce Academy Sexual Assault Article
Use of the rollback is fine. I just thought both of those sentences were a bit bizzare. In all fairness, I think it would be better to just put in a citation needed notice at the end of the sentence. You said you have evidence that the number of rapes/attempted rapes is not unusual, and I believe you. So, whenever you get the chance, if you could just find one or more sources and put them in that would be great. If the information is hard to find or explain on the internet, you could tell me what specific studies you are looking for and I could assist you in finding them. In the meantime, I've added a citation needed notice. Thank you for your politeness and general consideration. --Irongaard 14:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Disrupting Wikipedia
Fred,

there is a consenrated effoprt to disrupt wikipedia with the use of the word Aparthide. .

Maybe it is time ArbCom could handle this, a clear violation of WP:Point - done out of POV pushing motives ? Zeq 16:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

and he vandelize other people's edit in the process (he is an Admin to remind you)...:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FIsraeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29&diff=56062869&oldid=56059330

Zeq 16:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandal at work
It would appear from what I have seen that you seem to be a person to complain to. Gregory Lauder-Frost's article was badly vandalised by a new User:Edchilvers. Following a trawl of Google I have discovered that he is an individual who is having some massive argument with Michael Keith Smith of the Conservative Democratic Alliance and so he has vandalised Smith's page and seriously attacked Lauder-Frost's page (even though GLF has probably never even heard of this fellow!). People should not be permitted to bring their personal feuds onto Wikipedia. Can you help/investigate? 86.137.204.101 09:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC).


 * I have posted an opinion on this dispute. Sussexman 12:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hope someone is going to keep an eye on this crackpot Chilvers.81.131.114.186 16:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Smile 

has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing! --Bhadani 13:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS
Now, after using the biased globalexchange Homey moved to get material from sites with Neo Nazi flavor : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29&curid=5329520&diff=56381670&oldid=56380146. I am sure Jimbo must be very proud in what his encyclopedia has become. He worked so hard to remove the neo-Nazis from here but they come via the backdoor.

At what Point will put an end to Homey disrupption of wkipedia to make his WP:Point about israel ? I am not editing the article but maybe you who know what WP:RS means should edit it ? Zeq 20:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Lawrence Davidson is Professor of Middle East History at West Chester University ie he's an academic with an expertise on the Middle East and is therefore a "reliable source". What evidence do you have that he's a neo-nazi? Homey 20:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/11.htm http://www.monabaker.com/pMachine/more.php?id=A2024_0_1_0_M http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?ref=spence200605311107

Notice
Fred, none of the material in Homey's article is material which fits academic sources that went through 'peer review'. He base this whole article on information that found in blogs and other such sites.

ArbCom had rulled once on such case. I have quoted ArbCom rulling here : Talk:Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29. I ask that as an arbitor you will implement what ArbCom has decided and remove all the content which does not fit WP:RS from the article. Thank You. Zeq 05:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Links you placed
I had hard time understanding the links you placed on my talk page. What did you want to achive ? why did you place them. There is nothing in them which deny that the nmaterial Homey used did not come from sites with neo nazi ties.

Clearly, it is an issue of WP:RS and I expect you to uphold your own rullings. It is a much more clear case than were the questionable sources in Nakba or the Myth and facts book which you denied in [1948 war]]. Clearly now there are new sources which confirm the Mufti Nazi and genocidal intentions but I avoid editing for now.

In any case the link include this : "similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa" and it lists them.

Is it your contention that israel is engage in such partice ?

If so you should write a paper on get it published.

Since no published source has publish such nonsense I demand again that in your role as arbitor you will remove such material which does not confirm to WP:RS from Wikipedia article. Clearly you can see how much Homey's action have disrpted wikipedia and will continue to disrupt as long as the material (orginated in sites with neo Nazis ties) will remain. Zeq 07:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the above post is a violation of Libel. Zeq has repeated it elsewhere yet, when challenged on Talk:Israeli apartheid (phrase) he has produced much heat but has been unable to provide one piece of evidence that Mona Baker's site is a neo-nazi site or has "neo-nazi ties". Homey 15:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I wrote about the connection between those who want to boycott israel and use the term "israeli apartheid" for that and the connections to neo Nazis. This connection is well documented in talk page of the article, in fact although it is a talk page I was just quoting the primary source about these connections. Fred, this use of wikipedia for Homey's propeganda has gone too far as it is, please use your power to remove from this article any material which does not conform to WP:RS Zeq 16:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Smile 

has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing! --Bhadani 14:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Mailing list discussion
Could you post the mailing list discussion where you attacked the fundamental policies of Wikipedia? I'm interested in your belief that open criticism is tolerated. - Xed 21:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-March/001663.html
 * I don't see any criticism at all there. Serious or otherwise. And certainly no attack on the fundamental policies of Wikipedia. Just a description of a fork. - Xed 21:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Mike Smith
Serious vandalism on both article and Talk Page for Michael Keith Smith by anons who are almost certainly User:Edchilvers and friend who he has introduced into Wikipedia. The friend was recently successfully sued by Smith for internet libel. The notes for the case, which my adjoining chambers dealt with, cite many instance of obscene remarks. These are not pleasant people. Are you not able to trace these User IDs and block them? Sussexman 08:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC).


 * See extremely nasty message on the Talk Page. Thank you for your help. Sussexman 12:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC).

HOTR
I am averse to entering into a slanging match but prompted by this vandal User:Edchilvers, User:HOTR has re-emerged to support him by nominating several biographical articles for deletion. I would be extremely grateful if you would take a moment to read my comment on Gregory Lauder-Frost's Talk Page. Sussexman 07:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

Well, Fred Bauder, it does seem HOTR is a law unto himself. He has slanted the Lauder-Frost article in such a drastic way that GLF appears as a dangerous right-wing lunatic. I don't know what Sussexman will say if and when he returns there but I would say that the way it has been massacred by HOTR might even constitute a legal challenge. Maybe the article should just be deleted. 213.122.11.208 20:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

What a disgrace. It's clear there is no control. I have concurred with deletion. Sussexman 20:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

HotR has disrpted wikipedia to a great level. He is really out of control using his admin power to push POV and soapbox. It is indeed a disgarce that such a person is even editing wikipedia. I am sure I am not the only one who noticed his deeds. Zeq 03:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting that others on Wikipedia cannot identify this User's obsessions and agenda and activities. Maybe they concur? Sussexman 12:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I may agree with his political position, but I don't agree with his editing. Fred Bauder 14:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

HOTR has attacked GLF's article since December. He constantly tried to cast GLF in the foulest light and attempted twice to get the article deleted. Now, almost single-handedly - but fully initiated by the venom of User:Edchilvers - he has resurrected matters which were buried over a decade ago for the world to click on to. Is this what Wikipedia is about? Is HOTR a good example of unbiased administration? Smearing, denigrating, and even possibly destroying rebuilt lives? Small wonder people have been making "legal threats". 86.129.79.148 17:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Quotes
Keep Until either a mediator or the arbitration committee can get this mess straightened out. As others have pointed out, this AfD is part of a much larger disagreement involving several articles.

I think that allegations of "apartheid" applied to any country other than South Africa should be discussed only in the context of broader, neutrally-titled articles about that country. However, I feel even more strongly that if the community accepts having an article specifically about allegations of apartheid in country X (other than South Africa), then it should allow the same for all other countries. We are trying to deal with issues #1 and #2 in no particular order, and one AfD at a time. It's not working. It feels like playing chess with the board broken up and the pieces in different rooms.

There are about a dozen long pages of Talk and AfD discussions for the various related articles, some of which are alleged to have been tampered with. There is a long trail of page renames and redirects, and allegations of all kinds of seriously bad wiki-behaviour. We have multi-day page protections with no end in sight, bans, blocks, and AfD discussions that end in no consensus. Desmond Tutu's name has being brought into the fray; thank God nobody's brought up Mother Teresa yet. Understanding all of this would require stretching out a very long piece of paper on the floor and drawing a detailed timeline. Mere mortals like myself don't have the combination of time and wikiwisdom to do that. Su-laine.yeo 01:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Su-laine's comment is a perfect description of how I feel about this as well. It is so confusing. I love this line, it is so true: "It feels like playing chess with the board broken up and the pieces in different rooms." That is perfect. Using (or abusing) the same analogy, I feel like I keep making moves but they don't get me anywhere because after each move, suddenly it's a different game at a different table and nobody can see what happened before. (Though, sadly, it almost always turns out that the same person is sitting across the table.) 6SJ7 02:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ziowiki
Fred, This article you placed on my talk page is one of the most confusing and illeterate articles I have seen. Full of non sense. I "live" in wikipedia. I see what gos on here. take this forexample:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIsraeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29&diff=56942662&oldid=56907064

Best, Zeq 03:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Fred, I await your reply on this. If you think Wikipedia is pushing a ziowiki agenda we have a serious problem. Zeq 16:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to hear you don't think this way. Zeq 17:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Nakba day
Today is 38 years to the real disaster when israel occupied the west bank and stayed there more than the week it was needed to destroy the jordanian artilery bases that bombarded Jerusalem and Netanya. (37 years 51 weeks too much) Zeq 08:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq's probation violation
Zeq has just removed sourced material - the very same offence for which he was taken before ArbComm and disciplined. Homey 15:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

reply below. I would welcome ArbCom decision about any edit homey makes. He is using wikipedia to push a political agenda and in the process used his admin tool to block those who disagree with him. Zeq 16:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

First and formost this decision by ArbCOm should guide us:

Talk:Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29. In light of this decision alsmot any edit made by homey recently in sensitive articles should be removed as it does not complay with WP:RS Zeq 17:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg new revert war at Ahmadinejad and Israel
I would like you to take a look at the removal by Jayjg of a section in the article.  This section was first inserted in mid April, when the speech was widely reported internationally. Jayjg removed it not only without suggesting an alternative, but did not make any mention of the fact that he had removed it in the discussion section. That major change was first discussed after two reversions by other people when I brought it up in the discussion section. I restored it to the state it had existed for six weeks pending a compromise being reached in discussion but it was reverted by a different user. I removed all quotations except one so that the section fit better with the others. Jayjg reverted that also. I find this behavior offensive from anyone, especially an arbcom member. TopRank 16:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The section in question was just a near verbatim reproduction of an uninteresting speech by Ahmadinejad; as part of a cleanup of the article I removed it and explained clearly why in my edit summary. It was subsequently moved to Wikiquote.  The removal has also been discussed at length on the Talk: page. None of that constitutes "Jayjg new revert war", and your spamming of this duplicate message on the Talk: page of every single ArbCom member is highly disruptive. Jayjg (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

answer

 * Yes I am aware of both the article and honest reporting. I removed a whole section (which is explained in talk) and therefore there was no need in the part of the sentence that delt with the response about the verbal gymnastics. I removed the section for two reasons:

I am getting really concerned about your ignoring the numerous policy violation by homey. He violates almost any possible policy and almost any edit he makes is a violation of WP:Not. 16:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The word "Hafrada" has nothing to do with Apartheid (many sources is hebrew about "hafrada" - none of them is about apartheide)
 * 2) The "apartheid wall" has just finished an Afd(decision was to delete and merge) . Homey was trying to push it into this article as well.

Zeq again
As one can see by his most recent contributions to Talk:Israeli apartheid Zeq simply has no concept of compromise, consensus or NPOV. He is disruptive and an obstacle and has no place editing any articles related to the Isreali-Palestinian conflict. Homey 06:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the above personal attack can easily be disproved by editors such as Ramallite, SlimVirgin and many others who worked with me to create NPOV articles before. This is just one more form of homey false accusations of me. (long list which i will not bother you with right now) Zeq 06:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

PS the actual argument that since I voiced my suggestion on talk page it means a violation of wkipedia NPOV policy - that argument by itself is ridiculus. This is what talk pages are for to air out our differences. Homey accusation only projects on one person here: Homey. Zeq 06:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for opinion from ArbCom
Dear Fred,

This decision by the comunity : Articles_for_deletion/Apartheid_%28disambiguation%29 seems to go in direct oposition to WP:DAB (see view by heptor and others).

In such a clear case what takes precendence The collective decision of editors or Wikipedia policy ?

Should the policy be changed ?

Thanks, Zeq 13:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Ziowiki"
Fred,

A clear pattern of banning "zionist" editors while allowing others (mostly comunists) to use wikipedia for spreading anti-israeli political propeganda which bordering antisemitism is starting to emarge. Zeq 15:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Requests_for_arbitration
Thank you for your comments on the mailing list. Since you know about the JP cartoon issue, you might be interested in my arbitration case. Raphael1 16:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the work
Hello there, mate. I just wanted to thank you for being in the ArbCom. I know that it's a thankless job and a stressful one, and I want to be sure that you know that many of us greatly appreciate the time that people like you spend to resolve our disputes and keep Wikipedia running smoothly. I've always had a great respect for your reasoned tone and hope that I can live up to the standards that Wikipedians like yourself set for the rest of us. Please continue to do the fine job you've always done, and let me know if I can ever help you in any way. Yours in gratitude, Snoutwood (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

non-wiki : A pivotal moment in ME history (in the next 60-90 days)
The roadmap was doomed for deadlock from the getgo: Demanding that the first step is "dismantling terror infrastructure" while only putting negotiation and mutual recognition in 2 nd step was jst a way to ensure deadlock.

Now the situation is changing. Abbas, (Abu-mazen) have smartly locked himself into a corner. Within 40-60 days he will have to excuse the referendum on the "prisoner initiative" (PI)

The Palestinian people, smartly also, will accept the initiative and this will put Olmert into a corner: He will be forced to enter negotiation (based on the PI) without his demands to dismantle Hamas as a first step.

This is actually a very good news to the ME since it would mean a negotiation in which Hamas is in some silent way a partner. As always some crazy guy (on either side) could do something to derail the progress. Zeq 09:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Highways/Proposed decision
You claim that my insistence on shrinking the infobox is disruption. However, I believe the opposite to be true - an infobox like the one on California State Route 33 is disruption to the layout of the article, which is what we're supposed to be here for - writing good articles. --SPUI (T - C) 15:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Michael Keith Smith
Dear Mr Bauder. I am contacting you with regard to the deletion of my biographical page. This was subject to attack by the very same people who demanded the deletion of the pages relating to my colleagues Gregory Lauder Frost and Stuart Millson, but their pages have not been deleted. Please can you advise me how to appeal against this deletion? The last time I looked at the discussion page there were more people in favour of keeping than there were for deletion.Mike Keith Smith 14:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Regarding deletion of the article on you. Are you really sure you want an article on you. Unless you are really famous such articles tend to be scewed due to the lack of balance of published information. Fred Bauder 14:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well in many ways I'm not bothered about the article. I didn't ask for it in the first place, but I'm concerned about the way it was maliciously targeted by someone known to me with a longstanding personal grudge (Chilvers) who then alerted HotR to restart his campaigning again against Lauder-Frost and now me as well. Can't the Wikipedia 'bosses' see what these people are up to? Anyway, I would say that my background is as interesting as hundreds of other minor figures on Wikipedia (porn stars etc) Mike Keith Smith 17:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Need help
I was working on an article on my own spece User:Zeq/apartheid_propeganda while someone placed it on the main name space and of course someone else jumped and put it for deletion.

The whole article is half baked - how do I undo all that they have done and return it to my own space to work on it to be ready ?

see this : User_talk:Zeq

Tnx,

Zeq 18:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Jump to it. - Xed 18:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Gregory Lauder-Frost
Since it appears that claims made in regards to the Rehabiliation of Offenders Act were exaggerated, I have attempted to add a reference to Lauder-Frost's legal problems. Could you please review the addition to Gregory Lauder-Frost, make any adjustments you think are necessary, and state an opinion on Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost? Homey 13:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC).

Nothing has been exagerated. The Act is very clear. Re-publication of material after the 10-year period is up, for no other reason than to bring it to the attention of others, is pure malice, and would harm anyone's rehabilitation under the Act and defy the spirit of the Act. It is clearly wrong. I suspect you have not heard the end of this by a long shot. Sussexman 12:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a quotation from the ROA supporting your claim. Please cite case law supporting your claim. If you are a barrister you should have this information available to you.Homey 16:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Educated intelligent people are not answerable to people such as yourself when you behave as you do and speak in the cheeky pompous arrogant manner you do. Barristers in Britain usually deal in totally separate areas. Maybe that has not occurred to you. 86.129.79.148 17:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously we have a library in chambers bigger than many public libraries. I don't work in this area of law but I have explained the position as I see it. I know I am right without researching it (unless someone wishes to pay me). I am merely defending someone who I knew many years ago as a thoroughly decent fellow, who had a very bad time, and who now, 14 years on, has been targetted by appalling muck-rakers. I am very disappointed that the Wikipedia legal people cannot see the gross injustice being carried out here. Sussexman 20:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That you have the facts (ie a copy of the legislation) at your disposal but can't be bothered to look it up isn't very helpful to your argument. Nor is your assertion that "I know I am right without researching it". Homey 21:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC).


 * Well, the fundamental difference between you, HOTR, and I is that I do not have an agenda and I am very busy. Sussexman 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your agenda, as you just said, is "defending someone who I knew many years ago as a thoroughly decent fellow, who had a very bad time". I find it hard to believe that you have been unable to divert a few minutes of the significant amount of time you've spent on wikipedia on this matter to actually get a copy of the legislation. Homey 21:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have now spent some time looking at the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Under s8(1) of the Act he is entitled to bring an action for defamation against Wikipedia as publishers and also against the editors who wrote it up. Sussexman 10:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
Hi. I noticed that you added a copy of a conversation from User talk:Jimbo Wales to the Talk:Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 page. To help other editors understand what the purpose of the large amount of text is without having to read through it all, I have included a brief summary. However, as I have no familiarity with the subject itself, can you please check that my summary is accurate? Thanks. Road Wizard 17:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You clever people need to write to HMSO and get yourselves a copy of the Act. Sussexman 12:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you, as a barrister, have a copy of the consolidated statutes of England? Why don't you give us a direct citation from the Act supporting your claims?Homey 16:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

One day, HOTR, you will trip up with your venom and your malice. There are some articles of commonsence and good faith which over-ride any laws. 86.129.79.148 17:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, if somone claims a law says something I want to see the actual text of the statute. Given the chasm that has existed thus far between claims made by you and your numerical cousins and fact I think it's unrealistic to expect me to take your say-so in regards to the law. Homey 21:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have now spent some time looking at the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Under s8(1) of the Act he is entitled to bring an action for defamation against Wikipedia as publishers and also against the editors who wrote it up. Sussexman 07:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey look a member of ArbCom is getting bugged!
Yeah, I'd hate to bug a member of ArbCom about stupid stuff, but this may not be so stupid. A user, potentially User:Leyasu (going as User:Leyasu1 and User:86.132.134.145) and another user, User:Deathrocker just engaged in an edit war complete with content modification and blanking of eachother in large quanities on Requests_for_arbitration/Deathrocker/Evidence. I think they may have settled it, but who knows, and its hard to decipher what's been changed on the page over the course of their warring.

As nearest as I can tell, banned user Leyasu as an IP started posting evidence, and Deathrocker started to refute it and post counter-evidence while simultaneously modifying the comments left. Conflict of issues. One shouldn't be modifying others evidence sections on RfAr evidence pages, but one shouldn't be posting at all while banned. Kevin_b_er 04:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)