User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 11

Procedural Guidance Requested

As I have been preparing the Evidence for my Arbitration case, I have made three TALK posts on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Polygamy/Evidence.

My unique problem, Guidance Requested
OK to "Yield" DIFFs in DIFF-Count?
Items Still Pending in Preparing Evidence

While I wait to hear back from my AMA advocate, your procedural guidance on those issues will be very much appreciated. Thank you. - Researcher 21:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

unblocking of Oldestylecharm

Fine with me as long as he behaves, I'll keep an eye on him and I suggest that you do the same just in case. If you don't mind me asking where did Jimbo request this and if you don't mind and the medium allows it (if it's on one of the mailing lists or a comment on the wiki) could you link to me, not really a big deal if you can't. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fred. I saw your message to Jtkiefer. I was the one who complained; my complaint can be read here. I've no problem with the unblocking. (Of course, I understand that it's not my decision anyway!) Regards, Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 23:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oldstylecharm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Trever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Well he hasn't edited since the block went into place but I talked to Jimbo over IRC and he says that he unblocked because Oldestylecharm asked nicely and we have his blocking to reblock immediately if he acts up again. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 02:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Fred. Just to let you know that I had more trouble this morning with a series of identical messages on my talk page all from newly-created accounts. I reported it here. As soon as one was blocked, another would spring up. I eventually stopped reverting, because I thought it was a waste of server space, with all the page versions stored in the history. The reason I thought it might be related to the previous incident is because the message was identical to the one that Trever had sent me [1]. However, Oldstylecharm may have absolutely nothing to do with this. He hasn't edited (under his proper account, at least) since 3 November. Trever, for all I know, may not be a sockpuppet of his. I thought he was, because his first edits were to reinsert the linkspam that I had just reverted. Then, he said "Guess what my name spelled backwards is?" [2] So it's possible that he was unrelated to Oldstylecharm, and was reinserting the links as a way of harassing me, by reverting anything I did.

The messages today came from

TerrorMaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Anney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Slimboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
≤woot≥ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
≤w00t≥ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tgb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Sorry this message is so complicated, but I just wanted to bring you up to date! Thanks. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 22:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed notice at the top of Bogdanov Affair

Dear Fred: I have implemented a notice at the top of the Bogdanov Affair along the lines of the proposed remedy that you made in the arbitration case, since I think it is a good idea. I trust this is what you were looking for. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdanov ban

Hi Fred,

I apologize for bothering you with this, but I was reading the proposed remedies that you wrote for the Bogdanov Affair article. Since the criteria for determining if users should be banned from editing the article is that "the vast majority of their edits are to the Bogdanov Affair", then perhaps you could review my contributions in order to determine if I should be included in the list, as I think that my contributions related to the article in question do not amount to more than 20% of what I've edited so far. On the other hand, if you only consider the edits I did until the injunction, then I clearly fall in that category and will accept your decision.

Thank you for your attention. Ze miguel 13:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, thank you very much for deleting me from the list. Ze miguel 15:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Your message concerning reverting on the Nick Adams article

User:Onefortyone deliberately misled you again saying here on your Talk page that: "Ted Wilkes has now repeatedly reverted my contributions to the Nick Adams article, though I have presented new sources and facts to support my view."

Onefortyone already used this CrimeMagazine website as a source and the matter was debated in great deal with me and others on the Talk:Nick Adams page as seen here and with a secondary confirmation by User:Wyss of this type of mistake-filled and non-peer reviewed source here. Plus, it was pointed out that from other unacceptable sources comes a direct contradiction such as the Cybersleuth True Crime article on Nick Adams which states here that "Nick was straight." Crime Magazine on the Internet uses anyone to write an article. You, I, or anyone can have an article published plus the writer supplies their own (unverified) biography. They are not Peer reviewed and do not come close to meeting the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Then, there is the controversial book by John Gilmore (writer) that started the James Dean rumors. Go to Gilmore's Wiki article and read the direct quote from his website that says: "With Nick Adams it had been the same way, even with Natalie Wood—Jimmy avoided them. Once off the set, he went out of his way to go in the opposite direction." Note that (just as he did before and I pointed it out to the ArbCom in my formal request, when convenient, Onefortyone quotes John Gilmore (writer) as he did here yesterday with an edit on 21:21, November 7, 2005 to the James Dean article here but not in his immediate next edit (six minutes later as seen on his contributions list here) where he deliberately reworks the text to exclude the John Gilmore reference in his 21:27, November 7, 2005 edit to the Nick Adams article as seen here.

This editing and plastering your Talk page and that of others only allows him to keep up the seeding of key words to Wikipedia. With all due respect, Mr. Bauder, I have to wonder why you seem so quick to castigate me with an accusation that "You continue to go too far" based solely on the word of someone who you condemned for fabricating information. You will note that in the very opening of my complaint about Onefortyone that I stated to the ArbCom that he abuses the good faith of others by making fabrications and the like on their talk pages in discussions as he has done again here plus he distorts their words as User: DropDeadGorgias tesitified to the ArbCom. Onefortyone launched a personal attack on me and as I advised him on his Talk page, I am filing a complaint against him for this plus for his deliberate reinserting the EXACT same material in the same articles in violation of his probation.

Thank you - Ted Wilkes 19:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Ted, you are not telling the truth. I never used this CrimeMagazine website as a source before, as you claim. As far as I can see, you debated these things with user Wyss some months ago. See Talk:Nick_Adams#How_did_this_get_started_anyway.3F User Wyss seems to have used this source. By the way, the John Gilmore passage was originally written by Wyss. I only reinstated it. Winkler, the author of the article, seems to be an expert on the life of Nick Adams. It has not been mentioned before that he said that Adams and James Dean seem to have "become lovers and worked the streets of Los Angeles as hustlers in the down and out days when both were struggling nobodies." There are also further sources I have mentioned, for instance, Rona Barrett's autobiography, which says that Nick Adams "had become the companion to a group of salacious homosexuals." So it is true that I have included some new information never before mentioned on the Nick Adams page. Ted Wilkes deleted this information together with many more references to other sources which all support my view. He even deleted a useful hyperlink, presumably because this website includes information he does not like. Significantly, Wilkes has now also deleted a perfectly well hyperlink to a website by the Memphis Mafia members from the Memphis Mafia page. See [3]. He also deleted a passage that Elvis Presley "reportedly supplied the Memphis Mafia members with alcohol, illicit drugs, and prostitutes" from the same page. See [4]. Very interesting. Onefortyone 19:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration decision does not say that everything Onefortyone adds is presumed worthless and may be deleted. It only cautions him to use reliable sources. With respect to this area that does not mean peer reviewed in a scientific sense, only that in terms of popular culture that the information was published in a source that is generally considered reliable. Fred Bauder 20:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users Ted Wilkes and Wyss are still working together to suppress my contributions which are not in line with their personal opinion, but are well supported by many independent sources. See, for instance, [5] and [6]. Significantly, in his edit summary, Wyss claims, "rv edits by user who has been banned from editing celebrity articles". The same user also says on my talk page: "It seems to me that 141 has violated his probation and should be blocked." See [7].

Ted Wilkes and Wyss even ignore arguments by other users who are supporting my view. See Talk:Nick_Adams#Further_sources_supporting_the_view_that_Adams_had_homosexual_leanings. I think this behavior is unacceptable. Perhaps the case should be reopened.

"Better than overuse of banning"

I believe the concern about "probation" as a remedy is deserving of more than your brief riposte.

Leaving aside the cases involving admin misconduct, there are very few cases where troublesome editors have gone through arbitration, and then subsequently become fine upstanding contributors who further the goals of the project. Most of them either leave the project permanently, or continue to make trouble (possibly leaving and rejoining in the meantime).

I think it is unrealistic to believe that we can change people. The goal of the project is not to empower everyone who wishes to do so to write, but rather to build an encyclopedia. With that in mind, there is nothing wrong with banning people who are unwilling or unable to participate in a civil, considered fashion.

The problem with Wikipedia probation is that most troublesome editors are here because they enjoy engagement and conflict. They like to provoke people and see what sort of a response they get. They like to see people get indignant. I believe that probation just encourages that, and serves as a distraction to the community.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should you be recusing yourself?

At the Zeprhram Stark Arbitration, you have offered a statement of the situation at the terrorism article that you write is "according to Zephram Stark." However, Stark has tried to correct the position attributed by you to him, only to be reverted by SlimVirgin. You have further apparently changed (!) the statement of Stark's position in response, directly or indirectly, to a campaign waged by SlimVirgin, whom Stark named as a cause of the underlying dispute, through the named complainants against Stark ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]). Do you think that you've treated Stark's stated opinion appropriately?

I believe, Fred Bauder, that as the situation currently stands, you are seriously abusing your authority as an arbitrator. I don't know why you're doing it, but it is very clear to me that you are doing it. Your user page notes that you are a retired lawyer -- how can you imagine that anything even vaguely ressembling a fair hearing can take place when one party is not even allowed to state his position without having it massaged and adulterated? If, for whatever reason, you are incapable of as little as faithfully transcribing Stark's prefered statement of the situation, you should recuse yourslef. Maybe you can completely rework the statement of the focus of the dispute so that you don't even have to attribute anything to Stark, but what you have done at this point is really beyond the pale.

Barring any remedy to the situation, you can consider this comment to be the first of two independent contacts needed to begin mediation against your behavior in this matter. I'll start looking for someone to make the second contact in a day or two.

Marsden 06:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You position is unfortunate. Marsden 16:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to pretend for just a moment, Fred, that you'd actually be interested in my advice. Please don't feel any need to insult me over this -- I don't have any real belief that you're interested in the least in anything I have to say.

But anyway, in this imaginary world where you actually are interested in my advice, I would tell you that, in the capacity of an arbitrator, you've written a summary of the focus of the dispute that (a) includes an alleged statement of the opinion of one party to the dispute that that party has denied, and that (b) the other side of the dispute seems to think is inaccurate. Again in this imaginary world, I would suggest to you that maybe it would be more productive to re-write the damn summary that no one likes rather than, say, to write a new article about Wikilawyering.

Back to this world, now. I'm going to spend a day or so trying to get El C to write the second notice to you, just because I think it would be good for him to do it. I don't think he will, but I noted to you that I wouldn't start looking for someone to write the second notice to you for a day or two, so I'll spend that time "mentoring" El C before I seriously start looking.

In fairness, I think I should tell you that, while I do think you are absolutely wrong in this particular matter, and I really will pursue it to the very end, I find your attitude pretty amusing, and it is entertaining for me (in some dark way, perhaps) to see the innovative and gymnastic things you come up with in order to avoid doing what seems to me to be quite obviously the right thing to do. I'm telling you this because possibly you find the whole thing very annoying and draining -- as indeed I would, if I were continually having to make up new reasons for not doing what is obviously the right thing to do -- and if that's the case, this could be a bad situation for you: you're drained while I'm entertained. Now, probably some worthy will turn my words here against me, and claim (ignoring my clear statement that I think you are absolutely wrong in this particular matter) that I am just trying to be annoying to you. But I can deal with that, and it really is as a favor to you that I've informed you that I think this whole process is amusing to me.

Marsden 16:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For your amusement, I kind of think the following would be a more neutral rewrite:

1.3) Zephram Stark is accused of engaging in tendentious (exhibiting a strong POV) and disruptive editing with respect to the article terrorism over an extended period of time, see Talk:Terrorism/Archive_6#NPOV_solutions and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Evidence#ZS.27s_changes_to_Terrorism.

Marsden 19:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to spare myself this mentoring, I want nothing to do with Marsden or his complaint/s in light of his intentional and constant disregrd for the WP:NPA policy. If the merit of his complaint/s therefore suffers, so be it, it'd be a valuable lesson on basic manners, at least. El_C 19:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snowspinner/Everyking

I disagree with your change to FoF 6 in the Everyking case. Please see these diffs. As someone else who has been baited by Snowspinner in the past, I'd like to see the ArbCom acknowledge that it's happening. -- Netoholic @ 19:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the original wording of FoF 6 to include Snowspinner. The links I posted at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3/Proposed decision#Before you close go to show that Snowspinner also has "made unproductive and inflammatory commentary on Everyking's behavior". -- Netoholic @ 20:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal regarding enforcement against banned editing in Bogdanov Affair

hello Fred,

could you look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Regarding_The_Bogdanov_Affair/Workshop where i suggest a method to greatly reduce the repeated vandalism/reversion being done to the article? i personally see no other solution other than wasting a lot of time of a lot of people. this proposed solution would reduce the time-wasting to once per week. r b-j 20:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyering

Wikipedia:Wikilawyering is destructive as it removes the focus of a case away from trying to find out what the real problems are and trying to find a solution. Encouraging someone else to focus on wikilawyering as the basis of a defense rather than addressing their behavior is quite unproductive. By the way, the arbitrators are equal in status. Fred Bauder 20:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your viewpoint on this particular is diametrically opposed to my own, and not for the first time. We disagreed regarding your wiki-info, and the exceptions to your SPOV. And we utterly disagree here, regarding the ability of Kelly Martin to adjudicate in a non-partisan manner in this case, and in your assessment of the standing of appointed arbiters as opposed to those who have been given a mandate by the community (such as Theresa Knott). Arbiters, admins, Jimbo and the board do not an encyclopedia make. The contributers, the readers, and the developers are the key to the community, and they have not signed off on these recent "appointees", nor the process which might be taking place to replace them this december. Sam Spade 20:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler-papal whitewashing

My user contributions under this name (cookies died) show how I was sucked back in after attacks by User:Str1977 and Robert McClenon sucked me back in and I am much unhappy following insytant revert on reichskonkordat . Do you think it acceptable that allegationmade at Nuremburg is thus deleateable? I despair of Str1977 behaviour and ask you to read that one RKKt page case, and back me in chucking this apologist as far as we can . I appeal to all your best endeavour . EffK 04:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this. Fred Bauder 05:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I do. When on Wikipedia, follow Wikipedia rules. Rules are different on Wikinfo, but you are talking about an article here. Please don't try to play one side against the other. I am not going to come in on a white horse and save you Fred Bauder 12:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok , Fred , thanks for the advice, I will aim to adhere. I'd still like to know why wikfo doesn't scrape/search at all, and would like to know if WP allows see-also links to wikinfo?

I wouldn't use Wikipedia to make links to something you wrote on Wikinfo which would not be permitted on Wikipedia. As to Google, publishing on Wikinfo is not effective in terms of getting to the top of a Google search, nor is it intended to be, write good articles and people will link to them. Fred Bauder 14:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EffK 11:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fronts and cutouts

After reading the article Agent handling I was appalled by not only the editorial style but also by some "facts" that appear to be Original Research. For example: “The extensive use of cutouts, so long as they are trusted and reliable persons, can become a long chain of individuals. This performs another purpose, similiar to the extensive use of "front organizations"; by their sheer number, it becomes a shell game with counterintelligence investigators, who have finite and limited resources. When suspicion arises, the large number of persons and organizations connected to the conspiracy can devour endless hours and cost, which has the effect of slowing down the process of exposing an espionage organization.” [14]. Would you be so kind and review that article to see if any improvements can be made? Thank you in advance. Dearlove Menzies 16:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest changing the above "conspiracy", to "operation"; "conspiracy", presupposes a legal verdict. nobs 19:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Onefortyone placed on Probation

I refer to your message on my Talk page. - User:Onefortyone has every right to take me to an Arbitration hearing if he believes my conduct is improper but I will continue to revert any edit he does that is a reinsertion of the same numerous references, fabrications, and distortions from the past or edits with those same ones where he claims a few "new" sources that are in fact similarly unacceptable under the same Wikipedia policy precepts. However, at this time Mr. Bauder if I may, I think it important to point out that your rendering of an opinion of a central issue under Arbitration and giving advice here to User:Onefortyone during the previous Arbitration Committee hearing was a highly questionable action that breached the Arbitration process and usurped the authority of the remaining Committee members. Continuing in the same vein of giving advice now places you in a conflict of interest that I think violates the neutrality that is fundanmental to the credibility of the Arbitration Committee. With all due respect, I believe the message you left on my Talk page and at User Talk:Wyss that came to the conclusion, based on an "impression," that "If he took you to arbitration over this I would vote to accept the case" is improper and could well be ajudged as intimidation. May I suggest that in your position, rather than giving advice to someone where you may be called upon to sit in judgment of your own advice, it would most certainly have been proper to refer Onefortyone to the Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 15:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your reply on my Talk page to the above, I would have to say that given the seriousness of the issue with respect to the absolute integrity of the Arbitration process and that you admit to the problems which exist by advising Onefortyone, in any further process involving the same issues with me or anyone else versus User:Onefortyone I would be making a formal request that you recuse yourself. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 15:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that a member of the Arbitration Committee should not be rendering a judgment on his own advice. That fundamental is inviolable. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 15:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ted Wilkes has now deleted all edits by administrator FCYTravis to the Gavin Lambert, Nick Adams and James Dean articles. See [15], [16] and [17]. He and User:Wyss continue with accusing me of being a vandal, fabricating texts, etc. I think this behavior is unacceptable. Onefortyone 16:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Work with the Mentcom Wikipedia:Mentorship_Committee#Probation_officers_assigned_to_case. I have other things to do. Fred Bauder 16:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PureSoups and Hitler's Pope

Sorry I confusded you .Here's one for you though Fred, at The Great Scandal .Take it with you please before its locked ,blocked and deleted . I lost that Wikinfo cookie too , and I am under encroachment on all sides at the minute . I'm sorry not to have reminded you that I used PureSoups briefly before cookieless , again, recently returning here as EffK for short . I'm stepping out smartly here , and naturally consider you a neutral of integrity who can afford his mind . I determine , the more so in the past half-hour , that my nemesis is indeed a technical vandal , for whatever resasons he has. I do not purposefully aim for a showdown , but just as the call had to be made to P Benedict XVI to his face at the Synagogue in Cologne , so here in this Wikipedia , some stand for un-covering the truth must now obtain . In other words , a showdown concerning faith-based editing and denial . Or not .Thanks , EffK 16:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That long article I wrote was entirly of my own prose, a unique piece, and I fear no , I made no copy . it did not occur to me that that such a work would be entirely deleted, poof, like that . I ask if you can see it somehow and save it to Wikinfo . Well well, Rome rules here . EffK 17:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More sorry. paranoia led me to beieve it had gone when it was a miss spelled(capital missing link) . Strange is that at that time ands still , there is a WP malfunction on the username headline bar. EffK takes me repeatedly to the mainpage . odd but bearable . seems the malfunction is general, the action bar comes down vertically . I ll get it into Wikfo- EffK 18:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

141

In my humble opinion you have been manipulated. He does that. Sadly, I found your comments on my talk page mistaken. They may also be a violation of Wikipedia policy. Whatever, when a member of arbcom one way or another supports the most unhelpful sort of editorial vandalism such as we have here, there is nothing left for me to do and I herewith leave WP as an active editor. Wyss 21:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mentcom

Thanks for the case. May I ask for one example of an IP he's used? I doubt he's in the full 80.141.0.0/16 range, or is he? R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

141 redux

Would you be so kind as to examine my edits to James Dean and Nick Adams? I have attempted to distill onefortyone's edits, which I consider, in these two cases at least, to be well-sourced, balanced, verifiable and encyclopedic discussion of the actors' sexuality. They are repeatedly being reverted (and I've now been taken to WP:3RR as "violating the ArbCom order." I do not consider them to do any such thing. I would appreciate your input. FCYTravis 22:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised that I am filing a complaint against you at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and have advised an appropriate member of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation Inc. - Ted Wilkes 20:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laird Wilcox

Dear Sir: I would request that you please examine the source of the information on the Talk:Chip Berlet page from

Wilcox Collection on Contemporary Political Movements at the University of Kansas
Racial Extremism in the Army, MAJ Walter M. Hudson, The Military Law Review, Vol 159 (Mar 99), Department of the Army, Washington, DC. Army Pamphlet No 27-100-159

in light of the comments made at WikiEN-1 and would request that you clarify those comments at WikiEN-1 based upon findings from the above qualified source. Thank you so much for attention to this detail. nobs 20:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reference on Talk page is is from this extraction 115-117:

"A 1981 issue of the publication states unequivocally that “The Public Eye is produced in conjunction with the National Lawyers Guild Committee Against Government Repression and Police Crimes.” It also lists Chip Berlet as a managing editor.⁹⁵ ...

95 The Public Eye, Volume III, Issues 1 and 2 (1981).

[22]

An article in a 1981 issue of Military Police journal detailed the criminal careers of several National Lawyers Guild members as follows:

...Carlos Zapata who was killed in Denver by a bomb he was planting at a VFW hall on 22 March 1978. He was...involved in the National Lawyers Guild-sponsored ‘Police Crimes Task Force.’

Bernardine Dohrn, the much sought Weather Underground fugitive, was named student director for the National Lawyers’ Guild in 1967.

NLG member, Stephen Mitchell Bingham, is being sought by the state of California and the FBI for smuggling a .380 automatic pistol to George Jackson in prison...

...Guild member Frank Eugenio Martinez...was a Loyola law student who was active in NLG projects at the college and on the streets. Suspiciously, Frank’s fingerprints ended up on several of the eight letter-bombs mailed to Denver police officers in

[23]

1973...His younger brother, Francisco Kiko Martinez, also an attorney, was killed in a car when a bomb they were transporting exploded.¹⁰⁰

The article by Detective Arleigh McCree, a former military police officer who became Officer in Charge, Firearms and Explosives Unit of the Los Angeles Police Department, observes that “The NLG continues to act as a clearinghouse and as an apologist and defender for terrorists and terrorism.”

100 Sgt. A. McCree, “A Case For Self-Defense,” Military Police (Summer 1981).

I believe I cited, and quoted Mr. Wilcox fairly accurately without editorial comment regarding Kiko Martinez. nobs 21:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Valid question. I was quoting Mr. Wilcox (who was quoting McCree) and added nothing to it regarding Kiko Martinez; while reading "...His younger brother...also an attorney...", granted there is some ambiguity there, so reverting to the opening premise "detailed the criminal careers of several National Lawyers Guild members", I assume (AGF) Frank Eugenio Martinez younger brother was also a NLG member. Also, it does not give a date for Kiko's incident, could be retrieved with research, so these aspects can be clarified. Please note I felt Talk page was the place to raise this information, and not direct insertions into the namespace without full qualification. Thank you. nobs 21:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Bauder thread

The thread on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration regarding the request for arbitration against Fred Bauder has long since ceased to be productive. May I suggest a cooling off period with regards to that thread and that any follow up discussions be take to individual talk pages. FuelWagon 02:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Emico

Emico (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently been on a personal attack spree against every editor who doesn't agree with his views, regardless of whether or not they're involved with the Iglesia ni Cristo article. After he was warned by User:Moe Epsilon about his personal attacks, he created an account called IHeartWWF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which he created only to attack me at my talk page. As a result SWD316 has reported him to the admins incidents noticeboard. Since then he has attacked me and Ironbrew nonstop for the last few weeks. We have reached a point now where any negotiation has failed, and reverting his edits without summary or notice, as well as practicing WP:RPA, which I never expected to do. Could you please look over the situation there and issue a WP:RFAr/AER if possible. Emico no longer creates usernames, as he is quoted as: "As far as my username, I now prefer to be anonymous. Beware of the cabals which took over wikipedia." Lbmixpro (talk · contribs) --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 20:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting at my talk page. I've done what you asked, but the personal attacks continue. This one seems to be from 203.147.62.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Unfortunetly, this has gone on for a long time. My tolerance and patience have been completely exhasted and my ability to keep cool about the situation is wearing very thin. I hate to sound desperate, but please do whatever you can to help with this! --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 05:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zen-master notice

I just put up the notice [18]. Thanks. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Zen-master has decided to use that space to further dispute the ban [19]. I'll leave it to you to decide what to do with this. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 12:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need me to put rationale for the ban in the notice on the arbitration page? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 13:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just added some rationale here [20]. Please let me know if you need anything else, and thanks for the help. :-) --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted, now what?

Mr. Bauder, Your wrote on my talk page that arbitration is accepted [21] for Winter Soldier Investigation.

I spent a lot of time compiling evidence already, posting it on the request for arbitration page, and even updated it briefly with two sentences a couple of days ago[22].

What do I do now Mr. Bauder?

Do I cut and paste this information evidence from the orginal request for arbitration[23] into the new evidence page[24]?

OR

Will this evidence on the orginal request for arbitration page [25]be weighed without me cutting and pasting it to the evidence page[26].

Hope my question is clear, thank you for your dedication to making wiki a better place. Travb 23:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising

It seems common for wikiusers to advertise their pet postions on friends and allies talk pages.

Would it look bad if I contacted all of the people that these two (TDC and anon) have been involved with and solicit (advertise) the arbitration and ask for comments?

What is the policy.Travb 00:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for IP check

Hi,
I don't know which page to leave this request on, so I hope you don't mind me leaving it here, as I know ArbCom members have run checks like this in the past. Its an informal check just to put my mind at rest.

A while ago, in January 2005, a user named User:Ciz (AKA User:DrBat) was prevented indefinitely from editing the Zoophilia article, a controversial topic which had taken much NPOV work to gain consensus. We have just had some talk page discussion from a user user:ShadowH, and although it is early days, the nature of changes he wants to make and something about his style and the pages he edits reminds me of Ciz. Is there any way that you could informally confirm whether user:ShadowH and user:DrBat appear to be different people, so that bona fide editors know if they have another sock-puppet by the same person, or a genuine new request? Thats all, and thank you.

In case you are busy or unavailable, I have cross-posted this also to Kelly Martin, and if there is a correct place for this kind of request and you would like me to go there, please let me know. Lastly of course, there is no offence intended to user:ShadowH if he/she is genuine, hence the informal nature of this request. It's just to up front confirm he/she is not yet another sock-puppet of the same guy again.

Many thanks for your time. FT2 23:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Kelly Martin confirms they are very likely the same. Proceeding to appropriate enforcement. many thanks FT2 11:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

complete failure of wikipedia NPOV policy

This article Talk:Palestinian_exodus is a complete failure of wikipedia NPOV policy. Nearly 3 years ago it was anti-Palestinian. Now not a shred of that POV remain and it is completely biased to the other side. I have edited this article for a week, yet every single word i changed there got reverted by a coordinated revert gang which is able to circumvent in this way the 3RR rule. It seems that unless I am able to get a "gang" of my own:-) there is no point trying to get this article to be NPOV. slim and jayjg are involved yet they too do not make any contribution toward NPOV. This is not what Wikipedia is all about but it is what wikipedia has become.

I don't have the time or the organized manpower as the other side to go through the usual Wikipedia mechanism. These mechanisms have failed in this article. In 3 years not a single Wikipedia admin was able to make significant contribution to make this article NPOV. This is a symptom to other anti-Israel systematic bias that is spread all over wikipedia and I suggest you find a way to address it as I can't. Zeq 18:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I was not seeqing your opinion on the suitability of my contribution to Wikipedia in general or to this artyicle in specific but thanks anyhow. The issue is that in over 3 years that article is an example of how the NPOV policy and all other Wikipedia mecahism have failed. It is not my desrire to get into arguments on every line and I did not seeq your aproval for a specific line. many things that I want to add to this article (and desrve to be there ) have not been edited in cause the whole process as it has to do with this article have failed. This is the issue that you and other in Wikipedia need to address not my specific pathetic lines. Zeq 19:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

see this Talk:Palestinian_exodus#Fundemantal_problem_with_this_article_not_addressed for more. We need to apply the yardstick (or bar) of relvancy to the subject in the same way to any line or section in the article. I again stress that for years this article suffer from the same problems and a review of why the policy of NPOV has not work in this case should be conducted. It is not an issue of this or that word it is the whole article. A user that reads it should get all the relvant data, including an idea that the Palestinian exodus is not the only exodus that occured as part of the Israeli-palestinian conflict in the years 1947-49. Zeq 07:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest that you look at Talk:Palestinian_exodus#This_is_not_the_.22zionism_transfer.22_article at slim's criteria for inclusion into an article spelled out here User_talk:Zeq#Palestinian_exodus and in your own critiria that prompted your reply to me on a section that need to be on another article.

My conclusion is that including the above mentioned section is VERY POV. I suggested another way of doing it. Instead of an answer I get an edit war. By now it should be clear to any that looks at the comments about this article from 6 month ago that only one POV is "allowed" to express itself on this article by the "gang" that "own" it. You care about Wikipedia ? don't you. Something must be done because regular mechanisms don't seem to work in this article. No colaboraition. Maybe such articles need to be "moderated' by some responsible adult ? I tried the RFc process but no one seem to dare participate in this article. Wikipedia clearly need to find a way to allow people from both sides to edit this article. Zeq 16:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that in that article the 3RR rule does not apply as well: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Zero0000 Zeq 19:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]