User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 26

Deathrocker Arbitration

I am offering to mentor this user after their ArbCom case. It's a chance for me to try a new skill (mediation), so I'm offering myself for it. --Sunholm(talk) 19:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Sunholm/Deathrocker mentorship for details. --Sunholm(talk) 19:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed decision about Cesar Tort

Hi Fred Bauder:

Today I have proposed to remove the tag myself in Biological psychiatry’s talk page. Please take a look at my reasons there [1].

I only have a couple of questions.

(1) If the article I rewrote with Midgley [2] was a NPOV correction of the previous pov incarnation (in which Midgley, not I, removed the tag), how can this be considered "Tendentious editing by Cesar Tort [...]" in Proposed decision? [3].

(2) Re "Cesar Tort is cautioned to limit critical material to that supported by reliable scientific authority" [4] where have I not used reliable material?

Thank you for you attention. —Cesar Tort 23:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but...

I am starting to notice a potentially disturbing trend: over the past few months, incidences of your not-so-perfect spelling, grammar, formatting, etc. during the voting process has increased quite a bit.

For example: You authored this and didn't cast your vote for it. I assume you meant to support that item, is that right?

Even though I think you've been doing an excellent job as an arbitrator, and I believe you're the de facto Chief Arbitrator, my confidence in your efficiency is starting to erode substantially. I am afraid that if this trend continues you might not be able to survive the late 2007/early 2008 ArbCom elections (if you decide to run) or some other special vote involving your position between now and then (should that be necessary). If there is anything you can say to attempt to boost my confidence on this issue, feel free to answer me. Editor88 03:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative notice board

Fred, I fear this may be an alarming development. Maybe not. But since you're someone who has to clean up the messes around here, I thought you might have some useful input. This is not a spam, besides you, I've only solicited thoughts from TheronJ. Derex 08:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schuckardt Workshop page

If you have time, I have added some information Discussion Page you might find relevant regarding your section Scurrilous Charges of the [Francis Schuckardt] arbitration. Bernie Radecki 13:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your PDF contribution of Ceres, South Africa

Just a quick question, probably out of ignorance: What's the point of adding a PDF of the article itself to the article? It is surely not to make a "snapshot", since that's available in the page history? I'd appreciate being enlightened. dewet|✉ 18:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries mate, I was just wondering ;) dewet|✉ 07:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using wikipedia for political campaigns

Fred,

As I mention to you several times this [5] is not an isolated incident. This is very alarming that wikipedia can not implmenet and enforce WP:Not in such vigor as it does WP:3RR or edit war.

3RR, edit wars are all events that have no bearing on the real world while using wkipedia to promote political views in violation of WP:Not has an infulance on hiow this encyclopedia is viewed by the rest of the world. Zeq 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might I add something here please. I have found an administrator, one of the Gregory Lauder-Frost demonisers, who has actually admitted that he is a Red on User talk:JzG.

I went through to the link he provided (rouge admin)for his description. At least he is honest about his political agenda. Sussexman 21:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For your comment. Sussexman 22:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my Strong Negative Point of View

I appreciate very much the substantial amount of time you are putting into the arbitration request that I filed on the [Francis Schuckardt] article. I had no idea one individual would be doing so much to address the concerns of the few editors that have concerns about this article. I did add a little text on the Proposed Decision Talk Page regarding my strong NPOV which I of course must admit to. I guess I am trying to demonstrate with published articles on Schuckardt that both my view and the majority view of Schuckardt really are primarily negative. I still think I keep my obvious bias out of the article itself. Thank you for your time and please ignore this if it is inappropriate. Bernie Radecki 00:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyering

Hello Fred Bauder. This is true... but is the term perjorative not a touch more encyclopedic? Netscott 16:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh... I might be Wikilawyering here but is it not true that when this term is used in describing someone's conduct it is most typically in a pejorative sense? :-) Netscott 16:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sussexman

I see that they have now banned Sussexman, one person saying he might be Lauder-Frost - Preposterous. Sussexman has valiantly defended the vitriolic attacks made by a very small group upon someone he knew years ago, liked, and felt a great injustice was being done to. He was quite right to tell people crossing legal boundaries that they were doing this and quite right to tell people that by doing so they would soon find out the consequences. That cannot constitute a legal threat, which can only realistically be made by the individual concerned, and banning everyone who points out simple facts is not the way forward for Wikipedia which should not be above the law. 81.131.37.101 07:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be a legal dispute. I'm afraid it's in the hands of the lawyers for now. I'll miss him. Hope the matter is quickly resolved so he can begin editing again. Fred Bauder 11:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think several of us will miss him. He made some interesting contibutions. 86.139.185.202 13:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration request for The Black Wall Street Records

I have revised the article stated above and this user by the name of Bwsadmin (or also known asMostWanted05) is reverting the article in one edit. This user has done sloppy work when editing articles. Another thing, is this Bwsadmin, an administrator? Cause if this user is an administrator and have this nonsense on the article. Here is the user page that suggest he is an administrator. I am kind of tired of editing this article to the best and this user always revert it and puts that spamming link for the Hurricane Game fan site and the Myspace links all over the article. Can there be a positive solution for this issue. Thanks for reading. LILVOKA 21 June 2006 01:33 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick

I particularly hate when people rush things but there is an issue arbitration commitee must look at urgently.

Moby Dick has ceased editing as of 7 june (Special:Contributions/Moby_Dick) and logs making checkuser posible will expire in about a week. These logs must be kept at least until the case closes. The fate of the logs will be depending on the outcome of the case.

I am just concerned about the posibility of moby dick returning with a new sock continuing the behaviour I complain about.

--Cat out 07:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HOTR

Is now going after Sussexman's contributions. He has quietly flagged up Dr Mark Mayall for speedy deletion. Very sly and extremely nasty. I don't have time to check all of Sussexman's contributions (in his absence) but could you please advise just where one can make a formal complaint about this User who has such a clear agenda. 81.131.24.254 18:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the procedures in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Fred Bauder 20:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:HOTR is currently going round to the article pages of many British right-wing conservatives and sneakily flagging up Deletion notices, as far as possible on the seven day rule. Had these people not been notable in Britain and in Conservative circles the articles would not have been there in the first place. What's going on here? He has for at least 6 months, conducted a relentless campaign against all articles and individuals connected with the Conservative Monday Club and the Western Goals Institute and his motives are clearly political rather than editorial. Urgent action is required here. I have followed your note above in the hope that something will be done. I had thought from the many refences pointing to you that you were an appropriate person to complain to. Apologies if that is not the case. Chelsea Tory 08:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A specious complaint. There are serveral ways to have an article deleted, speedy deletion, AFD or the delete after 5 days tag I used. Please familiarise yourself with the rules before throwing out accusations.Homey 04:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I give my full support to Chelsea Tory. HOTR is a sneak, with a ruthless, relentless political agenda. He is unfit to be an administrator. 86.139.185.202 13:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fred,

I wonder if you have failed to notice how HOTR is turning many parts of wikipedia into a battle field for pushing his political agenda in clear violation of WP:Not. I can't help but wonder: Does he enjoy some special impunity around here ? (he seems to by running around with a "get out of jail card" in his pocket. Anyone else would have been banned for good for what he did on Israeli Apartheid (such as 5 violation of 3RR and blocking users with whom he had disputes not to mention all the POV pushing) Zeq 20:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq is increasingly obsessed with me because a complaint by me got him banned from several articles. I am concerned that I am being wikistalked by him. Homey 05:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false accuastion (Homey in the past also accuased Humus, jayjg, Moshe and others he had a conflict with) but to the point: I follow a really limited number of articles and visit some other places (like this talk page). When I see in these pages something of interst I comment on it (no matter who made the edit or what POV the contect is) . Afater his accusation I looked at his contribution page and turns out I don't edit (or even look) at 97% of the article Homey edit. Zeq 06:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To one thing I will admit freely:When I see POV pushing (by Homey or others) I try to NPOV it. Homey is indeed one the biggest POV pushers I ran into. I do all my work by legitimate edit and I am not vindictive to any one. Where I am not getting communicatio I try to find the way to get it. (even if the only way to do it is ask Arb Com for help) Zeq 06:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this were true you wouldn't have been banned from several articles. Homey 06:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homey, I was not abnned for good cause. Also the banning admin clearly described your behaviour as at least as worse and said that if you were under probation he would ban you. the facts are that I was banned for making a a single edit in articles in which you made noumerous edit wars (in a 2nd article I made 3 edits where you made tens and tens). The banning admin just used my probation to try and create calm in the article (He could not remove you). And it is clear that since my bans you have continued the edit war and have been repeatdly banned for 3RR in thse articles (and that has nothing to do with me since I don;t edit there). Zeq 06:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) I suspect the admin who banned you would be rather alarmed to see the words and thoughts you are attributing to him. They are your thoughts, not his
2) Yes, of course, no punishment you've ever been given is "for good cause". You've never done anything wrong. You're just a victim.
3) And of course, the ArbComm was wrong to find you in breach and put you on probation.

- I suggest you ask the admin(Tony_Sidaway) and if need I will bruing quotes.
- I think that ArbCom decision on me was correct, it helped me improove my behaviour here. (and many can attest to that)Zeq 06:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you are so convinced of never being wrong how can you honestly say you aren't vindictive towards the evil person who complained about you and got you banned?Homey 06:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am just not a vindictive person. Zeq 06:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Pretty rich HOTR talking about someone else being "convinced of never being wrong". As a well-known adjudicator and administrator, Mr.Bauder, I appeal to you to halt the string of deletions of biographies of prominent right-wing UK Conservatives who deserve their biographical entries just as much as the string of entries on communists and Marxists. HOTR has already deleted Sam Swerling, one of England's leadling Law lecturers, a former chairman of the Conservative Monday Club, a former Conservative Party (UK) parliamentary candidate and Westminster City Councillor, and a well-known figure on the Tory Right. (Just how great does one have to be to have an entry here?) Now HOTR has flagged up others also for deletion, notably Dr Mark Mayall. Can nothing be done about this wrecker of other people's sourced work? 86.139.185.202 13:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether articles are deleted is up to the community which attends to votes for deletion. I gave up on that business long ago. HOTR is entitled to make nominations. Fred Bauder 13:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My ban from Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

I'd like you to note, that by banning me from Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy you will support User:MX44 and User:Netscott, who consider it productive to avoid discussions and to display only a lunatic fringe minority "Muslim" POV on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. See [6] Raphael1 15:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear on this, Raphael1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is continuing to dwell almost solely on this article and I in effect counciled User:MX44 to no longer engage Raphael1's continuing "discussion" relative to it. Netscott 15:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How comes you agree with my position, but at the same time urge me to quit discussing that subject? Is it settled, that we won't display "that there exist sanity within Islam"? Raphael1 16:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If MX44 wishes to show that there can be sanity within Islam, how do you explain his recent edits? [7] [8] [9] Raphael1 00:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd very much appreciate a reply to my question above. Please note, that my prososed additions will probably never make it into Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy if you ban me from this article. Raphael1 14:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to just be editing, although his comparison of you to a Nazi soldier is totally uncalled for. I am afraid you have made too much trouble at that article to continue editing it. Being morally right is not enough. Fred Bauder 18:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that because I've caused trouble to editors who are not quite morally right, I have to be banned from this article? Is that because you could get in trouble for acting morally right yourself? Raphael1 20:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the images on my site and oppose having them here. Just a stick in the eye, as far as I can see. You edit warred over it after a consensus emerged to have them. That is the problem. Fred Bauder 20:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done so since April after I've been blocked a week for it. Isn't there some WP policy, which prohibts being charged for the same "crime" twice? Raphael1 23:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why User:Mindspillage voted on my arbitration case, since she is not an active member of the Arbitration Commitee. Would you please look into this? Raphael1 14:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can I raise an objection against the votes of Jayjg, who is an obviously biased member of the Arbitration Commitee and voted yesterday after Briangotts made him/her aware of my comment? Raphael1 12:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg is Jewish and often edits from that point of view but as far as I know not biased on any issue which involves you. What make you think he is biased? Fred Bauder 13:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think, that his faith has anything to do with his voting, since no Jewish leader has embraced anti-Muslim bigotry. [10] OTOH this evidence doesn't fortify my confidence in Jayjgs fairness. Raphael1 01:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Jewish only road"

[11] - how can wikipedia allow such bletent lies ? Zeq 20:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCRGRad RfA clarification request

Per the Arbitration policy, I request that you provide a rationale for your vote of "Reject" in the UCRGrad RfA request. Thanks! --ElKevbo 21:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Popups

The chopping of text was caused due to an incompactibility issue with the Firefox browser and the Google toolbar. The text just dissapears from the box right before your eyes. A new warning message about this is now up on wikipedia. If you try to edit a long page (for example this), then you will see the notice alerting Firefox users. A bug ticket has also been opened at bugzilla. Its really irritating, as I cant afford to uninstall the google toolbar, as it is my only spell checking resource. :( Any particular reason you asked me about this? -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 09:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, okay, thanks for the clarification.

-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}14:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case re Irishpunktom

I am not sure if anyone has actually noticed this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irishpunktom/Workshop#Irishpunktom_and_Maliki-sis. I made the request quite some time ago, and to my surprise there haven't been any responses from anyone there. Could you please consider my request? -- Karl Meier 13:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Fill Your Heart

The talk page of that obscure article is protected to keep the "Biff Rose vandal" - user:Jonah Ayers - away. That user was banned by the community in response to his vandalism and to his harassment of several editors both on WP and in real life. I can give you more information if you're interested. -Will Beback 19:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovan business

Dear Fred,

I've seen your reply on wikipedia-l, and thought that I would like your oppinion on the matter. I agree that I'm becoming a nuisance there for non-interested readers, but we (people that petition for the closing or freezing of the Moldovan wikipedia) need to know what we can do to advance our cause.

What we need is simply arbitration. We have simple proof of the fact that the only proponent of this wikipedia is pushing his point of view through extremely malicious ways.

Where should we go with our request?

Yours, Dpotop 14:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ps: Sorry for this spam, I will not come again on this matter.

Good edits

Thanks for the copy-editing on the text I added just before you on Wikipedia:Wikilawyering that reads much better. Cheers. Netscott 18:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Village pump

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Resolving_content_disputes. Please help me to find the answer to my questions. Thanks.--AndriyK 13:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Resolving_content_disputes. Could you please visit that page once more? The outcome of the discussion is still unclear. Thanks.--AndriyK 19:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alienus RfC

Fred, in this case there are a few controversial blocks, some of which were eventually overturned, hence the heated AN/I discussions. I do think an RFC is in order, as there are some legitimate concerns that need to be worked out. As a few users have noted, Alienus has been getting better as an editor, not getting worse. As such, I think it's premature to go straight into RFA. Al has indicated that he is willing to abide by the outcome of an RFC. I'd like to see that he is given that opportunity before resorting to arbitration. Tony has suggested he won't stand in the way of this proposal. [12] ^^James^^ 20:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^^James^^, there have been so many words written in the last few days on this topic that it is hard to track them all. Can you please show me where Alienus indicated he'd abide by an RfC? Thanks, -Will Beback 07:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Will, that was on your talk page. Sophia: As I said before - for a fair system all you can do is ask that all editors will abide by the outcome of the process to valdate it. Something I'm sure Al will have no issue with. Al responded: I appreciate your emphasis on accepting the outcome of a fair process. It would be counterproductive to presume any particular conclusion, as such is to be determined by the process itself. ^^James^^ 08:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I'm not exactly sure how to interpret it. While you were gathering that I found this, though I'm not sure if it is more, or less, definitive.

If Alienus can assert that an RfC could result in him stopping his personal attacks and incivility, then I'd support it. However I don't see any evidence that there would be such an outcome. If a change in behavior doesn't result, then what's the purpose of an RfC? -Will Beback 23:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To answer Will's question directly, I can see how an RfC might affect my behavior. An RfAr, however, is guaranteed not to. - Alienus [13]

It's rather vague, but I'm all in favor of grasping at straws if there's nothing else at hand. -Will Beback 10:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An RfAr, however, is guaranteed not to. The problem with that statement is that it is an act of will. Why do you make such a choice? Fred Bauder 11:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that an RfC might affect his behaviour, since he's not willing to presuppose what the outcome of the process will be. An RfAr would not positvively affect his behaviour, since he is assuming it would effectively be the end of his wikipedia contributions. He has stated this numerous times, but I can find the diffs if you like. If there's any confusion, you could just ask. ^^James^^ 16:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fred, Just wanted to say thanks for considering my request. It's all for naught, however, as Alienus has decided to leave rather than face arbitration. Sophia has left as well. ^^James^^ 01:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of arbitration on Sathya Sai Baba and user:Andries versus user:SSS108

You chose to accept the case of abritration, but what is the scope of this arbitration, only the article Sathya Sai Baba, or category:Sathya Sai Baba or category:Sathya Sai Baba plus user:Andries? I would like to know because I want to know what I should comment on. I prefer that the arbitration deals with Sathya Sai Baba and closely related articles contained in category:Sathya Sai Baba Thanks. Andries 11:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We will, at a minimum, look at the articles affected by the conflict between the adversaries named in the arbitration. Fred Bauder 18:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recusal request

Fred, I request that you recuse yourself from the Israeli apartheid case. You've made a number of negative comments about me over time which give a perception of a bias. Nothing personal but I think it's necessary. Homey 23:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No basis for recusal. Fred Bauder 23:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one thing you told Zeq "I wish you could consider me your friend and supporter"[14] on 21 Feb 06. If Zeq is a party to this dispute then anyone who is a "friend and supporter" needs to recuse. Homey 23:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq tries so hard, but then so do you. Fred Bauder 23:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah but you're not my "friend and supporter":) And Zeq has also engaged in a rather strenous and personal campaign against me so I don't think it would be fair to have his friends involved in an ArbComm case in which either or both of us are involved. Homey 23:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have also written the following to Zeq in regards to the article at issue:

"I think you made some very good points on the talk page. I don't like that article. Apartheid really should be used only in the South African context. (Not that the Palestinians don't have legitimate complaints)."[15] Homey 23:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By saying you "don't like the article" and expressing the view that the term apartheid should not be used outside of the South African context you have expressed your sympathies for one side of the dispute being brought before the ArbComm. You clearly need to recuse yourself. Homey 00:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there were grounds to recuse (prejudice within me, rather than in your imagination) I would. Fred Bauder 03:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of prejudice in my imagination, it's a matter of a reasonable apprehension of prejudice based on your own words. In the real world judges recuse themselves not only when they concede they have a bias but when they see that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias. Since I cannot read your mind I can only ascertain whether or not you are prejudiced from your words and your words suggest a prejudice, clearly expressed, against the article and an affinity, clearly expressed, with someone who wishes to be a party to the AFD. That you are confident you can separate that from your role as an ArbComm is fine, perhaps you can, perhaps you can't, but it does not change the reasonable perception that you have a bias and thus the requirement that you recuse yourself. Surely you can see that based on your words it is reasonable to perceive a prejudcie?Homey 03:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Recusal: Justice not only needs to be, it must also appear to be done!

Homey: Regardless of the fact that you may have had good reasons, it is VERY bad form for an admin to block anyone when they are having a dispute with, when they (the admin) is involved in writing the article (besides I have never heard of a "3 minute block" -- is that meant to frighten and intimidate?) The correct thing would be to call on a one or two NEUTRAL admins, not involved with this article, and ask them for their input. If they feel that someone is overstepping the rules then they should give a warning to the person they feel is wrong and then if he disregards that warning take the needed action, by all means, as long as they can justify themselves. But you should not have acted as both advocate and editor of the article as well as the executioner admin and final arbiter. Justice not only needs to be, it must also appear to be done! And in this case it clearly was not. IZAK 19:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

. (copied by Zeq 09:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Well then, I expect IZAK will agree with me on my request that Fred recuse himself. Thank you for finding that Zeq, it's very helpful. Homey 14:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for justice Homey and I hope that what ever arbitors will be left after the recusals they will take a good look at your conduct in wikipedia - all of it (and you know what I mean) Zeq 16:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they will look at your conduct Zeq, particularly in the light of your violation of Wikipedia:Harassment? As well Zeq, your insistance on insinuating yourself in this RFA may have consequences you do not anticipate such as getting yourself banned from talk pages as well as articles and from all articles dealing with the MidEast not just a few. If the ArbComm looks at your posting of personal details after you'd already been warned once you may simply get yourself indefinitely blocked. Homey 19:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hanina

As a arbiter in Wikipedia I hope you will read the words of the Palestinian writer Hanina here: [16]especially the part about History which is where Wikipedia takes part. Best Zeq 10:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our mission is to disseminate information about history. However, the point is well taken. Someone who wants peace would be wise to not dwell on past wrongs. That's the way a bad marriage works, every past transgression comes out when there is an argument. Fred Bauder 11:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for "Our mission to disseminate information about history" but let;s be honest Fred: WP:NPOV and WP:RS are not enforced anywhere near other policy (Like WP:Spam and WP:3RR). What thats mean is that while there is a focus on behaviour, wikipedia is allowing itself (and it's popularity) to become a tool in distributing false propeganda which is used against world peace by intersted parties. If NPOV (and RS) were strongly enforced I don't think there was a problem since all sourced, major POV would be represented. Zeq 17:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do our best, but there is a great deal of information which a benevolent dictator would find ought to be suppressed in the interests of peace. Fred Bauder 17:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what I meant. Not talking about suppressing. (Talking about 95% of the effort going to enforce "behavioral policies") at the same time Wikipedia is used as a tool to distribute propeganda by people who know how to "play the system" . The way to solve it is to make an effort to enforce WP:NPOV.

Clearly the fact that ArbCom washes it's hand and "avoid content only focus on behaviour" is part of the problem because only "measureable" behaviour (like 3RR, edit war etc..) become the focus. Maybe a way to address this is binding, forced mediations. Zeq 18:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that content could be arbitrated, however consensus is against it. Editorial arbitration would involve a number of policy changes. And be quite difficult. Fred Bauder 18:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, use the Hanina article above. It is one of the smartest articles about a tough, very tough subjects that exist. It clearly show us where wikipedia can help. Keeping NPOV is way beyond "dificulties" or "changing of few policies" - I can tell you that all i ever tried to do here is strive to NPOV and that is not only "hard" but mostly impossible in curent atmosphere. Zeq 18:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI:[17] Zeq 19:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dionyseus Arbcom

Hi Fred- I read your proposals regarding the [[18]], one of which was to block me for a week. I'm willing to accept the punishment if that's what you think is appropriate, but I am curious why Dionyseus got off with a warning, since he's the one reverting without discussion/consensus? I'm not trying to influence your decision. However, it seems to me that Dionyseus has commited the greater infraction, and I am obviously curious about the reasons behind your decision. Again, I'm not trying to question your decision, but I am trying to understand it.

Additionally, while you have cited links, what is your proposal vis-a-vis including cheating allegations on the page? I hasten to remind you that I have a large majority of support from the talk page, in addition to multiple sources (admittedly some are more difficult to access than others).Danny Pi 04:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under the guidelines for biographies of living persons poorly sourced negative material may be removed from the biography of a living person. Removal is exempt from the three revert rule. Fred Bauder 12:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the way the Guardian handled the information was excellent. It raises the issue without making accusations, anonymous accusations for which there is no proof. Fred Bauder 12:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Fred- thanks for the expedient and thoughtful reply. Your points are well taken. I assume, however, that you aren't directly commenting on whether or not to include the cheating allegations, since this would be regarded as a content issue. Instead, you're citing relevant rules, which lead me to believe you think allegations ought not be included. If this is indeed the case, I'd appreciate your frank opinion. My original edit was "Furthermore, allegations and rumors of computer assistance and cheating during the FIDE World Chess Championship 2005 have become widespread, although no evidence has yet been produced to support the claim that Topalov had cheated." Is this improper? I also provided at least three good sources (including chessbase, chess today, and the Guardian), and someone else also dug up the NY Post, too. What would be the standard for sufficient documentation? I also had an 8 to 2 majority in the discussion page. So, you can understand if I'd be a bit confused as to why Dionyseus would have the right to RV in these circumstances. Again, these are questions I have vis-a-vis wiki policy, and I am not attempting to sway your opinion (much). :) Danny Pi 17:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred- fair enough. Thanks for your thoughts! Danny Pi 22:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PoolGuy - time for some action

I believe it may be time to run a CheckUser on PoolGuy's IP (or IP range) and block the IP(s) for some time. Over the past several days, he has created several accounts, all ending in the term -Marionette, for the sole purpose of vexatious litigation against selected administrators (see the recent history of WP:RFAR). I think there is no other way to stop this person except a CheckUser scan and block of his/her IP(s), and maybe reporting him to his ISP. 05:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It is time for some action. Time to address the issue about GoldToeMarionette being inappropriately blocked. It seems that everyone seems to ignore that. Blocking an IP range will just affect lots of Wikipedians or future Wikipedians. Why is there such hostility bred into Admins. Why can't they address the issue? The action taken by Admins thus far is hostile and does not try to work to resolve the issue. Perhaps one would try? DarkBlueAnkletMarionette 05:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DarkBlueAnkletMarionette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) You are allowed to designate one username and are required to use it. As you kept using PoolGuy we assumed you wanted to use that, but you could use GoldToeMarionette instead. Why don't you designate the username you want to use and we can go from there. Fred Bauder 12:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting suggestion, however being allowed to edit is fundamentally not the issue I am concerned with. I am concerned that GoldToeMarionette made posts in compliance with the Internal Spamming Guideline on WP:SPAM and was blocked "Clean up your mess. For example, after engaging in cross-posting to promote some election, be sure to remove those cross-posts after the election is complete.". The account did not violate a policy. The account did not do something that wasn't addressed by policy but was contrary to community consensus. Instead the account's posts (which debatably some users did not like) were in accord with an actual written down, and exists to this day, policy of Wikipedia. It does not matter if some users did not like the posts. The posts followed written policy. A user should not be blocked for doing something in accord with policy. In fact, I didn't vote in the AfD with any of my accounts.

I have written this many times to many people, and either Admins choose to ignore that fact (like you did in the RfAr) or they don't understand it and take administrative action. That should not have happened and needs to be undone, based on the merits of this account doing something in accord with a well established written policy. It does not matter how much debate the issue receives, the community has left this language in the policy, and has for a long time. In my estimation if it is worthy to remain, it is worthy to be adhered to. The people who should adhere to it most are the Admins. From my view, they are the ones who adhere to the policy the least, based upon the treatment I have received. If Admins would at a minimum follow the written policy, users could have a chance of not getting on their bad side and be ostracized in the community when the user has a disagreement with merit. I am unjustly on the bad side of the community and some Admin needs to undo that. I have been compared to Jason Gastrich for following a written policy... ridiculous.

If the policy is bad someone should change the policy. I don't care. Just don't think I should put up with Admin abuse for Admin error. I don't. I will find an Admin who is as adept as GRBerry to understand it [19]. I am surprised it is taking so long. It appears to me that following Wikipedia Policy is not a requirement for being an Admin, but certainly upping your block numbers is, since that is the preferred method of dealing with an issue rather than thinking about it. This is of course based on my observations of my experience with the group. I edited quite happily on all my accounts for a few years until the Admin onslaught started in March on a popular list.

I am happy to talk about this, and am glad you don't block out of habit like the others. I do think this is very important, and worthy of Admins to understand, because some of their treatment of users appears to promote hostility rather than growing the community. Thanks for reading. I can't wait to get this resolved. If you can't, hopefully one of the 800+ can. EcruAnkletMarionette 03:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]