User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 14

Looking for some help!

An abusive admin has blocked my pal on IP address 24.147.103.146. The admin is named Gamaliel. This admin has been reported in the past by 24.147.103.146 for copyright violation and made to revert. He must be holding a grudge. It may also be due to his POV on the Kennedys and his past invlovement in edit wars. The reason given for the block was an old RFC on Ted Kennedy. My pal added appropiate links to other Kennedy pages not mentioned in the RFC. The admin is pro Kennnedy so he blocked my pal. In any case, this is an abuse of his priv and I ask your help in bringing this to light. Thank you 193.120.103.205 05:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Healing Wikipedia

I wonder if there is a way to heal the issues and differences that DCV's arbitration has brought to the foreground? In some ways, this entire affair has been bad for racial relations here at Wikipedia. Those who don't like how DCV acts have said that their actions are solely in response to DCV not being "nice" (so to speak). Those who don't like what has happened to DCV (like me) see the affair as being driven by racism and bigotry. The funny thing is that there is overlap between the two sides. A number of those pushing to sanction DCV admit that some of actions against her have been wrong and haven't helped racial issues here (and that some of the users pushing the issue against her are doing so for possibly racist reasons). Almost all of us opposed to the actions against DCV admit that she is abrasive and has violated Wikipedia guidelines and should be more civil in her discussions here. What we see, though, is a double-standard at work, with users appearing to gang up against non-minority editors like DCV for being less than civil but not doing the same to white editors. If this subject interest you, I'd encourage you to post you thoughts here on a special talk page I created.--Alabamaboy 21:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for rejecting the "userbox" RFAR request

Hi, Fred Bauder, could I ask you to expand upon your reasoning for rejecting this arbitration request? I'm just interested in knowing your reasoning. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 23:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (it's fine to reply here, I have your talk page on my watchlist). I think what the case is about is whether admins should delete a load of pages outside of the normal speedy criteria, rather on the merits of the userboxes themselves. Could you possibly reconsider your decision? Talrias (t | e | c) 23:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your consideration

I added 2 more prposed remedies in the Ben Gatti case. I really feel as though we need some sort of "symbolic" blocking here or else he's liable not to "get the message" that the arbcom wants to send. He's completely unrepetent. I just don't see just probation altering his behavior. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also added to the workshop about him being blocked from Price-Anderson Act. Anyway, knowing Ben as I do, I'm just not sure probation is going to alter his behavior. I always have hope, but...just not sure. But hey. Your the arbcom member and I ain't. :) So. Hopefully you are correct. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I withdrew the motions from the workshop for Ben to be banned for a day or a week. I kept the Price-Anderson ban motions. I just struck out the banishment motions. If that is not correct, please correct it. I had no idea how to withdraw it. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep I gotcha. I do hope this is my *last* arbcom case for awhile. 4 in 3 months (BigDaddy777, Rex071404, Gibraltarian and now Ben) is a bit draining. I like you, Fred, but I kind of hope I won't have to see you on RfAr for awhile. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

o

Proposed remedies

I have an arbitration process question. Are proposed remedies to be proposed only by arbitrators, or may participants (and/or other interested parties) propose them? Are those who requested the arbitration expected to propose remedies? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 13:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fred. I wasn't clear on this before. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 13:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Checkuser request / result of a personal threat

User:Bumpusmills1 is a new user whom I have worked with in an attempt to teach him Wikipedia guidelines, manners, and so on. To his credit he is trying to learn. Unfortunately, he was a bit abrasive at first and stirred up some vandals and such, especially anonymous editors User:68.45.146.191, User:199.216.98.66 and User:216.13.219.229 who placed User:Bumpusmills1's personal contact info on User:Bumpusmills1's user page and threatened him. (Examples of these threats are [1] and [2], although there are more examples in the history.) It appears these anonymous users are sock puppets of one user. To cut to the chase, I was told to check with the people on the arbitration committee to see if one of you could do a checkuser on these ISPs and see if this is a Wikipedia editor making threats. Thanks for any help you can give. Also, thanks for your comment on the Healing Wikipedia page.--Alabamaboy 16:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This incident has take a more serious turn (see the comments on the admin noticeboard). Can you please run this checkuser request if you get a chance?--Alabamaboy 00:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look

Fred, sorry to bother you with this. I changed the header on one of your items on the Benjamin Gatti arbitration page from "Benjamin Gatti serves a greater good" to "Benjamin Gatti feels he serves a greater good." [3] Judging from your text below the header ("Benjamin Gatti feels his activities with respect to nuclear power represent values which transcends the purpose and policy of Wikipedia"), I felt that's probably what you meant to write. Benjamin has now reverted the change [4]. I'm not going to get into some silly edit war, so am requesting you look at the header and change it yourself if that's what you intended. Thanks again. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 17:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, that seems outside the scope of this arbitration (and this encyclopedia). More to the point, the header looks like you're suggesting that Benjamin's editing practices, as offered in the evidence of this arbitration, are in fact "serving a greater good." (not merely trying to serve a greater good). I've never doubted that his alarmist intentions are sincere; merely that they disrupt Wikipedia. I'd appreciate it if you would consider rewording this somehow, unless you really feel that his editing practices are serving a greater good. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 18:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see and appreciate what you're saying, but I'm not sure that's what the text currently says. It gives the opposite appearance -- well, to me anyway (and it seems also to Woohookitty) -- whether you meant it to or not. Maybe there is a better way to get at that point. Thanks for your comments · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 18:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, that's much clearer. Thank you for your yeoman's work herel; sorry to create more of it for you. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 18:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NLP Arbitration

Hi Fred. Sorry to bother you. I would be grateful if you can tell me what is the current status of the arbitration on the case of NLP article? I would like to contribute to the article but I was deterred by a group of aggressive editors monopolizing the edit. Thanks --Dejakitty 17:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Fred Bauder, Technically I can edit, but due to the presence of aggressive editors, everthing I contribute will trigger further edit war and personal attacks with or without referencing. Is arbitration still going on or is it closed now? --Dejakitty 18:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trekphiler

Note that Trekphiler has removed our comments about his User page from his Talk page without comment. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not vandalism? This user dosen't seem to have been warned, and having user boxes is perfectly allowed(as far as I know) Prodego talk 22:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was a mistake, an understandable mistake. I am beginning to see the problem with userboxes. They are not content but have to be patrolled and it is a lot of senseless work. Fred Bauder 23:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Ok, keep up the good work! Prodego talk 14:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fair use?

Take another look. They're already gone, without any interference from you. Trekphiler 22:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use?

I guess not. The problem was corrected before you started interfering with the page. All the images left were, & are, public domain. I checked them all. Maybe you should have before calling in an airstrike & starting over. Trekphiler 22:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

syntax error?

Not to step on your toes, but this edit looks like something went wrong (and I don't want to make it look like I'm manipulating): [5] Tinus 01:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Price-Anderson Arb case

Fred, I'd like to appeal to you as the one setting the pace, to consider resolving the substantive dispute over what facts are excludable - rather than force this case to drift into a personal mudbath. I am holding back unflattering emails because I fail to see the benefit in a mutual mudbath - the only effect of which can be less editors. Simesa has argued before the Arbcom that a well-sourced and contemporary historical fact should be excluded from an article, such that instead of publishing the risk of nuclear energy as it was understood at the time the risk indemnity act was made, amended, and upheld - we are instead postulating that "the risk is low", or calling it "perceived risk", or in short generalizing the risk largely without reference. Insurance is probability. The article really must embrace all well-sourced references which ought to inform the reader. We should include - to the extent they can be sourced - every criticism and caveat of those studies - but they deserve to be included. The heart of this case is exactly that - I insist on the inclusion of unflattering - but government sourced information - and Simesa argues - usually on his own knowledge - and the letter he has been expecting from Sandia for six months - that the information has been superseded. This is not a mere content dispute. It is a dispute about the nature of NPOV, the inclusion of relevant facts, and the exclusion of facts based on original research. - I appeal to your integrity and your interest in the project to put substance over style. Benjamin Gatti 03:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. 1 Ben has had ample opportunity to argue this point. And it's been rejected. #2, he's about to introduce "unflattering emails" I sent to him. It's an attempt to take the case away from his conduct and onto Price-Anderson since he knows he has no defense for his conduct. Don't let him do it. And besides, as I told him, if he introduces that evidence, I'll introduce the apology I sent him last night. I don't see how me using bad language 3-4 times overrides all of his policy violations. Doesn't work that way. Besides, I didn't think emails were even accepted. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I would far prefer the Arbcom serve its purpose by upholding NPOV, and the right of information to be free - in this case to be free from exclusion by virtue of a single person's personal and unsourced opinions. The NRC said a 45% chance in 20 years. In order to exclude that one fact, Simesa and co. have resorted to parsing a handful of civil edits, casting them in the worst possible light, and then calling them personal attacks - when in fact they were neither. I do not intend to see facts excluded because I refused to defend myself in a mudbath. The Arbcom will have overwhelming evidence to punish both sides for petty and puritanical reasons. I however believe that the higher good is served if we put aside the scarlet "A", the breathless finger shaking and hypocritical accusations, and instead put our minds to the work that all of us care about - publishing that which is most unequivicolly true. Look at the 45% issue, read the sources, then look at Simesa'a argument for exclusion and read the sources - all of them, and then as the arbcom give us a finding that will guide everyone in the future on such matters. Do we as they propose - exclude an older study - when we do not have the results of a newer study - or do we as I have suggested include them both, noting the differences in methodology and the arguments available for weighing their respective validity? Benjamin Gatti 04:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Yes and I am sure that blackmailing me is an ok means to this end, right? Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti/Workshop#Blackmail_and_threats_are_not_permissible. It's blackmail, pure and simple. It cannot be tolerated. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Demonstrating that the people accusing one of incivility are hypocrites is an unpleasant but necessary defense from time to time - I would do anything to avoid. Benjamin Gatti 16:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Emails are usually not considered by the Arbitration Committee anyway Fred Bauder 14:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Kate attempted to explain that to Ben and Chazz. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

communism

lead or led does not imply voluntary following. I bet you there will be objection to the use of controll... I have no problems with either usage (Gibby 03:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

Kevin Mulligan

I've reduced the block to one week per your request. Thanks for being positive about it, I appreciate it a lot. -- Essjay · Talk 15:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plagairism?

From the talk page USS Nautilus (SS-168): Maybe I misunderstood something. I wasn't aware lifting directly & exactly from DAFS was OK, yet that's exactly what the article is doing. I pulled this from the DAFS site:

"At 0755, 4 June, while approaching the northern boundary of her patrol area near Midway, she sighted masts on the horizon. Japanese planes sighted the submarine at the same time and began strafing. After diving to 100 feet, she continued observation. At 0800, a formation of four enemy ships was sighted: 1 battleship and 3 cruisers. Within minutes the submarine was again sighted from the air and bombs began to fall. Two of the cruisers attempted to close for a kill and nine depth charges were dropped at a distance of about 1000 yards."

And this from the article:

"At 07:55, 4 June, while approaching the northern boundary of her patrol area near Midway Island, she sighted masts on the horizon. Japanese planes sighted the submarine at the same time and began strafing. After diving to 100 feet (30 m), she continued observation. At 08:00, a formation of four enemy ships was sighted: one battleship and three cruisers. Within minutes the submarine was again sighted from the air and bombs began to fall. Two of the cruisers attempted to close for a kill and nine depth charges were dropped at a distance of about 1000 yards."

Hmmm... I think Leno calls this "Eerie Similarity". I'd call it plagairism. Trekphiler 07:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC) And don't tell me "public domain" makes that okay. Or do you mean to suggest I can copy works of Dickens & pass them off as my own? Trekphiler 15:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plagairism?

Don't tell it to me. I'm not the one that put it up without quotes. I know better. Trekphiler 16:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plagairism?

Fine, you want to encourage or ignore plagairism, that's your priviledge. I brought it to your attention. That's all I can do, not having admin priviledegs or the exalted ability to block people from doing it. If you have that ability & chose not to use it, & you can live with plagairism on your "encyclopedia", I guess I can't do anything about it. Block me or don't. Your moral standards don't trouble me. Trekphiler 16:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plagairism?

And you don't need to accuse me of making trouble for trying to call attention to something that I think is abhorrent to a self-styled encyclopedia. I thought standards here were higher than that, both ethically & civilly. Trekphiler 16:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information: New Help Group

This message is to inform you about a new group whose aim is to try and answer Wikipedians' questions. The group is based here, and is so far nameless. If you can offer any help by improving the pages or by answering any questions, then you are very welcome to do so. You are also welcome to raise any questions.

If you know of anyone who would either like to know about this or could help us, then please tell them. Thank you. The Neokid 17:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Zionist Propeganda"

The term "Zionist Propeganda" which you claim is in Wikipedia is a term that is used by such people as the Iranian president. Please identify where in Wikipedia you think there is such propeganda. If you let me know which articles and what is the propeganda I will do my best to remove it as describe the source opf it so it is identified correctly as propeganda.

Unlike you, I do not think Wikipedia is a place for propeganda from any kind. (Of course some facts or claims can be used as such but that is not what you claimed) Zeq 18:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what Wikipedia currently say about Jerusalem:

"The West Bank is considered by the United Nations and most countries as currently occupied by Israel, though some Israelis and various other groups prefer to refer to it as "disputed" rather than "occupied" territory. ...The area was then captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, although with the exception of East Jerusalem, it was not annexed....The status of East Jerusalem is controversial. Israel, having annexed it, no longer considers it part of the West Bank; however, the annexation is not recognized by any other country, nor by the United Nations. In either case, it is often treated as separate from the West Bank due to its importance; for example, the Oslo Peace Accords treat the status of East Jerusalem as a separate matter from the status of the other Palestinian territories, to be resolved at a later undetermined date."

If you think any of this is not accurate description, or not NPOV or part of any "Zionist propeganda" please identify what need to be corrected and will do my best to correct it. We aim high in writing this encylopedia as you know. On the other hand, terms like "zionist propeganda" are used by very low people like the Iranian president. Zeq 20:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert I case

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I as Robert I has resumed editing I'd like to request an injunction. Homey 19:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plagairism revisited

Y'know, as exercised as I was yesterday & this morning, you'd think I'd have checked this sooner... I just had a look at Wahoo. It's a verbatim lift from DAFS. Looks like you've got a real problem. I don't know if admins condone or ignore plagairism, but I'd suggest something needs to be done before some pissed off lawyer finds out & sues Wikipedia into the 22d Century. Trekphiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq - Zero - Ian and "israelo-arab" articles...

Please... do something :-)

I think both are right for *some matters* and both are wrong for *others* but that the problem is that these article are extremely bad due to this problem because instead of being NPOV they are an accumulation of slightly POV for A and POV for B points. User:ChrisC 22:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My user page

Aren't you the same guy involved in the RfA -- on the Arb Comm? Are you not familiar with the purpose of user pages? Do not put messages to my on my user page. That's what talk pages are for. On second thought, do NOT post your comments about my user page on my talk page. I've requested that people stop doing so. Be that as it may, you should be well familiar with the fact that user pages are not for dialogue. It's enough that I have to put up with every Tom, Dick and Harry deleting my page and commenting upon its contents. You should know better. Don't do it again. Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DCV unblocked

I have unblocked Deeceevoice because I can find no valid reason on WP:BP for her to be blocked. I have mentioned this on WP:AN/I as well. --Angr (tɔk) 17:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check your email

Hello, please check your email. Sent information re: WebEX and Min Zhu case. --FloNight 18:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock check if possible

Fred -- I have been suspicious for some time about whether Hermitian and Corax could be sockpuppets. My only interactions with both have been on the NAMBLA page. They seem to both only emerge when one or the other is challenged on a content point. In specific, the article (and both of them) has/have been relatively quiescent since last April, when both Corax and Hermitian were last actively editing. A few weeks ago, someone came to the article and began challenging some of the information. Corax began speaking up again, and soon, Hermitian. Hermitian in specific had not edited any WP article since last April, when NAMBLA last calmed down, until this new content dispute emerged. Possible to get a sock check? I wouldn't ask, except the argument is getting fairly heated now and there has been a consensus vote called, on which both have voted. Thanks. If you would, please reply here. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 03:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No apparent connection Fred Bauder 04:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment

Further, Bauder's reason, on the Admin page, is this: "I have blocked Deeceevoice for 24 hours regarding her refusal to engage in dialogue regarding her user page. Please see [87] regarding this issue. Fred Bauder 16:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)"

uh ! :-) MUD god :-))) Anthere 07:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Gibraltarian socks

Hey Fred. I just blocked Gib1 (talk · contribs), Gib2 (talk · contribs), Gib3 (talk · contribs), and Gib4 (talk · contribs) as abusive sockpuppets of Gibraltarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The contributions make it quite clear. He's been using sleeper accounts that are several days old to get around the semi-protection of his favorite articles. I wonder if you could use checkuser on these socks to see if you could find some more sleeper accounts hanging around? Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 21:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all blocked. Dmcdevit·t 21:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq's arbitration case

User:Zeq seems to have turned the request for an arbitration case against him into a forum for attacking Wikipedia. Is this allowed? Brian Tvedt 22:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attacking wikipedia. I am asking wikipedia to implement it's own policies by accepting the arbitration case but applying it in a uniform way to all issues on articles about the conflict. Zeq 22:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my question. My understanding is that the WP:RFAR page is supposed to be limited to statements that would help the arbitration committee decide whether or not to accept a particular case. Zeq has used the page to criticize articles (ZOG and Islamofascism) that have nothing to do with the case at hand. He also seems determined to start a discussion on that page about whether or not Wikipedia has an anti-Israel bias, which is not the issue in the case. My question is, are there grounds for blocking Zeq, at least from the RFAR page? Brian Tvedt 23:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, this was my fault, not his Fred Bauder 23:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double standard

"Questioning the right of the Jewish people to their own homeland, muttering about the influence of the ‘Zionist lobby’ on US foreign policy ...amounts to racial prejudice against Jews. The tragedy is ... antisemitism masquerading as ‘anti-Zionism’ " [6]

Zeq 22:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for the support in the ArbCom elections - I'm taking part to help enhance my knowledge of, and standing in, Wiki, and will keep on editing! Didn't expect to do well but at least some people have faith in me =) Take care bud, doktorb | words 10:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise on DCV and an apology

In recent days I have grown disgusted with Deeceevoice's comments and actions. As a result, I am withdrawing my support of her. That said, Justforasecond has behaved very poorly throughout this entire affair but more so in recent days, placing comments on DCV's talk page merely to stir up trouble. As such, I am proposing that both DCv and JFAS be placed on personal attack parole for a year at [7] Perhaps this is a compromise that a majority of the parties involved could agree to. Please check it out and see what you think. In addition, as a side note to this I am apologizing for my use of "lynching" to describe this RfAr. Best, --Alabamaboy 19:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another apology

This must be the day for it; I was dropping by to leave one, too. Sorry I got so pissed off at you on Deecee's page the other day (so pissed, in fact, that I declared it the last straw for myself on Wikipedia on my user page--a comment now removed). Re-reading your comments over at the RfAr I've seen again your overall good intentions, and the efforts you're making to keep this a balanced and reasonable decision. Given how frustrating it obviously is to be on Arbcom, I thought I doubly owed you an apology and some thanks. Like several of us, I think I've had the wrong end of the stick here for a while, coming to this at first through our nasty encounters with JFAS, but it looks like you're taking some intelligent and badly needed action here. I'm still taking off from Wikipedia as it is--grad school's just gotten too demanding for me to justify my presence here--but I wanted to make at least one less bitter edit before I left. Good luck with it all! With hat off to you, --Dvyost 21:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pedelec

I was wondering if you may instruct or get someone to help out, or do something about pedelec article. (in the process of being deleted) --CyclePat 04:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, if you don't understand why people object to the Pedelec article you could have a look at [8], Talk:Motorized bicycle, talk to User:Woohookitty or me. Pat is a small-time manufacturer of electric bicycles who wants to split out electric bicycles from the good and expanding article at motorized bicycle. He is pushing a barrow. The objection is not to the content of pedelec but to the fact that we already have an article at motorized bicycle which is linked to the German pedelec article from which Pat made the translation, and which already includes most if not all the encyclopaedic content of pedelec as well as additional information. It's a simple matter of undoing a content fork, and getting the one person who is dissatisfied with electric bikes being included in motorized bicycle to work with the flow to the point where evolution takes its course and the subject forks under pressure of article size. We are not there yet. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deeceevoice's departure

If you're interested in speculating about deeceevoice's departure. -- Jim Apple 05:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Party of America

Fred, can I ask you to please look in at Talk:Socialist Party of America#Reversal of meaning? I'm trying to avoid an edit war. I didn't write the article, and it isn't well cited, but as far as I can tell Jacrosse, also without citation, keeps changing this passage from something I believe is fundamentally correct to something I am sure is not. I've now reverted him three times over the course of a week or so, no one else has spoken up either way, and I think it is best for someone else to take a look. I know this topic is at least more or less within your areas of knowledge. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom candidate userbox

Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.

{{User arbcom nom}}

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 02:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Bauder's "Zionism"

Fred, you wrote:

I will set forth my personal view of Zionism: I think was a bad idea, but I support the right of the state of Israel to be fully accepted internationally and regionally. My opinion of notions of Greater Israel is very negative. I am not Jewish. Fred Bauder 21:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

To which someone responded:

If I am wrong and you do support the right of the Jewish people (the people not the religion) to be like any other people and have a homeland of their own then you are Zionist (even though you may not know it) so please clarify if you do support Zionism in the sense that it is the right of the Jewish people to forever have a national homeland in the land of Israel, at least in the 67 borders.

And you responded:

According to you I am a Zionist. Still a bad idea to try to establish a new country with a new population in a place that already had a different people in it. But it has happened and peace would be to everyone's benefit regardless of the past. Fred Bauder 16:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't disagree with either of your two final points, both of which I find eminently reasonable:

  • "[it's] a bad idea to try to establish a new country with a new population in a place that already had a different people in it"
  • "it [Israel's creation] has happened and peace would be to everyone's benefit regardless of the past"

While your second point suggests support for the State of Israel, the first (along with "My opinion of notions of Greater Israel is very negative.") makes it clear that you are not a "Zionist." However, you have been accused of being biased against Israel, and I would like you to consider that possibility, despite your second point and its suggestion of support for Israel's existence.

Why should you have any "more negative" notions about "Greater Israel" than about the US? After all, the US was also established as "a new country with a new population in a place that already had a different people in it." And that existing population was greater than 20,000,000, most of whom were killed and replaced by a smaller European population (that only grew larger after the near genocide was completed).

But, you might respond that your view of the European takeover of North America is also "very negative."

OK. Then what regional population group's establishment of their presence in their current location do you not view negatively? In virtually all cases (except the most extreme places where survival can barely be established), the location "already had a different people in it" before the current inhabitants arrived. In the vast majority of cases, the violence that accompanied the arrival of the current inhabitants' ancestors included a far greater degree of genocide and or murder than the establishment of "Greater Israel" (as violent as that has been).

Since I said that I agree with your two points, I am saying that "[it's] a bad idea to try to establish a new country with a new population in a place that already had a different people in it." But if we are going to be consistent and not antisemitic, we would have to then add that all nationalism, regional ethnic takeovers, establishment of racial homogeny, etc. are notions about which we are very negative.

That you seem to have no awareness that simply stating your negative view of the creation of Israel—without mentioning the fact that you view all establishing of ethnic regions and religious/ethnic/racial nationalism negatively (that is, if, as I am assuming, you are consistent and not antisemitic)—seems to indicate antisemitic bias.

"But," you might reply, "Why do I have to say I don't like Brussels sprouts [here, I am assuming you are a normal human being and do not like them ;-)] when I say I don't like spinach in order for you to think I am not biased against spinach?" There are at least two reasons:

  • There have not been repeated, horrendously murderous campaigns to eliminate spinach from the world. Nor has spinach been historically treated as greatly inferior to Brussels sprouts as a faux vegetable. It would be unreasonable for a Southern misanthrope to be outraged when a statement like "I don't like blacks" is taken to indicate racism when, in his case, his antipathy is equal for all people. Another example: You may have a "negative" view of significant aspects of male group behavior. But, at least in a public forum, you would probably never say "I don't like the way black men behave in groups," without being aware of how racist that could sound without any contextualization or explanation. Why is it then that, if you have a negative view of the establishment of any regional ethnicity at the expense of the preexisting population (i.e., if, like I do, you have a negative view of most of human geopolitical history), in this case you feel free to mention your negative feelings (without providing any caveats or context) about the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel without being aware of how antisemitic that sounds?
  • Assuming you support the creation of a Palestinian state (as I do) and say so publicly, then such a statement about Israel seems quite biased. How would it look if you claimed to dislike all green leafy vegetables equally, yet for some reasons (even if they are good ones), while going around occasionally mentioning that you dislike spinach and think it was a mistake to ever plant it (but don't believe it should be weeded from the world), you also mention that you support the planting and growing of Brussels sprouts?

While it is entirely possible that the types of bias in your viewpoint are just semantic and apparent (i.e., not real), the fact that so many liberals use this type of biased wording about the Arab-Israeli conflict when they would never do the same about race relations in the US and never seem to be as eager to mention the "negative" ugliness of Palestinian nationalism suggests that some real bias may be operating. And, of course, even if this is true, any bias you may have is not even in the same league of a Zero000 or an Ian Pitchford. Kriegman 10:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence -- any suggestions?

Fred,

Thanks for your help with the attempted purchase of the Chinese language text. I'll probably have to interlibrary loan a copy somehow.

I've been trying to communicate with Zen-master, and I just read your comment to Requests for arbitration/Zen-master. I actually rather like this individual. The problem has been to enculturate him to discussion as opposed to what passes for debate in some quarters, and I think I have made some progress. He is in principle ready to admit that there is a point in having an article on Race and Intelligence. He has problems with the conclusions of the field and tends to blame them on Rikurzhen and other responsible editors. I do not like the conclusions either, and I recognize that I do not have the academic background to dispute the field or even to detect whether Rikurzhen and others are giving an even balance to reports on the field. Jokestress was doing an effective job for a few months, and then she disappeared.

The real problem with the Race and Intelligence article is that it just grew up without any thought having been given to contextualizing the account. Zen-master wants to crowd all of the context into the article, but that won't work because the article is already extremely large. What needs to happen is to start with two broad articles. One is Race, and we already have a fairly good article on that topic. The other is Intelligence. The article is poor. I think the primary problem with it is that the idea of intellgence has been circumscribed by the streetlamp phenomenon, the old Sufi story of the guy who loses a coin or a key, probably has lost it somewhere in his house, but since it is night he goes out to look for it under the streetlamp where he can see what he is doing. Intelligence research has been represented in terms of the things that people can measure. The article could be improved.

Beneath these two articles there should be an article that relates these two areas, Race and Intelligence. But there should also be an article on Nutrition (and I assume that there is), and an article on Nutrition and Intelligence. It would be nice if there were a list in the Intelligence article on factors that have been researched as possible influences on intelligence because that would be a convenient way to check for the presence of articles on those subjects. That being done, one could check for the presence of articles on X and Intelligence.

After all that work is at least stubbed in place, there should be an article on Influences on Intelligence.

I am not the person to do this work because my field is philosophy, not psychology or genetics. But I think doing things this way would bring clarity and closure to an important issue. Any ideas on how to proceed? P0M 18:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need arbitration help at Turkish people page

Just wondering if we could get some assistance at the Turkish people page which where an impasse has been reached and a somewhat clear barrier towards compromise erected. wondering if you could help? thanks. Tombseye 19:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any recommendations of someone who can help out? Tombseye 19:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had originally started that article but it seems to have gotten totally out of hand. Outrageous (or, at least, unlikely) unsourced claims are routinely inserted and reinserted. I think perhaps misunderstandings and langauge barriers may be part of the explanation, but otherwise it seems like most are bad faith edits intended to disrupt. //Big Adamsky 20:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RJII v. Firebug arbitration

Fred, could you have a look at this situation when you get a moment and give us your opinion? In summary, the above case began as two separate ones: Firebug accusing RJII of incivility and personal attacks, and RJII accusing Firebug of intentionally disruptive editing. Others (including myself) have since had encounters with RJII and have run into much the same behavior. Firebug recently quit Wikipedia. RJII believes that the arbitration should now be dropped, but I am of the opinion that the arbitration should proceed, and if necessary I would be willing to step in as the plaintiff. I had previously contributed evidence to the case. Can you tell me what should happen now? TomTheHand 20:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultramarine arbitration decision

I've been back for some days, having hurt my hand in November. I just looked at Talk:Criticisms of communism, although I plan to stay out of it. I believe - I know about myself - that Ultramarine's suggestions of a Conspiracy devised by 172 are figments. You were leaning over backwards in recusing yourself.

I did not present (or quite finish) the analysis of Ultramarine's testimony, but if you would like to see it, I can make it a subpage or e-mail it. Septentrionalis 05:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your conscience required recusal; of course you had to follow it. I shall comment further on the talk page. Septentrionalis

Arbcom for Dummies

I've just created User:Snowspinner/Arbcom, which is a first draft of basic advice that people who are taking a case to the arbcom should have before trying to write an evidence page. It's geared towards the practical rather than the idealistic, but I wanted comments on it before I do... I don't know, actually, what I'll do with it. Phil Sandifer 22:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]