User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 27

Sock puppets?!?!?!

I have never used a sock puppet. 62.77.181.16 and Bazzajf are not sockpuppets of mine.--8bitJake 00:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Jones and CongressRecords

Jerry Jones was banned following a full discussion on AN/I (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive103#Jerry Jones/JJstroker.) He never acknowledged the gross plagiarism in which he engaged. The POV issues are also a problem, as is the editing while banned (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jerry Jones). I strenuously object to this user's unblocking unless he acknowledges his errors. Even then it should be discussed on AN/I or some other official forum. -Will Beback 03:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strenuously object to Jerry Jones being unblocked under any circumstances. He has consistently an unabashedly lied right from the start; about his plagiarism, sockpuppeting, etc. Even when I presented him with evidence of his actions, with diffs, he would still claim he hadn't done things, though the diffs were right there. Someone this dishonest has no place on Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation has now moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Jerry Jones and CongressRecords. -Will Beback 03:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lebaneese Nakba

Nakba (disaster) is now taking place in Lebanon. Lebanon is being demolished. Nassralla did not leave Israel with any other choice.

Zeq 15:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3276772,00.html

University of California, Riverside ongoing debate

  • Hello. I'm a user who got involved in the debate after the failed RfArb. Researching the problem turned up the vote in which you rejected the RfArb on the basis of UCRGrad presenting a "significant point of view". Could you elaborate on that, please? From my reading, it appears that UCRGrad's (and Insert-Belltower's) edits cast a pointedly negative slant on the university in violation of WP:NPOV. Please respond at your earliest convenience - the debate is currently being stonewalled. Thanks. :) Danny Lilithborne 06:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser results from a request for arbitration archived

Greetings. I help maintain Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser's archives and general maintainence for requests to checkusers as a volunteer clerk. Your completed use of the checkuser tool and public posting of the results has been archived here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ericsaindon2. Please feel free to reword your reply as you see fit. Check out WP:RFCU/SORT if you wish to write down that you've used the checkuser tool not in direct response to WP:RFCU. Last, this edit was seen and most definately not included in the archive I created. Kevin_b_er 07:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highways Arbcom Enforcement

Hi Fred, who is responsible for enforcing the ruling of the arbcom in this case if a party to it is violating the probation? An instance of blatant Highway edit warring involving User:SPUI, which is in direct violation of our probations, was brough to WP:AN/I and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement and both times were rejected by Tony Sideaway in favor of a polite warning. Hasn't the time for warnings passed? Or do Arbcom decisions not actually matter, because a block is proscribed for disruptive edits to highway articles in this instance and the only admin to respond doesn't seem to think the Arbcom ruling matter. I'm just asking because I want to know if I can start controversially editing again too or if this leinency is restricted to SPUI only. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

Hello, please help with a case about alleged adminship abuse by JzG, which had been rejected by three arbitrators before an administrator warned the accused one and undid part of his actions. The conflict is going on and I do not know how to find a solution. The only arbitrator who has sinced voted on the case is one who in my eyes is in a conflict of interest as he did a very similar block on me in the past that I think was abusive and that was undone by Theresa as it lacked any evidence of wrongdoing by me. I had suggested a change to the blocking policy but the discussion about it has up to now been inconclusive due to a lack of participants. Socafan 02:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Inaccessible to an ordinary reader"

(If you want to copy this to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hunger/Workshop or its talk page feel free; as I explain below it has some bearing on that, but I think it is tangential enough that I'd rather keep it out of there, unless you decide it is relevant.)

Fred, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hunger/Workshop you speak of a source being "inaccessible to an ordinary reader". I could imagine construing it a lot of ways, and most of them do not strike me as a problem with the source.

I have definitely based articles largely or entirely on books that are certainly not "accessible to an ordinary [English-language] reader". The extreme is probably one book I used extensively, in at least 30 articles: Israil Bercovici, O sută de ani de teatru evreiesc în România ("One hundred years of Yiddish/Jewish theater in Romania"). It was originally written in Yiddish, translated only into Romanian, probably out of print (I could be wrong). Living in Seattle, I had to get hold of a copy from Chicago on interlibrary loan, one of three known copies in North America. It is undoubtedly the definitive work on its topic. It is undoubtedly doubly inaccessible to the average English-language reader, because it has never been translated into English and almost no copies are to be found in the English-speaking world (actually, while I never thought about it until now, I bet there are more copies in the U.S. in Yiddish than in Romanian, but I don't read Yiddish).

Just looking around what I have within 10 feet as I write I find things like a 1904 Merriam-Webster, a dictionary of Venezuelan slang, a book on the history of quantum mechanics that probably came out in a single small edition from Birkhäuser, and a copy of this spring's Vanguardia Dossier (from Madrid, readily available there, but pretty scarce here). And a French-language history of Romania, and I could go on, but I imagine you get my point. None of these are, in any obvious sense, terribly "accessible", but I think they are all excellent reference material. I honestly believe that using sources like this add enormously to Wikipedia: they allow us to write about things that are probably not well covered anywhere else on the web, at least not in English.

This is slightly more relevant to the case than you might offhand imagine. I believe that Smeelgova was probably first directed by me to the Mother Jones article. She came to my user talk page saying, among other things "I also believe that all of the timeline and commentary on the connections with Werner Erhard and Erhard Seminars Training are relevant and of interest to the reader." I responded "I don't have the time or inclination to really wade into this, but I'd certainly agree that Erhard and est are crucial to any honest history of the Hunger Project. Is that being disputed? Is he claiming that this is false, or just that for some reason it isn't worth reporting? There is a Mother Jones article from December 1978 that documents the connection well (I read it at the time, it was a good article, worth tracking down), and that at that time est was using Hunger Project as a recruiting tool. Conversely, according to [1] 8 years later MJ conceded that the Hunger Project had severed those ties and was no longer recruiting for est." I remembered the article from when I read it; I did a web search to determine the exact date (I knew within a year because of where I was living when I read it, but couldn't have been so precise off the top of my head). You will notice that I referred her to it in a way that encouraged her to seek the original source, and that because I'd come up with a mitigating detail in the course of my web search I also passed that on.

I'm sure this is not a source that would have come to mind for the average contributor, because I'm a lot older the average contributor. And it's not "accessible" as in you can find it on line (at least not that I spotted), but it is "accessible" as in someone with access to a good university library or big-city public library should be able to get at it. It's a lot more accessible than any of the abovementioned.

Anyway: does this issue of "inaccessible" sources come from a policy or guideline? If so, does it actually say all sources should be "accessible to an ordinary reader"? Wikipedia:Reliable sources says only that sources should be "accessible in principle": nothing about "ordinary reader" (or even "ordinary Wikipedian"), nothing even about "readily accessible as a practical matter". And I think that is as it should be. - Jmabel | Talk 04:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors. And "Are the publications available for other editors to check? Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability.2C_not_truth. "We provide sources for our readers, so they must be accessible in principle, although not necessarily online." Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_sources. It was not so much the Mother Jones article, but some of the others at [2]. Go through them.... "One hundred years of Yiddish/Jewish theater in Romania" seems like an excellent source for articles that are not controversial. Fred Bauder 12:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that most leaps out at me is a lot of online references without access dates, some of which appear now to be dead or 404s. I'd have to assume that they were once good, and that they were added in good faith, but unless they can be found on the Internet Archive I agree they are going to be virtually impossible to verify. But one runs that risk every time one uses a strictly online reference (algthough matters are at least clarified a bit by an access date). Since the bulk of Wikipedia references are from online, I can't imagine we would ban online-only references. I usually try, when possible, for online references that also appeared in print (e.g. newspaper and magazine articles, old books available online, etc.) and I try to glean the actual print publication information (a typical example from the last 24 hours is the New York Times article I cited at Freeport, New York) but as I'm sure we both know, that cannot always be easily done (for example, I grabbed a web-only citation for a stub on Zongora; this came up because someone elsewhere seemed to be questioning whether there was such an instrument, or whether someone was being confused by the Hungarian word for piano). Writing articles would nearly grind to a halt if we didn't allow web-only citation, which is always at risk of "going dead". Whether those dead-link citations remain good enough now on a controversial article is certainly at least very questionable, but unless you think they were dead when they were put up (and weren't honest typos in a URL) then they don't reflect poorly on the conduct of the person who used them. And once again we are back on the case at hand; once again, feel free to copy over to the Workshop talk page if you think this is useful. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt they were good at the time. Fred Bauder 18:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

Fred,

To save everyone time I will accept the punishment you suggested in the motion.

As a side note, I would like to point out that so far accumulated time of the blocks imposed on me by Homey and his proxy Sceptre is totaling over 80 hours. Zeq 06:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the above I suggest monitoring Zeq in the future lest he resume his vendetta against me. Homey 13:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arb appeal

I've posted evidence at the link you gave me. thanks for agreeing to hear the case Dr. Trey 08:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i put my HEART into that evidence alright...

nah, kidding. thanks for letting me know. Dr. Trey 08:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia automatic diff tool

The wikipedia sofware which calculate the diif in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&diff=55752867&oldid=55752006 made it look like I removed the whole 1st section. I did not. Please review carefully what was actually done in this edit.

This is what the edit really was (if the diff toll was not making an error):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZeq&diff=65043312&oldid=65043198

Zeq 15:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Expect that you make a correction on the evidence page. The diff you linked create (due to a software bug) a false image of the edit I made. I never touched all the part that included sources. I was starting to NPOV the header and if you think otherwise I would like to discuss it. (as we actually started to do when I made that edit) I am always open to discussion and willing to change any edit I make. Zeq 19:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Fred, I was serious : The diff does not show my edit correctly and if you look at what I did I did exactly what the NPOV policy require: Describe the controversy. Some of the facts I put in are undsiputed (that those who use the expression use it as propeganda to delitimize Israel's right to exist - they wabt that the zionist regimn will have the same fate as the SA apartheid regimn) and that they use it while ignoring evidence that the analaogy is wrong.

Now, what could be POV ?

You can argue that Israel has (or does not have) a right to exist - this is POV (either way) You can argue that Israel should use an paratheid-like laws (or that it should not) - this would be POV (either way)

You could argue that Israel is anpartheid state (like the title actually suggest - that would be POV.

But what is POV in waht i did that you labled it "biased editing" is really beyond me - especially since we discussed this very edit before and you voted to delte the article. Certenly, describing the controversy (as I did) is less POV than deleting it. Please explain in a way that an uneducetd person like me can understand. Tnx. (and please correct the diff to show my real edit) Zeq 11:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should provide proof to your statement that Wikipedia (and you as part of it's ArbCom) was unable to enforce it's NPOV policy reualting in pro-zionsit bias. Such staements require proofs. How about correcting the diff you placed of my edit - surly you know it does not represent my edit correctly. Please at least get the facts present accuratly. I am willing to discuss the actual change I made (but I did not remove the section that apear in the diff as if it was deleted) this should be clarified. Zeq 05:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid and Anti-Semitism

This is a bried conversation I have had with User:HOTR, can you a) please confirm and if confirmed, b) please explain in light of the Criticism section of the article? Thank you. -- Avi 21:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation

I direct you to the first sentence of Allegations of Israeli apartheid#Criticism. It is obvious that anti-semitism belongs here, and that your edits are a backhanded way to push a WP:POV. Please, you are an intelligent person, you KNOW that the criticism is that it is anti-semetic, and that it is predominantly an Arab claim, so both of those categories are eminently logical and belong. -- Avi 21:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the ArbComm case on the article, Arbitrator Fred Bauder has cited an earlier edit which added the article to the cat Category:Anti-Semitism as an example of "extreme bias". That is why I removed the Islam and anti-Semitism cat and similar links, they seem to be an attempt to make a POV comment on the phrase.Homey 21:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will investigate, and then discuss it with Mr. Bauder if necessary. It seems completely selbst-verständlich from the article that it belongs. -- Avi 21:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

While your edits can be viewed as biased, categories are a special item. For example Golan heights can legitimately be included in both the geography of Syria and Israel. Inclusion in a category does not signify a fact, only that information regarding a matter may be found there. Certainly there is information extant which paints discussion of Israeli apartheid as anti-Semitism. I think use of the term is mostly by the Western left, particularly South African, English and Israeli. Arabs, who are practitioners of segregation and discrimination themselves, are unlikely to take such a tack. Fred Bauder 20:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

So, if I understand you correctly, since categories do not indicate facts, but collections of knowledge, and since, as you say “…there is information extant which paints discussion of Israeli apartheid as anti-Semitism,” are you in agreement with me that the categories should be there, or am I misunderstanding something? Thank you. -- Avi 16:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check user request - possible misuse on AfDs

Regarding this AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gangsters_In_Love#.5B.5BGangsters_In_Love.5D.5D. There has been a long drawn out conversation regarding the author proving the notability of this. He claimed he was going to, then suddenly disappeared after leaving a keep comment without editing the article to include the things he said he would. After doing so, two brand new users showed up to provide long statements about how the article should be kept. As such I suspect there is likely sockpuppetry going on. I've never done one of these so I'm not sure if I just ask you directly or what here. Essentially I want to know if these 3 are the same or any combination there of, maybe only one is a sock puppet.

The reason I also ask is because Bign2003 has shown that he's willing ot repeatedly ignore wikipedia rules by recreating deleted content, etc to get this information on the encyclopedia, so I wouldn't put it above him to use sock puppets. Thanks in advance.--Crossmr 20:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and if I don't ask you directly, is there somewhere I do ask for this?--Crossmr 16:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI 1

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid/Evidence#Comment_on_Zeq

FYI -2 (unrelated to FYI 1)

This require examonation as it is a clear bviolation of creating a safe environment for editing an encyclopedia:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid/Evidence#Threats_on_me Zeq 06:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

simple antisemitism

I have been, all my adult life, a strong activist against Likud governments. I support a full Israel withdrawal from all areas captured in 67, including e. jerusalem. I wish Israel will have peace with an independent strong Palestinian state next to it. I am, in the Israeli political map, considered to be "far left"

But there are those who dispute my right to live in my country. Hamas does not accept it, Hizbulla does not accpet it and some European and lefty intectulas who think Israel should become a country that is ruled by the combined majority Palestinian population (in Israel+ the occupied territory).

Such views, are not only anti-Semitic, but also cause great suffering to the Palestinian people because they make the real solution (two states) impossible to implement. A quick look at Lebanon shows us what happened in the ME when a country is designed without respecting different nationalities.


I strongly suggest you take a break from arbCom and learn about the subject of Zionism. somehow it seems to occupy you too much. Zeq 20:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was appointed because I am willing to deal with difficult matters (and difficult people). I do not have any fixed solution to the political problems faced by Israel other than adequate provision for the welfare of every person and group in Israel/Palestine and the surrounding area. Fred Bauder 21:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your distorted view of what Zionism is has made it difficult for you to deal with difficult siatuations. hence the "general amnesty" and "zionist bias" suggestion. None of them show an ability to deal with the situation head-on. You only "step" onm the weak in opposition to some wikipedia piolicy which i don't need to quote to you cause surly you know it.
Tackle the real problems, the stronger, exprianced editors who should know better: If you think Jay or Slim or Homey broke laws: deal with it. Instead this whole case is turning into banning me. ridiculus and shows lack of sense of judgment. Similarly your suggestion to use google hits as a measure for encyclopdic importance is completly reidiculus. see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FIsraeli_apartheid%2FEvidence&diff=65446481&oldid=65393627 Zeq 05:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "stronger, experienced" editors have been punished enough just by the existence of this trouble. Fred Bauder 14:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them are those who created this article as a propeganda against israel. They may have done it out of their frustrtaion at the "new antisemitism" article.

Is it possible for a person to be Jewish and antisemitic and yet not define himself as such ? In any case Wikipedia has policies which you as an arbitor need to uphold. Wikipedia should be able to implemnet it's own policies such WP:Not and WP:NPOV

Zeq 17:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dissident "evidence"

I'm not exactly sure what those edits to various articles over a lengthy period have to do with this case, nor, frankly, do I remember making them, but it looks like a stylistic thing to me. I'm also a little concerned that these cases seem to be turning into big complaint-fests where anyone with a beef can put up any "evidence" they want, from any time, and on any topic, to try to smear an editor they don't like. Jayjg (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ericsaindon2 Block

Hello, I was recently blocked by you (I believe it was on the 18th of July). Now, I was wondering if you would lift that block for I beleive I have learned my lesson. I am truely sorry for the edit I made, and it was childish and using bad faith. I would like to return to actively editing pages using a more proper and less controversial approach, and would like to add comments to my current Rfa. I am really sorry. I will try to make a plead in that if I make any edit you find that you do not particularly like, then you can put me back onto a ban starting my month over. That is how seriously I want to get back to defending my Rfa and working on pages. Now, I was not sure how to email you under a IP number, so I had to contact you this way for I found no other way to do so. Please consider, and leave a message on my IP page or here, for I will check both until a response is recieved. 

Thank You, --69.232.60.244 05:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is best to just let the month run out. Very dishonest edit. We probably have enough information to process the arbitration case. Fred Bauder 13:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

I stopped doing those things about a week ago —Min un Spiderman 10:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, see you in August, 2007. Fred Bauder 17:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFARB Eternal Equinox

Your proposed finding of fact that I restored a message on User talk:Eternal Equinox is misleading to put it mildly. As the page history shows, and as Bunchofgrapes has pointed out on the workshop page, my restoration of Jim62sch's message was accidental and immediately self-reverted. Bishonen | talk 18:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Oh Fred Bauder 18:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ericsaindon2 Block Reply

I was just frustrated with the whole situation. First, Will Beback tells me to go on a block for 24 hours for a split 3rr between me and OC31113 (I made 1 revert and he made 2 in 24 hours). Almost 9 days later, I was still blocked, but OC31113 was unblocked, it must have been filed wrong. So I emailed Will Beback, but he never returned my email, so OC31113 (which he was an internet friend, but I have never met him) decided to let me use his account after he sent me an email saying that he would be away, adn he wanted me to use it. So I did, and now, for Will Beback's mistake, I am being punished? I dont understand it. And that is why I was frustrated because Will rubbed it in my face when his error caused the whole issue (and I should not have even recieved a block for I only made 1 revert, and you must make 3 in 24 hours) --69.227.172.123 05:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Best to use just one account. And if you are blocked for a month, wait for the month to run out. Fred Bauder 11:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would not have had to use 2 accounts if Will had correctly punished me with the 24 hour ban. Why are you pinning this on me when I should have not even been banned in the first place (because last time I checked 1 and 3 are not the same number). It was Will who made the assumption that because a supporter of mine made 2 edits, and I made 1, that is good enough for a 3rr. It does not work like that. Are you even listening? --69.227.172.123 16:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your block is based on this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=64523719 Fred Bauder 17:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know what my ban is based upon, it just seemed like an injustice at the time, and I apologize. I knew it would come back positive, and I knew I would hear about it from the two users who like to bash me. I did not think that the statement made justice, for it made it sound like it "had" to be my sockpuppet, when I am sure there is a lot of account swapping going on. I apologize though.--69.227.172.123 17:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your apology. Fred Bauder 18:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respect

Fred,

I have a lot of respect for you although I disagree about your view of zionism and about Zio-bias in wiki. I made a motion, there is a discussion (see this [3] I think it is minimal respect to me and otherwikipedians that you back up your assertion of Zio bias in wiki with sytematic, wikipedia-wide conculsive evidence and that after you present this evidence all the arbitors rule on the motion. If indeed you will proove this bias this may not be needed cause i will remove the motion. Yours, (with respect) Zeq 19:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You should backup your accusations. Zeq 19:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zio wiki = [4] ? Zeq 14:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He also think Wikipedia is biased: [5]

am I going to get a respectable reply from you ? If not just say so. Zeq 14:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WordBomb

Should this be taken to ArbCom?? This user should be unblocked on condition that he only edits his user and user talk pages, and ArbCom case. Is this a suitable solution to the problem?? --TheM62Manchester 08:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, Fred. I was only trying to be helpful. Thanks for the constructive criticism, though. --TheM62Manchester 09:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WordBomb checkuser

Checkuser results you recently listed are archived at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/WordBomb. Kevin_b_er 10:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]